Wherever the Wind Takes Us

Unfortunately, this is only going to be a tiny sneak peek for the final project. The current plan is exploring the distinction between digital-dualism and augmented reality. As I’ve most likely mentioned before, the concept of augmented reality is introduced as “just a legend” in this is ongoing story that I’m working on for the project. Below is the conversation in which this “legend” is brought up (you can simply follow the replies).

That curiosity ignites an interest for this character and he begins to do research on it. Obviously, that would be the annotation aspect (via http://hypothes.is). Simply put, he would be “reading and annotating” certain information from the articles and then send these findings by “letter-in-a-bottle” method to me. They will be presented in “captain’s journal” format (ex. Captain’s Journal, Day 2). I’ll be writing a response to each of these “letters” as a way to show his  mentorship. The following conversation showcases that aspect of the story.

As indicated, this character will also travel to certain locations where he will encounter other marine creatures. These are the metaphorical representations of social media users that I had mentioned in a previous post. He’ll be observing and analyzing their behavior through the lens of digital-dualism. Due the time constraints, I might not be able to use all the creatures/representations that I had listed. I hope to use at least three. So, after exploring three specific locations (islands?) and conducting segmented research (two article at a time), he will have sent me a total of 6 bottles, which I assume would be sufficient to explore the topic at hand within the boundaries of the project (and the time constraint). The ending will reveal whether “the legend” of augmented reality is real or not. Honestly, for the time being, I do not possess an answer. I do, however, believe that as I continue on this project, I’ll discover it  for myself.

So… Is this the final Field Guide post? I’m not quite sure, really. In case that it is, this has been a true journey to the heart, and thank you all. If not, perhaps we will meet again by one of the whirlpools of “the digital sea”. Till then…

A Reflection in “the Eye of the Tiger”

Well, here we are. This is going to be my final main (Weeklies) blog post for the class. I’ll probably be posting one last Field Guide after this, as a wrap up for the final project, but for the time being… would it be appropriate to act (overly) dramatic? I think I’m getting choked up right now. Ok, maybe not —but you can’t see it, so why not pretend for bonus points? I suppose that this particular post would be reserved for one final reflection on the class as a whole but honestly I really do not know what to write about. Not because there isn’t anything worthy to write about but rather there is just so much that I do not know where to even begin. It’s ironic to think that I didn’t get a chance to write a final blog post in our E-Lit class last semester, and that made it feel somewhat incomplete. Yet, here I am, given that chance, and I’m simply stumped.

For the past couple of weeks, I was simply reflecting on my progress on the final project. Although it’s moving a lot slower than I had anticipated, it was still refreshing to see those tiny little steps toward something interesting (fingers crossed). I guess, since the idea here is reflection, writing about the Research Day visit would probably be a good idea. It could also help me collect some of my thoughts “scattered on the floor”. I’m still trying to put the pieces in my head as a way to describe what the presentation was and what I managed to learn from it, but I could say with confidence that it was truly inspiring. Prior to the visit, I was able to look through the website and get some ideas as to what to expect from the presentation a little. Degenerates’ Gallery —a title that I absolutely love— was the final thesis project by our very own Kelli Hayes. Before I go any further, I guess it’d appropriate to congratulate her on getting to “the finish line”. I can’t imagine the hardship and pressure (and perhaps privation?) that this project probably had caused. Well, I sort of can but I don’t believe it’d be accurate at all. I’d felt the weight of many final projects before, but to think of a thesis… Just, wow.

Anyways, getting back to the project itself… Simply put (without doing it justice), it was about the complexities of self-representation in our new “digitized society, one that is always ‘plugged in’ and that is in interminable conversation with itself”. As stated by Kelli that “convergences of socialization, of self, and of technology have led to an emergence of new forms of self-representation as well as of forms of aesthetic presentation”, which is something that can be observed easily online. It was really compelling to see a metal installation at the presentation that truly captured that notion. I knew that there was going to be a metal installation at the presentation —the website kind of spoiled it— but I didn’t expect what kind of installation it’d really be. It was an engaging one, that’s for sure. We were asked to customize a small card, representing our perspective on those newly emerged “digital spaces”, and then attach it on the metal installation that resembled a human head. It was a very clever way to represent the notion of “digital identity” in real life. The transition into the analog reality, if you will. And, it was a lot of fun.

I should probably also mention my little project/contribution to the presentation, which was wearing a tiger mask. Yes, a tiger mask. I confess that I’m really curious about the reaction that ignites without the proper context. You see, the overall theme of the presentation was about self-representation of an individual as indicated above. I figured that I could create and wear a mask of my Twitter account persona, which is a tiger, and pretend to be “it” in real life. It might sound silly —which it was— but I figured that it could capture the theme that Kelli was going for with her thesis. You can see the before-and-after of the mask’s progress below.


Not too shabby, I hope? It’s funny that seeing someone actually succeed in something truly inspires others to “take up arms” and strive for something. I remember seeing the flyer for Degenerates’ Gallery on the wall, inside Vaughn-Eames Hall, as I was making my way to the class, and stopped for a second to think that… wow, this is special; someone from English and Writing Studies, the program that I’m enrolled in, putting together a gallery for everyone on campus to see. Can we say “yelling from the top of Mount Everest”? It’s really motivational. I can’t help but wonder if I’ll be able to reach that “peak” with the same success when I get to it… Here’s hoping.

Looking back, the entire experience felt like a culmination of everything that we’ve learned in our class of Network Narratives, from the algorithms, online identity, taking selfies, sharing memes, to GIF making. As we engaged with the installation, shared images (including memes and GIFs) on Twitter, and discussed the implications presented by Degenerates’ Gallery among ourselves (the classmates) on Research Day, I feel like we’ve come to solid closure in understanding what the class was all about. Hence, the reason why reflecting on that presentation was the perfect choice for this final blog post. The final objective remaining now is putting all of that knowledge into the Field Guide project as “a nice little bow” to wrap everything up —and we’re almost there.

I’ve had a lot of fun and I really believe that I’ve learned a lot. So overall, I’d dare say that this class… was a roaring success! (The pun is fully intended…) Now, please allow me to place the following reference:

Hayes, K. (2019). Degenerates’ Gallery: Exploring Self-Representation & Aesthetic Presentation in New Digital Media As A Resurgence Of Dada Idealism. Retrieved from https://degeneratesgallery.wordpress.com/

The Friends that We Make on the Way

Is that “a GIF” or “a Meme” in “the digital sea”? Huh… So, it’s not that bad after all.

As I continue to work on my final project, my overall view on certain things begin to shift. If anyone were to go back and simply examine my first four or five blog posts, they could clearly see that I held a negative outlook on the internet as a whole. Is it truly a place where “the darkness” prevails as we’re led to believe? Or, I should probably say as I’ve led myself to believe. The truth is… no, I do not believe the internet is a place of eternal darkness. There might be shades of ugliness, but it wouldn’t be fair to overlook the good things about it. That image up there is meant to show that people can find amusement/contentment even in trivial things such as a funny meme or an awesome looking GIF that they encounter online as they surf through. The analogy of “sea” perfectly fits this notion that despite being dangerous, the vast “sea” is also beautiful.

I guess, I should provide an update on the project as well. I’ve finally began to annotate articles by using my Field Guide character’s new hypothes.is account. In our last class, I’d mentioned that I was beginning to see the merit of criticism against digital-dualism. So, I thought that I would start with Nathan Jurgenson’s article on Cyborgology in which he claims that “digital dualism is a fallacy”. Now, I should make it clear that I do not necessarily have a firm stance on the issue. I merely believe that there are certain cases for both the digital dualism and the augmented reality that could be considered intriguing.

Jurgenson’s article, Digital Dualism versus Augmented Reality, starts with his claim that digital dualism is an “outdated perspective”. That made me think of the in-class conversation I had about alternative perspectives on the “issue” that included one perspective that supported digital dualism, another perspective that claimed there was no such thing (possible Jurgenson’s intended stance), and lastly the perspective that advocates digital dualism is a concept that once existed but no longer relevant as the two realities are becoming one. So, by saying “outdated perspective”, Jugenson might’ve revealed here that he used to be “a believer” but that is no longer the case. Regardless, he asserts (and strongly) criticizes the notion of “first self” in real world and “second self” in digital reality. According to him, what people (media users) do offline is simply influenced by their online activities. Moreover, their online activities tend to reflect their offline identities. Hence, the augmented reality is the one reality where the focus should be at. Do I agree with what Jurgenson is claiming here? I’d probably say: “Yes and no.”

I still see the concept (?) of augmented reality as a limited way of looking at things. The underlining assumption is that people tend to behave the same regardless they’re interacting online or in the real world. Jugenson makes the case by giving Facebook as an example, but what about the other social media platforms that allow, and perhaps even (unintentionally?) encourage, their users to remain anonymous, such as Twitter, YouTube, or Reddit? I do not believe that it’s reasonable to make the same generalization when this particular factor is at play here. Perhaps I should reverse each position before asking the same question. If anonymity was a possibility in real world, would people behave the same? Would they follow the rules and the etiquette of society in the same manner? Maybe, or maybe not. It is important to note, however, that conditions aren’t necessarily the same; different “settings”, different conditions, and thus different expectations of behavior.

As a follow-up, I decided to go over and annotate the article, How To Kill Digital Dualism Without Erasing Differences, by Giorgio Fontana who attempts to refute (to a degree) what Jurgenson claims in his article. Fontana starts his response by asking the point of view which Jurgenson had based his on, whether it‘s “an ontological point of view or a sociological one”. He places his emphasis on clear definitions of the terms used in the argument to avoid any sort of confusion, which is a great approach. He talks about digital/analog dichotomy and states that the real world and the digital reality do not necessarily fall into opposing positions. This misplaced juxtaposition could be one of the key reasons why the ongoing argument isn’t nearing a unanimous end. It is also quite difficult to define reality itself as everyone tends to perceive it in a different way. Fontana also states that although “in the future it will harder to distinguish analog origin from digital augmentation”, it “is not a good reason to think that all things are already digital”.

So… yes. There are so many interesting things to extract from these two articles for the Field Guide project and analyze them. I’ll be using this notion and argument of augmented reality as a driving force in “the story” that I’m conducting. The line at which “the digital sea” and “the land” meets, my character called it on Twitter during our “conversation”. The things are becoming more clear as I find time to work on it. We shall see how the rest of it goes.



Jurgenson, N. (2011). Digital Dualism versus Augmented Reality. Cyborgology. Retrieved from https://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2011/02/24/digital-dualism-versus-augmented-reality/

Fontana, G. (2012). How To Kill Digital Dualism Without Erasing Differences. Cyborgology. Retrieved from https://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2012/09/16/how-to-kill-digital-dualism-without-erasing-differences/

“Work Work Work Work”

Image result for coming to america gif
When I look at my work and realize I’m almost done! (Movie Gif from Coming to America)


I hope everyone had a great Easter weekend. Mine was filled with laughs, fun at church, reflection, and a lot of food! Now that my Easter weekend is officially over, I am ready to get back in the swing of things. So we are in the final stages of the semester, which means it’s crunch time! I am happy to say that I have been writing nonstop over the past week about my topic. What I decided to do is write out all my thoughts, opinions along with the research and notes that I collected from various sources. Now that I have multiple viewpoints and ideas, I am ready to write out the dialogue between myself and Xnirran.

Since my topic is deep and complex, sometimes I found myself drifting off into other subtopics of Blackfishing. For me to stay organized, I put my topic into four categories, that way I can stay on track.

  1. What is Blackfishing? (Minstrel shows, blackface, Halloween controversies turning into online blackface, internet blackfishing, and social media pressures)
  2. What’s the problem? (Two sides of the spectrum: One is for fun. One is wrong)
  3. Culture Appropriation vs. Culture Appreciation
  4. Deception

I’ll wrap up final thoughts and ideas on part five. Also, acknowledgments and other last words. After last week’s meeting, I felt more confident to tackle this issue. I was worried that because this is not only a new issue that is surfacing but it’s something that I really don’t have a solution to it. However, I was given the task to more allow people to become aware of this “phenomenon” instead of trying to find a solution to the problem. I have a lot of great content, ideas, and information that I will use in my presentation. Here is the link to my notes that I made from various articles. Unforantely, my hypothes.is was not working so I was only able to make comments on one or two of them.

In the final stretch! Until next time!


Just A Brief Update….


So, suffice to say, this weekend has been a bit overwhelming for me. I’ve spent most of it getting my final touches together for my thesis presentation at Research Days on Tuesday. This weekend was one of the first I’ve had totally off in a while so I got a lot of time to focus on these last-minute-but-very-important things. There’s never enough time for anything, is there?

Anyway, as far as my research for the field guide goes, I’m still reading through my sources and gathering information I can add onto my last post about social curation in online spaces. I think that post went into a lot of detail about my own thoughts surrounding the issue but I do want to incorporate more evidence to support my case. More, I need to look into more ideas about what a “humane” web would look like.

During our discussion in class, we talked about how to encourage personal responsibility as developing that seems to be important to the issue of social curation itself. Right now, there’s no personal accountability and nothing incentivizing us to not just “hit that like button” and move on with our lives without ever thinking more deeply on the content we are choosing to associate ourselves with/throw our “lots” in with. In my last post, I mentioned abolishing evaluative features entirely but that requires an entire paradigm shift, it seems, in interaction with the Internet and, increasingly, with the world. Our “likes” are fast becoming our votes. They don’t just validate someone’s opinion anymore; they affirm behavior and incentivize it to continue. Not to sound sensational, but I wonder when we will be “liking” our next government officials rather than strictly voting for them? We seem well on our way to that…

I’m trying to focus on how I would like to convey my concerns around this issue. I’m concerned about how it affects us culturally and seems to desensitize us but I’m also concerned about how evaluative features affect our sense of self. The experience of self is a social construct now more than ever, it seems, and I wonder about the long-term affects of that. In our discussion, I mentioned having this seemingly “innate” self of me and of my wholeness beyond the web. I think the web offers these amazing opportunities to extend ourselves and reflect upon all the different selves we can be but I also believe strongly that I am whole without the web. I can locate myself without turning on my GPS or checking out the snap map. It seems like people today, especially younger people who don’t remember a time before the web, may be less able to feel whole without that online connection and I wonder how that affects the experience of their lives in the long run.

One way I was thinking of exploring some of these issues is through making a fake social media account like a #finsta. It’s such a titillating concept and I think it gets at the heart of this issue: the you and the not you of it. To me, concerns around social curation in online spaces come down to fears about regulation of emotional experiences as well as fears about AI or computer intelligence not only replacing our presence online but controlling us through that replacement. These fears are about self and humanity disappearing into the digital abyss, swallowed up and spit out. Finstas encapsulate that idea of the hidden self, though, with all those hidden fears and anxieties. It’s kind of a subversion of a system designed to profit heavily off of the exploitation of insecurities. At least, it could be subversive.

Design was a big topic we discussed and, to be honest, I’m not sure I could design a whole system to replace the current one (tl:dr scratch that, I’m hella unsure I can’t). But, I do think I could design an account to be subversive. I would like to borrow some of the ideology from metamodernism probably to conceive of this project. Another name for this movement is post-postmodernism. It’s not really a formal movement yet but you may have heard of it if you’ve ever come across any of Shia LaBeouf’s art projects?

So, my understanding of the movement’s tenets is still a little shaky but the movement is a response to modernism and postmodernism and seems to be about re-injecting value of/belief in faith and sincerity and in all of these intangible virtues that modernism and postmodernism have rejected in favor of cold hard progress. To me, it seems this movement is about returning humanity to the people and, more, returning an appreciation for being human. Cynicism and callousness may be in vogue bit that doesn’t mean they’re the right ways to look at or conceive of the world. More, it seems that perspectives like them have not contributed to making the world or online spaces, for that matter, better.

I think it would be interesting to take metamodern perspective on the issue of social curation because I believe it may provide guidance for humane design. At least, that’s what I’m thinking about right now. It’s not a lot and I still have a lot of reading to do and conversing with my alchemist mentor, I know, I know. But, I can kind of see this project coming together? I definitely see a lot of brown paper bags over my head for the finsta…. 

Anyway, what do you think? Does anything show promise? Where are the gaps for you? Any suggestions?

Let me know!


~Till next time~

If I don’t die during Research Days

Comment on Exploring Issues of Social Curation in Online Spaces… by helterskelliter

Thank you Alan for your feedback! I’m sorry I always take so long to get back to you (I kind of forget about comments on WordPress).

Anyway, I like the idea of a “dumb twitter” and think it could be one of the ways we navigate the digital world. Like we talked about today, it seems that a lot of this issue comes down to personal responsibility and how we make responsible choices in a space that is being increasingly designed to exploit our insecurities and weaknesses. Making decisions and being mindful is a challenge for a lot of us.

As usual, you gave me a lot to consider moving forward with this project!

Best regards always,



To AUC, What Are Your Thoughts on Social Curation In Online Spaces???


How’s Cairo? Hot? Mild? Does it ever get sandy in the city? I’ve always wondered….

Anyway, I’m getting off topic. It happens.

I hear you’re working on projects about digital literacy? So have we! …Well, kind of. We’re each researching a problem associated with the Internet and increasing digitization of daily life. The focus of my research is social curation in online spaces. Specifically, I’m looking at how social curation in online spaces affects our emotional engagement IRL.

I wrote a whole post about social curation and my thoughts around it but for those of you who aren’t familiar, social curation is, “an organic activity that continuously aggregates and ranks content deemed most relevant, valued and of the greatest utility (e.g., “just in time” insight) to users. Sources of content can be published media, real-time information exchange (archived), or continuously evolving content (e.g., wiki, Quora). The social dynamic of content curation is individual and collective input, output and evolution of thought” (source). Essentially, social curation refers to how we organize and navigate content in online spaces. It is the way of the Internet currently. More than just organization content, though, social curation refers to how organization practices affect our interactions with content.

Social curation contributes to the development of so-called “echo chambers” as well as to the rise of Influencer culture. It relates to “trending” topics and includes things like evaluative features (“likes” on FB and <3s on Insta) on social media and reaction gifs. Often, these evaluative features make us feel that we are providing thoughtful interaction with content when, in reality, we are merely being provided the illusion of meaningful engagement by these platforms that profit off of our engagement. Our reactions and emotions are being curated/engineered, which could be affecting our emotional range IRL.

Much research has been done on the effects of evaluative features such as “Like” buttons on social media platforms. One study has looked at how social curation occurs on Pinterest, while another study (which won’t let hypothes.is run? I tried to download it as a PDF and tried to adjust my settings but nope so idk?) has looked at the effects of social curation on adolescent neurological and behavioral responses (to which an article has been written in response). Much of this research revolves around understanding user interactions in a socially curated system. What I find most interesting about this kind of research is the effects social curation has on emotional expressions as well as overall self-esteem and self-worth. More, I find that social curation is one of the processes that strongly contributes to this false sense of reality the Internet creates. This process is, in part, responsible for the creation of so-called “echo chambers” as well as for Internet virality in general. Influencers and the like are trying to tap into this “social curation” process and either become the content that is being circulated or become the subject that curated content revolves around.

Though social curation has certainly been around in varying capacities beyond/before the web, its use as an organizing system in online spaces presents some problems. Mainly, what is perhaps most troubling is the false sense of reality it can perpetuate. It seems very easy for someone to fall into a hole, so to speak, and not even notice that the information they are interacting with is being decided not by an objective audience but by a process of social curation conducted by like-minded peers. Often, evaluative features like “Like” buttons and ❤ buttons facilitate social curation On Facebook, there is a variety of react options to choose from which provides this false sense of diversified expression when, in reality, our emotional range is being curated for us by the social media platform. More, we’re being socialized by sites like Instagram (where only ❤ reacts exist) to react positively or not at all to online content. Rather than online spaces being these immersive spaces where discovery and disappointment can occur, they are becoming these heavily curated spaces limiting not only our emotional ranges but also changing how we respond to things in ways that can spill over into “real life”. I think this is problematic.

While it may be fun and more engaging for users in certain spaces to interact with “like-minded content” (like in an affinity space on Tumblr or in a hashtag on Twitter), having an entire Internet that is slowly being curated by social media seems like an over-reach and one that will affect perceptions of self and the world. Distorted images of self and the world are already prevalent in online spaces and have been prevalent in advertising practices since time in memoriam. We have seen the damage done thus far, especially to the youth who are growing up in a digital world where it is so easy to access platforms that may not be promoting the best perceptions. Addressing how social curation affects interactions and the overall environment of online spaces seems like an increasingly vital issue as digitization becomes more ubiquitous.

Alex Saum’s Ashes to Ashes #YOLO (2018) Epoetry piece seems to speak to concerns about the performance of life taking precedence over the experience of life as well. Also, it seems concerned about how Influencer culture curates what we value and how we value it.

At least, this is all what I believe to be the case and this is the focus of my research. What do you think, though?

Do you think that social curation in online spaces is affecting our own perceptions and emotions IRL? Can social media sites like Insta and FB be redesigned to not include evaluative features and still be functional? How could sites be designed to garner different interactions? To encourage less passive, shallow engagement and more active dialogue and discussion?

Let me know~


~Till next time~

‘Blackfishing’: To the AUC Students

For my final project, I will be discussing and “investigating” the new phenomenon of ‘Blackfishing’. For those who are unfamiliar with the term, ‘Blackfishing’ is when a person on Instagram or Twitter (specifically a woman) who is not of color, changes her physical appearance (e.g. hair, skin color, etc.), in order to be perceived as a specific person of color (e.g. African-American, Mixed, Afro-Latina, etc.) Example images:

Screen Shot 2019-04-03 at 8.24.15 AMScreen Shot 2019-04-03 at 8.24.06 AMScreen Shot 2019-04-03 at 8.23.18 AM

This seems to be a branch of the ‘Catfishing’ tree. (Catfishing is when someone poses as someone else online by faking their name, appearance, online identity, and so on).

Speaking about the importance of identity and self on the Internet of 2019, I have a couple of questions for you when it comes to this topic.

  1. There are two sides to ‘Blackfishing’. One is that some people don’t see the big deal. It is merely just someone appreciating the culture. On the other end spectrum, people are uncomfortable with this because of its almost identical connection to the history of ‘Blackface”, which is when someone who is not African-American, applies very dark/brown makeup and performs racial stereotypes of slaves. This would happen in the 1900s. My question is, Is there a difference between appreciation and appropriation when it comes to another person’s culture? 
  2. My second question is, online identity has become almost, if not for sure, as important to us as our real identity. When someone fakes who they are and deceives other people, how does that affect online identity?
  3. Does online identity affect how people see those online personas in real life?
  4. Who is harmed during this? (And by “this” I mean ‘Blackfishing’) or is this just makeup and fun, just like people believed ‘Blackface’ performances and caricatures were?

I can’t wait to hear your responses! Any other questions or ideas that come to mind to help me dive deeper into my project, please let me know! Here is my Twitter: @ColorfulWriter02

Thank you!

Socrates’ YouTube Channel Has Hit 1000 Subscribers!

I think the title of the post revealed which article that I’ve chosen to examine. I mean, come on… the title of Sacasas’ article is simply amazing and really hard to ignore. I hope that I managed to do some service with mine.

Although I had opened up an account for my Alchemist character on Hypothesis.is, I was reluctant to annotate anything because there were no other annotations available. I’m thinking that maybe we should start a private group for these intended annotations. I’m not so sure if public option is the best one. Anyways, onto the article itself.

Sacasas mainly focuses on the discourse online. It starts with a great analogy: “‘Don’t read the comments’ is about as routine a piece of advice as ‘look both ways before crossing the street’”, which perfectly captures the ignorance of people in general. Most people tend to prefer dismissing an issue rather than actually dealing with it. What else is new, right? The problem is that the online discourse is not something that could correct itself on its own, naturally. People, especially social media users, need to be conscious of what direction that “unlawful” discourse is heading. So, they can at least contribute to its expected course-correction instead of allowing the platform runners to enforce rules or conditions to automatically fulfill that role, and potentially cause a damage to its free nature. Then again, isn’t the free nature of the internet that allows it “to encourage rancor, incivility, misunderstanding, and worse” as Sacases puts it? He inserts that “anonymity has something to do with [it], and so does the abstraction of the body from the context of communication”, which I agree.

Sacases also claims that both the traditional discourse and the literacy aspect of writing on digital medium get unintentionally lost. The reasoning behind that claim is the public interaction among people that occur online by writing instead of speaking. Moreover, “expectations of immediacy in digital contexts collapse” the space in which the writing skill can flourish. Thus, “we lose the strengths of each medium: we get none of the meaning-making cues of face-to-face communication nor any of the time for reflection that written communication ordinarily grants”. Not to mention the “time limitations” set by the users themselves within that environment. The end product, therefore, is a communicative space “being rife with misunderstanding and agonistic” and “it encourages performative pugilism”. Fun times, indeed.

One last thing that I’ll mention about the article before wrapping up —I prefer the Field Guide posts to be short— that needs to be highlighted is the notion of identity clash. What I mean by that is social media users are unable to draw a line between a subjective opinion and “an attack on their views and ideals”, which forms their “internet identity”. So, basically, there is not room for a civil discussions but rather “my way or the highway” in a nutshell; unwillingness to be open to other perspectives, or at least find a common ground. Sacases notes that “we’ve conflated truth and identity in such a way that we cannot conceive of a challenge to our views as anything other than a challenge to our humanity”, which is pretty powerful.

As you can see, there are a lot of great stuff in the article that needs extracting and examining for the final project. I’m glad to have found it… at random, on Google search. Go figure. I’ll be adding the annotations as soon as I figure out the options.

Reference (I actually quoted stuff this time around):

Sacasas, L. M. (2014). Waiting for Socrates… So We Can Kill Him Again and Post the Video on Youtube. Technology, Culture, and Ethics. Retrieved from https://thefrailestthing.com/tag/digital-dualism/