Дипломная работа на тему "ТЮМГУ | Интерактивность как способ управления: пространство принудительной видимости и наблюдения в приложении «Зенли»"

Работа на тему: Интерактивность как способ управления: пространство принудительной видимости и наблюдения в приложении «Зенли»
Оценка: отлично.
Оригинальность работы на момент публикации 50+% на антиплагиат.ру.
Ниже прилагаю все данные для покупки.
https://studentu24.ru/list/suppliers/Anastasiya1---1326

Описание работы

МИНИСТЕРСТВО НАУКИ И ВЫСШЕГО ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ
Федеральное государственное автономное образовательное учреждение высшего образования
«ТЮМЕНСКИЙ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННЫЙ УНИВЕРСИТЕТ» ШКОЛА ПЕРСПЕКТИВНЫХ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЙ (SAS)

ВЫПУСКНАЯ КВАЛИФИКАЦИОННАЯ РАБОТА
бакалаврская работа
GOVERNING ТНROUGH INTERACTMТY: "ZENLY'S" ENVIRONМENT OF SURVEILLANCE AND FORCED VISIBILIТY / ИНТЕРАКТИВНОСТЬ КАК СПОСОБ УПРАВЛЕНИЯ: ПРОСТРАНСТВО ПРИНУДИТЕЛЬНОЙ ВИДИМОСТИ И НАБЛЮДЕНИЯ В ПРИЛОЖЕНИИ «ЗЕНЛИ»

42.03.05 Медиакоммуникации Профиль «Кино и медиа»

Тюмень 2023

MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND HIGHER EDUCATION OF RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Federal Autonomous Educational Institution ofHigher Professional Education
«UNNERSIТY OF ТУUМЕN»
SCHOOL OF ADVANCED SТUDIES

UNDERGRADUATE TНESIS
GOVERNING TНROUGH INTERACTMТY: "ZENLY'S" ENVIRONМENT OF SURVEILLANCE AND FORCED VISIBILIТY / ИНТЕРАКТИВНОСТЬ КАК СПОСОБ УПРАВЛЕНИЯ: ПРОСТРАНСТВО ПРИНУДИТЕЛЬНОЙ ВИДИМОСТИ И НАБЛЮДЕНИЯ В ПРИЛОЖЕНИИ «ЗЕНЛИ»

42.03.05 Mediacommunication Major "Film and Media Studies"

Tyumen 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION: SURVEILLANCE IN GEOLOCATIVE SOCIAL MEDIA 4
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE STUDY: ZENLY 7
1.1 LITERATURE REVIEW 9
1.2 METHOD STATEMENT 15
CHAPTER 2. ZENLY AS A DIGITAL ENCLOSURE 17
CHAPTER 3. EXPERIMENTAL INTERVENTIONISM 21
CHAPTER 4. FORCED VISIBILITY 24
CONCLUSION 28
BIBLIOGRAPHY 30
ATTACHMENTS 32

INTRODUCTION: SURVEILLANCE IN GEOLOCATIVE SOCIAL MEDIA
Throughout the history, surveillance has always existed in various forms. Initially, it was the privilege of governing minorities to watch over the many; now people “actively participate in and attempt to regulate their own surveillance and the surveillance of others.” [Lyon, 2017, p. 1]. While previously the thought of being surveilled caused fear and concerns about privacy, now people willingly share their private data through media practices with one’s voluntary agreement and total awareness of their data being stored and processed. David Lyon emphasizes an unprecedented shift in surveillance; namely, he introduces his own vision of the term ‘surveillance culture’ which “is something that everyday citizens…, in novel ways, even initiate and desire” [Lyon, 2017, p. 2]. It implies that people are no longer governed primarily through state-controlled apparatus. Users’ willful participation and interaction, while producing all kinds of “easily collectible and storable meta- data,” [Andrejevic, 2014, p. 56] turn surveillance’s governing power into “a citizen
… activity, standing alongside the comparatively sluggish state systems” [McGrath,
p. 83]. Each new app, downloaded on networking device, is the user’s a priori compliance with the app’s policy. Otherwise, the app’s usage is out of question. When entering the digital space of a platform or an app, surveillance is inevitably present and persistent, though conducted differently. Such novelty has given rise to governmentality: a power technique of voluntary subordination to system’s conventions [Han, p. 17]. In other words, there is no need to force people to act in a particular manner – the primary goal is to make them believe they need to behave in a way which is desirable for a media platform.
With the digital media platforms’ proliferation, this type of surveillance is performed more easily. Interactivity within them, with all kinds of communicative possibilities and “microblogging tool[s]” [Munar, p. 409], is so alluring that there is no need to force users to be involved in it. The concern of constant surveillance is, thus, hidden because of this non-coercive, user-friendly interface: there is no camera pointed towards the user’s face, as well as no authoritative figure to assign particular activities. This ‘surveillance-in-disguise’ causes less resistance to constant inspection and even makes users complacently expose their personal data. Moreover, it promises to endow users with some degree of control since such type of surveillance is performed by every media platform’s inhabitant through enormous participation and interactivity. What facilitates the circulation of control within media platform’s environment is the imaginary digital ‘fence,’ or, as Mark Andrejevic defines it, “digital enclosure” – the wireless systems’ ability to situate the user into the digital platform or app and encircle them for more effective data collection [Andrejevic, 2014, p. 57-58]. An essential point made by several scholars, including Andrejevic, is that surveillance has adopted an inductive approach – namely, everyone becomes a suspect not for the sake of controlling each individual, but for retrieving patterns for further calculation and prediction. In my thesis, I will investigate the “seductiveness of surveillance” [McGrath, p. 88] through the app Zenly, which, apart from merely provoking surveillant interactivity, has replaced real surveillant cameras on geolocative function to track people’s movements.
In 1978, MIT’s Architecture Machine group created an interactive video application, known as “The Aspen Movie Map,” which allowed for the virtual travelling around the city of Aspen. The still frames, captured by a camera car, registered every street and every event happening there at the moment of filming. Modern Google Street View is owing much to that experiment. Although the MIT’s Movie Map was initially designed for the soldiers to orient themselves in a hostile military environment, modern conceptions of interactive mapping are not inherently military-based. Now digital mapping is defined by enormous interactivity which is then turned into a set of metadata for further decoding and analysis. In a sense, this city grid becomes a way of managing people’s behavior, which is not a newly appeared notion. In Michel Foucault’s lectures on this concept, there was an attempt at imagining the smart city within a city grid, or, as his lectures claim, “grid of sovereignty” [Foucault, p. 29] where sovereign power’s potential lies in the degree of how intense the circulations of the aspects which constitute the city are. This city grid is designed specifically to monitor and direct people, to orient them in the city’s space. This plan, once existed on paper, is now embodied within a digital environment.
In my thesis, I will analyze an app Zenly and consider it as “location-based social media networking” (LBSN) which employs GPS triangulation [Evans, Saker,
p. 6] to let users arrange their digital whereabouts and provide them with some power of controlling each other’s behavior. What I intend to do is to prove Zenly an unprecedented case in the history of location-tracking methods. I will discuss three main directions of exploring Zenly’s ecosystem: first, I will designate the app as a form of ‘digital enclosure’ where the app’s space is what allows for data generation and circulation. In the same section, I will address to Zenly’s governmental power – namely, how its features allow for “governing at a distance” [Bennett, p. 75]. Secondly, I will bring in the wording ‘experimental interventionism’ which will analyze Zenly’s potentialities for interactivity and interrelatedness of digital-human milieus. Lastly, I will consider Zenly as an environment of forced visibility wherein its users are invited to ‘exhibit’ their data as well as to act voyeuristically.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Andrejevic, M. Meta-surveillance in the digital enclosure // Surveillance & Society 20. 2022. № 4. P. 390–396.
2. Andrejevic, M. Surveillance in the Big Data era // Emerging pervasive information and communication technologies (PICT) / Edited by K. D. Pimple. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2014. P. 55–69.
3. AppStore: Zenly: Your Map, Your People: [website].
4. Bennett, T. The Foucault effect // Culture: a reformer’s science / Thousand Oaks: CA: SAGE, 1998. P. 61-84.
5. Brusilovsky, P. Adaptive hypermedia // User modeling and user-adapted interaction. 2001. № 11. P. 87–110.
6. Bucher, T. Want to be on the top? Algorithmic power and the threat of invisibility on Facebook // New Media & Society 14. 2012. № 7. P. 1164–1180.
7. Caluya, G. The post-panoptic society? Reassessing Foucault in surveillance studies // Social Identities 16. 2010. № 5. P. 621–633.
8. Dean, J. Democracy and other neoliberal fantasies: communicative capitalism and left politics. Durham: Duke University Press, 2009. 232 p.
9. Debord, G. The society of the spectacle. Paperbound edition. Berkeley: CA: Bureau of Public Secrets, 2013. 222 p.
10. Deleuze, G. Postscript on the societies of control // L’Autre Journal. 1990.
№ 1. P. 3-7.
11. Evans, L., Saker M. Location-based social media: space, time and identity. 1st edition. Cham: Springer International Publishing: Imprint: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017. 112 p.
12. Foucault, M. Security, terrirory, population. Lectures at the college de France, 1977-1978 // Edited by M. Senellart, F. Ewald, A. Fontana, A. I. Davidson. Translated by G. Burchell. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. P. 2–552.
13. Han, B. Capitalism and the death drive. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Medford, MA: Polity Press, 2021. 150 p. // Translated by D. Steuer.
14. Lyon, D. 9/11, synopticon, and scopophilia: watching and being watched // The new politics of surveillance and visibility. Green College Thematic Lecture Series / Edited by K. D. Haggerty, R. V. Ericson. Toronto Buffalo London: University of Toronto Press, 2006. P. 35-53.
15. Lyon, D. Surveillance culture: engagement, exposure, and ethics in digital modernity // International journal of communication. 2017. № 11. P. 1–18.
16. Mathiesen, T. The viewer society: Michel Foucault’s 'panopticon’ revisited// Theoretical criminology 1. 1997. № 2. P. 215-234.
17. May, J. Everything is already an image // Log. 2017. № 40. P. 9-26.
18. McGrath, J. Performing surveillance // Routledge handbook of surveillance studies / Edited by K. Ball, K. D. Haggerty, D. Lyon. Abingdon, Oxon: New York: Routledge, 2012. P. 83–90.
19. Munar, A. Digital exhibitionism: the age of exposure // Culture unbound 2. 2010. № 3. P. 401-422.
20. Munster, A. Chapter 4. Interfaciality: from the friendly face of computing to the alien terrain of informatic bodies // Materializing new media: embodiment in information aesthetics / England: Dartmouth College Press, University Press of New England, 2006. P. 117-150.
21. Simondon, G. On the mode of existence of technical objects. Minneapolis: MN: Univocal Pub, 2016. 271 p.
22. Tornberg P., Uitermark J. Complex control and the governmentality of digital platforms // Frontiers in sustainable cities. 2020. № 2. P. 1-11.
23. Zenly World: [website].