LOL or LoL or lOl or a combination of the three?

There are many different forms of language within the world. From taking a cultural anthropology course at Lawrence University, I have learned many languages have different roots, sub languages, and different forms of communication than originally intended to have. One particular Language subset is LOLspeak and my question for today is, why people may choose to participate in such language play? 
LOLspeak is a playful variety of English that shows complex and multi-faceted manipulation of Standard English for entertaining ends. That is one of the reasons why people have taken on the concept, it is entertaining. Its used in many forms of entertainment, such as chat rooms, video game chat rooms, memes and more. LOLspeak is a fun and creative way for individuals to express their ideas for their community and others to enjoy. For example, there are many memes that use LOLspeak to allow their viewers to laugh and in hope spread the meme so it can reach other people even more: 

LOLcat meme with LOLspeak parodying pop song from Miley Cyrus "Party in the U.S.A" 

Fry from hit animated television show "Futurama", with popular meme that has many twists. This particular one has to do with LOLspeak.

Additionally, people choose to participate because of the communities that can be formed around LOLspeak. Many sub cultures have created their own communities in following of LOLspeak such as LOLlinguistics, LOLpresidents and even more. 

I agree with this reasoning to why people partake in this Language play. Growing up me and my friends would say it without even realizing what we were saying was LOLspeak. Terms Pwned, and murff were explicitly visible within our vocabulary. We used to have fun enjoying the terms that we picked up and the secondhand meanings we would give them. All because of LOLspeak, my friends and I would be able to have fun and bonding moments, which is why many people would chose to participate in the language play. 
  

#societalissues

Society is changing at a rapid rate. With rapidly growing and newly built technology, humanity has new ways of communicating with one another that has never imagined. That method is social media. A gathering of people online that allows them to post, blog, comment, share videos text and pics,  and more as they please. With this new outlet of discussion that is commonly becoming the norm, one may question, is social media the proper means of communicating between one another?

In May, I wrote an article for the Lawrentian (Lawrence University's school newspaper) on the subject of rape culture on campus and how it affects students. I mentioned two fraternities that live on campus in events -one having members accused of rape and one whose group home students have been raped in- that made rape culture exist and it immediately backfired all on social media. The amount of emails, facebook messages and posts, and fake profiles to stalk me, was immense. The subjects of the content I recieved are as followed:
                       - I am idiot
                       - I am idiot for ever thinking that it was okay for allowing something like that to ever be written
                       - I should die
                       - I should save humanity and never write again 
                       - I should watch where I am going and keep the eyes on the back of my head
                       - I have the writing capacity of a six year old and never write again
Those are the few that stood out amongst the hatemail that I have recieved. Social media is a bad means of communicating due to being hidden. Many of the messages I have recieved was anonymous, allow the messenger to say anything that they feel and I will never be able to know who it was. This is a common feature on social media and because of it many people feel safe enough to say anything that they want regardless of the intent. Due to that feature of communication I was hurt countless times over. If social media was not the norm of communicating for the generation and did not certain feature, nothing that would have happened. 

Howard Rheingold's article "Participatory Power" focuses one of the five social media literacies, participation and how it should used in society for users to voice their opinions. Participation occurs when the user interacts with the tool, the tool being the online source they are using. Participating allows a user to feel different then they normally would in real life by being an active consumer instead of watching passively. When you have a significant amount of people who are able to be active and apart of there online settings you then have a  paritcipatory culture. Twitter, and other sites are prime examples of people participating online and transforming the way they protest and speak about issues. With use of the hashtag, people around the globe can share, comment, view, and blog about important issues. #Ferguson, #IAmRepublican, #Whiteculture, and more are ways participatory culture is clearly shaping our views on political matters and trying to find ways to solve them. When you look at social media in this light, it can be an overly good thing. Social media will always be a two-sided coin, one for the proper way to use it and one for those who misuse it and take advantage of the potential they could have.

Participatory Culture: If Facebook changed, would our use of it change?

Facebook is one the most popular social networking sites. 

Facebook is one of the most popular social media networks around the world.  It is used as a networking space on the internet to connect friends and family from all over.  You are able to share and "like" things that you see from the web.  This is Facebook as we know it, but Facebook has been criticized before for their unclear privacy policy.  Facebook allows much of its content to be public to different advertisers and companies.  This appeared to make many Facebook users upset, but it is still currently the most popular social network in the United States.  Different blogs and reports have come to light that Facebook and Google have been giving away data information to government agencies.  Although there was bickering, not many people left the network.  I cannot help but ask, how far can Facebook go before we change how we use it?

Are people leaving Facebook?

In Howard Rheingold's Net Smart: How to Thrive Online, he gives an ideology behind a participatory culture and a look into the blogsphere of the internet.  Rheingold says "Facebook's long history of changing the privacy settings for its users and the sensitivity of the information that search engines know about people's search histories are just two examples of specific qualities of technologies that influence the way people use Facebook or search--and effect the consequences of those activities."  Rheingold is arguing that since the public knows about the change in Facebook privacy settings, it will influence them on how they share information.  Although I do believe that the policy changes have influenced the public, I do not think that there has been, nor will be a huge change in how we use it.  Facebook could do almost anything and no one would bat an eyelash.

This is a picture of the messages that users received from Facebook mobile about changing the app.

In September, Facebook had warned users that their messaging system was moving to a completely different app.  I was hesitant to get the app since I didn't have substantial memory left on my phone. Then I heard rumors that the new messenger app will read your texts and give data to advertisers.  I didn't believe it until the day my warnings shut off and messaging was no longer a part of the Facebook app.  I had to choose between downloading the app, or run to a laptop when I was notified that I had a message.  I thought that this was utterly ridiculous of Facebook to want to change when it was fine for years.  I thought I wouldn't be alone in this, until I realized that 325 of my friends had the app.  I was astonished that no one cared.  I was set on not downloading the app.  Upon talking to friends they found it weird as well, but that did not stop them from downloading it and giving the app permission to message their friends.

Snapshot of the Facebook Messenger app's home page on Google Play Store with a recent comment.

Rheingold said that Facebook's policies would have an influence on how we use Facebook and search on the web, but I am positive he didn't mean that they would change the very structure of how users communicate.  Rheingold meant that the users would change how we used Facebook based on the level of privacy and changes that they made.  Based on the number of my Facebook friends who have the app, I would disagree.  In fact, I looked at the app to see how many people have downloaded it and over 10 million users have (see picture).  Facebook pushed the envelope with this big move to multiple accounts and it seems that no one noticed.  I argue, that no matter what privacy policies or structural changes Facebook or any search engine makes, the users will not change how they use them.

Meme Famous

Before analyzing memes in class I always thought that they were pictures that people from the internet copied and put a funny caption on.  After reading Knobel and Lankshear's chapter in A New Literacies Sampler, I know that it is much more than that.  Memes can be popular tunes, catchphrases, fashion, actions, icons, jingles and anything else that can be uploaded.  They are "contagious patterns of 'cultural information' that get passed from mind to mind and directly generate and  shape the mindsets and significant forms of behavior and actions of a social group."  New memes pop up everyday and with social media like Facebook and Twitter, they are getting around faster than ever before.  Memes usually center around a specific person or group of people.  Knobel and Lankshear used the example of The Star Wars Kid to explain that many subjects of memes receive unwanted attention.  In the case of the Star Wars Kid, internet users put his name online and many contacted him in ridicule and bullying.  He and his family did not appreciate the extra attention and saw it as an invasion of privacy.  Knobel and Lankshear went on to explain that not not all attention that subjects from memes are welcomed.

The famous meme "confused black girl" starring Keisha Johnson.

A remixed picture of Keisha as a meme.

The meme, confused black girl, began with a picture of a friend that went insanely viral and appeared on many news feeds.  Kiesha Johnson is pictured making a face and putting up a hand gesture.  This picture was remixed and is now used in meme's and in people's daily conversations.  Initially, it was assumed that Keisha hated people using her picture.  It was my first time acknowledging that those who participate in memes, may not actually be participating voluntarily.  A video emerged of Kiesha asking people to stop posting her face everywhere.  Then a rumor went out saying that she was suing Instagram for using her photo.  Then suddenly I came across a video of her embracing it! This vulgar comedic Youtube video shows Keisha using the gesture multiple time for comedic value. The Youtube channel she is featured on knew that having her would have benefits for his video.  She was using the attention that she gathered from the internet meme to benefit.

Keisha is not the only one who has been benefiting from their fame as a meme star. Antoine Dodson is another individual who used his stardom from internet memes to land him on the George Lopez show.  Sweet Brown, another meme star, did an interview on the View.  These may be very popular memes, but they all show aspects of thee stars using their stardom to benefit.

Antoine Dodson's news interview that went viral.

Antoine Dodson a guest on Lopez tonight.

The Star Wars Kid did not benefit from his meme according to Knobel and Lankshear, but I do believe that most stars of memes do benefit, it just depends on whether they accept it or not.  Keisha initially appeared to disapprove of internet users taking her picture, but then she made parody starring herself and doing the famous gesture.  It seems as though she merely made the most out of a situation, but she used her meme as a foundation for this parody.  She was able to benefit from this parody simply because of the meme.  The same could be said for the Star Wars Kid. Knobel and Lankshear mentioned that the Star Wars Kid was offered an Apple IPOD from internet users, but he declined.  That was potentially a benefit, that he and his family did not accept.  Meme stardom, in some cases, may not be the ideal type of fame that people are looking for, but it does not insinuate that there is no benefit to be gained.