Talk:Living in a Connected World/Technology as an Extension of Self

Collaborative Discussion
 28/02/17 

Hi group, I think we should start a plan for the Wikibook soon. Would be good to get a bit done during reading week. GailZWiki (discuss • contribs) 15:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey group, we should start thinking about splitting up what we each look at within the chapter I reckon, and then collaborate with the other group to ensure we're working in unison. I think online identity from week 2 is gonna have a lot, and the online self-presentation from week 3 but these are just rough starting points, lemme know what you guys think. ChrisintheHat (discuss • contribs) 19:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Right guys, should we split this up into five separate topics and subsections? Each of us takes one and every so often we check over each others work to make sure the whole article is staying coherant. Any suggestions on topics would be appreciated, I was thinking that I'd cover the differences between online presentation and real life presentation in terms of images (looking at Photoshop, instagram etc). Reuben1508 (discuss • contribs) 15:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey guys, comparisons between online and real life could expand in to its own section as it could also be looked at in other terms such as ease of communication (Instant messengers, Skype etc). Also, throughout previous years a common section found is one outlining the key theorists related to the subject. therefore it might be an idea to generate a list based on our collective readings. So far the readings from week three have seemed relevant as well as McLuhan's work which i am currently reading through. MurrayHighFive (discuss • contribs) 16:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey, have you guys decided how youse are dividing up the research? ChrisintheHat (discuss • contribs) 09:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello! I think it would be a good idea if we all take different approaches to the topic. Since everything we talk about on the module overlaps and connects, readings and notions from every week are probably appropriate to explore the theme. I would like to focus on exploring on idea of the relevance of notion of 'cyborgs' that Turkle writes about in her book 'Alone Together'. Since in the highly globalized, mediated world we are cyborgs, carrying our digital, remote devices with us everywhere, they extend ourselves in almost physical sense. We are always connected to the network, always exchanging information, ideas, expressing ourselves. Hence, the Boyd's piece 'Always on' is another reading I would like to explore.

Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 12:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey, we have separated our plan out just to keep things clearer to read. We have put which readings we want to do, so if you guys are doing the same readings as us we could maybe have one person from our group and one person from yours collaborating on it. We are going to do the reading first before setting out a proper plan with topics. GailZWiki (discuss • contribs) 12:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

 02/03/17  Hey, hope your reading is going well. From my reading I have come up with the topic of 'Technology as 'the self', and I am gonna talk about Lanier's views that technology is almost turning humans into machines. let me know what you think of that and what you got from the reading. So should we all come up with a title/theory/concept that we got from the reading and write an entry on it? I know some of you have thought up concepts already. How are we going to collaborate on this? Should people doing the same readings think up their own concept? Let me know your ideas. Thanks. GailZWiki (discuss • contribs) 16:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I think you're right, we should discuss with the person we're doing reading with what our concepts are each so they don't clash and can still be connected and coherent y'know? ChrisintheHat (discuss • contribs) 16:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah that sounds like a plan, I'll come up with a topic based on the reading. Reuben1508 (discuss • contribs) 16:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. Thats what I was planning to do anyway with the reading I'm doing, so sounds good to me. Ianthe2nd (discuss • contribs) 16:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay great. So I guess let's try and get our sections written up over the weekend. GailZWiki (discuss • contribs) 19:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey guys, just wondering what ideas are for meeting up to format the wikibook page, i think mentioned booking one of the study rooms monday or tuesday. How do you guys feel about this or are there any other preferred ways to do this? MurrayHighFive (discuss • contribs) 13:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I can meet up either day. It would be good to plan face to face as long as we write down everything that's planned on here after. GailZWiki (discuss • contribs) 14:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Technology as an extension of self relating to Privacy in a Digital Age

Hey guys! I'm from one of the groups from the Privacy in a Digital Age chapter. Our main topic is how Privacy relates to the rest of the chapters in Living in a Connected World, and I'm focusing on this chapter, Technology as an extension of self. I was just wondering if any of you ever come across anything to do with privacy in your research of this topic that you think would go well with our chapter, you could post it here? Obviously I will do the same if I come across anything useful when I am looking for information on your topic too. Thanks guys! Cathym97 (discuss • contribs) 10:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC) Hey! We will post if we come across anything, thanks for messaging KGilbert (discuss • contribs) 15:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. A few of us are writing a paragraph that links privacy to our topic. I have added a privacy topic to this discussion page which you can find if you scroll down. We were thinking that at the end of the paragraph we could say something like, "if you want to read more about privacy click here", and there could be a link your groups wiki page? Let me know what you think. GailZWiki (discuss • contribs) 12:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey,  sounds great! Thanks so much. Cathym97 (discuss • contribs) 15:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Great meeting thing earlier guys. Got a lot done, like structure, etc. Ianthe2nd (discuss • contribs) 18:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Clarabiswiki: @Samwar97: @Pola 2607: @GailZWiki: @KGilbert: @MurrayHighFive: @ChrisintheHat: @Ianthe2nd: @Reuben1508: Hey guys, just a reminder that we are meeting in Library Study Zone 3 from 6-8:30. This is the second, and most likely the final meet up between members of this group so we really need as many people to turn up as possible. Thanks. See you soon. Bricedoesn&#39;tlikehighfives (discuss • contribs) 17:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Thundercats- Plan
 28/02/17 

Hey Everyone! It might be easier to separate discussions, so we do not get lost in an ocean of comments and ideas from all the different groups involved.

KGilbert (discuss • contribs) 12:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC) I agree. We need to first do different readings from the resource list so we can all agree on the different ways we can approach this subject. Clarabiswiki (discuss • contribs) 12:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello everyone! Definitely! Dividing the readings will help us to organize our ideas and approaches to the topic. What would you like to focus on? As I mentioned before I would love to explore the permanent connectivity as an aspect of technology being extension of ourselves.

Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 12:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

What do you think about including a notion of surveillance and privacy in our research? If technology is extension of ourselves that means that beans that 'us' and our digital devices become entity. Rather philosophical approach but if we take it into consideration it means that privacy becomes completely violated. Any thought?

Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 12:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC) I think that could be interesting but Privacy in the digital age is already a separate topic question. If we choose to talk about privacy we need to be able to relate it to our topic, technology as an extension of self so we can engage with it properly. Clarabiswiki (discuss • contribs) 12:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

This is an excellent point Clara! We shouldn't focus on it too much but few paragraph could be useful to build coherent argument.

Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 12:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

So for readings:

Look at us: collective narcissism in college student Facebook photo galleries, IN: A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites - Mandelson, Papacharissi

My personal public - Adrian Athique

Alone together: why we expect more from technology and less from each other - Sherry Turkle 2011

Participating in the Always-On Culture’ - Danah Boyd

Written, visual and quantitative self-representations - Jill Walker Rettberg

New Media, Old Media; a history and theory reader- Chun and Fisher KGilbert (discuss • contribs) 12:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Missing persons, IN: You are not a gadget: a manifesto - J. Lanier

As you find more readings that you want to do you can post them here. please post here letting us know if there are any relevant readings you want to do. GailZWiki (discuss • contribs) 12:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I would definitely like to focus on challenging the stereotypes connected to technology and social media. I think that some of the authors of the texts on the reading list prefer to talk about the negative sides of technology and their limit rather than be objective about it. Clarabiswiki (discuss • contribs) 12:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC) This is an interesting idea! It would be good to explore stereotypes, perhaps argue that the younger generation is only adapting to their environment, living with the pressures created by modern technology. The younger generation is living in a world completely different to their parents. KGilbert (discuss • contribs) 13:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Perfect! I found an another quite interesting piece on our reading - Rettberg's 'Seeing Ourselves Through Technology: How We Use Selfies, Blogs and Wearable Devices to See and Shape Ourselves'. It could help to build argument how technology becomes our another pair of eyes, only the eyes that help us to see ourselves, like a mirror - eyes. Being able to express ourselves if fundamental need of a human being. Am I going too far?

Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 12:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

That is a very interesting point. Of course, now she should focus on the reading and building a plan for the topic but this could be a valid point once you expand on it a bit more. The book seems like it would relate to our topic as it refers to technology as a tool we use to shape ourselves. Clarabiswiki (discuss • contribs) 12:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Schedule: Shall we say reading should be done by Thursday? Then we can start sorting things out into categories/topics and start writing the WIkibook by Friday/the weekend? GailZWiki (discuss • contribs) 13:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you.

Clarabiswiki (discuss • contribs) 13:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Aye! I will do my best KGilbert (discuss • contribs) 13:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello - Sorry I'm so late in posting here, I was off today and just catching up with what you've all written so far! I'll do 'My Personal Public' for the reading if that's ok, and I think the schedule looks good too.

Samwar97 (discuss • contribs) 19:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hhow are you getting on with the readings? I think we should divide our work more through approaches we want to take and the sections we want to write instead of readings. Any thoughts? Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 08:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah Paulina, we should come up with sections and list them here. I'm just gonna suggest some to get the ball rolling but feel free to disagree or change them.
 * Comparison between real and online identity and do they align?
 * Does our online identity shape our real life identity?
 * The authentic 'I' and performing 'Me'
 * Is there such a thing as a true identity?
 * Do social media platforms own our online identities?
 * Online self-presentation/characterisation/construction of identity
 * Performances/personas/masks

And as I said before I'm probably gonna do a section on Technology taking over real identity. GailZWiki (discuss • contribs) 13:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Great! Your points are perfect Gail, well done! I want to write about how constant connectivity tranformed us into digital cyborgs and therefore, we became our electronic devices. These are my sections: * MEDIUM IS THE MESSAGE * GLOBAL VILLAGE * WHEN PRIVATE BECOMES PUBLIC * CYBORGS OR DIGITAL SLAVES? * FROM MULTITASKING TO MULTI - LIFING * ONLINE LIFE AS EXTRAMARITAL AFFAIR? * ANXIETY AS A PART OF NEW CONNECTIVITY

Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 16:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey guys, I'm currently looking at booking a study room for us to use over the next few days. I think (after of course individually all coming up with topics and subsections to our arguments) we should meet up at least twice over the next four days. I suggest tomorrow as a start? There is a study room free around mid-afternoon times, so i propose a two hour session from 13:00-15:00? If anyone has any prior commitments please let me know. If there is an overwhelming majority against us meeting up at this time tomorrow then it can be postponed to Monday (and then potentially a Tuesday session also). Nothing has been booked yet, but i'll wait until 8.30-9ish tonight before confirming. Would be good to get a set structure to our chapter so that we can properly assign certain topics and arguments to set individuals/pairs. Please let me know if this time is convenient ASAP. Bricedoesn&#39;tlikehighfives (discuss • contribs) 17:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Tomorrow sounds good to me. MurrayHighFive (discuss • contribs) 17:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

That works for me. Reuben1508 (discuss • contribs) 17:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

That sounds good man. ChrisintheHat (discuss • contribs) 17:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Tomorrow works for me any time. Ianthe2nd (discuss • contribs) 17:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey guys, just a reminder that Group Study Room 3 is booked between15:00-17:00 for our use today. Hope to see most of you there. Bricedoesn&#39;tlikehighfives (discuss • contribs) 13:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The Other Ones plan
 28/02/17  Hi guys, sorry to drop into this discussion rather late on (i was away during reading week in the highlands with very weak wi-fi connection). I very much like the idea of focusing on one reading and structuring each wikibooks piece around that; and by doing this, as suggested, could have one member of each group collaborating in discussion and writing with a member of the opposite group. It seems like you guys (Thundercats) have sorted out which reading you'd be most interested in pursuing as reference to larger issues surrounding your chosen sub-topic, so i suggest "other group", we should also, below, list which reading and author we'd like to focus on; then focus on getting that reading done before the weekend. By doing this, we can establish communication with you guys, "Thundercats", and can start to make wee sub-discussion pages to share thoughts, theories and definitions.

-Reuben1508, i suggest maybe taking a look at Rettberg's 'Seeing Ourselves Through Technology: How We Use Selfies, Blogs and Wearable Devices to See and Shape Ourselves', as suggested by Pola 2607, as this article seems to share a discussion with your previous interests in social media and photography etc. -For the others, who are part of this group, if you could (as it were) latch on to a reading either part of the reading list (that has been chosen by a member of Thundercats) and/or do some digging into finding any other relevant articles which you may find interesting to focus of discussion around. Thanks. So, i guess, i'll start...

Missing persons, IN: You are not a gadget: a manifesto - J. Lanier Bricedoesn&#39;tlikehighfives (discuss • contribs) 14:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I think I'll look at Look at us: collective narcissism in college student Facebook photo galleries, IN: A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites alongside if that's alright, but with an emphasise on comparing aspects of this reading with the thought pieces and article's written on the corruption of teenagers and the overall growth of self promotion technology has brought about. ChrisintheHat (discuss • contribs) 14:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I was planning on looking at the historical context of technological extension in Marshall McCluhan's Understanding Media: The extensions of man. I am also assuming New Media, Old Media; a history and theory reader- Chun and Fisher may also be relevant to this topic so if possible i could look at that alongside. I have been swamped with assignments from last semester as well as this one so apologies for the late start. MurrayHighFive (discuss • contribs) 15:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Was thinking of talking about online fan communities versus communities in real life in relation to 'Digital Maoism : The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism' - Jaron Lanier 2006, or 'What is collective intelligence?, IN: Collective intelligence: mankind's emerging world in cyberspace' - P. Levy. Although 'Polity ______ (2014) Seeing Ourselves Through Technology: How We Use Selfies, Blogs and Wearable Devices to See and Shape Ourselves.' does sound more interesting. Ianthe2nd (discuss • contribs) 15:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * some stuff

Rettberg, Jill Walker (2008) Blogging. Cambridge: Polity ______ (2014) Seeing Ourselves Through Technology: How We Use Selfies, Blogs and Wearable Devices to See and Shape Ourselves. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

- Hey, I'm looking at the same reading as you are (along side another), I'm planning on looking at the chapters, "Written, Visual and Quantitative Self-Representations" and "Filtered Reality". Would this work alongside your article? I don't want to step on your toes. Reuben1508 (discuss • contribs) 16:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking about reading them as well. But as long as we can take different approach to it it's fine. Have you started your article? Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 08:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Not yet but I'm thinking of looking at the use of filters (in both the photo sense and the real world sense), alongside the automation of our online profiles and how online services write things for us (Chapter 3 and 4). Reuben1508 (discuss • contribs) 09:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I think I've got the concept for my article now titled 'We are Cyborgs Now'. So I would just write about how we become one in technology through constant connectivity etc. I will combine all the readings to support this argument. Do you think it won't collide with your concept? Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 14:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It won't collide, I've decided to look at online presenatation and digital diaries. Reuben1508 (discuss • contribs) 15:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

So our readings:

ChrisintheHat - Look at us: collective narcissism in college student Facebook photo galleries, IN: A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites - Mandelson, Papacharissi ChrisintheHat (discuss • contribs) 16:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

'Digital Maoism : The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism' - Jaron Lanier 2006 Ianthe2nd (discuss • contribs) 16:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

MurrayHighFive - Understanding Media: The extensions of man - Marshall McLuhan (1964) and New Media, Old Media; a history and theory reader- Chun and Fisher. MurrayHighFive (discuss • contribs) 16:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Reuben1508 -" Written, Visual and Quantitative Self-Representations"- Jill Walker Rettberg (2014), and TBC. Reuben1508 (discuss • contribs) 17:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi guys, I've written a good portion of my article, could I please read some of what one of you has written, so I can make sure the styles are fairly similar and coherant? Thanks Reuben1508 (discuss • contribs) 19:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Mine isn't quite ready yet, sorry man, will get back to you as soon as possible. It should be cool for now, think the sorting it out is happening when we meet. MurrayHighFive (discuss • contribs) 19:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Cheers, it was more to see the style you're writing in, just to make sure I'm not writing in a totally different one. Reuben1508 (discuss • contribs) 19:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey guys, just wondering if we should post the topics each of us are working on. I know we are working on the same readings as others but maybe we should see if any of the subjects overlap between readings. MurrayHighFive (discuss • contribs) 20:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Good idea, I'm looking at Suzanna Szucs, The presentation of an online profile (looking at images and text posts), and Digital Diaries that are created by social media apps and sites. Reuben1508 (discuss • contribs) 23:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I was planning to focus on extensions in a literal and historical sense, pre-internet to provide a background for the online work with emphasis on film, transport, telephone, automation and electricity. I have other points which i am fleshing out but have yet to concretely decide upon. MurrayHighFive (discuss • contribs) 17:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm just going to write in relation to the 'Digital Maoism' article along with studies on fandom, like how people let their fandoms define them, but also how that makes it easy for companies to gather data on individuals to cater to them through advertising and stuff. I have also gathered some information regarding how technology caters to individuals to contribute to communities via the 'Seeing Ourselves Through Technology' reading, but just chapters 1, 4 and 5. Ianthe2nd (discuss • contribs) 17:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey guys, I've got my topics: • Suzanne Szucs (and her photo gallery) • Self Presentation (Profile pictures, filters) • Digital Diaries (self created and automated) Reuben1508 (discuss • contribs) 18:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

What were the sections i said id do other than the history stuff, cant remember. MurrayHighFive (discuss • contribs) 19:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Murray, they should all be up now under the section STRUCTURE FOR OUR CHAPTER. Bricedoesn&#39;tlikehighfives (discuss • contribs) 20:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey guys, just to say that Group Study Room 3 is booked between 18:00 -20:30 for Tuesday. This was the earliest time i could get to fit in with everyone's lectures and seminars throughout the day. Hope to see you guys there. Bricedoesn'tlikehighfives (discuss • contribs) 13:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Forms of Self Representation
GAMING

Steam

The main gaming platform on the PC is Steam, a game client and store created by Valve. The platform allows for heavy customisation of both user profiles and the store itself, giving users the ability to extend their personalities into the gaming world. Steam offers the ability to upload profile pictures, ranging from pre-installed stock images provided by Valve, to user-uploaded images. This is extremely important as your profile image is one of the first things other users see when visiting your account page. Steam also allows users to upload images, videos and text to the profile, with many users opting to include their gaming setups and screenshots of their favourite games. This level of customisation allows for a user of Steam to extend their personality into the digital gaming world.

Another aspect of Steam is the communication available. In many games such as Counter Strike Global Offensive, players communicate through both voice chat and text chat. Steam allows users to privatise their profiles, meaning that other people cannot view the information they have uploaded to their account. This anonymity that Steam offers can breed very hostile interactions between players, especially when games become competitive. This voice chat platform often brings out the worst in people, with aggressive language and curse words at the forefront of the problems. However, it can also be very useful for team communication and can often increase the enjoyment of games, giving those who are pleasant in online interactions, voice communication. As with anything competitive, emotions often run high and this brings out a side of people not often seen. How people react when losing an online game is often a strong indicator of their real life attitudes and personality. Reuben1508 (discuss • contribs) 19:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

SOCIAL MEDIA

Social media is a very important part of many people’s lives. The varied social platforms, ranging from Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and many others give people the ability to post whatever they wish, sharing it with the world. Social media can be a very personal experience, offering up chances to share your everyday thoughts, pictures, and links to your friends and followers. These online profiles are similar to diaries, however online diaries are digital, and take their information from multiple different source rather than just one. The information a user posts on the internet is compiled together to create an overall impression of that person. This is especially the case if the user chooses to link their various social media profiles together. For example, Instagram is easily integrated into Facebook and offers an option to automatically repost any Instagram upload onto your Facebook profile.

This makes it easy to find and compile online data and uploads from individual users, giving a deeper and more developed look into the life of somebody that one would not typically find in a paper diary. However social media often does not always provide an accurate representation of somebody’s real life, and the ability to filter and edit what we upload can lead to a false portrayal of daily life. Reuben1508 (discuss • contribs) 08:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

FACEBOOK

Facebook is currently the largest social media network, giving a social media voice to over 1.8 billion people. The platform encourages the sharing of links, images and text between friends online. Due to the simplistic nature of uploading these, users “walls” are often filled with things they find interesting and wish to share with others. Facebook is the more prominent example of how regular posting on a social media site can build up a profile and extend a personality through technology. Every post made is timestamped, similarly to how a paper diary has dates written in. Although a user’s timeline is automated by Facebook, with the website taking your likes and displaying them on your feed, everything else on the platform is very hands-on. This includes the sharing of information with other users, and whilst this is essential from a privacy standpoint, it brings into question the authenticity of Facebook profiles. The majority of Facebook users only want to share the good aspects of their life, such as nights out with their friends, exam success and positive family news. This ability therefore to only upload what they wish, gives them the opportunity to exclude the negative things in their life such as mental health issues or family struggles. This leads to a highly filtered representation of people on the platform, often driven by the ambition to get “likes” on a post, or follows on the platform. Human beings gravitate towards positivity, and would likely unfollow a user’s social media account if negative things were posted.

In comparison to a paper diary, Facebook is a far less realistic representation of real life. In a paper diary the writer is usually completely honest, as they do not intend for anybody else to read it unless under their supervision. Whereas Facebook, to a large degree, is an open platform, allowing for almost anybody to see what you post. The purified nature of what users post on Facebook also extends to the images they upload, their profile pictures in particular. A user’s profile picture is one of the first things seen on a Facebook account, it is visible in every post made, on profile pages and in any comments the user makes. Because of this, users often upload edited images of themselves, changing the pictures through applications such as Instagram in order to make themselves look more appealing. This practice of doctoring images to increase a user’s likeability on the internet is a perfect example of why social media, such as Facebook, cannot be trusted as a realistic representation of somebody’s personality in the non-digital life. Reuben1508 (discuss • contribs) 09:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

INSTAGRAM

Instagram is an image-centric social media platform which lets users post and edit photos. The platform acts as modern-day digital photo album, allowing users to categorise their photos by adding tags and locations to the images. The app itself also automatically adds information to an uploaded image such as the camera settings used. Although this information isn’t substantial, it provides another piece of the overall picture of online identity. A large part of the Instagram experience is the ability to edit the photos that are uploaded through a smartphone application. This editor offers many powerful functions such as adjusting the contrast and saturation of an image, however the editor’s main attraction is the option of adding filters. These filters change the overall tone of the image, often hiding flaws in the photo. This is the epitome of how many users use social media in general, opting to use both photo filters on the profile pictures and other images they upload, whilst also filtering out information that they do not wish to share with other people.

Erika D’Amico’s paper: “The Elements of Libidinal Economy in Instagram: A New Ontological Status of Photography”, provides insight into the way users represent their wealth through their online profiles and images. The paper argues that when you upload images to social media sites, it allows other people to experience the events you experience, albeit through a 2d, cherrypicked medium. In choosing to upload images to Instagram, you open your real life up to the scrutiny and judgement of others, which often leads to people posting expensive possessions that they own, or exciting events they have been involved in. The ability to post images of almost anything on Instagram has led to the phenomenon of “The Rich Kids of Instagram”, even leading to a Channel 4 documentary. For these people, Instagram is used as a bragging platform, with them regularly sharing images of their wealth. They choose to not only show off their wealth in a tangible manner, but also extend their exhibition to an online environment. Reuben1508 (discuss • contribs) 10:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

TWITTER

Twitter is a platform which allows users to post text up to 140 characters in length. This makes it ideal for sharing daily thoughts and posting hyperlinks to content you find interesting and want to share. On Twitter it is often more acceptable to update your profile daily with your current thoughts and feelings than on other sites such as Facebook. Because of this, Twitter tends to attract those who are more open with their online profiles and sharing their personalities with others. The acceptance of sharing minute details of your life on Twitter has led to it becoming the most diary-like social media platform to date, with photo and video uploading still present in the experience. The ability to look back on previous posts is another similarity Twitter has to the conventional diary format, allowing users to see their own personal growth over time. The regular nature of the posts on twitter allows the user’s personality to come through in more depth that typically found on other social media platforms such as Facebook.

One example of this is Donald Trump’s Twitter account, where he regularly posts about his political views and standpoints on issues. This is both a positive and negative way of portraying his views to the general public. It is positive as Twitter is an open platform, allowing anybody to find his profile and learn about his current agenda. However it is also a highly ineffective platform to use as the President of the United States as the 140 character limit severely limits the detail in which Trump is able to tweet. This often leads to Tweets with multiple interpretations, making it difficult to decipher Trump’s views. The immediacy of the platform and easy of use means that Trump is able to post whatever thoughts are in his mind at any given moment, and these digitised moments of bravado showcase how Twitter gives users a platform to extend their personalities into an online space.Reuben1508 (discuss • contribs) 13:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Distrust for AI

Many technology companies are trying to develop ‘AI’ for their products, Microsoft and Apple respectively being the best examples out there. Although, (using Lanier’s Edge article from 2006 as an example here) some theorists have suggested that true AI has existed on the internet because of the communities contained with each website. We can see this in the way that AI have been tested on social media sites, like twitter, to varying degrees of success. Examples from Lanier’s article for people that think this are George Dyson- who hypothesises that an AI already exists on the internet- and Larry Page- who suggests that a true AI will appear on the internet within the next few years (from 2006).

Although Lanier also points out the danger in anticipating this, for example he says that “how premature and dangerous it is to lower the expectations we hold for individual human intellects.” It could be argued that one could counter this with the fact that human intelligence is what is need for AI to be created.Ianthe2nd (discuss • contribs) 19:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Just giving some feedback, you've balanced the section well. It might be useful to elaborate on how humans are neccessary for the creation of AI with an example. Reuben1508 (discuss • contribs) 21:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Newspapers facing decline

It could be argued that the fact that newspapers are facing a decline is a natural evolution since the creation of personal computers. In fact, one could say that newspapers as we know them are a result of the invention of the printing press and that the spreading of information via text has been around for centuries before. It should be noted that ‘news’ websites, such as Google News, are said to be better funded and more secure compared to traditional websites for news outlets, thus bringing up the subject of “…question of new business models for content creators…”

However, in the same section of his article, Lanier also says that blogging is not writing since writing takes time. This point could be agreed upon for the fact that information for blogs, vlogs, and any social media is readily available- this relates to the quote before from Lanier about how information exists in several places on the internet. Whereas ‘real’ writing requires some amount of research. On one hand, it could be argued that if blogs ran how most news is reported then the World would be chaotic. Lanier explains that affairs, at the time, are reaching this because of an “…artificial elevation of all things Meta…profound influence on how decisions are made in America”. An example of this would be how certain politicians now have their own official social media to ‘interact with the public better’ or how some are made into parts of pop-culture, for example memes. An example of the distinction between blogging and ‘real’ writing can be seen in the words of Jaron Lanier who states, “I’m saying and doing much less than I used to… I’m still being paid the same amount.”Ianthe2nd (discuss • contribs) 20:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

STRUCTURE FOR OUR CHAPTER
Hey guys, so during the meeting (6 of us turned up) we formed a structure which i have subsequently formatted onto the chapter page. I've left certain topics more open so that whoever is assigned to them can interpret the topic as they wish (i.e. potentially adding more sub headings). We decided on which topics and subtopics would be most suited to us during the meeting so i'll list who's hypothetically doing what section (as i realise not everyone was at the meeting and thus people may decide to write on something else) So, this is an undetailed layout, with who has been assigned to write the section (remembering that this is a wiki page and not an essay, so really any personal analysis is not needed). We decided to put the theorists section first, so we can establish key arguments and theories and draw on them later throughout the piece. In the demographics section, here we establish how certain demographics change user attitudes and how self-representation is different (this section is the dodgiest so far....not sure where to go with it)

• Introduction to Extension of self (as a whole) - Brice • Theorists - Pair up with whoever did your reading. Ian/Gail = Lanier. Chris/Carla = Papacharissi. Murray = McLuhan. D'Amico = Reuben. Brice = Athique Paulina/Sam if you could pick a theorist and give them a brief description of their works, opinions, published works etc. • History - A timeline pretty much, which flows from era to era describing self representation. i.e. greeks/masks/persona, Romans/statues, Theatre, Modern/TV/Internet - 21st century. Murray/Kelly • Forms of self representation • Social Media examples - Rueben/Ian • Future Technology examples - Sam • Blogs/Online Diaries - Clara • Gaming - Everyone add to this section (if you can), based off experience • Dating sites - Chris • Video based representation i.e. You Tube, Vimeo, Vlogs, etc. - Paulina • Demographics • Age - Gail/Paulina • Gender - Chris/Clara • Sexuality - Brice/Sam • Religion - Ian/Kelly • Theories - (Brief, how they relate back to our topic) • Online vs Real Life Divide - Reuben/Paulina • Privacy - Gail/Clara • Connectivity -Murray/Sam • Hive Mind - Ian/Kelly • Sensoring - Chris/Brice • Technological Determinism - Brice/Murray ? • Cultural Determinism - Gail/Paulina ? • The Future - undecided...(last thing we'll write)

Right, i release this is quite a lot and is going to seem gargantuan to some but this is the prospective structure. If anyone has any problems with writing on these topics or is completely unsure on where to start then please message on the discussion (below this). If anyone has a burning desire to write specifically on a different topic then please let the group know and then make an edit. I realise that a lot of you will have had a set structure to their section/essay-style response, but we need to keep it simplistic and wikibooks-esque (i.e. term>definition>example). Please let me know if this suits everyone, i've tried to make it so that no-one is doing any more work than anyone else and that everyone gets to write on a broad selection of topics. If anyone has any alternative to this structure, please let us know. Of course this is only a first draft and plenty of editing and changing of topics and arguments will take place but for now this is what we have to work with. I'm going to book another study room session from 3-6ish on Tuesday so we can all come together and finalise the chapter. I think that's all from me, for now. Stay in touch, and good luck. Bricedoesn&#39;tlikehighfives (discuss • contribs) 19:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Bricedoesn'tlikehighfives so for the theorists we're just stating what they think in terms of the reading, yeah? Ianthe2nd (discuss • contribs) 20:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ianthe2nd Yes, and giving a brief introductino to them as theorists, what they specialise in and then what their key ideas are. We will then use these theorists as examples throughout the piece. Bricedoesn&#39;tlikehighfives (discuss • contribs) 20:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm writing up a thing for cultural determinism just now and want to talk about Raymond Williams since he is the theorist connected to that. So does that mean I will need to add a Raymond Williams heading to the Theorists section? GailZWiki (discuss • contribs) 21:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC) I think it would be a good idea to add more theorists. It is always interesting and valuable to add more different ideas so I think you scan add him to the theorist section. Clarabiswiki (discuss • contribs) 11:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Clara, I will add Raymond Williams to the theorist category GailZWiki (discuss • contribs) 11:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC) For the part on Privacy that Gail and I have to do, we were thinking of writing about not only privacy online in itself but also the always-on culture that pushes us to always give information out and the surveillance on social media would that fit with the subject? Clarabiswiki (discuss • contribs) 11:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC) Also in the conclusion for privacy and surveillance we will link it back to the notion of technology as an extension of self Clarabiswiki (discuss • contribs) 12:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Add Jill Walker Rettberg to the theorists list? Myself and did the reading. She discusses seeing ourselves through technology, could link this with the history of self representation KGilbert (discuss • contribs) 12:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC) When talking about privacy I wanted to talk about how this is a relevant topic today as we are all concerned about privacy and the safety of our information online. I was thinking of writing about everything makes us more paranoid with an example of the TV show Black Mirror. There is an episode called The Entire History of You that relates to the issue of privacy. Do you think that could be interesting? Clarabiswiki (discuss • contribs) 14:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Clarabiswiki Hi, yeah, that would be a great example, and would bring the discussion of privacy right up to date with the use of a modern example. Go for it. Whatever example comes to mind, especially one that is as relevant as that Black Mirror episode. Bricedoesn&#39;tlikehighfives (discuss • contribs) 16:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Clarabiswiki: @Samwar97: @Pola 2607: @GailZWiki: @KGilbert: @MurrayHighFive: @ChrisintheHat: @Ianthe2nd: @Reuben1508: Since the Wikibook project is almost closed, done and dusted and I wanted to thank you all for your contribution and collaboration. I think that, despite the obstacles and time pressure, we produced something really valuable. I've learned a lot from all of you and the chapters you wrote gave me some fresh perspective on the subject that I wouldn't think of myself. Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 10:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Lanier
Jaron Lanier is a computer and technology theorist. His philosophy is critical of humanity’s relationship with computers, as he demonstrates the ways in which technology has negatively affected certain elements of human experience and interaction. Lanier believes that technology is an extension of ourselves, but puts forward a further debate that technology is turning humans into machines. In Lanier’s Missing persons, IN: You are not a gadget: a manifesto he warns that technology could become the self, rather than an extension of the self. Lanier proposes that there should be an effort among those with the power and money to change technology to enhance humanism over technology. He believes there is an opposition between technology and humankind, rather than a stable and healthy equilibrium. GailZWiki (discuss • contribs) 21:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

In Jaron Lanier’s article, Digital Maoism : The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism, he highlights how dangerous online collectivism can be. An example of this is how he talks about how you necessarily aren’t in control of what you are known for online as he talks about the fact on his Wikipedia page he is classed as a filmmaker, despite only having made one film in the past – “… I made one experimental short film about a decade and a half ago.” “I have attempted to retire from directing films in the alternate universe that is the Wikipedia.” This is a good example how people are usually known online on a first impression basis. It doesn’t matter what you have done since then, no matter how different it is from what you have gained a reputation for. That one action defines you. This is reflected in how Lanier explains how the collective is basically one being – “Reading a Wikipedia entry is like reading the bible closely. There are faint traces of the voices of various anonymous authors and editors, though it is impossible to be sure.” Following this point Lanier talks about how new online collectivism and the band wagon effect relate to each other, “…nothing less than a resurgence of the idea that the collective is all-wise, that it is desirable to have influence…” This idea relates especially to how humans are social creatures that aspire to be part of a group, to belong. He also points out how that context is everything and that notoriety of the website in question can change the intention of information provided, “If an ironic web site devoted to destroying cinema claimed that I was a filmmaker, it would suddenly make sense.” Ianthe2nd (discuss • contribs)

Papacharissi
Zizi Papacharissi is a communication scholar. She has a PHD in communication studies. Her works mainly focuses on the consequences of new media and technologies on society. She edited the collection of A Networked Self: Identity, Community and Culture on Social Networks Sites, which we studied for this module. In it, she wrote a chapter with Andrew L. Mendelson about the narcissism that comes with posting pictures on social media especially for college students and young adults. She focuses on observing the different ways people posts pictures, their social meaning but also focuses on the differences in photos posted by men and women. In her books, she prefers to write about the changes brought by the use of technologies in our society. She writes about the consequences of those technologies and social medias on our social and political engagement. Clarabiswiki (discuss • contribs) 11:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Privacy
The use of technology as an extension of ourselves increases sharing of private information. Always-on culture has led to a blurring of boundaries between public and private lives, as real lives are becoming increasingly connected to the online world at all times. This blurring of boundaries has created an online disinhibition, as being behind the screen means not being in proximity to other people, therefore physically locating us away from normal social cues and responsibilities. Users of technology have somewhat willingly traded in their privacy for the ability to share their lives and thoughts. However, at times technology encourages users to share more personal information than they want to or feel comfortable with, and users are unaware or become concerned about how this private information is used. GailZWiki (discuss • contribs) 11:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

There is also a political aspect of online visibility. In the era of global terrorism, terrorists often use social media as a tool for communication. Isis famously used Twitter to plan their assassinations. There is obviously a need to control social media platform by institutions that deal with crime to prevent it. However, this is often used as an abuse of privacy of common people that have nothing to do with terrorism or any kind of criminal activity. It is the same case with the drug dealers, human traffickers etc. There is ongoing debate about the level of control that should exercise by governments to prevent the crimes. However, it is important to remember that excessive level of this online invigilation may lead to complete lack of privacy of Internet users. This brings on mind not only McLuhan’s notion of ‘global village’ but the Orwell’s super – state where everyone is constantly closely monitored by infamous Big Brother. Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 11:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

'Privacy has been defined either as the right to be left alone or as the right to determine for oneself which areas of life should be accessible to others –or as a combination of the two (Tavani, 2008)'. The concept of privacy is one that keeps coming up nowadays in relations to social media and the use of the internet. We are becoming aware of the fact that we are constantly watched no matter what website we are on. It is not even about sharing too many information on social networks like Facebook or Instagram, it is more about how any information is available. Nowadays, in order to visit most websites, we need to give out information, like our names or email address, sometimes giving out our age and gender. Sometimes this is necessary and can help certain companies that have websites to draw information about the kind of person who visits their websites and who should be their target audiences. It has now become necessary to give out information in order to be a part of a website. It can feel like we are also more 'encouraged' to be paranoid about technologies and social medias. There were reports from the news with the NSA files and Snowden who had access to every information and from everyone. When confronted, the NSA relied on the fact that if people have nothing to hide they have nothing to fear. This is a theme we can also see in pop culture with the rise of many TV shows addressing this privacy issue like Mr Robot and Black Mirror. In an episode of Black Mirror called Shut up and Dance, a young man is filmed doing something embarrassing in front of his webcam and is blackmailed into doing dangerous acts in order to stop people from leaking the video online. Many reviews have called this episode realistic has it was inspired by real life events of people who were blackmailed and threatened to have personal and potentially embarrassing information leaked. We are encouraged to share more and more information about ourselves sometimes even simply to build an identity online. It relates to the notion that we use the online as an extension of ourselves sometimes without caring about potential dangers. The more information is available online, the more we are at risk of being watched even if it's sometimes by organisations claiming to protect us.

Clarabiswiki (discuss • contribs) 18:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Just a little feedback as you asked for it. Your post is very valuable and touches the most important issues related to privacy in digital and social media. I appreciate your argument about accessibility of our digital footprints for everyone who is skillful enough to find them. Example of Snowden and Black Mirror perfectly illustrates this problem. Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 10:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback it is always appreciated as I am always afraid of going off topic. Clarabiswiki (discuss • contribs) 11:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

That's a pleasure Clara! I don't think you went off topic at all and your edit is very valuable. As I said I did quite a lot of research on privacy so I added a little paragraph to it. Hopefully you don't mind. I just didn't want it to go to waste and I hope it adds to the discussion. Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 11:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

How to add a picture to wiki
Picture tutorial

I have found this tutorial that some of you might find helpful. I am still trying to work it out, if anyone is successful please let me know. KGilbert (discuss • contribs) 14:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for sharing this because I was struggling too. I think I've somehow got it working but not sure if the image is going to stay up for long because of copyright but at least managed to upload it correctly! I did it by doing through Wikimedia and uploading the image there then it gives you text to copy and paste into wherever you want the image on our Wikibook page. Hope that makes sense?

Samwar97 (discuss • contribs) 15:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sam, take a look at this site for uncopywrited images, the search engine finds creative commons images that you can use. http://snappygoat.com/ Best regards Reuben1508 (discuss • contribs) 15:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, that's great thanks! That's solved the problem with uploading the image, so there should hopefully be an image alongside the VR entry now on the Wikibooks if it's worked Samwar97 (discuss • contribs) 16:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Kelly, very helpful! Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 00:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Tahnk you so much for sharing this website. It solved all the issues with uploading images and saved me stress and frustration. Also, the case of posting images without copyright is quite relevant in relation to privacy chapter. On one hand, it's good that ownership of images is protected, on the other - aren't all the images posted on Facebook or Instagram free to use by anyone as the ownership becomes meaningless after uploading them on these platforms? I think Wikibooks has a good point in not allowing images protected by copyright being posted. It makes Wikibooks more reliable resource of information. Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 10:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, good to hear that the serach engine is working. However I'd have to disagree on your point that preventing the uploading of copywrited images makes Wikipedia more reliable. Surely the uploading of officially released images for things such as Smartwatches would make it more accurate, as it gives a real-world example of a product you can go out and buy. Reuben1508 (discuss • contribs) 11:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

You've got a good point, however making clear that ownership of anything that we post on Inetnet is important sets up a good example for Wikibooks users. Respecting the ownership and authorship is quite a delicate matter in digital era. Individualism even in collaborative projects should be valued in my opinion. Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 14:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree, it's important to set a respecful president for others users.Reuben1508 (discuss • contribs) 16:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Jill Walker Rettberg
Jill Walker Rettberg is a professor of culture at the University of Bergen in Norway. She published, Seeing Ourselves Through Technology, a book that explores self-representation through the use of technology. She studies the way we represent ourselves, looking at three modes of self representation (written, visual and quantitative), studying how various ways of self representation work along side digital technology. She discusses the 'pre-digital' history of each mode, how current methods of self-representation have evolved.

KGilbert (discuss • contribs) 15:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

In Rettberg's paper "Seeing Ourselves Through Technology", she discusses the use of selfies, and how the takers of these selfies have complete control over the finished image. She compares the modern day selfie to Suzanne Szuc's gallery of images which is comprised of 5475 photos, a photo each day for 15 years. These images followed Szuc through all aspects of her life, ranging from emotional turmoil, to light hearted images such as ones with her tongue sticking out. Rettberg comments on the similarities betwen Szuc's project, and modern-day photo sharing platforms such as Instagram. Reuben1508 (discuss • contribs) 00:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Sherry Turkle
Sherry Turkle is a professor of social psychology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She is also a founder and the director of the MIT Initiative on Technology and Self. Sherry Turkle received joint doctorate from Harvard University in sociology and personality psychology. Professor Turtle explores relationship people have with technology and analyses how it affects human behaviour. She studies how human connection and communication is redefined by electronic devices and social networking. Since publishing her book The Second Self: Computers and The Human Spirit in 1984 Sherry Turkle has been exploring how technology changes our lives and how it affects out identity In her work Alone Together (2011) and Life on the Screen, The Second Self (2005) she sets the questions about human isolation and connectivity in a technology dominated world. She also explores the notion of ‘tethered self’ - the new human identity that has been build by close connection with technology. In academic environment professor Turkle is known as "the Margaret Mead of digital culture” and in her studies mainly focuses on the technologies that she calls “the architects of our intimacy” such as social media, chatbots and sociable robots and digital workplace. She suggests that there is still time for humanity to analyse and rebuild our approach to digital technology as it is still relatively new. Sherry Turkle’s work allows the readers to look at people’s relationship with technology from the new, fresh perspective. Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 23:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

D'Amico
Erika D’Amico is a researcher at the University of Urbino, Italy. She specialises in the study of images within social media, looking particularly at the socio-economic structures of social media platforms. D’Amico wrote “The Elements of Libidinal Economy in Instagram: A New Ontological Status of Photography”. In this paper she explores the connotations of certain styles of photography, looking at aesthetic, relationships within images, and the impact of uploading certain types of images to online platforms. Instagram is the key focus of the paper, with D’Amico exploring the relationship between the creator and uploader of images, and the audiences that then view them.

She believes that Instagram and other photo sharing platforms are anchored by a three-step process. The first step is to let others “recognize the experience you are living through images”, meaning that it is your duty to create the most accurate portrayal of the experience as you can. The second step is to “use a hashtag as a sort of call to action and (to) get more visibility”. She argues that the use of hashtags allows for images which would normally be swept under the digital rug, along with thousands of others, to be recognised for their merit. The third step involves “matching my shot to some specific filters”. She states that in order to get the best audience for the image the uploader needs to upload it with appropriate tags and filters. Reuben1508 (discuss • contribs) 15:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

McLuhan
Herbert Marshal McLuhan was a Canadian philosopher and intellectual who wrote extensively on the topic of media technology. He was active in mostly in the 1960s and 70s so his work is entirely pre-internet as he passed away in 1980. Despite this, the views and ideas McLuhan put forward are relevant to discussions on digital media today. McLuhan wrote several books on the subject of media relating heavily to the way in which media works with technology as well as technological determinism. In his 1964 book Understanding Media: the extensions of man, McLuhan talks about various technologies and how they relate to both extending ourselves and society as a whole. McLuhan believed that technology has a direct role in defining and shaping the societal group of any time which is the main concept behind technological determinism. MurrayHighFive (discuss • contribs) 18:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Online vs Real Life Divide
There are many factors that create the online versus real life divide. The first of which is the lack of personal connection to most of the people we encounter online. For example, I have no personal connection to the majority of people who I play games with online. They are my teammates for a short period of time and then the relationship ends. In comparison, the encounters we have in the real world often lead to developed relationships, typically leading to friendship, romance, or conflict. This lack of emotional investment in those we encounter online makes it easier to become frustrated with them, with people often using harsh language that they would not normally use in the real world.

The online world provides a level of anonymity not available in the real world, giving users the ability to post whatever they please without any repercussions. Sites such as 4chan and 7chan give users complete privacy and anonymity, leading to some truly horrific posts on these sites. Those on these sites (and others such as YouTube and Tumblr) are far more likely to be hostile towards others due to the lack of repercussions they would face for it. This often brings out the worst in people, allowing them to project their darkest thoughts onto the internet without any backlash. For example, in the real world, if you threatened to physically assault somebody, you would be arrested. Whereas if this same even occurred online, which is does on a daily basis, nothing could be done about it as there would be very little information about the user who made the threats. Reuben1508 (discuss • contribs) 15:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

It is undoubtedly true that a big part of our lives is lived in virtual places. As we became real life cyborgs, sleeping with our phones, constantly online: texting, messaging each other, making Skype and Face Time conversations, playing online games with people around the world. It is hard sometimes not to get the border between online and real life blurred. On - line we can be enhanced versions of ourselves, we can re - create ourselves in the way we want to. Some people describe life on Facebook as better than anything than they every experienced. Moreover, online we can deal with everyday activities: communicating, shopping, ordering food ( we cannot YET eat online but who knows what is going to happen in a decade…), paying bills, listening to the music, watching films, searching for information etc. There are also social, educational and work pressures to stay online. The clear line between virtual and real disappeared and all we, as society, can do is to use the online sphere to enhance the offline world. It is important not to let the real be completely dominated by virtual on collective and individual level.

Being online in the digital era gives us opportunity not only for multitasking but as Sherry Turkle put it for 'multi - lifing'. Sending and receiving text messages allows us to simultaneously continue another activity. We can can be on Facebook, deeply in digital world, while ordering a coffee. Ability to multitask is a requirement for being successful.

It is impossible to completely replace the value of real face - to - face communication with digital. The ability to physically spend time with someone, being able to hear the tone of the real voice of our companion (not digitally mutated like in FaceTime conversation), to read the body language or being able to touch each other is simply irreplaceable. There is this nuance and gesture that is missed from digital interactions, even if we connect through video displayed in 4K. The problem appears when even on a romantic date or important family meeting we are not really together but tethered to our phones, being with someone else, in different digital world. Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 23:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Cultural Determinism
Cultural determinism is a cultural theory that evaluates how society and history affects what technologies are created and what they are used for. Defining cultural determinism first requires a definition of culture. Culture can be described as the products and patterns of human thought that are shared within a society. Raymond Williams’ theories on cultural determinism were critical of the previous writings of Marshall McLuhan’s thoughts on technological determinism. Cultural determinism somewhat rejected the ideas of technological determinism that technology affects or creates major changes or shifts in society. Instead, technology can be seen to be developed as a reaction to society’s needs, and so technology was just an adaption to patterns that already exist within society. Williams described that “all technologies have been developed and improved to help with known human practices or with foreseen and desired practices”, therefore technology follows society rather than society evolving due to technological changes. When considering cultural determinism theories through technology as an extension of self, it is arguable that humans are naturally social and use technology for an already present desire to share and communicate

GailZWiki (discuss • contribs) 15:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Cultural Determinism Theory states that the culture shapes ‘our behavioural and emotional patterns’. By applying this to the media effects on society, Raymond Williams claimed that social processes and structures influence developments in technology. Williams, in contrast to McLuhan, aimed to prove that technology cannot guarantee any social or cultural change. Media studies tend to favour Williams’ theory and ignore the similarities in McLuhan’s and Williams’ writings. The concept of ‘extension of man’ is important for Williams when he writes: ‘A technology, when it has been achieved, can be seen as general human property, extension of human capacity’. However, he is more interested than McLuhan in exploring the question about reasons for development of technology. For Williams the technologies were invented to help the society and they ‘involve precisely’. His argument is sociological and the technological development is dependent on specific social groups. Different social groups with different needs and agendas adapt, shape or reject the uses of technologies. Moreover, Williams claims that the final effect and impact and social effects of technologies is sometimes impossible to foreseen. His full concept of technology takes into consideration the knowledge and skills needed to use particular tool or machine.

Therefore, Cultural Determinism Theory also considers technology as ‘an extension of man’. However, it is the man who decides what technology needs to be developed in order to be useful for society. This can be political and economically problematic considering that average user of technology devices, without power and skills to decide on technological innovations is being manipulated by more influential groups. For instance, social mentality is affected by images transmitted mass media which are heavily influenced by political and economic dominant ideologies.

The other influential thinkers whose work relates to Cultural Determinism are: Goethe, Fichte, August, Schlegel, Patrick Buchanan and Robert Barro.Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 23:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

hey, I noticed you have talked a bit about cultural and technological determinism within your chapter so I have put a link in my wiki page where I talk briefly about it so that people can be relocated to the more in depth description that you have given. Hope that's okay SuzanneClark22 (discuss • contribs) 10:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

That's a great idea Suzanne. We didn't expand the topic very broadly as there was a danger that we would go off our main subject. But I've got a hope that the work we put into Wikibooks project will be beneficial for other users so it's great that you came up with this link. Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 10:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I feel like the way in which you have described these theories is beneficial to anyone who reads them and are kept in a compact form which is good for easy access. SuzanneClark22 (discuss • contribs) 11:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

History
I know we have discussed doing a timeline of self representation through history. How do you think we should do this? I was thinking of writing about pre-digetal history, in reference to Rettbergs 3 modes of self-representation (visual, written and quantitive):

Pre-Digital History

Visual - Paintings (self portraits) - Masks (Greek theatre)

Written -Memoires -diaries -poetry

Quantitive -to-do-list - habit tracking

Not sure what you have planned, please let me know.

KGilbert (discuss • contribs) 17:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

With my research i was just going to look at certain technologies specifically and relate them to extensions that will develop leading into the digital sections further on. The sections i was going to write about were:


 * Content
 * Transport
 * Film
 * Communication
 * Electricity

I feel like sorting both our sections into a cohesive timeline would be difficult as they draw from multiple times and are slightly different in subject. I think writing divided is the way to go and if we can format them differently then we can sort that at the meeting tomorrow. What do you think? MurrayHighFive (discuss • contribs) 17:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I agree. Writing divided is the way to go. We can discuss more at the meeting tomorrow. Thanks

KGilbert (discuss • contribs) 17:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

 Pre-Digital History 

Self-representation is how we see each other, and ourselves. It allows us to make sense of the world we live in. How we use technology, as a form of self-representation, as an extension of self, is a concept not foreign but a universal practice that dates back thousands of years. Jill Walker Rettberg discusses the ‘pre-digital’ history in her paper, “Seeing Ourselves Through Technology”. She argues that past methods have evolved into the current digital methods of self-representation.

Visual Self-Representation

Prehistoric cave paintings, discovered all over the world have given us a glimpse into the lives of early humans, showing us how they saw the world they lived in- depicting great animals like bison, lions and horses. Humans are rarely seen in the paintings, represented mainly as hands that have been stencilled. The meaning behind cave paintings is debated but it is argued that they could have played a role in religious ceremonies. Religion can be viewed as an extension of self; your beliefs and practices influence your actions, how you dress and speak and ultimately how people see you. You could view Facebook profiles like a cave wall, ‘painted’ for religious purposes. Everyone decorates their Facebook wall with their interests and their beliefs. Their practices and aims influence what goes of their wall, to gain ‘likes’ or to connect with individuals who have similar beliefs and interests.

Figurines and statues are key examples of self-representation from a pre-digital time. If you look at the discovery of Venus of Hohle Fels, a figurine of a woman that dates back over 35,000 years ago, you can see how body image is portrayed. Researchers, Alan F. Dixson and Barnaby J. Dixson discuss ‘Venus figurines’ in great detail in their article, "Venus Figurines of European Paleolithic: Symbols of Fertility and Attractiveness?" The article states that the figurines could reflect the individual styles and preferences of those who made them. However, ‘it is challenged that they may have been crafted by women, who were making images of their own bodies.’ This idea of self-representation can be seen today, through the use of filters and other camera techniques- women and/or men can create images that reflect their own styles and preferences or create something that they believe depicts their own bodies.

Masks used in ancient Greek theatre displayed characteristics and exaggerated emotions in order to create a reaction in an audience. They also allowed an actor to take on many different roles without being recognised. These ancient masks could be compared to the modern day selfie because it shows only what the subject wants its audience to see (a certain characteristic or emotion).

Self-portraits are another example of self-representation that can be linked to selfies and visual social media platforms, like instagram. Frida Kahol (1907-1954) was a Mexican painter known for her self-portraits. Her painting, The Two Fridas (1939) shows two versions of herself, sitting side by side. Both versions have their hearts exposed; one dressed in white appears to have cut her heart open with scissors, blood spilling onto her dress. The other version is dressed in warm colours and her heart appears strong, a rich red. The Two Fridas is an extension of self, how Frida saw herself- it is said that the painting depicts the unloved and loved Frida. In comparison to how individuals represent themselves online, it could be argued that they are doing just the same thing as Frida: pictures on instagram accounts depict the reality that individuals want people to see. The same can be said for profile pictures (they represent the reality of the individual). Written Self-Representation

Before twitter, blogs and facebook came about people expressed themselves through other means: diaries, poetry and memoires. These methods, stated by Rettberg are the ancestors of the modern day posts on social media platforms and blogs. Diaries have many purposes; they can be personal, not intended for the public eye, or they can be used for personal development- used to record daily activities for reflection.

KGilbert (discuss • contribs) 17:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hive Mind
Hive Mind

Some would be inclined to say that the concept of a hive mind has been around for many years, but this concept becomes particularly dangerous when applied to technology today, fandoms and the internet. The power of the hive mind can be seen clearly in Jaron Lanier’s article Digital Maoism : The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism. In this Lanier talks about how it says on his Wikipedia page that he is a film director, which has some degree of truth to it. Lanier goes on to state how he tried to get this removed, “I have attempted to retire from directing films in the alternate universe that is the Wikipedia.” However, he also states that he is usually overruled on this by the next day. Therefore, this shows how powerful the collective can be when compared to the power that the individual has.

In the following section Lanier displays how the collective can be stupid despite the number of individual minds attached to it as he speaks about the thought that many people have of misplacing trust in the fact that ‘someone will correct this’ and that all this information is readily available to anyone and everyone, “…it takes work to find the right authors to research and review a multitude of diverse topics.”

In the same article Lanier also points out how every collective starts with the best intentions, an example of this would be how in the early days of this information age search engines like Yahoo were started as a simple directory, but then the race to see who could become the most Meta site began with the introduction of Google and its superior service. In early days, these companies only had to have one person in charge of it all, whereas now you have multiple different people doing essentially the same job, like community managers, social media managers, etc. and you have different algorithms in charge of sites like Reddit and such instead as the hive mind is too much for one person to handle.

One could say that these collectives are now helping their own and other businesses thrive as algorithms can cater to the individuals within the hive mind by gathering data on the collective to sell, advertise, etc. directly to the individual. This in turn contributes to the belief that the most Meta site has infinite funding. We are already seeing the beginning of this in terms of social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, etc. This then proves the contrary that “the collective isn’t always stupid.” As Lanier points out, “The reason the collective can be valuable is precisely that its peaks of intelligence and stupidity are not the same as the ones usually displayed by individuals.” Here he connects the idea that there is strength in numbers with the fact that message boards and such help connect those with the ideas and those that will execute those ideas. Showing the connection between independent projects and the mainstream, using Pewdiepie as an example; he started as an independent element on the internet and soon became mainstream when his channel was incorporated by Maker studios- a company owned by Disney.

Lanier points out, however, how controversy can occur when power of the many is given to the one, “…when one is both given substantial power and insulated from the results of his or her actions.”Ianthe2nd (discuss • contribs) 16:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

In relation to extension of self, the hive mind can be linked closely with social media platforms like instagram. Instagram is not just a platform for uploading pictures; you share the images with an audience, you follow other accounts and gain followers yourself. You are exposing your thoughts and ideas and you are open to the thoughts and ideas of others. Tags are used to connect with a particular audience and could alone represent an extension of self because they represent the meaning behind an image. KGilbert (discuss • contribs) 15:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

IDENTITY AND IDENTIFICATION
The enormous popularity of video games and influence they have on player’s offline life suggests that they should be seen as more than just escapism and ways to kill the time. According McGonigal (2010) people all over the world spend three billion hours a week playing. Therefore, an average player sacrifices 13 hours a week on video games entering another worlds and taking different roles. The cyberspace provides the safe environment for experimenting and exploring player’s identity. Hence, video games can be seen as important tools for identity formation as they help the gamer to re - conceptualise it. It is useful to explore the notion of ‘cyborg’ in order to understand the process of constructing the identity in video games and identification with character player uses to perform that identity. Cyborg is the person who’s ability became increased by replacing body parts with mechanical parts. In the technology dominated world it is safe to say that we all became cyborgs with our omnipresent company of wireless technological devices that we carry everywhere. The line between human and machine is blurry. In video games, player literally become the machine, an avatar. Considering the ability to interact with people from around the world, the opportunities for experimenting with identities are endless. The player is able to take male or female perspective, can transform into someone much older or much younger, much more or less visually attractive, stronger, braver, more confident than he is offline. Interestingly, ‘by playing avatar we end up being ourselves in most revealing ways’ (Turkle, 2011).

While building our avatar in Sims Online or Second Life we are able to choose desired physical features but also to create different personality. Being shy and socially awkward in real life, we can become a confident party animal and try this new notion of self in different situations. By doing this it is possible that we transfer these characteristics into our off - line life. Creating ‘the new self’ in the game can also help the player to deal with fears, insecurities, anxieties and traumas. For example transgender person will be more confident about coming out after using desired gender in the game. According to Sherry Turkle there are two ways of using online life to deal with real life problems. We can ‘act out’ which means that we take conflicts from physical real and expressing them again and again in virtual (Turkle, 2011 p. 214). However we can choose more productive solution and ‘work through’ and therefore use the online sphere to confront the conflicts from real world in order to find new solutions.

It is also important to mention Murphy’s theory (2004, p.233) that states that identification with characters in video games is reinforced by ‘cinematic - like state’. Therefore, even in case of fighting game that lack the complex narrative such as Mortal Kombat player identify with the avatar due to the control over it.

In her essay ‘Cyberspace and Identity” Sherry Turkle writes about the notion of multiple identities and analyses how they have been increased by cyberspace communication. Quoting Sherry Turkle: “if traditionally, identity implied oneness, life on today's computer screen implies multiplicity and heterogeneity”Video games can be seen as important tools for identity formation as they help the gamer to re - conceptualise it. Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 23:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

AGE
Digital technology is inevitable component of our everyday life. There is a pressure to use electronic devices is present almost every age group (maybe excluding babies and very small children). People in every age use digital media for communication, interaction, self - expression. Quoting Shrery Turkle ‘we are cyborgs’, older and younger - we are all tethered to out beloved electronic devices. The technologies are our extensions. Being online is often work requirement for adults. However, they often admit that the devotion for communication devices goes beyond employer’s expectations. Children and teenagers need to use Internet for schools and universities but obviously, they use for entertainment and communication with peers as well. Every age group experiment with the identity by creating multiple identities online. Overall, nobody can escape the demands of always on culture.

However, the approach to technology varies according to age.

Young people have grown up in the world already dominated by technology, on the network in a fully tethered life. They do not necessarily consider the online life to be the second best. They treated equally with the real life. The mixture of virtual and and real world is what they know since they remember and they take it for granted. Also, young people live in the constant state of waiting for connection. Every text message is the beginning of the connection not interruption, even if it is sent during important meeting in real life.

What lacks in the life of the young people in digital era is the time for self - reflection, the time to be truly alone with own thoughts that is so important for shaping identity in adolescence. Sherry Turkle uses Erik Erikson’s concept of ‘moratorium’ defined as realativelly consequence - free space for experimentation, the time out. It applies to adolescent need for autonomy, spent away from peers and adults. Today’s teenagers lack the ability to reflect on their emotions in private. Without connections they do not feel like themselves. This can be seen as positive cultivation of ‘collaborating self’, learning to be a part of collective intelligence. However, the alone time is crucial to find the sense of the ‘real self’. Without it it is extremely difficult to build ‘real’ relationships and function maturity in the the world. The abilities that online life offers for experimentation with identity is important and highly beneficial. It provides practice at being different kind person, checking how various identities work in various situations. However it is important to remember that it is not enough to create a fully mature human being. Young people have often problems with dealing with anxieties of separation and loneliness. Behaviour of a teenager who phones home fifteen times a day would be considered as pathological a decade ago, whereas it is completely acceptable today. Young people send constantly send text messages and vast part of them is sent to parents.

In contrast, adult often overwhelmed when discover the power of social media and text messages. They often feel behind and need to rely on the help of their children in order to gain knowledge about using electronic devices. People who grew up in time free from always - on - ness sometimes feel lost in the digital world. However, as soon as they learn how to efficiently use new technologies they share with younger generation similar needs for communication, sharing etc. They often get equally drawn into online world as youngsters. They also not rarely forget about real communication with their own children who need to compete for their attention with technology.

As Danah Boyd (2001, p.71) pointed out, the devotion for technology and always - on - ness ‘is defined more by values and lifestyle than by generation’. There are young people want to break free from the online world and are exhausted by the pressure of constant connection, whereas some adult are fully passionate about digital technologies. However, young people are considered to be more willing to explore digital world. Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 23:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Paulina, I know we are collaborating on 'age' but it seems you have done a lot of good work on it already. So I thought maybe I could just add something brief about how younger generations use different types of social media for interacting with different groups of people. For example, Facebook might be used more for interacting with family while Snapchat is mainly used for friends. Let me know what you think and if I should add it to the end of your text or if you want me to put it in the middle somewhere. GailZWiki (discuss • contribs) 12:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Gail! I'm, so sorry it took me so long to reply. Yes that's a great idea! Go for it. I think what counts it's to approaching the subject from different perspectives with different approaches. Age is a complex issue to debate in relation to digital media. So your idea is great and make our chapter more interesting and valuable. Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 10:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Different types of social media and modes of connection may have different uses, especially for younger generations depending upon who they connect to on that particular platform. For example, Facebook is a platform where people may be connected to family members and colleagues, and so a certain, perhaps more censored or conservative aspect of self is represented. In comparison, a platform like Snapchat may be used with less caution as a more casual form of self-representation due to older generations often not using this platform as it is targeted towards younger generations and is quite a new form of social media.GailZWiki (discuss • contribs) 11:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

YOUTUBE
Youtube is created in 2005 website made for sharing videos free of charge. It became to be one of the most populates websites on the Internet with 100 hours of video uploaded every minute. Along with increasing popularity of YouTube, more users decided for vlogging, video blogging. They decided to mediate their everyday life by filming themselves and therefore, create stories, genres and narratives. The platform that allows its users develop, experiment and explore their identities as well as interact with each other and share opinion, views and experience. It is also a powerful tool for challenging social norms through displaying these various identities publicly. Although it more difficult to remain anonymous on YouTube due to the fact that its users display their image and share their voice, they can still re - create their identity and become someone different than they are in the real world.

It is important to mention that the aesthetics of user - created content is especially focused on experimentation with the video form. Therefore, it allows the vloggers to break the rules, go against the stereotypes and encourage others to do the same.

Vloggs can be seen as the digital form of autobiography or diary that allows the users to express and present themselves but also construct the ‘new self’ on the camera. Every video blog contains the traits of self - disclosure even if its content is mainly focused on particular theme, specialisation or interests. For instance, make - up tutorial videos authors very often reveal information about their private life and actively engage with the dialogue with their fans by using audio - video components as well as written text. Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 00:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

VIMEO
Vimeo is created in 2004 video sharing platform that differs from YouTube mainly by its focus on art in the shared videos. It is considered as a website designed for more professional filmmakers and artists and its emphasises the quality of its content. It was also the first platform of its kind that supported HD videos. The YouTube community is much larger (800 million visitors per month), compared to less consistent Vimeo user base (70 million visitors per month).Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 00:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC) This emphasis on quality allows serious film-makers to be taken seriously on the platform, something not often seen on YouTube due to the amount of low-quality videos uploaded. Vimeo allows those who are passionate about video creation to extend their passion to an online environment which is far more revealing of high quality content than other sites. Reuben1508 (discuss • contribs) 01:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Reuben thank you for your adding these additional information as I got quite stuck in writing about Vimeo! And you made some really good points. Thank you for collaboration.

FALSE SENSE OF REPRESENTATION/EDITED REPRESENTATIONS
Videos posted on various platforms like YouTube, Vimeo or Social Media can be considered as extensions of human eyes as they allow us to see ourselves, each other and our surroundings. They also play important role creation of our identity and enable self - expression. Video platforms work like the mirror that can distorted our image depending on the version of ourselves that we want to see. Through video we are able to create ourselves and reality.

It is important to mention that every mediated image or video is not the exact, objective version of reality. It is the representation that depends on the perspective of person who creates this image. In case of videos we are able to distorted the reality by the certain camera angles, editing techniques but also by recreating subject that we film. Hence, by posting a vlogg we can choose what clothes we wear, the hair style, we can change the way we speak and appropriately control our body language. What we do not show is also important. We can omit certain aspect of our physical and mental characteristics. We have this control through lack of bodily presence these videos. We are representing ourselves. Our choices depend on effects we want to make on our target audience. Therefore, we use the impression management by working on the backstage to achieve desirable effect on the front stage.

According to interactionist tradition, our self exists in relations to others. It is useful to bring into the discussion Goffman’s notion of public theatre, thus the way we adapt different social roles to suit different social context. Depending on who we want to watch the video we post, we put the different ‘masks’ on.

This performance we display in the videos can lead to collapsing of the distinction between personal and social identity. It is, therefore, important to cultivate the balance between private ‘I’ and social ‘ME’. There is the danger of ‘ME’ taking control over ‘I’. In this case our real sense of self can be transformed and lead to serious identity crisis.

It is also important to use our ‘digital eyes’ with the certain distance and awareness that everything we watch is representation. It is a story told from someone’s perspective and in certain context. Thus, we should be critical and (self) - reflecting in order to be able to perceive reality. Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 00:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Another aspect of vlogging is increasing popularity of 'YouTube stars'. YouTube allows common people who have passion, desire and charisma to transform their channel into commodity: product that allows them to make profit. Despite the benefits of it, there is also a danger that the identity of vloggers will be affected by this notion of popularity and their 'true self', the 'I' will be lost in the process. Pola 2607 (discuss • contribs) 15:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Raymond Williams
Raymond Williams was a theorist and critic who focused his interests and writings on culture, and paved the way for the beginning of cultural studies. His book ‘Television, Technology and Cultural Form’ (1974) focused on the power relations between humans and technology. Williams discussed cultural determinism as a theory to counter technological determinism. He therefore proposed that humans had power over technology because technology was created, used and adapted according to pre-existing human desires in social groups. He further argued that different groups may use the same technology for different things, depending on their different needs and intentions. GailZWiki (discuss • contribs) 17:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Censoring
Although the internet is a much more free environment to express opinions that is often found in real life, it is still censored in certain ways. Particular sites such as YouTube, Twitch and Facebook will remove content that is flagged as innapropriate or illegal. This content can range from sexual images and videos, to offensive language, to other innapropriate content. Some internet sites do not censor whatsoever, including the 4chan network, which allows for completely anonymous posting of images, links and content. This therefore allows for a much free-er platform to express ideas and thoughts, and often allows for things that would be deemed innapropriate in real life, to be shared through the internet.Reuben1508 (discuss • contribs) 17:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

On sites such as Twitch, Facebook and Youtube there are multiple ways of censoring users. Users can be banned on Twitch for offensive content, and this prevents them from streaming and communicating with their audience. Twitch is generally quite relaxed with regards to content, allowing the majority of swear words and offensive content. In comparison Facebook is far less lenient, banning users who post violent and or sexual content. This is especially the case in countries where the government has more control over social media. Youtube is more lenient than Facebook, it still censors explicit sexual content, however it does allow some representations of violence and bad language. Reuben1508 (discuss • contribs) 18:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Connectivity
Modern technology such as the internet and mobile phones have revolutionised the ways in which people are able to connect with one another. Connectivity is now instant and constant due to people often using more than one social media account and being connected to many people all at once, at any time. This technology has helped us to connect with one another more quickly and more often. However, it is debated that this constant online connectivity and the always-on culture as Danah Boyd discusses, has led to distractions from real world connections, and we must make an effort to balance online and offline connectivity by taking time away from online connection once in a while. [48] Similarly, Lanier describes that "this widespread practice of fragmentary, impersonal communication has demeaned interpersonal interaction", but believes that connectivity is a positive force as long as we use it in creative and personal ways to create real human connection [49] The widespread use and popularity of the internet as a means of connectivity shows how important human connection is to us. Groups with similar interests or things in common can now interact with one another no matter what their location. Connection with one another has allowed users to express their identities to others and to validate their identities to themselves. The online world of connection has become a community in it's own right, where people can interact with one another regardless of who they are and where they are in the world. GailZWiki (discuss • contribs) 19:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The Future (Conclusion)
It is difficult to tell exactly where technology will take mankind in the future. When looking at the past, academic figures such as McLuhan were successful in predicting certain technologies as his writings on future mediums appears to have predicted the internet around thirty years before it was invented. Whatever the next medium may be, past predictions seem to suggest technology will continue to extend more and more of our senses. Advances such as VR (virtual reality) are now aiming to immerse players within other worlds, far more than the world of film could before that and in turn print media before that. Immersion in stories and games have been achieved then its possible the next step would be to immerse ourselves in worlds of communication. The internet allowed for instantaneous communication across the globe and continues to change the way in which we interact with others, combining this communication with high levels of immersion would extend ourselves further than previously possible. If communication shifted from manual and mechanical means to electrical with email and instant messengers, then perhaps the next medium of extending communication is imminent. MurrayHighFive (discuss • contribs) 12:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)