Modern Society's Internet Culture

Twitter and Politics. Source: BusinessInsider

Matthew Ingram, an award-winning journalist, has spent the past fifteen years writing about business, technology, and new media as a reporter, columnist, and blogger. Ingram contributed an article titled “TwitterSpin:What Happens When Politics Goes Real Time” in Businessweek Magazine. The article discusses the most recent presidential election, between President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, which is said to be “the most tweeted-about event in U.S. political history, and one of the most tweeted-about events ever-close to the record set during the Super Bowl”. There is no doubt that Twitter has taken social media to a whole new level, but what is even more important is realizing how it is incorporating important political issues into every day discussions.

Matthew Ingram. Source: DigitalJournal

Twitter popularity provides both pros and cons when it comes to politics. While Twitter allows people to provide immediate commentary, it also creates a “sideshow” as Ingram calls it, where it merely becomes an open source for any and all kinds of commentary. We have come a long way as a society in terms of socializing and interacting with one another. The times of meeting up in bars, local viewing events, etc. to discuss presidential debates or have political discussions in general have transitioned to online back and forth banter.

This article reminds me of another article we read for class, “The Revolutions Were Tweeted: Information Flows During the 2011 Tunisian and Egyptain Revolutions”, which discusses how Twitter plays a key role in amplifying and spreading timely information across the globe. It details the networked production and dissemination of news on Twitter during snapshots of the 2011 Tunisian and Egyptian Revolutions as seen through information flows across activists, bloggers, journalists, mainstream media outlets, and other engaged participants. This is just one example of how Twitter can be an advantage and used as an outlet to discuss politics in that it increases discussions amongst people and spreads the word on certain issues. This same reason can also been seen as a con and raises the question if tweets contribute at all to anyone’s understanding of an issue or not? Or does it actually just add fuel to a meaningless fire?

Political Tweets. Source: Economist 

I think Twitter is a great source for those too lazy to do research on their own, to go out in search of facts for themselves, and actually dig deep to the roots of the issues (for example, the policies of each candidate, their stance on a specific topic, etc). This being said, I do think Twitter is a great outlet when used effectively, but do think people take advantage of its’ accessibility.

What are your opinions? Does real-time commentary add a theatrical element to important issues, such as politics? Or is the mere fact that people are paying attention to these important issues enough?

Cyborg or Human. Source: NY Times

An article, “Are We Becoming Cyborgs?”, written by Serge Schmemann, was recently published in the New York Times. Schmemann, writer and editorial page editor of the International Herald Tribune, the global edition of the  of the New York Times, interviews three individuals who have an extensive amount of experience studying modern day society’s use and relationship with technology.

Serge Schmemann. Source: International Herald Tribune

The focus question of Schememann’s interview is : Are we being turned into cyborgs? Are new digital technologies changing us in a more profound and perhaps troubling way than any previous technological breakthrough? The three individuals interviewed were  Susan Greenfield, Maria Popova, and Evgeny Morozov.

Susan Greenfield. Source: NY Times

Susan Greenfield is a professor of synaptic pharmacology at Oxford and researches the impact of 21st century technologies on the mind, how the brain generates consciousness, and novel approaches to neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. She emphasizes her concern that modern technology, particularly social networking sites, may have a negative impact on child development. More specifically she focuses on internet addiction disorder (IAD) and how the Internet not only impacts how we think, but how our brains function. In the article she makes the statement: “So what concerns me is not the technology in itself, but the degree to which it has become a lifestyle in and of itself rather than a means to improving your life”, which I whole-heartedly agree with. Throughout the course of this class, I have had these same concerns that Greenfield herself expresses. Instead of using technology to our advantage to improve health or interpersonal relationships, we are focused on the fun, entertaining aspects.

Maria Popova, editor of Brain Pickings and writer for Wired UK and GOOD, stresses that the Internet is “poorly designed to help us discover that which we don’t yet know will interest us and hopefully even change the way we understand the world”.

I would have to disagree with this statement because of examples where the Internet has worked towards helping us discover that which we don’t know yet. For example, websites such as Hulu, Netflix, and Youtube makes suggestions of videos a user might like based on previous searches. This is just one example of the Internet working for our interests.

Maria Popova. Source: NY Times

Evgeny Morozov. Source: NY Times

In his book The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom Evgeny Morzov introduces his term “slacktivists”, which supports that social media sites such as Facebook may be influencing a sense of laziness among people. Morzov argues that technology could also be a powerful tool for engaging in mass surveillance, political repression, and spreading nationalist and extremist propaganda. For example, the political petitions made available on Facebook encourage a simple click of a button rather than an effort to read or immerse oneself in the content. In the Times interview Morzov contests  that “the question is whether it will displace other forms of activism, and whether people will think they’re campaigning for something very important when they are in fact joining online groups that have very little relevance in the political world”. There is no doubt that our society is becoming more and more fixated on the convenience the Internet provides and the information social media makes attractive.

In relation to cyborgs, Popova points out that “so much of the fear is that rather than enhancing human cognition, they’re beginning to displace or replace meaningful human interactions”. All three seem to agree that we must realize the areas in our life that should not be technologically mediated and how we use technology. Greenfield emphasizes the importance of physical human interaction by pointing out “every hour you spend sitting in front of a screen is an hour not talking to someone, not giving someone a hug, not having the sun on your face. So the fear I have is not with the technology per se, but the way it’s used by the native mind”.

What do you think? Is technology replacing or taking away from our human experience, that is, our face-to-face human interaction with one another? Are we becoming too reliant on technology? Are we becoming cyborgs?

Megan Knudson

English 138: Professor Bjork

11/16/12

Little Brother

Black Screen

Silence. Screen fades in from black to hazy scene of chaos. Setting is China Town San Francisco. People are screaming, running, and pushing one another out of the way. The audience is in the mess, as if we are downtown, in the middle of the action. Camera fades out to show a teenage boy. Bruised, bleeding, confused, as he stands in the middle of a narrow street.

RANDOM MAN

“Get out of the fucking way!”

The man pushes past the boy, who is obviously consumed with the scene going on around him.

Teenage Boy’s Voice (MARCUS)

“Huh?”

RANDOM WOMAN

“What are you doing standing there? Move!!!”

The camera cuts back to the perspective of the boy. He sees a familiar face. Helicopters are hovering above him. Police cars have their sirens on, trying to make way through the busy streets.

SEVENTEEN YEAR OLD GIRL (Vanessa)

(Shouting)

“Marcus. MARCUS!!! We have to go. NOW.”

New scene. Flashback to a hallway in a school building. Two teenage boys (Darryl and Marcus) are in an empty classroom, peering around the corner of the door. They’re looking at another teenage boy down the hall.

SEVENTEEN YEAR OLD BOY 2 (Darryl)

(whispering in a worried tone)

“Wh..What’s he doing?”

SEVENTEEN YEAR OLD BOY 1 (Marcus)

(whispering)

“I totaled his phone, but he’s just staring at it now instead of moving on.”

The hallway is quiet. Both boys have a worried look on their face. Suddenly, they hear a familiar voice. A woman, their history teacher.

WOMAN (Mrs. Galvez)

(stern voice)

“Excuse me, what do you think you are doing in the hallway during class? And on top of that, you’re on your phone. Come with me this instant.”

The woman guides the boy through the doorway, exiting to the stairs. They go out of the frame. The two teenage boys down the hall look at one another. They sigh, give a relieving smile and quickly hurry out of the building.

MARCUS

(hurried tone)

“Let’s move! The rest of the gang is meeting us at the cable-cars in twenty-minutes!”

Cut to new scene. Fades back to first scene, in China Town. The streets are still chaotic, people are still running around in a frenzy. New face appears in front of Marcus. Close up on new face.

SEVENTEEN YEAR OLD BOY 3 (Jolu)

(shouting)

“Someone fucking stabbed him in the crowd. Christ, that’s vicious.”

Camera pans to the teenage boy Jolu is holding up next to him. It’s Darryl. Chaos is still occurring in the background.

MARCUS

(panicked)

“Jesus. Let’s try to flag a cop down. We have to get you where they can see you.”

Marcus begins waving his hands and steps in the path of a cop car. Vanessa and Jolu are carrying Darryl. Vanessa has her jacket pressed against his wound, while Jolu has Darryl’s arm around his neck.

MARCUS

(shouting)

“Stop!!! Stop!!! Please, my friend has been stabbed. We need help immediately!!!”

A military looking jeep comes to a screeching halt in front of Marcus.

MARCUS

(confused, shocked)

“What the…”

Before he can say anything else, two big men forcefully grab him. Camera goes back to perspective of Marcus. He sees a big bag come over his head. Screen fades to black.

Flashback. Marcus is sitting in the principle’s office. He is slouched in a chair, facing the principle, Mr. Benson.

MAN (Mr. Benson)

(interrogative tone)

“Marcus, I hope you know how serious this is.”

MARCUS

“Mr. Benson, you still haven’t explained what the problem is—“

MR. BENSON

(angry)

“The problem Mr. Yallow, is that you’ve been engaged in criminal conspiracy to subvert this school’s security system, and you have supplied security countermeasures to your fellow students. You know we expelled Graciella Uriarte last week for using one of your devices.”

MARCUS

(mellow, snickering)

“And you think I’m involved in that?”

MR. BENSON

“We have reliable intelligence that you are wIn5t0n”

MARCUS

“You have reliable intelligence? I’d like to see it”

Mr. Benson slams both hands on his desk and stands up.

MR. BENSON

(yelling)

“Your attitude isn’t going to help you. I’d advise that you start participating.”

MARCUS

“You gonna call the police or something?”

MR. BENSON

(whispering, in angry tone)

“Marcus, I hope you realize how serious this is.”

Scene ends. Fade to black.

Little Brother

Chapters 11-20

The second part of Little Brother, Chapters 11-20, is dedicated to both the aftermath of the terrorist attack and to Marcus’ four-day imprisonment. What I found most important about these chapters of the novel is the focus on privacy and control. As the government’s control heightens, the amount of privacy dwindles, leaving people, especially Marcus, living in fear.

No Privacy Sign. Source: Media Bistro

An example of this can be found in Chapter 12, when Marcus and his girlfriend Ange go to an illegal rave in Dolores Park. The concert proved to be a clear example of the government’s extensive control, and sense of what is “illegal”. Seeing the concert as a harmful threat, hundreds of police officers ride in to end the concert. Marcus recalls the scene, sating, “I’ve never been in a war, but now I think I know what it must be like. What it must be like when scared kids charge across a field at an opposing force, knowing what’s coming, running away, screaming, hollering” (69). Marcus paints a very clear picture of a chaotic, unsettling environment.  Deeming something “illegal” that involves kids dancing and listening to music seems somewhat absurd, especially when there is no harm being done. In fact, the government went as far as to define the concert as an act of “terrorism”.

Bill of Rights. Source: Google

The government’s intrusive control proves to weigh heavily on Marcus when he gets into an argument with his substitute teacher over the Bill of Rights. The conversation begins when the substitute asks the class, “Under what circumstances should the federal government be prepared to suspend the Bill of Rights?” Immediately rubbed the wrong way by the question, Marcus responds saying, “Never. Constitutional rights are absolute” (73).  This sparks a heated debate between the substitute and Marcus, which later leads back to the concert in the park. Defending the concert-goers, Marcus declares that the purpose behind the concert wasn’t to endanger or overthrow the government, but to show their “rights were being taken away in the name of protecting them” and that “universal surveillance was more dangerous than terrorism” (73-4). Noticing the government’s extreme control and even the opinion from his substitute teacher that the Constitution can be easily revised by and for the people, Marcus also realizes how things around him are drastically changing.

Government Surveillance. Source: Truth Move

Marcus’ dad tries to keep things in perspective for Marcus, telling him “You have every right to speak your mind of course, but you have to be prepared for the consequences of doing so” (77). After reading Chapters 11-20, what do you think about the government’s control? Do you agree that Marcus should show caution about speaking his mind, or given what he has been through, does it matter? Is it completely invading any and every sense of privacy? Or should it be expected after something as horrible and serious as a terrorist attack?

Cory Doctorow. Source: Wiki

Cory Doctorow is a Canadian-British blogger, journalist, and science fiction author who also serves as co-editor of the weblog Boing Boing. He is an activist in favor of liberalizing copyright laws and supports the Creative Commonsorganization, a non-profit organization devoted to expanding the range of creative works available for others to build upon legally and to share.

Little Brother Book Cover. Source: Wiki

Doctorow released the best-selling novel Little Brother, which is about four teenagers in San Francisco who are faced defending themselves against the Department of Homeland Security. The teenagers are assumed to be apart of a terrorist attack on the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge and BART system when they are found with “a number of suspicious devices” on them. That mixed with the fact they were near the site of the terrorist attack leads the Department of Homeland Security to assume they are potential enemies of the United States of America.

Doctorow’s work is an enlightening piece that portrays how technology can indeed pose potential harm for the future. He prefaces Little Brother with an introduction that explains, how as a seventeen year old, the transformation of computers as basic forms of communication (e-mailing) changed into “being co-opted, used to spy on us, snitch on us” for him. Published and released a mere four to five years ago, the concept of this novel still rings true in the modern day world. We have become a society so advanced, so focused on how we can make things better, faster, stronger than their previous version, that we don’t even realize the self-inflicting harm.

Doctorow uses the main protagonist, Marcus, as an example of someone so consumed with the “benefits” of technology that he ultimately ends up faced in a life or death situation. Marcus builds his own custom devices that help him hack and manipulate systems. This infatuation with technology, specifically with an ARG (Alternate Reality Game), is what leads to the unfortunate coincidence and misconception of his participation in the terrorist attack.

Little Brother tackles both themes of civil liberties and social activism, yet also brings light to how technology, when heavily relied on, can interfere with reality.  While caught up in his game world, (and using measures of hacking to help), Marcus gets woken up by reality and the severity of his actions.

A video interview with Doctorow, (below), shows his personal take on how Little Brother contrasts with George Orwell’s 1984, which also explores the themes of technology and control, but in a negative light. Doctorow makes it clear that he believes Little Brother “is a turning point from technology that asserts control to a technology that doesn’t”.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2lEZ3tDmHw[/youtube]

The statement that stuck out most to me in this video is Doctorow’s stance on technology’s influence and presence within society:

What I see is an encroachment on personal autonomy that’s much greater than anything we’ve seen before, but I also think that within our technological world the seeds of another generation of technology that will take that back

In the introduction to Little Brother, Doctorow himself states, “this book is meant to be part of the conversation about what an information society means: does it mean total control, or unheard of liberty?” So my question, to whomever is reading this, is how do you define information society? Does it result in total control? Or is it an unheard of liberty?

The article, “The Revolutions Were Tweeted: Information Flows During the 2011 Tunisian and Egyptain Revolutions” discusses how Twitter plays a key role in amplifying and spreading timely information across the globe. It details the networked production and dissemination of news on Twitter during snapshots of the 2011 Tunisian and Egyptian Revolutions as seen through information flows across activists, bloggers, journalists, mainstream media outlets, and other engaged participants. The contributors of the article describe the symbolic relationship between media outlets and individuals and the distinct roles particular user types appear to play.

SocialFlow Logo. Source: SocialFlowWeb Ecology Project Logo.Source: WEPMicrosoft Research Logo. Source: Microsoft

There are six contributors to this article, all of whom come from different organizations. Gilad Lotan is the VP of Research and Development at SocialFlow, a leading social media marketing company offering businesses and brands a solutions-based approach to connecting paid, owned and earned social media strategies. Erhardt Graeff (lead Researcher and Developer), Devin Gaffney (Co-Director), and Ian Pearce (researcher), are all associated with The Web Ecology Project, which  is an interdisciplinary research group based in Boston, Massachusetts focusing on using large scale data mining to analyze the system-wide flows of culture and community online. Mike Ananny and Danah Boyd are researchers for Microsoft Research, a company dedicated to conducting both basic and applied research in computer science and software engineering.

Twitter was launched in 2006 and was designed to let participants post short 140 character updates that could easily be circulated via text messages. The appeal of Twitter goes back to our previous readings from Jakob Nielsen regarding the appeal of print versus Web. The main lesson taken from Nielsen’s articles is the importance of  condensed, eye-catching titles made up of very few words that will catch the reader’s attention. Twitter has this very same idea in mind: an outlet available for non-professional journalists, reporters, etc. to post on current news.

Mainstream media outlets have utilized Twitter to engage and enlarge audiences and as a result have changed how people rely and republish sources. Twitter was specifically used during the Tunisian and Egyptain uprisings to learn from on-the-ground sources and rapidly distribute updates. Both revolutions featured prominent use of social media, especially Twitter, by activists organizing the demonstrations and those discussing news of events locally or globally. Twitter served as both a common medium for professional journalism and citizen journalism and as a site for global information flow.

Twitter Logo. Source: Twitter

While Twitter is affective in getting the message out, is all the information given completely reliable? Or is there too much input coming from the emerging networked actors who remix and interpret the mainstream news stories? How do we know when the information given on Twitter follows the original content and isn’t too interpreted?

Perhaps the focus should instead be on the fact that Twitter is enabling and encouraging interaction amongst its users an enabling information flow. The article gives an example of the 2009 Iranian election when users took to Twitter to alter their profile images so that they were tinted green, the color of the revolution.

“Writing Style for Print vs. Web” By Jakob Nielson

Written: June 9, 2008

Jakob Nielsen. Source: Useit.com

Jakob Nielsen, is a leading web usability consultant. He holds a Ph.D. in human–computer interaction from the Technical University of Denmark in Copenhagen. From 1994 until 1998 Nielsen worked as a Sun Microsystems Distinguished Engineer, where he spent the majority of his time there defining the merging field of web usability. He founded the “discount usability engineering movement” for fast and cheap improvements of user interfaces and has invented several usability methods.

In his article, “Writing Style for Print vs. Web”, Nielsen discusses the differences of content style between online Web articles and print articles. He stresses how important it is for Web articles to have eye-catching titles since the first few words are what grab the reader’s attention. Web is more specific, while print tells a narrative. Print, on the other hand, creates a clear picture of what an article is about because the title is usually longer and the article includes a corresponding image.

Web vs. Print. Source: Xangam

The main difference between Web and print is that Web is user-driven, while print is author-driven. The authors of print materials create an experience for the reader, while Web influences people to create their own experiences by piecing information together. People usually utilize the Web with a pre-mediated goal or plan in mind. Books, on the other hand, are used to tell a story and let the reader sit back and relax while the information is provided for them.

This is another difference that both Web and print offer: linear, author-driven narratives are used for educational purposes and learning of new concepts, while the Web perfect for narrow, just-in-time learning.

After reading the article, I found Nielsen’s argument that print is more beneficial than the Web, in terms of learning, to be accurate. I especially agree with his statement:

I continue to believe in the linear, author-driven narrative for educational purposes. I just don’t believe the Web is optimal for delivering this experience. Instead, let’s praise old narrative forms like books and sitting around a flickering campfire — or its modern day counterpart, the PowerPoint projector — which have been around for 500 and 32,000 years, respectively.

 

The article is a refreshing take on the importance of print, especially in a world that is so Web and technology driven. I strongly agree that print influences people to learn more information about a specific topic. I think the Web is a great tool to search for information in a fast, convenient way, but I think people rely too much on it. While the Web is great for allowing people to construct their own experiences, print teaches people how to be students and how to listen and learn.

Here is an interesting video that interviews people asking them their opinion of whether or not they believe print or the Web is more reliable. Watch to see what they say and their reasons behind their answers!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VE7m2MHWtw[/youtube]

How Newstweek Functions. Source: http://turbulence.org/blog/images/2011/01/newstweek.jpg

Playing on the original magazine title, Newsweek, Newstweek is a device  for manipulating news read by other people on wireless hotspots. This article on Newstweek was researched by Danja Vasiliev and Julian Oliver.

Danja Vasiliev. Source: http://www.tacticalmediafiles.net/article.jsp?objectnumber=59399

Vasiliev’s research and practice aims are re-examination and exploitation of Network paradigms in physical and digital realms. He is coauthor of The Critical Engineer Manifesto, which numbers reasons why Engineering is the most transformative language of our time and the duties of a Critical Engineer.

Julian Oliver. Source: http://www.tacticalmediafiles.net/article.jsp?objectnumber=59416

Oliver is a New Zealander, Critical Engineer, and artist based in Berlin. He won the Golden Nica at Prix Ars Electronica 2011 award for Newstweek. He is also a long-time advocate of the use of free software in artistic production, distribution and education.

They both believe that news has been fallen victim to the same political and corporate interests that have sought to manipulate public opinion. Newstweek provides the opportunity for citizens to manipulate the press by generating propaganda or “fixing facts” as they pass across a wireless network. Therefor, Newstweek gives people the ability to alter reality, which therefor supports that a  “strictly media-defined reality is a vulnerable reality”. According to Newstweek, a growing opportunity for manipulation of opinion is extremely easy due to an increased ignorance. This ignorance is increased with the increased amount of networks and devices available to us today.

Below is a video describing the function of Newstweek:

[vimeo]http://vimeo.com/23075736[/vimeo]

After learning about Newstweek, my pessimistic view of technology has only grown. Personally, I see Newstweek as an intrusive way to connect with the world around us. We shouldn’t always have access to change or manipulate the news around us or “fix facts”. This to me is just going to spark frustration and confusion amongst those using Newstweek. What will happen when the focus is to “alter reality”? Doesn’t this send the message that the reality we are currently living in isn’t enough?

What are your thoughts on this program?

Henry Jenkins has been a prominent figure when it comes to aspects of media and pop culture. He is currently the Provost’s Professor of Communication, Journalism, and Cinematic Arts at the University of Southern California and has written and edited twelve books on the topic of media and pop culture. The article that will be focused on in this post, “Nine Propositions Towards a Cultural Theory”, was written in 2007 about the significance of YouTube. Since this article was written when YouTube became relatively new, it was interesting to read Jenkin’s reasoning for why it was significant back in 2007.

Henry Jenkins

In this article, Jenkin’s gives nine reasons for YouTube’s significant presencein the world of media. These nine reasons include: YouTube creates a hybrid space where all types of content can exist and be shared, it has enabled the emergence and growth of participatory cultures, greater visibility, easy access to content, and participation within ongoing communities and social networks.

The proposition that most intrigued me was the fifth proposition. This proposition states:

YouTube operates as an important site for citizen journalists… We can see many examples of stories or images in the past year which would not have gotten media attention if someone hadn’t thought to record them as they unfolded using readily accessible recording equipment

One example of this, as Jenkin’s points out, is when UCLA police tazered a student in the UCLA library. Here is the video for those who wish to watch it themselves (although it is mildly disturbing).

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyvrqcxNIFs[/youtube]

Jenkins brings up a very good example of how media helps us learn about the world around us. These facts we learn may be entertaining, but are nonetheless informational and useful tools to further our knowledge. Without a doubt YouTube has driven our culture to be more creative, outspoken, and collaborative. To this day, Jenkin’s word holds true: YouTube gives us the opportunity to get a special “inside” look to things that we may not normally have the chance to see. What is also incredible is that YouTube is programed to gives us “recommended” videos, that, based on what one has previously viewed, will enjoy viewing.

While YouTube allows us to explore our creativity and collaborate with others, it also allows us to revisit the past when we want to. The fact that I am able to pull up that UCLA tazering video, which was posted about six years ago, is amazing. Whenever we feel like listening to old songs, watch funny videos, or share our own creations, YouTube allows us to do so.

Danah Boyd’s  has done extensive research on youth and their relationship with social media. Boyd, a Senior Researcher at Microsoft Research, wrote the article “Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life” which “examines how teens are modeling identity through social network profiles so that they can write themselves and their community into being” (2).

I found Boyd’s article to be a tad outdated to read now because of the article’s focus on teenagers using MySpace. Although I found the article outdated, I did find some of Boyd’s points interesting and relatable to modern day social media interaction. She points out the differences between adult and teens use of social media, noting how adults use social media to socialize with strangers, while teenagers use it to socialize with those closest to them. I find the bigger issue to be about how teenagers portray themselves online.  Both adults and youth are responsible for creating false profiles and maybe at times stretching the truth, but the important question is why? Why do people, especially teenagers, feel the need to lie or create a false profile? Boyd notes that we create profiles for the purpose to “project information about ourselves”, which is a process called “impression management” (11). While social sites like MySpace and Facebook are convenient ways to communicate, they are also dangerous. The danger, to me, lies within the fact that young boys and girls feel the need to change their image because they’re concerned with how others perceive them. The way we look, where we’re hanging out, who we are with, what we are doing, etc. are constantly being publicized via social media sites. If it’s all about creating an impression, when do we know things are real? How can we tell what is being shown online is the actual truth from what is exaggerated? Quite frankly, I think there is too much pressure.

These sites are intended as a way to escape, yet there is no possibility for escape. The “old school” ways of escape by writing in a journal have drifted away from us into online databases where we can create new identities.