Visual Communication Online

    The idea of social semiotics can be attributed to Michael Halliday in his 1978 work "Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning” (Gualberto & Kress, 2018). Gualberto and Kress in "Social Semiotics" describe the fundamental concept of social semiotics as signs and symbols that are used to communicate meaning assigned to them by their creator. For this post, I will focus on pictures and visual elements that we can give meaning as described by social semiotics. This idea is important, as visual communication enhances meaning beyond what is possible with simple text. For instance, the best textbooks incorporate images to help describe concepts, allowing readers to gain a better understanding of what they are reading about. This concept is also incredibly important for online communication. We use visual elements such as pictures, emojis, gifs, etc. to replace the otherwise missing human aspect of communication. The meaning given to and understood by these visual elements elevate online communication and have lead to the popularity of social media sites that focus on visual media.

Michael Halliday from the University of Sydney

    Social semiotics describe a couple of ways we can analyze images to derive meaning from them. The tops and bottoms of images, most prominent in vertical (portrait) images, as well as the left and right sides of images, most prominent in horizontal (landscape) images, all have unique meanings. The top of an image can represent ideals and aspirations. In a way, it can present our dreams and the way we wish things were. In contrast, the bottom of an image represents reality, the way things are, and what is known. The left side of an image is similar to the bottom, representing what is known and information that is given. The right side of an image represents what is unknown and new. To illustrate these concepts, I will provide some examples of images and how these meanings can be derived. 

    This picture is one I took of Ulatis Creek in my home town of Vacaville, California. Despite being a vertical image, I am going to analyze the left and right sides which appear to be the more prominent ones in the image. On the left, we see a town building, representing the well known flow of city life, drowned in concrete. The right shows a forest, mysterious and begging to be explored. It has a more adventurous spirit to it. Perhaps for someone who lives in a rural or forested area, the image and its meaning could be reversed.

    I took this picture of a harvest moon in Monterey, California. The bottom of the image is the Earth, our home planet which we are quite familiar with. In the present day, this is where all of humanity resides. The moon at the top represents humanity's dreams of living among the stars and exploring distant celestial bodies. It reminds us that, through our stellar studies, we may one day live somewhere besides Earth.

Online Arguments

    With the task of analyzing an online argument, I took to Twitter, knowing that my search would not be long. I use the app frequently, as I have discussed in previous posts, and see arguments daily. Most of these arguments follow the same pattern: they are horrible and accomplish absolutely nothing besides ruining a handful of people's moods. The example I chose to analyze for this post only took me a few minutes to find and reflects the type of things I am used to seeing. I usually find them through a quote retweet, where someone essentially posts on top of the original post with their disagreement for the original. A quote retweet is similar to a reply, but it typically gains more attention, which I think is a large motivating factor for these types of arguments. 

Here is one thread from the post along with a link to the original.

    I chose this post because, as I stated earlier, I see these types of arguments frequently, and I think they represent the perfect example of how not to argue. The argument begins with a baseless and nonsensical claim. Often these types of posts are made just to farm engagement (which can actually make money). However, since the original poster has replied to many of the top comments and does not even have premium, which I believe is required to make money on Twitter, this post likely reflects their actual opinion. 

Most online arguments escalate beyond recovery due to emotional responses (image from CartoonStock)

    The first big issue I have with this argument is that the original claim has no supporting material. The original poster gives no reasons as to why they hold their outlandish belief that lunchboxes are gender specific. The very first reply seen in the image above also contains multiple issues. They give a rebuttal with a generalized statistic which also contains no evidence. If you want to use statistics to prove someone wrong, it must be from a credible source. The replier then follows up their retort with an insult directed towards the original poster, guaranteeing that the argument will not be civil. The following replies show that the argument has shifted from the original topic, indicating that it is now derailed.

    There are some basic rules that you can follow when arguing online to prevent arguments from derailing and becoming uncivil. These are partially inspired by the Toulmin method. To learn more about this, check out my previous post. The basic rules are listed here:

1. Any claims made should be supported by evidence from credible sources.
2. Before responding to someone, take some time to analyze their point of view instead of replying instantly.
3. Make your response based on logic and evidence instead of emotion. If you are emotional (usually angry), take some time to become level headed before responding.
4. Avoid use of insults and expletives. They contribute nothing to the argument and are likely to derail it.
5. Stay focused on the topic of the argument. Do not bring up unnecessary subjects and do not look through the posts of the person you are debating in an effort to use something against them, as this is usually done out of hostility Show whoever you are debating respect.

    These tips aim to keep arguments focused and civil. Using trustworthy sources is the best way to make a convincing argument that will have a chance at swaying your opponent. The problem with most online arguments is that people fail to slow down and look at it from a more logical standpoint. People feel that if they do not reply instantly, then they have lost the argument. But arguing in this fashion, quickly and fueled by emotion, is not true argumentation; it is just senseless fighting for the sake of pride. As one last bonus tip, if an argument online becomes too heated or passionate, try taking it to direct messages, which is a feature most social media sites have. Without an audience, such as the entire internet, watching your argument, it can be easier to be civil since people will be more likely to admit they are wrong without the feeling of embarrassment. This is discussed more in this article by Amanda Baughan.

Toulmin Method

    The Toulmin method, developed by Stephen Toulmin, is a form of argumentation that breaks the process of creating an effective argument into individual components that work together in strengthening an argument. These components include the claim, grounds, warrant, qualifier, rebuttal, and backing. The most important parts are the claim, grounds, and warrant (I learned it as claim, data, warrant in high school; maybe that will sound familiar to some). The claim represents the stance on an argument that you are making and trying to convince others to agree with. The grounds are the evidence, or the "data", that support your argument. Without it, people have no reason to believe your claim. The warrant explains how your grounds support your claim. With this method, argumentation can be thought of the same way as many other types of writing; you start with a topic, provide an example, and explain how the example connects to your topic. Backing can be added to support your warrant and the qualifier eludes to other stances on the argument, which are addressed in the rebuttal. Acknowledging other possible stances will increase your credibility, making it more likely that listeners and readers will accept your argument. Understanding other sides of an argument is also crucial to having civil discussion on a topic that people have different stances on. 

Stephen Toulmin from The Guardian

    Much discussion online surrounding divisive topics such as politics have devolved to chaos. Arguments often lack structure or evidence that support them. People will make claims without providing any reason to believe them. In my experience, people frequently lack any grounds or rebuttal when arguing online. Especially around election day, the amount of statements I see on social media that fail to provide any sort of grounds is astonishing. Before people make a post online making some sort of claim, they should be doing actual research to see if they are correct. They may even change their mind in the process after becoming better informed. If anyone bothered to include actual grounds for their claims, then it would be easy to create a warrant and thus make a convincing contribution to online discussion. If people included rebuttals in their online arguments and considered other perspectives besides their own could be correct, then discussion of the topic would instantly become more civil. For example, instead of saying you favor a politician because of their view on the economy and everyone else is wrong, you can give examples of what specific policies you like while addressing how other views are valid.

An example of the application of the Toulmin method form Purdue

    Instead of using factual information, online argumentation is mostly fueled on pure emotion. People do not think before they post, and instead speak in a way that only reflects on how they feel at the time. This is perhaps one of the biggest drawbacks of online communication. It is too easy to quickly respond based on emotion without considering who you are talking to or who will see your post. We often forget that we are still speaking to actual people online since we are not seeing them face to face. Most people would never think of saying the things they say online to someone's face. If people were to use the Toulmin method when arguing online, it would force them to slow down and think about what they are about to say. Acquiring evidence to support their claim would replace the emotion they would have otherwise acted on and lead to a more structured argument.

From Reputation Defender

    It may be difficult, however, to directly apply the Toulmin method to online communication due to the sheer amount of information available on the internet. How do we know that information we find is factual? Would we just use sources that confirm our biases instead of considering other sources that could expand out views? Are people able to slow down and overcome their emotions when discussing a passionate topic when online communication is so quick and convenient? Perhaps a method that slows down our way of thinking and discussing is counterintuitive to the flow of the internet. Or perhaps, if we are able to sort through information to find what is credible and are able to critically analyze different points of view, it is possible we can facilitate a more civil flow of discussion online.

Research Podcast

    When looking for a podcast on online communication, I chose to look on Spotify since it is an application I use frequently to listen to music, and I knew it was a popular place for podcasts. I listened to a podcast episode called "How and why we communicate differently online." from a podcast called "Online Communication" by user EthanLovesCats (me too, Ethan). 

Screenshot from Spotify page

    Ethan discussed how we implement emojis, abbreviations, and caps in our online communication. I want to focus on the emoji aspect, as they are a unique form of communication that are still developing to this day. Emojis are also interesting in the sense that we only use them for certain types of communication, typically casual conversation with people we know. We rarely use them in the professional setting. Ethan states that "72% of people between the ages of 18 and 25 are more likely to express emotions with emojis rather than words" (EthanLovesCats, 2023). We use emojis frequently to express emotions, but what role of communication does this fill?

From Oxbridge

    One explanation for our use of emojis can be traced back to the idea of channel-rich contexts and channel-lean contexts. Our textbook describes face-to-face conversations as channel rich because they involve words, facial expressions, gestures, and tone, while texting your friend would be channel lean since it only involves text (Floyd, 2021). With how common text conversations have become in place of face-to-face communication, emojis help make up for the channels of communication we are losing. They can represent facial expressions and can set the tone of a message. For example, we cannot tell the tone of plain text, but if it is sent with a laughing emoji, we know it was a joke. In summary, emojis have become a common practice of online communication because they supplement the human factor we would otherwise be missing. 

Since I mentioned my love for cats, I figured it was only fair to include a picture of mine :) (her name is Rose)

The Battle for Public Opinion

    The most obvious effect that social media has on public opinion is increased speed, both in the rate that people receive information to inform their opinions as well as in the rate that people share their opinions to the public. It has never been easier to share opinions to large audiences, so what is the result?

From Kendall Campbell

    First off, being online has provided people a sense of anonymity that they did not have before. Because of this, people are more likely to say things they would not otherwise. They will likely put less thought into their words before they say them as well. As a result, more and more extreme opinions surface on the internet. People will start to see people sharing opinions that they themselves share, but previously refrained from expressing openly. Now that they see this opinion publicly more often, they feel comfortable publicly expressing this opinion themselves. This leads to radicalization in opinions, and is especially noticeable in politics. 

    Due to the radicalization of opinions these days, it is rare to see a civil discussion about politics. Politics feels more like a war that one party will win over the other rather than a way for the people of a nation to decide the best form of government. Politicians are forced to follow suit in order to appease their supporters. Any political debate in the last decade clearly showcases this. Before social media, those interested in politics would need to spend more time informing their opinions before they could take a solid stance. Now, most people form their opinions based on whatever they see on their social media feed, whether it is fact or just people posting things simply because they can.

From Boston University

    Once an opinion is formed through social media, it can be incredibly difficult to change it. The algorithms that control our social media feeds are designed to feed us what we want to see based on things we have liked in the past. Therefore, your social media will continue to show you content that reinforces those opinions that you formed and filter out everything else. This further skews your perception in favor of your already established beliefs and opinions. It is almost impossible to see the perspective from both sides because you are only shown one side a majority of the time. When you do see the other side, our first instinct is to oppose it because it has become foreign to us. This can make communication difficult and potentially hostile.

From Outrage

    On the other hand, strong opinions formed online does have the benefit of connecting us to people who share our opinions, making it easier to form relationships online. Social media can also be used for activism. It allows people to use similar tactics to actual rallies and protests, such as catchy phrases and powerful messages, without leaving the comfort of your own home. Examples include the #BLM movement and the #Metoo movement. Through such movements online, people can advocate for their beliefs in a way that cannot be ignored without the threat of violence from rioters, police, or the government. In that sense, social media can be a great platform for peaceful protests. There will still be disagreements and hostile replies, of course, but without the threat of actual injury.

    As one final note, it is too easy to spread misinformation online. It is up to us to exercise caution when reading information before we use it to form our opinions. I also think that companies who run social media sites should put more effort into stopping the spread of misinformation.

Discussing a Company's Online Communication

Everyone is online today, as I am sure you know since you are currently reading this online. As a result, companies and businesses today must maintain a positive and thoughtful online presence using effective communication in order to reach the largest audience available: the internet. As someone who enjoys to play video games here and there in his spare time, I decided to look into a gaming company which I am quite familiar with: Blizzard Entertainment. I already follow some of their accounts on social media, so I had a decent idea of what to expect going into this.

Image from Wikipedia who extracted it from blizzard.com

First, I decided to start by looking at their official webpage, blizzard.com. At a glance, their page in nicely structured, simplistic, and user friendly. The main page mostly focuses on the games, which makes sense. The top of the page has a rotating featured section showcasing current events and sales happening in their various games. The middle of the page showcases all of their games as well as the platforms that they can be played on. Clicking on individual games brings you to webpages dedicated to those games if you want to find out more. There is also a plug for their launcher, Battle.net, which allows you to play the games. The bottom of the page is standard for company webpages, containing things like a career page, about page, contact information, copyright information, etc. This page is clearly laid out to market their products, with the focus being on their games. I think it is effective, as you can easily see what games are on sale as well as exclusive offers on those games. You can easily find an about page as well as a news page that contains many articles. There are numerous articles for each of their titles every day, so it is clear that they communicate often with the fans of their games. My only critique is that there are very few articles on the company itself, with the last one posted back in January of this year. 

Screenshot of their webpage

Next, I decided to visit Blizzard's LinkedIn page. It is professionally laid out and focuses on job openings, as you would expect. The part that stood out to me the most was the section titled "Life at Blizzard Entertainment" which had pictures showing the employees having fun at work. This section gives a positive impression of Blizzard's online presence, showing that they want to appear to be a fun place to work. Lastly, I visited their Twitter page. What I noticed is that the actual Blizzard account did not tweet much, but instead retweeted posts from the accounts representing their various games. These accounts posted several times a day, often to interact with their fans, update them on upcoming changes to the game, and even post silly videos related to their game. As a result, these accounts came across as friendly and lively, encouraging people to interact and take part in the fun, which I think is the perfect vibe for a video game account. 

From Blizzard's LinkedIn

An example of Blizzard interacting with their fans through one of the game accounts on Twitter

All in all, Blizzard did a wonderful job communicating to and with their consumers about their products. However, I feel they put all of their focus into their games and almost none into the company itself. Between the infrequent articles on the company and posts on their main social media account, I think they could better communicate what is actually going on in the company itself, especially considering some of the scandals Blizzard has faced in the past, such as cases of sexual harassment. Perhaps more frequent communications from the company itself, like on how they might be working to create a more diverse and inclusive workplace, would create more confidence and goodwill towards the company.

Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants

    In his 2001 article "Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants", Marc Prensky defines digital natives as the generation(s) born into a time where the digital world had already been established, making the "digital language" their native language (1). In contrast, digital immigrants were already alive to see the rise of the digital world and are having to learn the digital language as if they were learning a foreign language (1-2). As a young adult who has always known technology, I would consider myself a digital native. 

From the article "Do Digital Natives Exist?"

    Prensky argues that digital natives are essentially entirely different people from those who came before them, and therefore require a different way of teaching (2). While I personally feel that my affinity for technology has helped me easily adapt to online education (which was established long after this article was written), I do not feel that it affected my education preceding my online schooling. If it were not for a global pandemic changing the way the entire world functions (which was enabled my the prevalence of technology), then it is likely that being a "digital native" would have never had a significant impact on the way I learned. 

    Prensky predicts that education would shift its focus towards games to appeal to the digital generation (5). Over two decades later after this bold prediction, we can safely say this is not the case. Video games are used predominantly as a form of leisure, which has not changed since their conception. Prensky's prediction never made sense in the first place due to its level of generalization. Not everyone of the younger generations enjoys playing video games, so it would not work as an effective form of education for everyone. He speaks as if every "digital native" emerges from the womb with vast technological knowledge, which is simply not the case. This knowledge must be learned by both younger and older generations. It is only easier for younger generations to pick up technology because they are exposed to it from a young age; they learn it early when they are still impressionable. Older generations got used to a world that was not dominated by digital media and struggle with it because they are set in their ways. 

From the article "Digital Immigrant vs. Digital Native"

    Change can be frightening when you are used to a certain way of doing things, but those who do not resist it will have an easier time adapting to it. An elderly person who is willing to learn the digital ways can have a higher proficiency in technology than a teenager who had very little technological exposure growing up. Age is not the important factor, but experience. Paul Kirschner describes this idea as being digitally literate. This concepts refutes the idea that technological proficiency is tied with our age, but rather it is a skill that can be learned by anyone at any age. Digital literacy is a better way to describe the "digital language" that Prensky mentioned earlier. For example, those who grew up speaking English will have an easier time learning English concepts, while someone who learns English as a second language will have a more difficult time because it is different than what they are used to. Regardless, both individuals can achieve the same level of proficiency at English. Perhaps the one who learns it as a second language could even surpass the abilities of the native English speaker. Digital literacy works the exact same which is why the generation you are born in and being a "digital native" does not equate to having digital literacy.

    Here is an educational YouTube video which contains a more modern definition for the term "digital native": Digital Natives VS Digital Immigrants. It contains many silly comics that help illustrate the idea and inspired the images I used for this blog.