{"id":168,"date":"2019-05-05T20:11:10","date_gmt":"2019-05-05T12:11:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/?p=168"},"modified":"2019-05-09T15:29:19","modified_gmt":"2019-05-09T07:29:19","slug":"active-now-how-web-2-0-allows-for-the-formation-of-online-communities-capable-of-initiating-change-through-activism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/2019\/05\/05\/active-now-how-web-2-0-allows-for-the-formation-of-online-communities-capable-of-initiating-change-through-activism\/","title":{"rendered":"Active Now: How Web 2.0 Allows for the Formation of Online Communities Capable of Initiating Change through Activism"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
Ronaldson_19161789_A1_FINAL<\/a>Download<\/a><\/div>\n\n\n\n

ABSTRACT<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This multifaceted paper explores how Web 2.0 creates an online environment where individuals can engage in discussion about issues facing society, which in turn promotes the development of online communities around a shared interest or goal. This paper will then argue that by utilising the affordances of social network sites Facebook and Twitter, these online communities are strong enough to bring about change by participating in activism. Within this paper, examples such as the controversial case of Senator Fraser Anning, the School Strike 4 Climate, and the #MeToo movement is used to demonstrate how online communities use hashtags, retweeting, liking, commenting and sharing to raise awareness and prompt real change; ultimately countering the argument of slacktivism. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

KEY\nWORDS: <\/strong>activism,\nonline communities, Web 2.0, slacktivism, social network sites<\/p>\n\n\n\n

INTRODUCTION<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This paper will argue that Web 2.0, particularly social\nnetwork sites such as Twitter and Facebook, encourages individuals to\nparticipate in discourse around issues that face society, ultimately allowing\nfor the formation of online communities and the initiation of change through activism.\nSocial network sites, which are located at the core of Web 2.0 (O\u2019Reilly, as\ncited in Straub & Nentwich, 2013, p. 724), form a \u201cmediated public\u201d (boyd,\n2007, p. 2) whereby users can gather to publicly discuss and debate the social\nnorms that guide society, can express their own thoughts, attitudes and\nopinions, and can exchange ideas with others; mirroring Habermas\u2019 notion of the\npublic sphere (Straub & Nentwich, 2013, p. 726). Social network sites are\nfurther used by online communities to direct attention to the pressing issues\nthat are facing society, which include, but are not limited to, gender and\nracial inequality, immigration laws and climate change. These online communities\nare able to develop through the use of Web 2.0, and are then able to initiate\nactivist movements by utilising the affordances of social network sites. Overall,\nthis paper will discuss four main ideas; how Web 2.0 and social network sites\nhave impacted the way information surrounding global issues is shared among\nusers; how Web 2.0 fosters the development of online communities; how these online\ncommunities, through the use of social network sites, are capable of initiating\nactivist movements; and how, through the analysis of #MeToo and challenging the\nidea of slacktivism, these activist movements can achieve results.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE\nIMPACT OF WEB 2.0 ON INFORMATION DISSEMINATION<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The term \u201cWeb 2.0\u201d was coined by Tim O\u2019Reilly in 2004\n(O\u2019Reilly, 2007, p. 17) and is used to describe the most recent phase of the\nWorld Wide Web (WWW). Unlike its predecessor Web 1.0, the central focus of Web\n2.0 is the user, the people who use its tools to participate, collaborate and\ncommunicate with others (O\u2019Reilly, 2007, p. 19). Web 2.0 creates an online\nenvironment that encourages user contribution, the reusing and remixing of content,\npromotes a feeling of belonging to a community and a sense of empowerment (Arya\n& Mishra, 2012, p. 29). Web 2.0 is comprised of a multitude of applications\nincluding blogs, wikis and social network sites (Arya & Mishra, 2012, p.\n30). Social network sites, such as Facebook and Twitter, are \u201conline\nenvironments in which people create a self-descriptive profile and then make\nlinks to other people they know on the site, creating a network of personal\ncommunities\u201d (Donath & boyd, 2004, p. 2). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, it is important to note that on Twitter and Facebook, users are able to follow those who they do not know personally and thus, can build a network of \u201csources\u201d (Grudz, Wellman & Takhteyev, 2011, p. 1296). It is necessary to make this distinction as it allows for the understanding of how information on social network sites spreads. For example, after the 2019 Christchurch mosque terror attack whereby 49 people were killed, an Australian politician Senator Fraser Anning released a statement which placed the reasoning for the attack on \u201cthe immigration program which allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand in the first place\u201d (Anning, as cited in Kirby, para. 4). The statement was circulated via social media within minutes through the use of sharing, retweeting and commenting, and received widespread public outcry. British journalist Piers Morgan retweeted the statement condemning the opinions and attitudes Anning expressed. Morgan\u2019s retweet, which contained the original statement, was then retweeted by his sources or \u201cweak ties\u201d 16,000 times and was liked 30, 776 times (Morgan, 2019). The term \u201cweak ties\u201d is used to label those relations that act as a link between groups and as a result, are particularly useful on Web 2.0 as they allow for the transmission of information across \u201cgreater social distance\u201d (Granovetter, 1973, p. 1366), between platforms and between users. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This example highlights how Web 2.0 facilitates the creation and spread of content (McCaughey, 2014, p. 2), lowers the barrier to communication (Ellison et al., as cited in Ellison & boyd, 2013, p. 11) for people can express opinions without having to challenge gatekeeping regimes (Harlow, 2011, p. 230), and permits like-minded individuals the ability to \u201ceasily discern their common ground, thus helping users cultivate socially relevant interactions\u201d (Ellison et al., as cited in Ellison & boyd, 2013, p. 11). As a result, Web 2.0, more specifically social network sites, encourages individuals to engage in debates around issues facing society. This level of interaction, participation and contribution ultimately allows for the formation of online communities on social network sites. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE\nDEVELOPMENT OF ONLINE COMMUNITIES ON WEB 2.0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The notion of \u201ccommunity\u201d is heavily debated in\nscholarly discourse (Katz, Rice, Acord, Dasgupta, & David, 2004; Wellman\n& Gulia, 1999). The rise of Web 2.0, social network sites and online gaming\nhas contributed to and prompted the discussion of what constitutes as a\ncommunity. Traditional definitions are predominantly central to the notion of\n\u201cphysical colocation\u201d (Katz, et al., 2004, p. 324) whereby those who exist in\ngeographical proximity experience a sense of solidarity (Schmalenbach, as cited\nin Katz et al., 2004, p. 324). In this traditional sense, the basic characteristics\nof a community includes face to face communication, common backgrounds such as\nidentity and values, and the involuntary recruitment and participation of\nmembers (Katz et al., 2004, p. 325). Ultimately, physical \u2018traditional\u2019\ncommunities \u201care based on shared social and physical boundaries\u201d (Katz et al.,\n2004, p. 326). As mentioned, social network sites warrant a review of these\ndefinitions. At the basic level, virtual and online communities can be defined\nby \u201can aggregation of individuals\u201d that are \u201cmediated by technology\u201d (Porter,\nas cited in Porter, 2016, p. 161) and are \u201cgeographically and socially\ndispersed\u201d (Porter, 2016, p. 166). Online communities form voluntarily,\ntypically around a shared interest or goal (Porter, 2016, p. 166). The characteristics\nthat are vital to the formation of a community, regardless of whether online or\noffline, includes a sense of belonging, reciprocity, and the exchange of\ninformation (Porter, 2016, p. 161; Katz et al., 2004). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Web 2.0 and social network sites are able to develop\nand foster online communities for several reasons. As Constance Porter (2016)\nstates, communities develop predominantly from the interaction around a shared\ninterest or goal (p. 162). The most influential affordance of social network\nsites is the publication of personal expression (Aguiton & Cardon, 2007, p.\n55). The ability for a user to contribute to a \u201cmediated public space\u201d (boyd,\n2007, p. 2) means that personal thoughts and ideas are capable of becoming\npublic opinion. By merely posting about an issue online, a user is able to\ninteract with weak ties, followers or sources that share the same values and\ninterests through commenting and retweeting. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In line with this information, it can further be\nargued that social network sites also allow for the formation of an online\ncommunity around a shared interest through the use of hashtags. Hashtags (#)\nare a form of metadata that are used to categorise and label discourse on\nsocial network sites (Zappavigna, 2015, p. 374). For example, if a common\ninterest of climate change was being debated on Twitter, a user is able to add\n#climatechange to their post in order to be found by other users. Reciprocity\ncan be found on online communities through members retweeting, sharing, liking\nor favouriting other member\u2019s posts as \u201cthe accumulation of small, individual\nacts of assistance can sustain a large community\u201d as each act can \u201chelp to\nperpetuate an image of generalised reciprocity and mutual aid\u201d (Wellman &\nGulia, 1999, p. 9). As online communities surrounding global issues are able to\ndevelop on Web 2.0, they are also able to initiate activist movements and elicit\nchange through the use of Web 2.0. Therefore, Web 2.0, and social network sites\nin particular, encourages individuals to participate in debate around global\nissues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE\nPOWER OF ONLINE COMMUNITIES IN INITIATING CHANGE<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Online communities that have formed around the shared interest of global issues on Web 2.0 also have the potential to initiate activist movements. Activism can be defined as \u201cthe actions of a group of like-minded individuals coming together to change the status quo, advocating for a cause, whether local or global, and whether progressive or not\u201d (Harlow, 2011, p. 228). By utilising Web 2.0, online communities members are able to communicate, share information, and arrange and organise protests easily (Sandoval-Almazan & Gil-Garcia, 2014, p. 365), lowering the barrier to participation in activism (Tartarchevskiy, 2011, p. 297). Online activism includes raising awareness about an issue or advocating for a cause, and also the organisation and mobilisation of movements (Vegh, as cited in Harlow, 2011, p. 230). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Activism is achieved on social network sites through the use of hashtags, the creation of Facebook pages and events, and the circulation of petitions. For example, a series of online petitions recently circulated on the social network sites Facebook and Twitter calling for the removal of the aforementioned Senator Anning from parliament. One of the petitions, having been posted on Change.org, received 1.4 million signatures. The petition was presented in parliament and ultimately, with the support of major political parties, led to the condemnation of, and expression of dissatisfaction with, Senator Fraser Anning (Ahmed, 2019, para. 1). Moreover, the use of Facebook pages for organising activist events is demonstrated by the Facebook page \u201cSchool Strike 4 Climate\u201d which listed several events students could attend to protest and call for government action in climate change, one of which was attended by 25,000 teenagers (Brook, 2019, para. 3). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

CHALLENGING\nSLACKTIVISM THROUGH #METOO<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Due to the way in which social network sites allow\nusers to effortlessly \u201clike\u201d a Facebook page, share a petition or simply tweet\na message with a relevant hashtag, several scholars have argued that online\nactivism is increasingly becoming meaningless to such an extent that it can\nonly be classified as \u201cslacktivism\u201d (Morozov., & Van de Donk et al., as\ncited in Harlow, 2011, p. 230). As Dennis McCafferty (2011) explains,\nslacktivism assumes that there is no emotional drive, community or connection\nbehind most forms of online activism, which suggests that they rarely have a\nsignificant impact or elicit any sort of change (p. 18). However, this argument\nis challenged by Web 2.0 communities involved in the #MeToo movement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

#MeToo is a prime example of how online communities\nformed on Web 2.0 can initiate activist movements that are conducive to change.\nThe #MeToo movement was initially established in 2006 and revolved around the\nglobal issue of gender inequality and harassment. The movement was brought back\nto fruition by online communities on Web 2.0 after allegations against\nHollywood producer Harvey Weinstein emerged in 2017 (North, 2018; Chiwaya,\n2018). A large online community of women who had a shared interest in\nchallenging workplace harassment divulged personal experiences with sexual\nharassment via Twitter with the hashtag #MeToo. The hashtag was used\napproximately 19 million times (Brown, 2018). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As discussed, the use of hashtags allow social network\nusers to find discourse surrounding a particular issue or topic (Zappavigna,\n2015, p. 374). As the use of #MeToo made stories of sexual harassment experiences\nvisible, the online community was able to raise awareness around the issue,\nwhich Sandor Vegh (as cited in Harlow, 2011, p. 230) claims is a form of online\nactivism. In the case of #MeToo, the argument of slacktivism does not hold\nground for the initiation of change was illustrated by several Hollywood stars,\nincluding Kevin Spacey, being investigated for sexual assault after allegations\nagainst them surfaced during the #MeToo movement (Romano, 2018). Within a month\nof the movement resurfacing, there was also a significant increase in traffic\nto the U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission website by approximately\n45,000 visits (Chiwaya, 2018). The #MeToo movement ultimately demonstrates how\nWeb 2.0, particularly social network sites such as Facebook and Twitter, allows\nfor the formation of online communities and the initiation of change through\nactivism. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

CONCLUSION<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In conclusion, Web 2.0, and social network sites such\nas Facebook and Twitter in particular, encourages individuals to engage in\ndebates around important issues that face society such as climate change,\ngender inequality, and racism. Web 2.0 has allowed for the rapid dissemination\nof information which can be used to enhance and inform the discourse\nsurrounding these issues. In this sense, the social network sites of Web 2.0\nhave begun to resemble a \u201cmediated public space\u201d (boyd, 2007, p. 2) or a kind\nof public sphere, as demonstrated with the rapid distribution of Senator\nAnning\u2019s statement which caused widespread outcry, and encouraged the criticism\nof a political figure to circulate on social network sites. Web 2.0 also allows\nfor the formation of online communities around shared interests, values and\nattitudes, primarily through the use of hashtags, retweeting, following and\nliking. These online communities are then strong enough to initiate changes\nthrough activist movements, as seen with the #MeToo movement which saw a rise\nin awareness of sexual harassment in the workplace and the investigation of\nleading Hollywood actors. Therefore, Web 2.0, particularly social network sites\nsuch as Twitter and Facebook, encourages individuals to participate in\ndiscourse around issues that face society, ultimately allowing for the\nformation of online communities and the initiation of change through activism.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

REFERENCES<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ahmad, K.\n(2019). Remove Fraser Anning from parliament. Retrieved from https:\/\/www.change.org\/p\/the-prime-minister-remove-fraser-anning-from-parliament\/u\/24375167<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Arya, H. B.\n& Mishra, J. K. (2012). Oh! Web 2.0, virtual reference service 2.0, tools\n& techniques. Journal of Library\n& Information Services in Distance Learning<\/em>, 6<\/em>(1), 28-46. DOI: 10.1080\/1533290X.2012.660878<\/p>\n\n\n\n

boyd, D.\n(2007). Social network sites: Public, private, or what? Knowledge Tree<\/em>, (2007, May), 1-7. Retrieved from http:\/\/www.danah.org\/papers\/KnowledgeTree.pdf\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Brook, B.\n(2019). \u2018My teacher doesn\u2019t know I\u2019m here\u2019: Tens of thousands of teens gather\nfor climate change protests.\u2019 News.com.au.\n<\/em>Retrieved from https:\/\/www.news.com.au\/technology\/environment\/climate-change\/my-teacher-doesnt-know-im-here-tens-of-thousands-of-teens-gather-for-climate-change-protests\/news-story\/77234a1c1f3138d94a860c09e4c70b03<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Brown, D.\n(2018). 19 million tweets later: A look at #MeToo a year after the hashtag went\nviral. USA Today. <\/em>Retrieved from https:\/\/www.usatoday.com\/story\/news\/2018\/10\/13\/metoo-impact-hashtag-made-online\/1633570002\/<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chiwaya, N.\n(2018). New data on #MeToo\u2019s first year shows \u2018undeniable\u2019 impact. NBC News<\/em>. Retrieved from https:\/\/www.nbcnews.com\/news\/us-news\/new-data-metoo-s-first-year-shows-undeniable-impact-n918821<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Donath, J.,\n& boyd, d. (2004). Public Displays of Connection. BT Technology Journal<\/em>, 22<\/em>(4),\n71-82. Retrieved from  <\/del>http:\/\/smg.media.mit.edu\/papers\/Donath\/socialnetdisplay.draft.pdf<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ellison, N.\nB., & boyd, d. (2013). Sociality through social network sites. In W. H.\nDutton (Ed.), The oxford handbook of\nInternet studies <\/em>(pp. 1-24). DOI: 10.1093\/oxfordhb\/9780199589074.013.008<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Granovetter,\nM. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American\nJournal of Sociology, 78<\/em>(6), 1360-1380. Retrieved from https:\/\/www-jstor-org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au\/stable\/pdf\/2776392.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A517d06c8d718767fac04c64217421a75<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grudz, A.\nWellman, B. & Takhteyev, Y. (2011). Imagining Twitter as an Imagined\nCommunity. American Behavioral Scientist<\/em>,\n55<\/em>(10), 1294 – 1318. DOI:\n10.1177\/0002764211409378<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Harlow, S.\n(2011). Social media and social movements: Facebook and an online Guatemalan justice\nmovement that moved offline. New media\n& society<\/em>, 14<\/em>(2), 225-243.\nDOI: 10.1177\/1461444811410408<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Katz, J. E.,\nRice, R. E., Acord, S., Dasgupta, K., & David, K. (2004). Personal mediated\ncommunication and the concept of community in theory and practice. In P.\nKalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication and\nCommunity: Communication Yearbook 28<\/em> (pp. 315-371). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.\nRetrieved from http:\/\/www.comm.ucsb.edu\/faculty\/rrice\/A80KatzRiceAcordDasguptaDavid2004.pdf<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kirby, J.\n(2019, March 15). Far-right Australian senator blames New Zealand attack on\nMuslim immigrants. Vox<\/em>. Retrieved\nfrom https:\/\/www.vox.com\/2019\/3\/15\/18267077\/australian-senator-new-zealand-attack-muslims-immigrants<\/p>\n\n\n\n

McCafferty,\nD. (2011). Activism vs. slacktivism. Communication\nof the ACM, 54<\/em>(12), 17-19. DOI: 10.1145\/2043174.2043182<\/p>\n\n\n\n

McCaughey,\nM. (2014). Introduction: Cyberactivism 2.0: Studying cyberactivism a decade\ninto the participatory web. In M. McCaughey (Ed.), Cyberactivism on the participatory web<\/em> (pp. 2-6). Retrieved from https:\/\/ebookcentral.proquest.com\/lib\/curtin\/reader.action?docID=1675956&ppg=13<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Morgan, P.\n(2019, March 15). Shame on you @fraser_anning [Tweet]. Retrieved from https:\/\/twitter.com\/piersmorgan\/status\/1106457784810422272<\/p>\n\n\n\n

North, A.\n(2018, October 11). The #MeToo movement and its evolution, explained. Vox.\nRetrieved from https:\/\/www.vox.com\/identities\/2018\/10\/9\/17933746\/me-too-movement-metoo-brett-kavanaugh-weinstein<\/p>\n\n\n\n

O\u2019Reilly, T.\n(2007). What is web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next\ngeneration of software. Communications\n& Strategies, 65<\/em>(1), 17-37. Retrieved from https:\/\/poseidon01.ssrn.com\/delivery.php?ID=684088071004067008105102110085009109026012051033042091108127097074072019068074109121101122062000122051045124000101025064075077005049095084082031086127122016119118077007007120075004000009000116120065094103113095113029122085095069117092102082112085123&EXT=pdf<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Porter, C. E. (2015). Virtual communities and social networks. In L. Cantoni and J. A. Danowski, (Eds). Communication and Technology <\/em>(pp. 161-179). Retrieved from https:\/\/books.google.com.au\/books?id=AhxpCgAAQBAJ&lpg=PA161&ots=bZIat75i-L&dq=online%20virtual%20communities%202015&lr&pg=PA161#v=onepage&q&f=false<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Romano, A. (2018,\nDecember 24). The sexual allegations against Kevin Spacey span decades. Here\u2019s\nwhat we know. Vox<\/em>. Retrieved from https:\/\/www.vox.com\/culture\/2017\/11\/3\/16602628\/kevin-spacey-sexual-assault-allegations-house-of-cards<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sandoval-Almazan, R.,\n& Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2014). Towards cyberactivism 2.0? Understanding the\nuse of social media and other information technologies for political activism\nand social movements. Government\nInformation Quarterly, 31<\/em>(3), 365-378. DOI: 10.1016\/j.giq.2013.10.10.016<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Straub, S., &\nNentwich, M. (2013). Social network sites, privacy and the blurring boundary\nbetween public and private spaces. Science\nand Public Policy, 40<\/em>(6), 724-732. DOI: 10.1093\/scipol\/sct072<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tatarchevskiy, T.\n(2011). The \u2018popular\u2019 culture of internet activism. New Media & Society, 13<\/em>(2), 297-313. DOI:\n10.1177\/1461444810372785<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wellman, B., &\nGulia, M. (1999). Net surfers don’t ride alone: Virtual communities as\ncommunities. In P. Kollock, & M. Smith (Eds.), Communities and Cyberspace <\/em>(pp. 1-26). New York: Routledge.\nRetrieved from\nhttp:\/\/groups.chass.utoronto.ca\/netlab\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/05\/Net-Surfers-Dont-Ride-Alone-Virtual-Community-as-Community.pdf<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Zappavigna, M. (2015).\nSearchable talk: The linguistic functions of hashtags. Social Semiotics, 25<\/em>(3), 274-291. DOI: 10.1080\/10350330.2014.996948<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Creative<\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License<\/a>.\n\n<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

ABSTRACT This multifaceted paper explores how Web 2.0 creates an online environment where individuals can engage in discussion about issues facing society, which in turn promotes the development of online communities around a shared interest or goal. This paper will then argue that by utilising the affordances of social network sites Facebook and Twitter, these… Continue reading Active Now: How Web 2.0 Allows for the Formation of Online Communities Capable of Initiating Change through Activism<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[62,65,66,64,63],"class_list":["post-168","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-communities","tag-activism","tag-online-communities","tag-slacktivism","tag-social-network-sites","tag-web-2-0"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=168"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":575,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168\/revisions\/575"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=168"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=168"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=168"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}