Don't Rule out the Underdog: How Instagram is Catching Up

While reading all these articles that discuss the "competition" between Amazon, Google, and Facebook, I was reminded of all the drama surrounding Instagram a few months ago when they decided to completely change their algorithm.

In 2012, Facebook bought Instagram for approximately $1 billion. Ever since this merger, Facebook has only been making slight changes to the widely-popular app without completely transforming the platform. That all ended when a few months ago, Instagram announced that it would be showing posts that they think users would like, based off their activity. This instantly caused riots on the social media app, especially for those considered "Instagram famous." Why? It was believed that these suggested posts would show up in the user's feed, and the user would have to turn on notifications to see a particular user's post. Since most bloggers use Instagram to promote new posts on their site and to draw in new readers, this new update meant big problems.

In the end all the chaos surrounding the update turned out to be pointless. The new update only applied to the "search" section on the app and not the actual newsfeed. Meaning if a user goes to the search section, the app makes "suggestions" based off of your friends likes and your recent activity. However, I wouldn't be surprised if Instagram makes the leap to "in feed" suggestions like Facebook does now. With the innovation on Instagram "stories" (Instagram's take on Snapchat), it doesn't look to far off...

What Happens on Snapchat...

Back in 2014 Snapchat was in hot water with the FTC over a claim they made in their FAQ section. The company claimed that all "snaps" disappeared when the time ran out and that there was no way to retrieve the photos once they were gone. This allowed users to believe that they could send whatever they wanted over the messaging service without running the risk of the "wrong people" seeing it.

However, the FTC discovered that Snapchat has many "back doors" where third-party apps can enter and collect the photos and videos that allegedly disappeared. Users can also connect their devices to a PC and download any "lost" photos or videos.

Instead of fighting the claims, Snapchat settled with the FTC. This resulted in a "transparency" blog post by the company and the required surveillance of an independent privacy professional for the next 20 years. The settlement also prohibited Snapchat from using such words/claims as "ephemeral," "disappear forever," and "aren't saved" when describing their service.

So my question is this: are we really that surprised? At the time of which this ruling came out, online consumers were already aware of Google's and Facebook's algorithm, so is it really a shock that Snapchat had a similar process? We live in a world where it's safe to assume that every social app has a backdoor where all data (status updates, photos, videos, etc.) is saved. The idea of privacy in terms of social media has become an illusion. However, as a society we have participated in a collective private acceptance. We know that nothing we share or post is ever really lost, we just choose to ignore the reality that a stranger can access this information without our knowledge. This gives us the freedom to post without caution, not caring (but not ignorant) to the truth that whatever happens on Snapchat, does actually stay on Snapchat.

Instant Gratification from Mr. Feeny's P.O.V.

I was born in 1992, only two years after Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web. Growing up, my family had AOL which took a whole 5 minutes to start up and only one person could use it at a time. I remember feeling impatient even then, resulting in me walking to the kitchen to get a snack while I waited for the internet to load. Fast-forward to now and I become un-interested in something if it takes longer than 30 seconds to load. 

This idea was further analyzed in the Boston Globe article written by Christoper Muther who states that the millennial generation have become more impatient with the new innovations in technology. This reminded me of a topic that was discussed to me in my ATEC 2232 class. The topic was called "technological adherence" and it was the idea that advancement in technology will result in corresponding behavior in society. In other words, because technology has made it possible to stream everything instantaneously we expect things to happen just as quickly and become frustrated when it takes more time than expected.

The article talked about the negative side effects of instant gratification as well which immediately reminded me of this clip from the popular 90s show Boy Meets World. In this episode Corey, Topanga, and Shawn have been competing on a televised "quiz show" and believe that the material taught in Mr. Feeny's classroom is no longer relevant for the "real world." This leads to Mr. Feeny giving the class a lecture about how instant gratification has lead to a lack of desire for sustainable knowledge. 

Ken Bone and the Spiral of Silence

If you caught the second presidential debate this past weekend, the name Ken Bone should automatically bring a smile to your face. Ken Bone is the lovable, undecided voter who asked the two nominees a question about energy at the last debate. Ever since that night Ken Bone has become a viral phenomenon. So viral in fact that he was a guest on the Jimmy Kimmel show the night after the debate.

While the interview included a lot of joke questions, Jimmy asked Ken the question everyone wanted to know: Who was he going to vote for? Ken said that even though Trump was more aligned with his economic interest, he would hate to see people (i.e. the LGBT community) have their rights taken away. He then said something along the lines of "I know people don't like it, but I'm still undecided." This is interesting because in my opinion, it sounds like Bone was leaning more towards Trump, but perhaps out of fear of being rejected he quickly added the comment about LGBT rights. Now obviously there's no way of knowing if that comment was a way to save his new "status," but because we live in a country where approval of Trump is so criticized, his supporters are afraid to speak up.  Even though I don't support Trump, I still want his supporters to feel like they have as much of a right to speak up in favor of their candidate as Hillary's. So who knows if Ken's statement was sincere or a way to hide his true feelings, he should be allowed to say who he wants as President without fear of persecution. 

Do Clothes Really Make the Man?

After reading The New York Times article about how clothing can bring about certain behaviors, I was reminded about the Zimbardo experiment (a.k.a. The Stanford Prison Experiment) that was done in 1971.

In a nutshell, Zimbardo wanted to study whether or not prison guard brutality was due to the personalities of the officers, or if it was due to the environment itself. The study consisted of 21 students from Stanford University, who were promised 15 dollars each day they were in the study. 10 of these students played the role of prisoners while 11 students played the guards. In the end, they had to shut down the experiment two weeks early because of the increase of mental breakdowns between the "prisoners." This was a result of the "prison guards" behaving aggressively towards the prisoners, but what caused this behavior in the first place?

There were multiple reasons why the "guards" conformed to their roles so well, but for the sake of this post the reason I want to focus on are the uniforms that the guards had to wear during the experiment. All the guards were issued the same uniform: khaki shirt and shorts, a billy club, a whistle, and tinted sunglasses. This uniform, when compared to the uniform of the "prisoners," portrayed superiority. The sunglasses in particular not only meant that the prisoners couldn't look into the eyes of the guards, but that the guards' true identities were hidden. This influenced the guards in the way they behaved towards the prisoners in the experiment. Even though they were all students of the same school and both groups were getting paid the same amount, the guards dominated the prisoners. I don't think they would have behaved in the same way if they had to wear their normal, everyday clothes.

Now obviously this is an extreme example of how our clothing can influence our behavior, but it is interesting to see how much it can actually affect us. In my own personal life for example, when I put on an outfit that I think looks awesome I walk out of the house feeling confident. If I go to school looking "sloppy," I feel tired throughout the day and I go home with the desire to shower and go straight to sleep. I am a firm believer that how we dress can affect our moods and our behavior on a day-to-day basis.

Correlation Does not Mean Causation: A Look at Video Games and Aggression

Now that my time at UTD and the EMAC program are coming to a close, I can (somewhat) sum up all that I've learned into three simple phrases: know when you're done, take nothing at face value, and correlation does not mean causation.

While reading the article about video games and aggression, the last phrase that I mentioned popped into my head immediately. In EMAC we are obligated to take just as many (if not more) theory classes as well as production classes, and this phrase has been used in every theory class that I have been to in the past three years. This is because our professors want us to realize that when it comes to predicting behavior multiple factors, not just one, are responsible for influencing human thought and action. Therefore, it is almost impossible to say that video games alone are the cause for aggressive behavior.

Behavior can be influenced by culture, by means of persuasion, by the individual's need to be correct or to be liked, etc.. In the case of Adam Lanza, for example, while he may have been a habitual player of Call of Duty, he may have had other influencing factors in his life that lead to him murdering those 26 people. To place the blame on video games alone is to ignore other environmental factors or societal pressures that can also lead to aggressive outbursts. 

Now I'm not saying that video games don't have an affect on the human mind (especially if they're young and still developing). Kids and teens who are frequently subjected to violent games and TV shows do tend to be more desensitized to "real-world" violence than those who are not. Therefore, it is correct to say that these video games do play a role in the increase of aggressive behavior. However, to say that it alone is the cause of violent outbursts by teens and young adults is ignorant and doesn't address the whole issue entirely. 

So how does the phrase "correlation does not mean causation" come into play? These researchers had a small number of students play a violent video game for a few minutes and then study their behavior in terms of aggression. While these studies show how the video game lead to an increase in aggression in that moment, it did not prove that video games cause a permanent state of heightened aggression. This study is also known as a correlation study; it only proves what caused that behavior in that moment. In order to really study aggression, more factors will have to be looked at and researched so that we may have a better understanding in the future. 

Dealing with Anxiety and Learning how to 'Change the Narrative'

While reading the chapter out of Brené Brown's book, I came to realize she was basically summing up every mental conversation I have ever had with myself before experiencing a panic attack. The social aspect of my anxiety always begins with me projecting my insecurities onto strangers and their first impressions of me (e.g. They think I'm weird, they probably think I don't belong).

The thing is, I know I am not the only one who suffers through this. In a world where everything is filtered and where people are meticulous on how they portray themselves on social media, misinterpreting social cues has become something of second nature. With each new innovation in the social media world, we are at risk of losing rational thinking when it comes to face-to-face social interaction. Maybe this is because we can't filter natural conversation; when the ugliness of reality rears it's head, we can't use a blur tool to make it more acceptable. I believe this is why we're seeing a rise in social anxiety disorder. When we have to interact with "real" people, we have to come to terms with the fact they are about to get to know the real, unfiltered version of ourselves. This then leads to what Brown describes as creating a narrative and trying to deny the truth behind our over-emotional response. I feel like if more people who suffer with anxiety were to "reckon with their emotions" as Brown suggests, we can begin to become better and more adept at handling stressful, social interactions.