Advertisement

Feeding Violence?

  • Mark A. Wood
Chapter
  • 406 Downloads
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Crime, Media and Culture book series (PSCMC)

Abstract

This chapter examines how Facebook’s interactive and personalized algorithmic architecture shapes fight page users’ encounters with footage of bare-knuckle violence. Focusing on Facebook’s ‘Top Stories’ algorithm, which curates the content users receive in their News Feed interfaces, I examine how Facebook’s technological unconscious has the potential to amplify and reinforce fight page users’ attitudes towards crime and violence. Moreover, I examine how the rise of mobile media and a hyperconnected network society impact on the way crime is consumed, and have the potential to generate an ambient awareness of violence, where mediated violence becomes a normal part of the fabric of an individual’s social media use.

Bibliography

  1. Aas, K. F. (2007). Analysing a world in motion: Global flows meet ‘criminology of the other’. Theoretical Criminology, 11(2): 283–303.Google Scholar
  2. Appadurai, A. (1990). Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy. Theory, Culture, and Society, 7(2): 295–310.Google Scholar
  3. Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239): 1130–1132.Google Scholar
  4. Bal, M. (2012). Imaging pain. In A. Grønstad & H. Gustafsson (Eds.), Ethics and images of pain. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Barthes, R. (1974). S/Z. London, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Baudrillard, J. (2012/1987). The ecstasy of communication. Cambridge, MA: Semiotext(e).Google Scholar
  7. Bhattacharjee, S., Gopal, R. D., & Sanders, G. L. (2003). Digital music and online sharing: Software piracy 2.0? Communications of the ACM, 46(7): 107–111.Google Scholar
  8. Bohannon, J. (2015). Is Facebook keeping you in a political bubble? Science, May 7. Retrieved October 16, 2016, from http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/05/facebook-keeping-you-political-bubble
  9. Borthwick, J. (2009). Distribution ... now. Brodwick Personal Blog, May 13.Google Scholar
  10. Bozdag, E., & van der Hoven, J. (2015). Breaking the filter bubble: Democracy and design. Ethics and Information Technology, 17(4): 249–265.Google Scholar
  11. Briggs, R., & Hollis, N. (1997). Advertising on the web: Is there response before click-through? Journal of Advertising Research, 37(2): 33–46.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, S. (2003). Crime and law in media culture. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Bukatman, S. (1996). Terminal identity. London, UK: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Carrabine, E. (2012). Just images: Aesthetics, ethics and visual criminology. British Journal of Criminology, 52(3): 463–489.Google Scholar
  15. Castells, M. (1999). Grassrooting the space of flows. Urban Geographies, 20(4): 294–302.Google Scholar
  16. Castells, M. (2005). Space of flows, space of places: Materials for a theory of urbanism in the information age. In S. Bishwapriya (Ed.), Comparative planning cultures. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Castells, M. (2010). The power of identity: Economy, society, and culture. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  18. Castells, M. (2011). The rise of the network society: The information age: Economy, society, and culture. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  19. Cheung, C. M. K., Chiu, P., & Lee, M. K. O. (2011). Online social networks: Why do students use Facebook? Computers in Human Behavior, 27(4): 1337–1343.Google Scholar
  20. Cohen, S. (1972). Folk devils and moral panics. London, UK: MacGibbon & Kee.Google Scholar
  21. Cover, R. (2006). Audience inter/active: Interactive media, narrative control and reconceiving audience history. New Media & Society, 8(1): 139–158.Google Scholar
  22. Coyle, J. R., & Thorson, E. (2001). The effects of progressive levels of interactivity and vividness in web marketing sites. Journal of Advertising, 30(3): 65–77.Google Scholar
  23. Davenport, T. H., & Beck, J. C. (2001). The attention economy: Understanding the new currency of business. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  24. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (2010/1980). A thousand plateaus. London, UK: Continuum.Google Scholar
  25. Downes, E. J., & McMillan, S. J. (2000). Defining interactivity: A qualitative identification of key dimensions. New Media & Society, 2(2): 157–179.Google Scholar
  26. Doyle, A. (2011). Revisiting the synopticon: Reconsidering Mathiesen’s ‘The Viewer Society’ in the age of Web 2.0. Theoretical Criminology, 15(3): 283–299.Google Scholar
  27. Dreyfuss, E. (2016). Linguists not exactly wow about Facebook’s new reactions. Wired, February 28. Retrieved October 16, 2016, from http://www.wired.com/2016/02/linguists-not-exactly-wow-facebooks-new-reactions/
  28. Elias, N. (1982). The civilizing process. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  29. Facebook. (2015). Facebook Q2 2015 results. Facebook, July 29. Retrieved October 16, 2016, from http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AMDA-NJ5DZ/0x0x842064/619A417E-5E3E-496C-B125-987FA25A0570/FB_Q215EarningsSlides.pdf
  30. Facebook. (2016). Newsroom. Facebook. Retrieved October 16, 2016, from http://newsroom.fb.com/company-info/
  31. Ferrell, J. (1999). Cultural criminology. Annual Revue of Sociology, 25: 395–418.Google Scholar
  32. Ferrell, J., Hayward, K., & Young, J. (2008). Cultural criminology: An invitation. London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Flaxman, S. R., Goel, S., & Rao, J. M. (2016). Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(1): 298–320.Google Scholar
  34. Gebotys, R. J., Roberts, J. V., & DasGupta, B. (1988). News media use and public perceptions of crime seriousness. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 30(1): 3–16.Google Scholar
  35. Gerlitz, C., & Helmond, A. (2013). The like economy: Social buttons and the data-intensive web. New Media Society, 15(8): 1348–1365.Google Scholar
  36. Giannakos, M. N., Chorianopoulos, K., Giotopoulos, K., & Vlamos, P. (2013). Using Facebook out of habit. Behaviour & Information Technology, 32(6): 594–602.Google Scholar
  37. Gibson, J. J. (2014/1979). The theory of affordances. In J. J. Gieseking, W. Mangold, C. Katz, S. Low, & S. Saegert (Eds.), The people, place, and space reader. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Gillespie, T. (2014). The relevance of algorithms. In T. Gillespie, P. Boczkowski, & K. Foot (Eds.), Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Goldhaber, M. H. (1997). Attention Shoppers! Wired, Issue 5, December 12. Retrieved October 16, 2016, from http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/5.12/es_attention.html
  40. Graells-Garrido, E., Lalmas, M., & Quercia, D. (2013). Data portraits: Connecting people of opposing views. arXiv preprint arXiv:1311.4658. Retrieved October 16, 2016, from http://arxiv.org/abs/1311.4658
  41. Greenfield, A. (2010). Everyware: The dawning age of ubiquitous computing. Berkeley, CA: New Riders.Google Scholar
  42. Greer, C., & McLaughlin, E. (2010). Trial by media: Policing, the 24-7 news media sphere and the politics of outrage. Theoretical Criminology, 15(1): 23–46.Google Scholar
  43. Grønstad, A., & Gustafsson, H. (Eds.). (2012). Ethics and images of pain. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Harrell, D. F. (2013). Phantasmal media: An approach to imagination, computation and expression. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  46. Hassan, R. (2008). The information society. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
  47. Hayward, K. J. (2009). Visual criminology: Cultural criminology style. Criminal Justice Matters, 78(1): 12–14.Google Scholar
  48. Hearn, G. (1989). Active and passive conceptions of the television audience: Effects of a change in viewing routine. Human Relations, 42(10): 857–875.Google Scholar
  49. Heath, L., & Gilbert, K. (1996). Mass media and fear of crime. American Behavioral Scientist, 39(4): 379–386.Google Scholar
  50. Hunt, D., Atkin, D., & Krishnan, A. (2012). The influence of computer-mediated communication apprehension on motives for Facebook use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(2): 187–202.Google Scholar
  51. Hutchby, I. (2001). Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology, 35(2): 441–456.Google Scholar
  52. Hutchby, I. (2003). Affordances and the analysis of technologically mediated interaction: A response to brian rappert. Sociology, 37(3): 581–589.Google Scholar
  53. Jensen, J. F. (1998). Interactivity: Tracing a new concept in media and communication studies. Nordicom Review, 19(2): 185–204.Google Scholar
  54. Jewkes, Y. (2015). Media and crime. London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
  55. Joinson, A. N. (2008). Looking at. ‘Looking up’ or ‘Keeping up with’ people? Motives and uses of Facebook. In CHI 2008 proceedings: Online social networks, April 6.Google Scholar
  56. Kacholia, V. (2013). News feed FYI: Showing more high quality content. Facebook for Business, August 24. Retrieved October 16, 2016, from https://www.facebook.com/business/news/News-Feed-FYI-Showing-More-High-Quality-Content
  57. Kaun, A., & Stiernstedt, F. (2014). Facebook time: Technological and institutional affordances for media memories. New Media Society, 16(7): 1154–1168.Google Scholar
  58. Kim, E. (2014). Mark Zuckerberg wants to build the ‘Perfect Personalised Newspaper’ for every person in the world. Business Insider Australia, November 7. Retrieved October 16, 2016, from http://www.businessinsider.com.au/mark-zuckerberg-wants-to-build-a-perfect-personalized-newspaper-2014-11
  59. Kiousis S. (2002). Interactivity: A concept explication. New Media & Society, 4(3): 355–383.Google Scholar
  60. Kittler, F. A. (1992). Discourse networks 1800/1900. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Köbler, F., Riedl, C., Vetter, C., Leimeister, J. M., & Krcmar, H. (2010). Social Connectedness on Facebook – An explorative study on status message usage. In Proceedings of the sixteenth Americas conference on information systems, Lima, Peru, August.Google Scholar
  62. Koskela, H. (2011). ‘Don’t mess with Texas!’ Texas virtual Border Watch Program and the (botched) politics of responsibilization. Crime Media Culture, 7(1): 49–65.Google Scholar
  63. Lash, S. (2007). Power after hegemony: Cultural studies in mutation? Theory, Culture & Society, 24(3): 55–78.Google Scholar
  64. Lash, S., & Urry, J. (1994). Economies of signs and space. London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
  65. Laurillard D., Stratfold, M., Luckin, R., Plowman, L., & Taylor, J. (2000). Affordances for learning in a non-linear narrative medium. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2(Art-2).Google Scholar
  66. Law, J. (2009). Actor network theory and material semiotics. In B. S. Turner (Ed.), The New Blackwell companion to social theory. London, UK: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  67. Lazer, B. D. (2015). The rise of the social algorithm. Science, 348(6239): 1090–1091.Google Scholar
  68. Leban, M. (2003). Internet search for TV content based on TV anytime. EUROCON 2003: Computer as a Tool, 2.Google Scholar
  69. Leckenby, J. D. (2005). The interaction of tradition and new media. In M. R. Stafford & R. J. Faber (Eds.), Advertising, promotion, and new media. New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  70. Leonardi, P. M., & Meyer, S. R. (2015). Social media as social lubricant: How ambient awareness eases knowledge transfer. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(1): 10–34.Google Scholar
  71. Manning, P. (1998). Media loops. Popular Culture, Crime and Justice, 1: 25–39.Google Scholar
  72. Manovich, L. (2013). Software takes command. New York, NY: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  73. McGee, M. (2013). EdgeRank is dead: Facebook’s News feed Algorithm Now has close to 100K weight factors. Marketing Land, August 16. Retrieved October 16, 2016, from http://marketingland.com/edgerank-is-dead-facebooks-news-feed-algorithm-now-has-close-to-100k-weight-factors-55908
  74. McMillan, S. J., & Hwang, J. S. (2002). Measures of perceived interactivity: An exploration of the role of direction of communication, user control, and time in shaping perceptions of interactivity. Journal of Advertising, 31(3): 29–42.Google Scholar
  75. Mejias, U. A. (2013). Off the network: Disrupting the digital world. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Mitchell, W. J. T. (1995). Interdisciplinarity and visual culture. Art Bulletin, 77(4): 540–544.Google Scholar
  77. Nadkarni, A., & Hofmann, S. G. (2012). Why do people use Facebook? Personality and individual differences, 52(3): 243–249.Google Scholar
  78. Napoli, P. N. (2008). Hyperlinking and the forces of ʻmassification’. In J. Turow & L. Tsui (Eds.), The hyperlinked society. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  79. Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4): 404–428.Google Scholar
  80. Papacharissi, Z. (2009). The virtual geographies of social networks: A comparative analysis of Facebook, LinkedIn and ASmallWorld. New Media & Society, 11(1–2): 199–220.Google Scholar
  81. Parikka, J. (2012). What is media archaeology? Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
  82. Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. London, UK: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  83. Pezdek, K. (1985). Is watching TV passive, uncreative, or addictive? Debunking some myths. Television and Families, 8(2): 41–46.Google Scholar
  84. Quan-Haase, A., & Wellman, B. (2005). Hyperconnected net work: Computer mediated community in a high-tech organisation. In C. Heckscher & P. Adler (Eds.), Collaborative community in business and society. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  85. Rafaeli, S. (1988). Interactivity: From new media to communication. In R. P. Hawkins, J. M. Wieman, & S. Pingree (Eds.), Advancing communication science: Merging mass and interpersonal processes. Newbury Park, NJ: Sage.Google Scholar
  86. Rosenfeld, L., & Morville, P. (1998). Information architecture for the world wide web. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly and Associates.Google Scholar
  87. Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R., Roskos-Ewoldsen, B., & Dillman Carpentier, F. (2009). Media priming: An updated synthesis. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  88. Rubin, A. M. (1993). Audience activity and media use. Communication Monographs, 60(1): 98–105.Google Scholar
  89. Schwier, R. A., & Misanchuk, E. (1993). Interactive multimedia instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  90. Sheldon, P. (2008). Student favourite: Facebook and motives for its use. Southwestern Mass Communication Journal, 23(2): 39–53.Google Scholar
  91. Sims, R. (1994). Seven levels of interactivity: Implications for the development of multimedia education and training. In M. Ryan (Ed.), Proceedings of the Asia Pacific Information Technology in Training and Education (APITITE) Conference, Vol. 3, June 28, Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
  92. Sohn, D. (2011). Anatomy of interaction experience: Distinguishing sensory, semantic, and behavioral dimensions of interactivity. New Media & Society, 13(8): 1320–1335.Google Scholar
  93. Sontag, S. (2003). Regarding the pain of others. London, UK: Penguin.Google Scholar
  94. Striphas, T. (2015). Algorithmic culture. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 18(4–5): 395–412.Google Scholar
  95. Thompson, C. (2008). ‘I’m so totally, digitally close to you: How news feed, twitter and other forms of incessant online contact have created a brace new world of ambient intimacy. New York Times Magazine, September 7.Google Scholar
  96. Tripathi, K. P. (2011). A study of interactivity in human computer interaction. International Journal of Computer Applications, 16(6): 1–3.Google Scholar
  97. Valier, C., & Lippens R. (2004). Moving images, ethics and justice. Punishment & Society, 6(3): 319–333.Google Scholar
  98. van Dijck, J. (2009). Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content. Media Culture Society, 31(1): 41–58.Google Scholar
  99. van Dijck, J. (2013). The culture of connectivity: A critical history of social media. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. van Dijk, J. (2012). The network society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  101. Virilio, P. (1986). Speed and politics. New York, NY: Semiotext(e).Google Scholar
  102. Virilio, P. (2008/1984). Negative horizon. London, UK: Continuum.Google Scholar
  103. Wiener, N. (1948/2013). Cybernetics: Or the control and communication in the animal and the machine. Eastford, CT: Martino Fine Books.Google Scholar
  104. Wilkins, L. T. (1964). Social deviance. London, UK: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  105. Williams, M. (2006). Virtually criminal: Crime, deviance and regulation online. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  106. Winthrop-Young, G. (2011). Kittler and the media. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  107. Young, J. (1971). The drugtakers: The social meaning of drug use. London, UK: MacGibbon and Kee.Google Scholar
  108. Zillmann, D., & Bryant, J. (Eds.). (2013). Selective exposure to communication. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark A. Wood
    • 1
  1. 1.CriminologyUniversity of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations