Home » Social media
Category Archives: Social media
Headlines and Happiness: Balancing News Consumption and Wellbeing
As part of my reflective diary assessment for my third-year module ‘Critiquing Criminalistics’, I reflected on the importance of being up to date with world events to be able to apply criminological knowledge to them. I also reflected on the fact that I have avoided much of the news and media to manage my despair at the current state of the world. However, in order to further my academic knowledge and its application, I decided I just needed a safe way to keep on top of these things, so I compiled some tips and reminders for myself, and I’d like to share them with you.
Choose wisely: Choose reputable news sources, academic reports or reviews from trusted organisations, some will be better balanced, and much less sensationalised than others.
Practice media literacy: Be critical of the information you find; don’t believe everything you see and hear. Verify news stories from multiple sources before accepting them and remember what the media is designed to do. Plus, social media is full of misinformation and sensationalism and largely speaking, not a good resource!
Need to know basis: Consider which topics are most important for you to stay informed about, and limit exposure to news that is not relevant to your wellbeing or interests. It’s very easy to fall down the rabbit hole!
Limit your consumption: Put some boundaries in place that work for you, whether that’s setting an allotted time frame to catch up like to only listen to the radio on your drive into campus, taking a break from social media, or making sure those notifications are turned off so you’re not ambushed by breaking news.
Managing Traumatic Topics: If you are avoiding any particular topic, it might be helpful to have a trusted person read/watch for you first. Additionally, for any recommended films or series, try finding them on ‘Does the Dog Die?’ https://www.doesthedogdie.com/ to check for triggering content.
Find the happy stuff too: There is so much good happening in the world as well as all the bad, make sure you feed your brain some of that too, whether that’s in the news, or on social media.
Here are some other sources:
Look after yourself: Further to those things, take a break every once in a while, prioritise whatever it is that makes you see your world positively and seek support if you need it, that might be support from a professional, or talk to a trusted person, colleague, or staff member to air out those thoughts – go and ‘talk to a criminologist!’ If you’re particularly prone or you are a chronic catastrophiser (guilty!) – a perspective from someone else can be a useful tool.
Lastly, there is a quote I heard years ago, and while over time, there are some thoughts and applications of it that are less than favourable, I occasionally find it comforting; Fred Rogers passed along a message from his mother who said ‘Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping.’
If you are able to manage the discomfort, sometimes it is good to find what makes you feel, and listen to it, let it fire you up! Perhaps you’ll become the helper.
Share this:
Are my interests childish or are you missing the bigger picture?
In semester 2, the level 4 BA Criminology students have been navigating different forms of socialisation for children, and thinking critically about where standards, assumptions and pressures on our children come from. Its been an interesting few weeks full of discussions building on personal experiences, documentaries and the wider academic literature. Now, whilst I could write a detailed reflection on the classroom discussions, what instead I want to, shockingly, moan about in the blog this week are the labels applied to young adults and adults implying being ‘childish’ is something to be ashamed of.
Many who know me will be aware I am a huge Disney fan, particularly Disney and Disney Pixar animations, which includes watching, gaming, clothing and accessories which all match my love for these films. I am also a big, big, big fan of dinosaurs, although if I’m being honest, its more so the Jurassic Park/World franchise. Again, books, films, toys, stuffed dinosaurs (shout out to my Beta stuffed toy – pictured above) from the Natural History Museum) and also a tattoo. These things bring me joy and also peace. Many a times when I’m overwhelmed, the go to is a Disney animation or Jurassic Park (much to my partner’s pain) for familiarity, comfort and relaxation. Yet despite the comfort and joy it brings me, often I am met with commentary about my ‘childish’ interests and questions around ‘when will I grow up’.
Now for clarity, most of these comments (but not all) are from friends and loved-ones who are saying so (I presume) in jest. There is no malice behind the comments, but still it has given me food for thought. Lots of people of all ages share the same joys as myself (social media fan pages are many), but is there any harm in pressing people to justify and commenting on their pastimes? Possibly. I am in a fortunate position to be able to afford various Disney-themed items of clothing (huge shout out to Primark and their Stitch section), Jurassic Park official merchandise, POP! Figures, clothes, posters etc whereas when I was younger, this was not something we could afford. Being in a privileged position and having a disposable income means I get to explore interests from my childhood, and have them develop into passions. Something which wasn’t available to me as a child, or even as a young adult at University. Being older and engaging with interests from childhood also uncovers new ways of appreciating the messages, artwork, and stories.
The presumption that my interests are ‘childish’ is not clearly explained by those who comment. What is meant by ‘childish’ and why is it presumed to be negative is not clear. But there appears to be some stigma around it. There is a push, as we are slowly uncovering in classroom discussions, for everyone to ‘grow-up’, but is this what is best for the individual? Or does this serve some greater purpose for society? I’m not sure what the point of the above ramblings are for, other than it might be best to keep opinions to yourself if you do not share the same interest. In a word that is full of harm and disadvantage, especially for children, let people enjoy their interests and passions, commentary free, if they aren’t harming you!
Share this:
Media Madness
Unless you have been living under a rock or on a remote island with no media access, you would have been made aware of the controversy of Russell Brand and his alleged ‘historic’ problematic behaviour. If we think about Russell Brand in the early 2000s he displayed provocative and eccentric behaviour, which contributed to his rise to fame as a comedian, actor, and television presenter. During this period, he gained popularity for his unique style, which combined sharp wit, a proclivity for wordplay, and a rebellious, countercultural persona.
Brand’s stand-up comedy routines was very much intertwined with his personality, which was littered with controversy, something that was welcomed by the general public and bosses at big media corporations. Hence his never-ending media opportunities, book deals and sell out shows.
In recent years Brand has reinvented (or evolved) himself and his public image which has seen a move towards introspectivity, spirituality and sobriety. Brand has collected millions of followers that praise him for his activist work, he has been vocal on mental health issues, and he encourages his followers to hold government and big corporations to an account.
The media’s cancellation of Russell Brand without any criminal charges being brought against him raises important questions about the boundaries of cancel culture and the presumption of innocence. Brand, a controversial and outspoken comedian, has faced severe backlash for his provocative statements and unconventional views on various topics. While his comments have undoubtedly sparked controversy and debate, the absence of any criminal charges against him highlights the growing trend of public figures being held to account in the court of public opinion, often without a legal basis.
This situation underscores the importance of distinguishing between free speech and harmful behaviour. Cancel culture can sometimes blur these lines, leading to consequences that may seem disproportionate to the alleged transgressions. The case of Russell Brand serves as a reminder of the need for nuanced discussions around cancel culture, ensuring that individuals are held accountable for their actions while also upholding the principle of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It raises questions about how society should navigate the complex intersection of free expression, public accountability, and the potential consequences for individuals in the public eye.
There is also an important topic that seems to be forgotten in this web of madness……..what about the alleged victims. There seems to be a theme that continuously needs to be highlighted when criminality and victimisation is presented. There is little discussion or coverage on the alleged victims. The lack of media sensitivity and lay discussion on this topic either dehumanises the alleged victims by using lines such as ‘Brand is another victim of MeToo’ and comparing him to Cliff Richard and Kevin Spacey, two celebrities that were accused of sexual crimes and were later found not guilty, which in essence creates a narrative that does not challenge Brand’s conduct, on the basis of previous cases that have no connection to one another.
We also need to be mindful on the medias framing of the alleged witch hunt against Russell Brand and the problematic involvement that the UK government. The letter penned by Dame Dinenage sent to social media platforms in an attempt to demonetize Brand’s content should also be highlighted. While I support Brand being held accountable for any proven crimes he has committed, I feel these actions by UK government are hasty, and problematic considering there have been many opportunities for the government to step in on serious allegations about media personalities on the BBC and other news stations and they have not chosen to act. The step made by Dame Dinenage has contributed to the media madness and contributes to the out of hand and in many ways, nasty discussion around freedom of speech. The government’s involvement has deflected the importance of the victimisation and criminality. Instead, it has replaced the discussion around the governments overarching punitive control over society.
Brand has become a beacon of understanding to is 6.6 million followers during Covid 19 lockdowns, mask mandates and vaccinations. This was at a time when many people questioned government intentions and challenged the mainstream narratives around autonomy. Because Brand has been propped up as a hero to his ‘awakened’ followers the shift around his conduct and alleged crimes have been erased from conversation and debates around BIG BROTHER and CONTROL continue to shape the media narrative………
Share this:
Behind the Filter: Navigating the Fine Line Between Genuine Parenting and Child Exploitation in the World of Influencers
As the world of social media influencers continues to expand, certain high-profile cases have brought the issue of mum influencers exploiting their children into the spotlight. These cases serve as cautionary tales, highlighting the potential dangers and ethical pitfalls that come with blurring the lines between personal family life and commercial partnerships. It is important to note that while the spotlight has indeed centred on ‘mum’ influencers this discussion cannot go forward without acknowledging, that we should be shaping the discussion on the way PARENTS create content online.
Mum influencers have become a powerful force in the influencer landscape. They provide a glimpse into the daily lives of mothers, discussing topics such as parenting tips, family dynamics, and the challenges of balancing work and family life. Initially, many followers were drawn to these influencers for their relatability and authenticity. This has created an opportunity for dads to also partake in the ‘business’ of family influencing as many people yearn for the whole family picture, which brings a non-traditional demographic of followers and thus an expansion of interest and growth of followers, and thus bringing the allure of financial opportunities.
As followers increase, family influencers often receive offers from brands seeking to collaborate. This is where the ethical dilemma arises – how far is too far when it comes to integrating children into sponsored content? While some collaborations may involve innocent and genuine family moments, others might push the boundaries, putting children in situations that prioritize profit over their well-being. It is essential to differentiate between content that genuinely celebrates parenthood/ family and content that exploits it. Sharing heartfelt stories, documenting milestones, and discussing the challenges of parenthood and family dynamics can be informative and supportive for other parents. However, the line blurs when children are consistently used to endorse products and/ or services in a way that feels forced or invasive.
Children of influencers often have their lives documented from birth, which raises concerns about their privacy. As they grow older, they might not consent to having their childhood experiences permanently etched into the online realm. The potential impact on their mental and emotional well-being as they come to grips with their digital footprint is a significant consideration. We all have that embarrassing childhood picture that parents have on the wall or in a photo album, however that is in the confines of their home and whose eyes view them can be monitored. The tricky nature of the internet removes that possibility. With visibility comes risk. Publicly showcasing one’s life includes exposure to not only praise but also criticism and negativity. Children that have an online presence in the capacity of being influencers can become targets of online trolls or even predators, who might misuse their images or information. Protecting children from these potential dangers should be a priority for any parent, online or offline.
My previous point made on children of influencers being documented from birth begs reflection on the concept of consent. This can be viewed in many ways; however, the notion of consent becomes murky when children are too young to understand the implications of their online presence. While some influencers argue that their children enjoy being part of the content creation process, it is challenging to gauge how much choice a young child truly has. Blurring the lines between what is a personal family moment and what is a scripted advertisement can complicate this matter further.
As family influencers grapple with this dilemma, there’s an increasing call for responsible content creation, and thus drawing clear boundaries between what is acceptable and what crosses the line into exploitation. Making conscious decisions about the type and frequency of content involving children and avoiding situations that compromise their well-being for the sake of likes, shares, and sponsorship should be paramount, but in many ways, this does not always seem to be considered. There are many examples that come to mind, but for this blog entry I will use a particularly shocking case. In 2020 YouTubers Myka and James Stauffer faced backlash after publicly announcing the decision to “rehome” their adopted son with autism. The Stauffer family, known for their parenting content, had initially garnered support for their adoption journey. The family seemed like any other online family that people aspired to be like. They had four biological children and presented their happy loving family for all to see. However, the revelation that they had monetized the adoption process through sponsored content and merchandise raised concerns about the child’s well-being and whether he was being exploited for financial gain. The backlash following their announcement saw them lose thousands of followers. While there were numerous followers and news outlets that spoke out against the Stauffer’s actions, there was little commentary that focused on the impact that the ‘rehoming’ of their adopted son had on him or their other children. The children should have been at the centre of this story but instead they were pushed to the side.
This blog entry servers as poignant reminders of the potential pitfalls in the world of family influencers and their children. While some cases may involve genuine oversight, it’s essential for influencers and brands to exercise caution and ethical responsibility when involving children in their content.
As influencers strive to maintain authenticity while navigating commercial opportunities, it is crucial that they strike a balance between sharing genuine family moments and protecting the well-being, privacy, and dignity of their children. In a landscape where the line between public and private blurs, parent influencers must remember that their children’s well-being is paramount. Instead of exploiting their children for financial gain, fame and clout.
Share this:
Don’t I know you from somewhere? Online trolls and other fairytales
Recently there has been a discussion if the owner of one of the social media platforms will be changing its logo. The “iconic” image is to be replaced with something new; undoubtedly this will also change in due course for as long as the medium is still relevant. Whilst people feel strong about brand representation that is something peripheral to what social media represent in recent years. Social media for a long time have been accused of harboring the worst of human interaction, tolerating intolerable actions from hate speech to incitement to violence. Is this however a fair representation of social media?
We build/cultivate and imagine in social media. They are the key to our online identity and in some ways will explain our conduct with others. Some link different media together, so that you can check Facebook to get an idea of who they are, can check their LinkedIn on education and work experience, you can read their tweets/retweets, you can follow their conversations on yammer, you can get updates of their lives on Snapchat, check their Instagram to see their photos and for the more active ones TikTok where communication is encapsulated within small video fragments. If you were to combine these social media together you can get a very good idea about a person without ever knowing them in person. Social media have ushered the era of virtual representation and people becoming clearer of how this representation works. Clearly there are those who thrive in these and others who struggle.
The ones who manage to use social media effectively can develop a personal brand and even become “social influencers”. A person that has influence over others to promote goods and services…to do so they have to build a reputation and social media works towards establishing just that. Connecting different parts of social media works to their advantage as their profile works towards their credibility of being a “real” person. The people who make it become the protagonists assuming the role of a hero, a modern-day prince/princess with a back story that is endearing. Whilst they drip feed their story of adversity with personal details of some private aspects of their lives, they also provide their followers with the commodities that they promote. I lost someone important to me, had a terrible experience at school, faced health problems but look at my stylish hat. These are the cargo trousers I left an abusive relationship in, and my cropped t-shirt is a strong statement to being environmentally
sensitive. Obviously, I deliberately exaggerate the statements here and in fairness no one will be (at least I hope) so deliberate in their product placement. What is very clear is that our social media influencers spend a significant amount of time building content and by devoting more time to that they need the necessary financial support. The top influencers have millions of people following them, a reach that
very few people have ever had before. Never before, a young person offering make-up tips, a reality star or a dancer had so many people interested in their lives. The very top of them have more than 500 million followers and we are close to the point that some of them will be reaching over a billion! What started as a personal (cottage) industry of one topic issue, has evolved into an all-consuming enterprise. The more the followers, the greater the demand for additional information. The more information, the more exposed the influencer becomes. Then marketing follows as the reward. The heroes of social media have to find ways to make an income and endorsing products seems to be the main way to do so.
The kingdom of social media doesn’t only contain heroes; there are also villains in the story. The people whose profile is not personal, doesn’t include any private details and who seem to have as their main focus to attack others. The term troll appeared in the early 90s when online identities seemed to be separate from our social ones. It was expected in a new domain that people will assume roles and whilst some went for the hero of the community others took a different turn. The early trolls under the protection of cyber identities hid their frustrations and brought to the community something we have in the real world, bullying. The evolution of social media that requires a different presence and the rules the internet community tried to deal with them meant that some of the original forms of trolling started disappearing, but were never extinguished. In fact, they became an equally useful commodity, almost equal to the influencers. Our heroes play the part of the product promoter; they look good and provide us with goodwill stories; on occasion when the appeal of the hero wanes, and people try to use social media to mobilise on social issues or promote alternative stories that’s when the trolls come in!
Out of their caves they come, trying to shut down conversations, mislead people and even intimidate people into silencing them.
This brings me to the main point of this blog; originally the internet seemed to be a worldwide phenomenon that was all inclusive and slightly anarchical. People found on the internet a companion, an ally, an adversary. It became a foundation for a virtual ecumenical community. Well, that was until big business moved in and brought in their usual tactics. The cyber world became more like our physical world and the cyber identities were quickly replaced by professional ones. At this point the internet is much more regulated and monitored than ever before. Which begs the question; how come there are so many accusations of misinformation, and intimidation now? How come such a regulated medium allows bullying and intimidation to continue? I am astounded even now to see on social media reactions on social medial about stories that do not simply lack social sensitivity they are intentionally inflammatory to coax reactions and offend people. I am still astounded to see the political alliances of the troll army and their reactions to open conversations. Therefore, it is not surprising that several minority groups have accused social media of doing very little to protect them from attacks and the use of pejorative language that has its place in a history of shame. Maybe because social media provides a fairytale with princesses and trolls, they do not have the space for those who do not promote a marketed lifestyle. Life is surprisingly diverse, and marketing is only one side of it. Ignoring some of the bigger social issues, using
trolls to shut down the conversations our global community needs, will not do. In academia the sign of a good debate lies in the ability to bring in evidence and support all claims with accurate and relevant information. Some of our colleagues are trying to take some of their knowledge outside the classroom into social media; I salute them, as we have been trying to engage as much as we can, but I also worry that the actual model that social media is built upon also at fault. Maybe it needs some rethink; there is no question that we are all equal, but we do not all have the same knowledge.
Share this:
Freedom From Torture
Two weeks ago, we marked Refugee Week. The Freedom From Torture Northampton local group put on a showing of Matar, and a short documentary about making the film. Whilst the attendance was small, the showings were powerful and there was some heartful discussion around the importance of raising awareness, compassion and understanding around refugees and asylum seekers. And the importance of giving space to those voices who have lived these realities rather than being spoken for, and often over. The importance of space and empowerment is something all Criminologists and Criminology students will be familiar with.
One week ago we were witness to the Court of Appeal ruling that it was not safe to send asylum seekers to Rwanda, despite Suella Braverman’s ‘dream’ for the Conservative Party to ‘stop the boats’ via this unethical and inhumane migration bill. And whilst a huge sigh of relief leaves my body, I can’t help but feel anxious and angry at what is to come next. These people (the Government) have come from positions of power, comfort, security, wealth, and education- all their lives. They have no lived experience regarding why people flee from their home countries, the desperate need to run from unlawful prosecution, to want a safer life for themselves and their loved ones. So how are they best placed to decide on what response, (if there should be one), the country takes to immigration? There is also a racial element in relation to this: refugees from Ukraine were not met with the hostility and hate from this country, unlike asylum seekers and refugees from Syria or Afghanistan. Why is that? Well, for one thing the structural inequalities around ‘Whiteness’ is a place to start. The Government seems to have forgotten that people are running from harm, torture, and death. Running for their lives for the hope of a kinder, safer life.
Three weeks ago I signed up to run the Royal Parks’ Half Marathon on 8th October 2023. I am fundraising for Freedom From Torture which, whilst specific to fundraising, supporting and providing treatment for torture survivors, also work to campaign against the hatred and harmful policies being spouted by the Government against refugees and asylum seekers. I usually run 2-3 times a week, providing my body is playing ball which frustratingly appears to be less and less the case, but never more than 10km. A half marathon is just over 21km! So I’ve got a long way to go. But this distance is nothing compared to the miles and miles people fleeing harm, unlawful prosecution and/or torture have to endure. All support, be it financial or sharing blog posts and raising awareness on social media is highly appreciated. The link to my JustGiving Page can be found at the bottom of the blog alongside a very pink picture of me after a 5.58km ‘recovery run’.
Fair warning: my social media and blog posts will be dedicated to how I’m getting on in relation to the training, distance, blisters and will be accompanied by unflattering pictures of myself after various runs! But it’s important to remember WHY I’m running and WHO I’m running for.
Thanks for the support: I’ll keep you posted! JustGiving Link.
Share this:
The decline of social interaction
I am writing about the decline of social interaction today – not because of my interest in sociological interactionist perspectives but because of the declining state of social interactions and the general lack of engagement in societies lately. Additionally, as we come to the end of Mental Health Awareness Week, it is important to reflect on the relationship between social interaction and mental health.
Previously, I have written about the students’ lack of engagement in classrooms and their unwillingness to participate and commit to their studies. In that blog, I tried to understand why students are becoming increasingly disinterested in their studies and why attendance has plummeted. I identified some interconnected issues that might be causing these problems, including anxiety, financial difficulties, lack of sense of belonging and the difficulties of readjusting to life after the pandemic. Furthermore, I have also tried to proffer some solutions for how I think students can resolve these challenges and detailed the importance of being part of a community. However, upon reflection, I realised that I might have underestimated the impact of social interactions in societies today.
First, I’d like to define social interactions as a meaning-making process. It is a process through which individuals exchange ideas, relate, manage information, and react to each other’s dealings. Of course, social interaction encompasses communication but constitutes characteristics like mannerisms, gesticulations, eye contact, smiling, slang, etc. Blumer (1969) lays bare the fundamental premise of this approach (and for the sociologists reading, I recognise the work of Mead, so don’t worry) by exploring some basic premises through which interactions form human character. While these characteristics are more appreciated physically, even though they may be passive sometimes, they create a different feel and richness for socialisation, relationships, and interaction. Not only that, they all constitute the genetic makeup of our social behaviour which invariably translates to our social character. However, in recent times, the nuances that we enjoy being physically engaged with one another seem to be slowly disappearing. Our digital presence, emoticons, Gifs, stickers and memes have replaced many of these characteristics and nuances.
It is important to note, though, that being among people, participating in discussions physically and forming peer relationships all provide us with a good recipe through which we can use to improve our psychological well-being, social interactions and skills. Take a ride on the underground trains in London during peak periods, for example, and you will hear how loud the silence is despite the crowded setting.
I believe that we are living in a time when people are becoming more and more disconnected from one another, and part of the problem also has to do with the consequences of the pandemic social distancing/quarantine rules – which was a necessary evil.
While the social distancing guidance may have been withdrawn, I think there seems to be a continuous trend where people keep each other’s distance even after the pandemic. Loneliness is becoming more perverse; people are becoming removed from social life, and procrastination seems to have taken centre stage.
Again, the rise and usage of multiple social media platforms have also put us where we are slowly replacing our physical presence with our digital presence. We can easily sit behind our WhatsApp, Twitter or TikTok for hours without speaking – but submerged in this digital world. While I am not in any way condemning the use of social media, I think we risk our physical interactions being replaced with digital interactions, which I also consider a contributing factor to the decline of social interactions we face today.
I agree that we all must move with time; we have to adjust ourselves to this new world, or else we will be left behind. However, I suggest not letting our physical engagement dissipate, nor should we allow our digital presence to become more important than our in-person presence. As indicated earlier, we are witnessing a decline in social interactions, but the task ahead of us as a society is to begin to consider ways to ameliorate this problem. There is value in social interaction, even if some might not see the benefits of it. Some studies in the past have found that ensuring good social interactions can improve psychological well-being. Thus, my assignment for everyone reading this blog today is to pick up your phone and check up on a loved one! The sun is out (well, for now); take a break and go out with your friends, have some food and drinks over the weekend, exchange some jokes, and smile!
Life, indeed, is a beautiful thing to have.
Reference
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and methods. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Share this:
Rise of the machines: fall of humankind
May is a pretty important month for me: Birthdays, graduations, what feels like a thousand Bank Holidays, marking deadlines, end of Semester 2 and potentially some annual leave (if I haven’t crashed and crumbled beforehand). And all of the above is impacted by, or reliant on the use of machines. Their programming, technology, assistance, and even hindrance will all have a large impact on my month of May and what I am finding, increasingly so, is that the reliance on the machines for pretty much everything in relation to my list above is making my quite anxious for the days to come…
Employment, education, shopping, leisure activities are all reliant on trusty ol’ machines and technology (which fuels the machines). The CRI1003 cohort can vouch, when I claim that machines and technology, in relation to higher education, can be quite frustrating. Systems not working, or going slow, connecting and disconnecting, machines which need updates to process the technology. They are also fabulous: online submissions, lecture slides shown across the entirety of the room not just one teeny tiny screen, remote working, access to hundreds of online sources, videos, typing, all sorts! I think the convoluted point I am trying to get too is that the rise of the reliance on machines and technology has taken humankind by storm, and it has come with some frustrations and some moments of bliss and appreciation. But unfortunately the moments of frustration have become somewhat etched onto the souls of humankind… will my laptop connect? Will my phone connect to the internet? Will my e-tickets download properly? Will my banking app load?
Why am I pondering about this now?
I am quite ‘old school’ in relation to somethings. I am holding on strong to paper books (despite the glowing recommendations from friends on Kindles and E-readers), I use cash pretty much all the time (unless it is not accepted in which case it is a VERY RARE occasion that the business will receive my custom), and I refuse to purchase a new phone or update the current coal fuelled device I use (not literally but trying to be creative). Why am I so committed to refusing to be swept along in the rise of the machines? Simple: I don’t trust them.
I have raised views about using card/contactless to purchase goods elsewhere and I fully appreciate I am in a minority when it comes to the reliance on cash. However, what happens when the card reader fails? What happens when the machine needs an update which will take 40mins and the back up machine also requires an update? Do traders and businesses just stop? What happens when the connection is weak, or the connection fails? What happens when my e-tickets don’t load or my reservation which went through on my end, didn’t actually go through on their end? See, if I had spoken to someone and got their name and confirmed the reservation, or had the physical tickets, or the cash: then I would be ok. The reliance on machines removes the human touch. And often adds an element of confusion when things go wrong: human error we can explain, but machine error? Harder to explain unless you’re in the know.
May should be a month of celebrations and joy: Birthdays, graduations, end of the Semester, for some students the end of their studies. But all of this hinders of machines. Yes, it requires humans to organise and use the technology but very little of it is actually reliant on humans themselves. I am oversimplifying. But I am also anxious. Anxious that a number of things we enjoy, rely on and require for daily life is becoming more and more machine-like by the day. I have an issue, can I talk to a human- nope! Talk to a bot first then see if a human is needed. So much of our lives are becoming reliant on machines and I’m concerned it means more will go wrong…
Share this:
Thinking about ‘Thoughts from the Criminology Team’
This is the sixth anniversary of the blog, and I am proud to have been a contributor since its inception. Although, initially I only somewhat reluctantly agreed to contribute. I dislike social media with a passion, something to be avoided at all costs, and I saw this as yet more intrusive social media. A dinosaur, perhaps, but one that has years of experience in the art of self-preservation. Open up to the world and you risk ridicule and all sorts of backlash and yet, the blog somehow felt and feels different. It is not a university blog, it is our team;s blog, it belongs to us and the contributors. What is written are our own personal opinions and observations, it is not edited, save for the usual grammar and spelling faux pas, it is not restricted in any way save that there is an inherent intolerance within the team for anything that may cause offence or hurt. Government, management, organisations, structures, and processes are fair game for criticism or indeed ridicule, including at times our own organisation. And our own organisation deserves some credit for not attempting to censure our points of view. Attempts at bringing the blog into the university fold have been strongly resisted and for good reason, it is our blog, it does not belong to an institution.
As contributors, and there are many, students, academics and guests, we have all been able to write about topics that matter to us. The blog it seems to me serves no one purpose other than to allow people space to write and to air their views in a safe environment. For me it serves as a cathartic release. A chance to tell the world (well at least those that read the blog) my views on diverse topics, not just my views but my feelings, there is something of me that goes into most of my writing. It gives me an opportunity to have fun as well, to play with words, to poke fun without being too obvious. It has allowed us all to pursue issues around social injustices, to question the country, indeed the world in which we live. And it has allowed writers to provide us all with an insight into what goes on elsewhere in the world, a departure from a western colonial viewpoint. I think, as blogs go it is a pretty good blog or collection of blogs, I’m not sure of the terminology but it is certainly better than being a twit on Twitter.
Share this:
Is the cost of living crisis just state inflicted violence
Back in November 2022, social media influencer Lydia Millen was seen to spark controversy on the popular app ‘TikTok’ when she claimed that her heating was broken, so she therefore was going to check into the Savoy in London.
Her video, which she filmed whilst wearing an outfit worth over £30,000, sparked outrage on the app and across popular social media platforms. People began to argue that her comment was not well received in our current social climate, where people have to choose whether they should spend money on heating or groceries. For many, no matter your financial situation, problems with heating rarely resorts in a luxury stay in London.
With pressure mounting, Lydia decided to reply to comments on her video. When one individual stated “My heating is off because I can’t afford to put it on”, Lydia replied “It’s honestly heart breaking I just hope you know that other people’s realities can be different and that’s not wrong”. Sorry, Lydia; it is wrong. Realities are not different; they are miles apart. This is clearly seen in the fact that the National Institute of Economic and Social Research estimate that 1.5 million households in the UK over the next year will be landed in poverty (NIESR, 2022).
Ultimately, this is a social issue. Like Lydia said, in a society in which individuals are stratified based on their economic, cultural and social capital, we are conditioned to believe that this is just the way it is, and therefore, it is not wrong that other people have different realities. However, for me, it is not ‘different realities’, it is a matter of being able to eat and be warm versus being able to stay in a luxury hotel in London.
So, why is this a criminological issue? The cost of living crisis is simply just state inflicted poverty. Alike to Lydia with her social following, the government have the power to make change and use their position in society to remedy cost of living issues, but they don’t. This is not a mark of their failure as a government, it is a mark of their success. You only have to look at the government’s complete denial surrounding social issues to realise that this was their plan all along, and the longer this denial continues, the longer they succeed. This is seen in the case of Lydia Millen, who has acted as a metaphor for the level of negligence in which the government exercises over its citizens. Ultimately, for Lydia, it is very easy to tuck yourself into a luxury bed in the Savoy and close the curtains on the real world. The people affected by the crisis are not people like Lydia Millen, they are everyday people who work 40+ hours a week, and still cannot make ends meet. For the government, the cost of living crisis is the perfect way to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Ultimately, the cost of living crisis is not too dissimilar to the strikes that the UK is currently experiencing. Alike to the strikes, the cost of living crisis was always going to happen at the hands of a negligent government. The only way we can begin to address this problem is by giving our support, by supporting strikes all across the country, and by standing up for what is right. After all, the powers in our country have shown that our needs as a society are not a priority, so it is time to support ourselves.
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” ― Martin Luther King Jr.
References:
National Institute of Economic and Social Research (2022) What Can Be Done About the Cost-of-Living Crisis? NIESR [online]. Available from: https://www.niesr.ac.uk/blog/what-can-be-done-about-the-cost-of-living-crisis [Accessed 23/01/23].
Thoughts from the criminology team 