Monthly Archives: November 2018

As per Dean’s Article, it all began with a series of replies with the George W. Bush’s administration. Dean was able to put out her point stating her argument with the due success of Neoliberal. For the debate I was in FOR Dean’s article emphasizing Neoliberal Globalization hence I read the article with that point of view. The article stated that social media not inhibits rather than enhances sociopolitical changes. I had taken the role of speaking the closing statement. Throughout the reading Dean’s point of view was 10 years ago which kind of still strongly relates. Dean’s argument did affect my opinions somehow. It changed my perspective in how people blindly follow up things. As I stated in my closing statement regarding the ALS Ice bucket challenge, it has collected a lot of funds but not because people wanted to bring a change or donate for the cause it was more like a mandatory post for one’s social media account. I will admit I wasn’t even concerned about ALS, the only highlight was ICE BUCKET CHALLENGE. I also agree social media is a platform where you can’t judge if a matter is true or false. But everyone is clever enough to figure it out in some time now.

The opposing team had presented few examples such as the Arab Spring and Me Too. They didn’t really talk about Me Too much which turned out to be their weaker point to my perspective. Me Too was a perfect example to raise the bar between the arguments as through social media there a change bought in people’s life. However, the AGAINST team didn’t really impact because my view was almost similar to theirs. After all we are in the millennial era. Everyone follows social media more than anything and aware whatever is viral or not. If the issue really matters or is real with the help of social media there can be change in the society. Though the FOR arguments did make sense because even if the social media is bringing a sociopolitical change, people may be participating for it but there are quite few out there who are really concerned and majority of the users aren’t even aware of their situations it’s more like they want to participate the trend. . But I believe I am 50-50% agreement with both the stands.

The second debate was on Manuel Castells’ chapter, ‘The Egyptian Revolution’. It focused on how social media helped in informing the world about Egypt’s sociopolitical change.  The difference between both the arguments in Castell’s supported the usage of social media platform like Facebook, Twitter and youtube while Dean clearly stood out against this platform.

However, this debate was a fun activity which helped in learning different perspectives and makes a person understand the usage of social media for sociopolitical change much easier.

Before the debate, I found the article accurately outlines the problems of American politics and the media surrounding it. I found Dean’s argument pretty compelling, but my experience as an international person outside of American politics meant I already had a different perspective, especially considering social media played a huge role in the 2018 Malaysian General Elections and it’s because of social media that we were able to vote out the incumbent government and vote in the opposition for the very first time since the formation of Malaysia. So already I viewed Dean’s argument as reflective of the state of affairs in the US, but it is not necessarily applicable internationally, especially since we have widely different political situations and priorities. Whilst preparing for the debate as an assessor, I read the article with the intention of analyzing both sides of the resolution. It’s a continuation of my prior perspective on the article in my initial reading.

Before working on this debate, I had a fairly simplified understanding of the relationship between social media and sociopolitical change. After seeing the debates, I had a slightly more nuanced understanding of this relationship. Listening to Castells’ debate seemed to confirm some of my own perspectives on the relationship, especially in regards to my personal experience witnessing the recent Malaysian General Elections. A lot of the connections and unity in Castells’ article I did witness on a milder scale back in Malaysia, especially with a lot of the voting efforts being coordinated over social media. We were updated in real time what was happening at the polls around the country, and people coordinating as well to keep elections fair. Particularly Dean’s perspective introduced a different side to social media, as it was really helpful in detailing the fragmentation and stalemate in American politics on social media, the concept of “technological fetishism” was fairly illuminating in how social media could be used to pacify the political energy of the public. A significant difference of both articles is the immense unity in Castells’ perspective contrasted with the fragmentation and dispersion in Dean’s perspective.

Since its release in April 2011, Snapchat has had many updates and remodelling such as the addition of stories, infinite snap time, stickers for decorating, lenses, and many other features added to improve the user experience. In 2015, the app began to count the number of consecutive days that users snapped each other, later being called “streaks”. This number was marked with a small flame emoji next to the names of the user’s friends. Initially, it seemed like something that would be coincidental, something that was interesting but just there as an indicator that you had snapped a person within 24 hours of them snapping you for a couple of days. However, as Snapchat has become more popular, streaks have become the normal way many teens use the app to interact with each other. 

The “streak” has become a constant type of snapchat that teens send and receive. What was once an indictor of casual communication has become a marker of friendships and loyalties. A majority of teens now will wake up in the morning with many snapchats from their friends that are “streaks”, a snapchat only sent to preserve and keep the number going. They range from person to person. Some are morning selfies, pictures from their window, or even black screens with a single “S”. Either way, these “streaks” are sent to keep it going, not necessarily because a user wants to send something to a friend of theirs. This concept has taken over the way Snapchat is used and made us more robotic. 

Stephen Marche’s article, Is Facebook Making Us Lonely? asks the question if our social media presence is changing our real life presence? Is the media made to help us be more social and communicate, isolating us and making us lonely? In terms of Snapchat, it seems so. The streaks are only being kept for the number, not the friendship. Often users will have streaks with people that they aren’t very close with in person, with their streak being one of the only connections they have with each other. It has created a new dynamic that builds on the idea of having a fake social media presence that does not translate to real life. Similarly with Facebook, users add friends that might only be acquaintances, building up a false sense of friendship and commitment to their person. Streaks have taken out the fun of Snapchat and created another social platform ruled by numbers. 

WORK CITED

Kostovetshy, Kathryn. “I Broke All Of My Snapchat Streaks And You Should Too”. The Odyssey Online, 2018, https://www.theodysseyonline.com/broke-all-of-my-snapchat-streaks-and-you-should-too. Accessed 7 Nov 2018.

Marche, Stephen. “Is Facebook Making Us Lonely?”. The Atlantic, 2018, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/05/is-facebook-making-us-lonely/308930/. Accessed 8 Nov 2018.

Molloy, Mark. “Who Owns Snapchat And When Was It Created?”. The Telegraph, 2018, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/0/owns-snapchat-created/. Accessed 4 Nov 2018.

Vega, Nick. “I Just Lost A 159-Day Snapchat Streak And I Couldn’t Be Happier”. Business Insider, 2018, https://www.businessinsider.com/snapchat-streak-lost-couldnt-be-happier-2017-8. Accessed 6 Nov 2018.

In the discussion on social media, as one of the many ways we interact with one another, what is often overlooked is the contribution of music media platforms. SoundCloud is an example of this kind of medium, being an online audio distribution platform that enables users to upload and promote their work. More simply, SoundCloud is a place where musicians can share their own music with a fanbase that the application generates based on a social-media-like following. Essentially, its purpose is to marry the idea of social media with the concept of music artistry. This is a bold gesture, and for that, SoundCloud received its praise, gaining much popularity in today’s age, especially during 2016, as more independent musicians are searching for a place to publish their artwork freely.

SoundCloud is a common starting point for emerging artists, because of how accessible it is in comparison to iTunes and Spotify’s legal process that requires a formal registration and payment to publish music. It is made very clear, though, that it is nothing more than that – a starting point. Much of SoundCloud’s popularity rests in the fact that it is accessible and free. Ironically then, this very quality earns SoundCloud its reputation as an illegitimate platform for real artists.

Stemming from this idea arose the microgenre, “SoundCloud rap”, or otherwise “mumble rap”, encompassing a certain calibre of artistry – one that is simple, incomprehensible and ultimately lame. Mumble rap puts little emphasis on quality and lyricism and much on sex, drugs, and money.

But isn’t that all rap?

Arguably, yes.

When discussing social media, the discussion on culture cannot be excluded. Social media is not only a useful tool to spread and share media. It is something that “hints at a cultural mindset” (Holmes) and has cultural implications – the ability to influence cultural and social dynamics. Born from this huge influx of mediocre artists trying to make money from songs that are anemic in content, is the unique persona, the “SoundCloud rapper”. More important than SoundCloud itself is the implications of this aesthetic, which all legitimate rappers despise. Their antagonism derives from their shame in the image that new “SoundCloud rappers” are painting for the genre itself. It is believed that “Soundcloud is home to an entire nation of rappers with colored dreads, melodies inspired by 2000s Emo and Pop Punk and the latest mutations of Atlanta’s Trap” (Holmes). And though it is still a social media phenomenon, SoundCloud has angered many qualified artists in the music industry and proved to be problematic. By introducing (or at least trying to introduce) a completely new the dynamic to the music industry, not only did SoundCloud and the “SoundCloud rapper” aesthetic cheapen the act of publishing music online, but it also cheapened the quality of that music, inviting almost anyone to the music industry – an industry that is highly, highly competitive.

Works Cited:

Holmes, Charles. “The Who’s Who Of SoundCloud Rap.” Complex, Complex, 28 Sept. 2018, www.complex.com/music/2018/09/soundcloud-rappers-you-should-know/.

Maintaining relevance in popular culture is a priority for all brands, and the marketing strategy of adhering to a prevalent political movement to appear culturally aware is far from new. For instance, the tactic was famously employed by Coca-Cola in its 1971 “I’d Like to Buy the World a Coke” commercial and was more recently practiced by Nike in its latest campaign featuring Colin Kaepernick. However, in 2017, Pepsi’s attempt at this form of marketing engendered controversy and proved to be a major misstep. The ad features Kendall Jenner modelling amidst a mass protest which resembles those of the Black Lives Matter movement. The reality star turned supermodel is then shown joining the protest, which Pepsi attempted to keep nondescript by depicting protesters holding signs with generic messages of peace and unity. After a slew of problematic images, such as the one of Jenner mindlessly handing her wig to an African American woman without making eye contact, the commercial ends with Jenner approaching the police and handing them a Pepsi uniting them forever and effectively saving the day. Aside from being idealistic, this ad may seem innocuous. However, the major problem lies in the fact that the image of Jenner echoes that of Ieshia Evans standing up to police in a brave act of protest. Outrage ensued on social media with people claiming that the ad, which incidentally was produced by an entirely Caucasian team, trivializes the Black Lives Matter movement.

In the face of backlash, Pepsi initially attempted to defend the commercial stating that the ad “reflects people from different walks of life coming together in a spirit of harmony.” However, after backlash failed to cease on social media, the soda company released an apology: “Clearly we missed the mark and we apologize. We did not intend to make light of any serious issue.” While I genuinely believe that Pepsi’s intent was not to trivialize the Black Lives Matter movement, I maintain that there attempt to profit from it is equally problematic. The company thought it would benefit them economically to assert their cultural awareness by using imagery of a movement that is “in vogue”. What Pepsi failed to realize however, is that Black Lives Matter and other such movements are not trends. In reality, these movements are brave acts of frustration necessitated by the discrimination felt everyday by marginalized groups. Discrimination that does not disappear with a gulp of soda.

It is important to note that much of the backlash over this ad occurred online. In a sense, social media’s accessibility and reach allowed a larger volume of people to speak out on this issue to a greater, more influential audience at a speed that would be otherwise impossible. In turn this allowed the withdrawal of the ad, and Pepsi’s course correction to occur just as quickly. This is a clear example of the ways in which social platforms can act in a positive way by giving rise to a wider and more diverse set of voices. However, social media can, and did, also serve to magnify the outrage culture that is prevalent in today’s society. For instance, in the wake of the ad, Kendall Jenner has been labelled a racist. While the commercial is indeed tone-deaf, I would argue that to label Jenner a racist goes one step too far. In fact, I would argue that this type of accusatory language, which is easily and anonymously distributed via social media, thwarts productive and educational conversations. Instead, those on the receiving end of online vitriol become defensive and/or reclusive, as was the case with both Pepsi and Jenner. From my perspective, the ad was not made in an act of racism as much of the online debate suggests, but rather in an act of ignorance and self-interest on the part of both Pepsi and Jenner. Furthermore, while much of the backlash has been directed at Jenner herself, the lion share of the blame lies with Pepsi’s marketing team who thought it appropriate to monetize the pain and frustration of others. Jenner’s culpability, on the other hand, lies in her lack of thought.

References:

https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/58e4135516000021004d8c15.jpeg?ops=scalefit_630_noupscale

Bale, Miriam. “Critic’s Notebook: The Real Problem With Kendall Jenner’s Pepsi Ad.” The Hollywood Reporter, The Hollywood Reporter, 10 Aug. 2017, www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/critics-notebook-real-problem-kendall-jenners-pepsi-ad-991932.

Sanghani, Radhika. “Pepsi Ad: Everything That’s Wrong with THAT Kendall Jenner Video.” The Telegraph, Telegraph Media Group, 5 Apr. 2017, www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/pepsi-ad-everything-wrong-kendall-jenner-video/.

D’Addario, Daniel. “Kendall Jenner Pepsi Ad: Why It’s a Glaring Misstep.” Time, Time, 5 Apr. 2017, time.com/4726500/pepsi-ad-kendall-jenner/.

Newbold, Alice. “Kendall Responds To Pepsi Ad Criticism.” Vogue, British Vogue, 4 Sept. 2017, www.vogue.co.uk/article/kendall-jenner-responds-to-pepsi-ad.

Kylie, Kendall and. YouTube, YouTube, 4 Apr. 2017, www.youtube.com/watch?v=dA5Yq1DLSmQ.

            The 2016 Presidential Election acts as a macrocosm for all the downsides of social media that critics have been so adamant in pointing out. More so than any other elections before it, social media played a huge role for both sides- through the campaigns, the use of rhetoric to arouse support, and in the spread of headlines.

            Throughout this election, Donald Trump used social media as a platform to connect with his base, and many of his supporters followed suit. In using this tactic, Trump was able to easily create headlines, spur his base forwards, and create an environment that exploited the downsides of social media to heavily divide people from one another. Many on the opposite side of the aisle, including candidate Hillary Clinton, but none were able to garner anywhere near the level of momentum that Trump was using this tactic.

            There was nothing new to be learned in terms of social dynamics in this process- rather, this election served to unearth the heavy divides between American citizens that almost always existed. Social media sites became highly politicized and were often the grounds on which arguments between people ignited into virtual shouting matches. These arguments between people online were often built on the increasing bias found in many news sources, paired with the increasing nature of social media websites such as Facebook and Twitter to act more as echo chambers than anything.

            Part of the reason for this conflict is the format of social media as a whole. Most social media websites use algorithms to determine what shows up in each user’s news feed. Though these algorithms will differ slightly depending on what site, the gist is simple- if a user has shown interest in a certain topic, that user will be shown more of that content based on past interest. While convenient in many cases, this sort of algorithm only works to further divide people come election time. If a user is shown only content based on their own interests, that same user will put less stock into more reliable sources of news.

Social media sites are also notorious for their propensity for fraud. For example, Twitter- which could be considered the main culprit of social media sites in terms of fake users- allows users to create anonymous accounts in minutes. These opinions can then be tweeted out in out in short, 280-character bursts- which, as Sam Saunders of NPR points out, “makes Twitter antithetical to sophisticated, thoughtful political conversation” (1). This issue, in conjunction with heavily biased new sites, allowed misinformation to rapidly spread through the internet.

Through the means of huge divides that social media is largely responsible for, Donald Trump was able to win the 2016 election. He did this by working to undermine the credibility of the press through Twitter, which allowed him to ignite feuds at a whim. Along with this, social media had evolved to largely create a personal echo-chamber for each individual user, serving to broaden the gaps in political views between people and to undermine previously trusted news-sources purely by the massive influx of extreme headlines. Overall, social media’s role in the 2016 presidential election was to make it a battle of extremes in which winning became more important than what was best for the most people. It destroyed moderate opinions, and largely created the political environment in which Americans live today.

Citations

1.     Sanders, Sam. “Did Social Media Ruin Election 2016?” NPR, NPR, 8 Nov. 2016, www.npr.org/2016/11/08/500686320/did-social-media-ruin-election-2016.   

Rihanna’s and Chris Brown’s huge controversy back in 2009 was so infamous that it is considered basic pop culture knowledge. Every 00’s teen knows that the singer was violently attacked and abused by her boyfriend at the time. Photos of her disfigured face were all over the media. Chris Brown was arrested, plead guilty, and sentenced to community service. People talked about it everywhere. The polemic was so intense that the story was spoken for months, even years: In 2015, Rihanna gave an interview talking about the topic, in 2017 Chris Brown apologized in his documentary, and in March of this year the case had once again returned to the spotlight when Snapchat, a commonly used social media platform, made a dark and twisted joke about the situation.

In a “Would you rather” game-like style advert, they asked if the user would prefer to “slap Rihanna or punch Chris Brown”. Fans and people from all over the world from all kinds of social media immediately responded to the ad. They claimed that the platform wasn’t supposed to joke with that, once this subject could be delicate for people (like Rihanna) who suffered from domestic violence. The singer decided not to be quiet about it, instead, she replied to Snapchat on Instagram, stating: “Now SNAPCHAT I know you already know you ain’t my fav app out there! But I’m just trying to figure out what the point was with this mess. I’d love to call it ignorance but I know you ain’t that dumb. You spent money to animate something that would intentionally bring shame to DV victims and made a joke of it.”

As a result, Snapchat pulled the ad and put a brief apology for it, arguing that it indeed was against its violence conducts. They also claimed they would try to never make this same type of mistake again. After the scandal, the shares in the stock of the company dropped noticeably. In total, they lost approximately the possibility of making 1 billion dollars.

In this situation, the social media was not the platform that held a social dynamic, it was what incited the controversy. Due to a bad joke, Snapchat lost lots of users and potential money. Rihanna’s fans posted on twitter that they would delete the app in a way to boycott it. Snapchat making an apology and calling its own acts disgusting was not enough. In addition, once a big company like Snapchat make such mistake online, it can never be forgotten. Such experience also proves the power that digital influencers have on the mass.

If she tells me to delete snapchat I’ll do it @rihanna pic.twitter.com/yUW1UOzNc2

— Nicollette Williams (@nicollettemw) March 15, 2018

Rihanna said delete Snapchat so guess what I’m doing pic.twitter.com/XpSEry8PPY

— Agron (@Agronveliu97) March 16, 2018

Rihanna: Delete Snapchat
Me: Ok
Rihanna: And put this pound of Skittles into separate bowls by color
Me: Anything for you
Rihanna: Throw a brick through that Starbucks window
Me: Sure thing mom
Rihanna: Play me Pour It Up on the piano
Me: Will have to learn but coming right up

— Maryellen Stewart (@maryellen) March 15, 2018

Citations

“http://time.com/5201774/snapchat-stock-drops-after-rihanna-statement/,” Rihanna Called Snapchat Out For a Domestic Abuse Ad. Now Their Stock Is Dropping. Time. N. p., 2018. Web. 8 Nov. 2018.

Levin, Sam, and Laura Snapes. “Rihanna Wipes $1Bn Off Snapchat After Criticising App For Making A ‘Joke’ Of Domestic Violence.” the Guardian. N. p., 2018. Web. 8 Nov. 2018.

“Rihanna Controversy Costs Snapchat Big As Stock Value Immediately Drops.” HuffPost UK. N. p., 2018. Web. 8 Nov. 2018.

Beaumont-Thomas, Ben. “Chris Brown Discusses Abuse Of Rihanna: ‘I Felt Like A Monster’.” the Guardian. N. p., 2017. Web. 8 Nov. 2018.

“Rihanna Responds To Controversial Snapchat Advertisement: ‘Throw The Whole App-Oligy Away’.” Billboard. N. p., 2018. Web. 8 Nov. 2018.

Have you ever tried to lessen your punishment from your parents with crocodile tears? Well, Laura Lee attempted to fool her audience the same way. Laura Lee is a makeup artist on YouTube with over 4 million subscribers, although unfortunately for her, the numbers are rapidly declining due to an unavailing apology video. What exactly did she do? Like most arguments in the age of social media, it began on twitter. It all started when her fellow YouTuber friend, Gabriel Zamora, posted a picture of ‘her squad’ on twitter, captioning it “b***h is bitter because we’re doing better”, indirectly attacking the respected YouTuber, Jeffree Star. This caused fans of Jeffree to find controversial tweets of Laura Lee, that read:

Due to the prevalence of political correctness in mainstream and social media, today’s youth are more sensitive than ever towards topics such as racism, homophobia, etc, rightfully so. Thus leading to an environment which embodies a zero-tolerance policy towards anybody, specifically those who have a platform and a young, impressionable audience. Owing to this, social media influencers who face intense backlash for controversial tweets are expected to express guilt, regret, remorse and shame towards their despicable actions in the form of a heartfelt apology, yet none of this was displayed in Laura’s video. After Laura’s tweets resurfaced, she released an apology video which many deemed to be superficial and lacking any real emotion, leading to its removal. Many rightfully argued that due to the stars age (twenty-four when she made these tweets) that she should have possessed enough maturity to comprehend the deep racist connotations that the tweets hold.

Everyone makes mistakes, however it is important to hold those with a large audience accountable. With Laura having over 4 million subscribes, it is important that her voice is one that spreads positivity, love and acceptance; which is why her apology is so crucial as it shows her young fans that what she said in her past tweets is unacceptable, while also showing the importance of growing from your mistakes. Which from her lacklustre apology, shows that she failed miserably to achieve this goal.

On the other hand, there are some who see this attack on Laura as going too far, since the tweets were written six years ago. However, I feel that it is of the upmost importance that these successful influencers are not given a free pass. The racism depicted in her tweets is deplorable and her apology fails to communicate any sense of real regret to those who were deeply offended by her words.

Back in October of 2012, a teenager from Port Coquitlam, British Columbia committed suicide due to her struggles with bullying and cyber-bullying. At the age of 12, Amanda Todd was taken advantage of when an older male persuaded her to flash her breasts on an online webcam group chat. Someone screenshotted it and sent it around to all of Amanda’s Facebook friends and her life took a turn for the worst. From then on she would continuously receive threats and hate comments both online and in person. Through these events, Amanda’s struggles with depression and anxiety skyrocketed. She moved around to many different towns and schools although the photo haunted her everywhere she went, the bullying never stopped. In September of 2012, Amanda posted a soon-to-be viral Youtube video titled “My story: Struggling, bullying, suicide, self harm” telling her story about her struggles with bullying. Soon after in October 10, 2012, Amanda Todd took her own life in her home.

Now in 2018 the chilling YouTube video has over 12 million views and was watched by people from all over the world. Her story sparked a conversation on bullying, specifically cyberbullying which was considered relatively new at the time. It brought light to something that was new and was never going away. Bullying had surpassed name-calling and stuffing kids in lockers. Social media gave individuals the ability to hate on someone anonymously and within the comfort of their own homes. It spread awareness on how to be safe, avoid predators online and it sparked a conversation amongst families within Canada and all over the world about cyberbullying and online safety.

Cyber-bullying has existed since the early 2000’s with the introduction of social media sites like myspace and Facebook. Although, it was an issue noticed by those affected by it and it was not viewed as a public issue. Social media is growing exponentially by the minute, making it easier for anyone to hide behind a screen and post or message something hurtful without thinking twice. Amanda’s story exposed an ongoing issue within the new social media world. It was a story that went viral throughout mainstream media and ironically social media. It made people realise the effects of bullying and how one mean comment or post could cause someone to do the unthinkable and end their own life. As a society we must end this online hate culture that is so prevalent throughout social media and continue to share stories like Amanda’s in order to spread awareness and prevent the horrific outcomes of cyberbullying.

Sources:

Leung Wency, and Dakshana Bascaramurty. “Amanda Todd Tragedy Highlights How Social Media Makes Bullying Inescapable.” The Globe and Mail, 12 Oct. 2012, www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/amanda-todd-tragedy-highlights-how-social-media-makes-bullying-inescapable/article4611068/.

“Timeline of the Amanda Todd Cyberbullying Case.” Www.vancouversun.com, 18 Apr. 2014, www.vancouversun.com/technology/Timeline Amanda Todd cyberbullying case/9750949/story.html.

TheSomebodytoknow. My story: Struggling, bullying, suicide, self harm, YouTube, 7 Sept. 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOHXGNx-E7E&t=12s.

Instagram is probably one of the most controversial social media platforms after Twitter. Unlike Twitter which allows people to express their opinions openly, which could cause issues as we have just seen with the Cardi B and Nicki Minaj fight, Instagram brings up a lot of discussions with respect to self-portrayal. If you are one of the few people that have never experienced the whole works of Instagram, it is basically a platform where one is able to share pictures with their followers. This social media platform has grown immensely and also causes a lot of issues in the younger generations. Instagram initially came out with intentions of being a place where people could share their favourite pictures and essentially share their lives with others but in a more visual manner. Over time, it evolved into a place where people cared about their “follow ratio,” the aesthetic of their feed, and the amount of “likes” that they got on one picture. The motives driving young individuals to take part in this culture on Instagram has become a controversial topic simply because the ethics and intentions were strange in a way.

On Instagram, individuals pick their best pictures, edit them (or even photoshop them) and then wait for the optimal time to post so that they can have the highest probability of having the maximum amount of likes and comments. This process might not apply to all people of course; however, it is something that is not uncommon. In fact, for a while, it was also not uncommon for people to tag their friends (who were not even in the picture) in their pictures so that they could let them know that they were important to them. Having spoken to my younger sister, I learned that she and her friends used to strategically place the tags on the picture to essentially indicate and “rate” their friends based on importance.

This whole process and social dynamic are questioning. Before social media existed, people interacted with each other physically and the image they created for themselves was only through the way they carried themselves and not what they chose to show to the public. The only way people let their friends know that they were important to them was either verbally or by body language. With Instagram, people can choose to show a specific side of themselves that might not necessarily be authentic and essentially, they compete against other people to see who can fabricate their life the best while also fulfilling the criteria in the Instagram culture.

However, one could argue that even without Instagram, this social dynamic was still present and without a doubt it was. But, with a social media like this, people now have the ability to create an almost fake and exaggerated version of what they wanted to show to the public and in a sense, the magnification of this social norm takes away from the unique identity of each persona. Instagram has evolved from being a platform to stay connected with friends to being a place where people compete to have a prominent presence on the internet, which has caused many problems in youth. A large majority of people no longer interact with each other in the same manner anymore simply because they always have the idea of social media presence in mind. If you really think about it, it is almost abnormal for someone not to ask you for your social media username when they meet you for the first time; whether it be Instagram or any other social media platform.