the girl in the pink suit header image
  Pink Rose Flower

  Fiona Lu's Blog
Sunday, 12 June 2016 @ 19:39  0 dislikes

(Caption: A helpful video 'Idea Framing, Metaphors and Your Brain' starring Lakoff himself, which addresses how frames shape everyday life and our perceptions of it)

Often, humans apply meaning to what is seen, heard, tasted and felt in reality. These ‘sensations’ allow humans to engage with the conscious (tangible) by encouraging a heuristic approach to reality. This can be described as Searle’s concept of neuronal net modeling, where there is meaningful input and meaningful output.[1] 

What I mean by ‘input’ and ‘output’, in the context of human feelings, is for e.g. when a man meets a woman for the first time and they shake hands. Once their hands touch, ‘nodes’ transfer between the man to the woman, and vice versa. The ‘nodes’ take form of a physical and emotional connection, a sort of electrical internal impulse, which causes both to characterise this ‘connection’ as indicative of love or attraction.[2] It can be an intuitive or a rational reaction, depending on how the nodes are transmitted and interpreted. 

Goffman described this idea as “schemata of interpretation”, where individuals “locate, perceive, identify, and label” events and occurrences.[3] Because frames render meaning, it also organises experiences, and guides actions. Once their worlds collide as their hands meet, they immediately infer the ‘Other’ experienced a similar intensity. This impacts on their reality with each other as it is determines their present and future. As a result, the intangible is experienced when it affects emotions and thoughts. Thus, the input concerns the brain, whereas the output involves the body. 

It is interesting to examine conventionalized social behaviour,[4] and how humans behave in such situations. Why are romanticized notions of encountering your potential other half analogous to emotional and physical connection that is, at times, unexplainable? I suppose this comes down to humans rendering an otherwise meaningless aspect of the scene into something that is meaningful.[5]

However, what relevance does this scenario have regarding frames and vectors? Well, a frame refers to the manner in which an event is described or presented to an audience. It extends beyond politics, and communication.[6] In fact, frames provide insight into contexts, and provide assumptions of what is going on, which is susceptible to interpretation.[7] Frames facilitate our interactions with the world, to the extent that it impacts our reasoning, actions and perceptions, and we do not even realise it. Our knowledge of certain professions that are confined to particular buildings and scenarios are born from our acceptance of generalisations associated with those professions society imposed onto us. 

Picture this. If you walked into a room in a dental clinic, you would see a reclining chair, sink, and metal instruments on the table. You would not expect people other than the dentist and his/her assistance in that setting. Other professions sharing that setting would be out of place, and against what we conventionally know. With this example, Lakoff emphasised we rule out certain behaviour, due to its inappropriateness that does not fit with what we conventionally know.[8] This is because frames are inference generating.[9] It inhabits our cognitive unconscious and can influence our decision-making and attitude towards what is seen.[10]

When you think of a hacker, you think of an anonymous criminal who has access to confidential information, and has the capacity to alter, retain and distribute such information. Normally, one would feel threatened by the presence of ‘invisible’ hackers. Although, others may perceive hackers as creators of new conceptions and perceptions, while devaluing and challenging old means of production.[11] Ultimately, the identity of a hacker has transformed from a person who specialises in codes, computers and software, to the everyday man, or the ‘troll’ so to speak. 

In contrast, vectors move information and transport objects and subjects.[12] Vectors are transversal, with the ability to move between and across frames. It is a power that dominates the world.[13] It can either have a negative impact, by disrupting frames, or a positive one, as it enables the proliferation of information, and provides opportunities for the hacker class to change the world.[14] The vectoral class benefit socially and financially from the commodities derived in this disruption.[15] 

For example, the vectoral class are organisations such as iTunes and Soundcloud, which disrupt traditional means of engaging with content. Think of piracy and illegal downloading of music online. The act of downloading illegal content is framed as a crime that affects the music industry and opposes the idea that people are entitled to be rewarded, thus paid, for their work. However, vectoral organisations offer other methods of obtaining content within the boundaries of the law, and in a manner that still satisfies the interests of society. With iTunes, users can download free content (such as podcasts or apps) or pay a sum (for movies and music).

Additionally, framing is a quality of communication that leads others to accept one meaning over another.[16] It is a skill humans develop to understand and respond to the world and what they take to be reality.[17] Frames are a mental structure that deals with language, thought and forethought.[18] To use language, people must have thought and reflected on their own interpretative frameworks and those of others.[19] 

Think of it in the perspective of Gregory Bateson. Frames take the form of metacommunication, and patterns of relations between individual-individual, individual-society, individual-group or individual-media. Both ‘beings’ interact through a spatial and temporal bounding of a set of messages that is sent and received in the space and time of the event.[20] Frames explain what is in a mediated environment, and the social norms that govern our behaviour in that setting. The night before going to church, you would look through your wardrobe and choose an outfit that is sensible. Once you arrive there, you would refrain from using inappropriate language, and avoid causing disruption to the mass or service. You would restrain yourself from acting inappropriately. 

Obviously, the setting you are situated in controls your decisions and reasoning. You would think prior to acting and contemplate the consequences of your actions. Indeed, frames bring meaning into the words we say, and shape our behaviour. Through studying frames and vectors, we come to understand how reality is interpreted when our mentality is shaped by our values, attitudes, societal norms, and beliefs. These frames assist us in applying meaning to events and issues in our world, and empowers us to explore why we react emotionally, physically and mentally. Frames are powerful, not just because it changes the world and the space we are in. It changes us as individuals who have a lot to learn from the world around us.

_______________

[1] Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark (1999) ‘The Efficacious Cognitive Unconscious’ in Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought, New York: Basic Books: p. 115.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Wikipedia 2014, Framing (Social Sciences), Wikipedia, accessed 22 April 2014, <http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)>.

[4] Cognitive Policy Works 2013, Frames and Brains, Rockridge Institute, accessed 22 April 2014, <http://www.cognitivepolicyworks.com/wordpress/wpcontent/uploads/2009/06/ThinkingPoints_Chapter3.pdf>, p. 1.

[5] Rettie, R 2014, Using Goffman’s Framework to Explain Presence and Reality, Kingston University London, accessed 22 April 2014, <http://eprints.kingston.ac.uk/2098/1/Rettie.pdf>, p. 117.

[6] Above n 4, p.1.

[7] Above n 5.

[8] Cognitive Policy Works 2013, Fundamental Values, Rockridge Institute, accessed 22 April 2014, <http://www.cognitivepolicyworks.com/wordpress/wpcontent/uploads/2009/06/ThinkingPoints_Chapter6.pdf>, p. 2.

[9] Above n 1, p. 117.

[10] Ibid, p. 116.

[11]Wark, McKenzie (2004) ‘Vector’ in A Hacker Manifesto Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: sections, p. 317.

[12] Ibid, p. 313.

[13] Ibid, p. 334.

[14] Ibid, p. 343.

[15] Ibid, p. 312.

[16] University of Twente 2014, Framing, University of Twente, accessed 22 April 2014, <http://www.utwente.nl/cw/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Communication%20Processes/Framing/>.

[17] Williams, Zoe (2014) ‘George Lakoff: “Conservatives don't follow the polls, they want to change them … Liberals do everything wrong”’, The Guardian online, February 1, <http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/feb/01/george-lakoff-interview>.

[18] Above n 16.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Salen, K and Zimmerman, E 2006, A Theory of Play and Fantasy, The MIT Press, accessed 22 April 2014, p. 315-327.
Friday, 18 March 2016 @ 21:52  0 dislikes
It is difficult to separate ourselves from technology when it is so embedded in the routines of our daily lives, to the extent that chips are implanted into objects we carry, drive or wear, and our physical location.[1] Ubiquitous computing and the interchangeability of apps expose us to high levels of interactivity because it is freely available everywhere.[2] Our laptops, computers and mobile phones are accessible within reach. Such flexible devices grant us continuous access to the Internet and content, and the ability to contact others without being restrained by time and place. 

It had taken humans thousands of years to build languages, conventions and architectures of physical places,[3] yet it takes us a few minutes to set up a website or upload content. We have the capacity to publish and preserve content online, without having to worry about whether it will deteriorate.

This over-reliance on technology has caused us to sometimes forget about its presence and power over our lives. We are so consumed with the idea of frequently being connected to each other, that our lives are defined by how many followers we have on Twitter or Instagram, or whether our ‘selfies’ are perfect enough to collect ‘likes’. Ultimately, the popularity of technology and social media has left people fragmented. People are so engrossed with technology at home and in public. 

We hardly see hand-written mail, or commuters interacting with each other on trains and buses. The role of computing has changed, and information technology has become a social infrastructure.[4] Even apps can render the environment for the user.[5] All kinds of affects can travel, and multiplicities can form in networks of apps. In order to understand how the digital world has extended beyond the desktop to work, play, and travel,[6] this blog will explore the social relations, physical processes and change technology brings in the lives of individuals and society as a whole.


(Caption: Bladerunner - LA 2019)

In the twenty-first century, society has witnessed great technological change and developments that has overcome limitations of the physical world.[7] Maybe one could argue we are fast becoming a technologically advanced society like the city of Los Angeles in the movie Blade Runner. We may encounter human robots or “replicants” running rampant in the city. Our streets may be lined with skyscrapers or industrial factories, like the pyramids of Tyrell Corporation. The sky may constantly appear overcast and smoggy due to overpopulation and industrialisation. Maybe we will even use automobiles (spinners) that are able to fly above the streets. Who knows? In less than 50 years we can travel to other planets to construct “off-world” colonies for Earth tourists to visit. These somewhat unrealistic ideas are derived from the movie.


(Caption: Interacting with Siri on iPhone 4)

However, there is an article, which has predicted 30 years after the production of Blade Runner, technology has transformed to resemble some of the qualities of Los Angeles in 2019. Finnerty mentions the rise of gesture-based computer interfaces. Where “triumph of touch screen interfaces…[such as] the Apple iPhone has offered ‘pinch’, ‘pull’ and ‘swipe features’’.[8] The invention of Siri, a voice activated assistant, has become a companion to iPhone users, in a culture that is growing lonelier.[9] People are becoming isolated from one another, thus they are finding solace in their electronic device.[10] Siri has the capacity to adopt our information personalities,[11] by recognising our vocal speech and the accent in our voices. For example there is an option to alter Siri, so she can be more responsive to certain dialects. 

Arguably, technology is creeping into our social lives in a manner that may be detrimental. We are relying on technology to carry out simple activities, such as typing a text message, or saving an event on the calendar. Siri is self-organising, self-configuring, robust and renewable, in the terms of McCollough.[12] Because of this, no longer are we focused on connecting to cyberspace. Instead, we are dispersing our use of technology to extend to our social lives. 

Berry claims “Siri seems to provide a viable substitute for companionship and unwavering attention: she provides perfect advice, seeks to rescue one from dilemmas, and offers companionship”.[13] It is true the ascent of human-computer interaction has radicalised technological devices to the extent that individuals look forward to using it.[14] I have seen students in lectures mindlessly opening FaceBook on their laptop or mobile phones immediately before the lecturer starts speaking, and people using Siri to search for the nearest restaurant. This is illustrative of what McCollough states, “involves proactive information feeds treat all quiet time and space as something that needs filling”.[15] Inevitably, we are using technological devices to pass the time and fill spaces that are empty. 

Since technology is embedded in our everyday lives, our activities continue to become mediated when we engage with persuasive computing that is connected to ubiquitous networks. I tend to avoid using Siri as I prefer to carry out activities manually, in case anything was to go wrong. Technology, robots and the like are not infallible. Our over-reliance on these systems will eventually have a detrimental effect on our organisation, communication and literacy skills.


(Caption: Introduction to Google Car)

However, what technology can do may not be so important as what we want to do with it.[16] The Google car is an electric-powered vehicle with standard controls found in modern automobiles. Although it does not have a stirring wheel or pedals, the vehicle is controlled through a smartphone application. This app allows the vehicle to pick up passengers and automatically drive them to the destination selected on the app.[17] This vehicle revolutionises the way humans operate and control machinery. There were even tests of the Google car that suggest the vehicle outperforms human drivers.[18]Although this innovation sounds rather exciting, there are some concerns about safety in areas where the speed zone is over 40 km, which is the maximum speed of the Google car. 

Personally, I find this vehicle, to some degree, will improve safety on the road by decreasing the amount of accidents, but, it will unnecessarily require laws to change, in order to facilitate this vehicle. What if there was a fault or malfunction? Technology and robots cannot fully replace humans, and their capacity to act like humans does not come without flaws. Yes, technologies can integrate themselves in our lives in its application, and it can promote greater interaction and user activity. However, society should be wary of the consequences of over-reliance of these technologies, not just on our everyday practices, but also on our ability to care for ourselves. 

Further, technological devices has offered greater opportunities for us to communicate and interact with each other, and allows us to organise our lifestyle accordingly. I find it difficult imagining a world without the Internet, laptop or mobile phone. We are bought up in a culture which embeds technology everywhere we go and in everything we do. It is inescapable, and it is controlling. I have come to understand it is machines that control us, than we control them. 

We have bestowed limitless power onto technology, and are open for it to change our lives incredibly. Technology will continue to rise and transform every aspect of our lives, from architecture, cyberspace, and the private and public realm. As we sit back and watch this unravel, let us not forget that technologies are susceptible to fault, and maybe we should stop relying on devices to carry out our simple needs. Lets prevent our cities from becoming Blade Runner's LA in 2019 in the future, and force ourselves to exercise the natural skills we developed since birth to interact with the world.

__________________

[1] McCollough, M (2004) Digital Ground Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, p. 5.

[2] Ibid, p. 7.

[3] Ibid, p. 11.

[4] Ibid, p. 22.

[5]Bratton, B 2014, ‘On Apps and Elementary Forms of Interfacial Life: Object, Image, Superimposition’, Bratton.info, December, <http://www.bratton.info/projects/texts/on-apps-and-elementary-forms-of-interfacial-life/>.

[6] Above n 1, p. 21.

[7] Ibid, p. 23.

[8] Finnerty, D 2012, ‘Blade Runner: Which predictions have come true?’, BBC News Magazine, 22 June 2012, accessed 28 May 2014, <http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18026277>.

[9] William Berry 2012, Psychology Today, accessed 28 May 2014, <http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-second-noble-truth/201208/the-psychological-aspect-siri>.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Above n 1, p. 7.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Above n 9.

[14] Above n 1, p. 20.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid, p. 23.

[17] Markoff, J 2014, 'No steering wheel, pedals in Google car', Financial Review, 28 May 2014, accessed 28 May 2014, <http://www.afr.com/p/technology/google_erases_steering_wheel_pedals_ofbRYoRJNXuJ83za9lEfcL>.

[18] Simonite T 2013, 'Data Shows Google's Robot Cars Are Smoother, Safer, Drivers Than You or I', MIT Technology Review, 25 October 2013, accessed 28 May 2014, <http://www.technologyreview.com/news/520746/data-shows-googles-robot-cars-are-smoother-safer-drivers-than-you-or-i/>.
Tuesday, 5 January 2016 @ 17:28  0 dislikes
A 30-year-old is surrounded by a group of women at his party. His mates are winking at him while he returns a yawn. One of them opens an app on their phone and types a description. Immediately a match appears. With a tap of the screen, a deal is done. Patrick the wombat will receive a special gift for his birthday – a Tinder date.

New research shows there are 50 million active users who spend an average of 90 minutes per day on the app. From celebrities, Katy Perry and Leonardo DiCaprio, to notable public figures and athletes, Tinder is a popular choice for enlarging social circles. It might seem like a harmless dating app designed to bring singles together. But it also has a dark side. Tinder is a hotbed of perverts and catfish.

A report from dating website SeekingArrangement.com estimated one out of 10 dating profiles online are fake, and the likelihood of encountering catfish are high. However, Tinder can be enjoyable (and less scary!) if you follow my advice to help you swipe right.


1. Expect the unexpected!




Vicky Shekleton / Via Twitter: @vickyshekleton

Kate,* a 22-year-old teacher, has met her fair share of unusual people on social media, which prompted her to create a troll account.

“I have been hit on by really disgusting and weird people online. So this was like giving them a taste of their own medicine,” she said. “I guess this would be called ‘catfishing.’ I needed to make a point. It wasn’t just me being inconsiderate about my responses.”

Kate described the process of catfishing as “very easy” because Tinder did not have a strict registration process that involved validating her identity. She had an option to type another name, and needed only two photos and a description for her profile.

For three days Kate lived a double life. She believed pretending to be someone else and faking her personality was a form of revenge at “weird people” who are on Tinder for wrong reasons.

“People are just looking for someone to hook up with. Its ‘I need someone because I’m bored’ sort of attitude,” she said. “It’s about going out, having fun and living for the moment, rather than living for the future and being serious about things.”

When she was sent matches, Kate revealed she would make stories about being a criminal or transgender in response to comments about her body.



Image supplied by Kate

“Guys would pay attention to my feet. I’ll get guys instantly sending me pictures of nudes, saying ‘I love your feet,’” she said. “I mean who starts a conversation with a stranger feeling completely comfortable enough to share a nude with them and then be up front and say ‘I like your feet?’”

However, Kate’s lies did not stop random men from tracking her location and obtaining personal information elsewhere. On several occasions they sent friend requests on Facebook. Without ever being matched with them on Tinder, Kate was shocked at their determination to contact and meet her.

“People were searching me up and messaging me. They would look through all the Kates just to find me,” she said. “A lot of these people I didn’t know existed because I never went through their profiles or clicked to match them. These people were forcing their way to me.”

After a day, the Facebook messages changed from pickup lines to spine-chilling comments that specifically stated where she was and what she was doing.

“They would happily admit they found me on Tinder and say things like ‘I saw you walking to your house’ or ‘I saw you while you were jogging,’” she said. “I thought it was freaky, and too desperate, and yet they were still thinking it was socially acceptable.”

Kate admitted she was “creeped out” but not scared of her safety. Instead, it was the public nature of Tinder that became too much for her. On the fourth day Kate had enough.

“I didn’t realise the extent of publicity it had and how many people would be on Tinder,” she said. 

Her experience of using Tinder to catfish was far from fun. Kate learned it caused more problems for her then she intended. For this reason, she rated Tinder a one out of five, and firmly stated she would never go back on it.

“Check your morals and why you are there [on Tinder]. Even if it’s for trolling, honestly I can say from my experience it’s not worth it. You just get hassled more and a bigger headache.”


2. Don't fake it to make it!





Tumblr: @lxttlesheep

Before Kate deleted her Tinder profile, she confessed there was an instance where men’s sexual obsession with feet worked in her favour.

“There was one incident where I got revenge and taught this person a lesson when he wanted pictures of my feet,” she said. “He said ‘I’ll pay you for them,’ and I thought wow. I was like ‘Here’s my address. Its $20 for the first photo but you have to pay first so I actually know you will pay.’”

To Kate’s surprise money was instantly transferred into her PayPal account.

“He actually did pay. It was so crazy. He was like 15 or 16. Then he said ‘Send the pictures’ when he realised I wasn’t replying. He then said ‘You trolled me and took the money.’ That was weird, until I found out he had a girlfriend as well,” she said. “I threatened to tell his girlfriend he was cheating. I gave him his money back but I told him it was for teaching him a lesson.”

Kate’s catfish story is one of many accounts that occurred across Australia. In 2014 a report found 2,700 Australians were catfished, and since then this number continued to climb. Kate’s success at manipulation and the tactics she used is similar to those shown in the television series Catfish, which American anthropologist Krystal D’Costa studied.

“A catfish shapes his or her profile to serve us exactly what we want. They’re emphatic, sympathetic, and like-minded,” she wrote in her blog. “Users have the opportunity to craft a specific image and adjust that image over time. People may look nothing like their photographs or may be pretending to be another gender.”

Catfish concealed their identities or hid behind a “benign face” because social networks encouraged “narcissistic self-promotion and manipulation” of what is published, the co-convenor of the UNSW Cyberspace Law and Policy Community David Vaile said.

“Many participants are deliberately deceptive and manipulative,” he said. “So better make sure everyone is aware their information can be used against them and they cannot trust online identities.”

There is a social element as well. D’Costa stated catfish won people over when they built relationships of confidence and trust. She explained catfish string their bait along and emotionally feed the relationship until questions are no longer asked. Ultimately, this was to avoid detection.

“Catfish appear just like everyone else. It’s much harder to believe a friend would deceive you,” she wrote. “It’s rare a user will try to verify information offered by a catfish for these reasons.”

D’Costa stated catfish are not concerned about being scrutinised, and have no fear in falsifying an identity because their end goal is not to have an offline meeting.

“Why do they do it? Online spaces mean users don’t have to face the people they fool,” she wrote. “So feelings like guilt and shame can be avoided as they explore how far they can press a storyline.”


3. When in doubt, get out!






Bianca Stanescu / HOTforSECURITY

One afternoon, dating coach Suzie-A received a message from an attractive man. They talked daily on Facebook until Suzie-A realised he wanted something from her - money.

“He said the bank seized his money and he had to pay treatment for his father and pay his bills,” she wrote on her blog. “So I responded ‘Sorry but I can’t help you.’ He kept pleading and begging saying his father would die if he didn’t pay for the treatment.”

In Australia it is not illegal to be anonymous or pseudonymous. However, Vaile said if catfish have intent to gain a benefit or cause harm through fraud and deception, it is a crime.

“Fraud and deception for advantage are offences,” he said. “Online means makes no difference to this."

Suzie-A immediately blocked him until he attempted to add her on another account.

“Another person subscribed to me. Very similar profile,” she wrote. “He kept sending me messages over and over, but I didn’t respond.”

Now, she warns her readers and online communities to beware of stranger danger. She stated catfish trick vulnerable people for their affection and then attempt the “money grab.”

“Be smart. Use your gut instinct. Don’t let your loneliness or feelings that you struck gold get in the way of reality,” she wrote. “I know how hard it is to be alone and that makes you vulnerable for any type of attention. But you need to make sure it’s the right type of attention.”

__________________

* Name changed to protect identity.

Wednesday, 18 November 2015 @ 20:13  0 dislikes
‘But what’s happening today – the mass ability to communicate with each other, without having to go through a traditional intermediary – is truly transformative’ (Alan Rusbridger, Editor of The Guardian Newspaper).
The Internet is becoming increasingly ubiquitous since its conception in the early 1960s. It has removed social and geographic boundaries by allowing users to access content from a diverse range of platforms that have significantly been developed by mass media in the twenty-first century.[1] No longer does distance, time or space affect how users communicate. Instead, the Internet has promoted the emergence of new circles of communication, bound together by their common interest that increasingly attracts a global flow of information. Because of this, the combination of computers and networks has begun to fundamentally change the dissemination of news and its consumption. News corporations are relocating to respond to a greater and diverse readership, and ordinary citizens are usurping the role of traditional professional journalists as ‘citizen journalists’, which is synonymous with democracy, participation and public.[2]

Correspondingly individuals in Western countries are free to discuss, debate and interact with each other without being censored or suppressed by a third party. Amidst all this change, this essay will explore the extent to which technology has affected social life in the field of journalism, and the impact of the Internet on communication. In conjunction this essay will also comment on why publishing will continue to exist, regardless of which platform it is carried out, and extensively transforms social life (how information is processed and delivered), as there are greater opportunities for communication than previously.

Traditionally, news corporations are accustomed to being the gatekeepers of information. But with the emergence of the Internet, information has become commoditised and democratised by the ordinary citizen.[3] The arrival of portable Wi-Fi, Apple iPads and iPhones, accompanied by Android tablets and mobiles, have influenced individuals to access content within the grasp of their pockets. Scholars Allan and Thorsen argue due to these highly portable, low-cost, discreet, digitalised communication technologies being easily plugged and uploaded to the web, they have become an integral part of everyday life and the medium for the conduct of social relations (Allan 2009, p. 11).[4] 

With the invention of new technological tools, individuals are blogging, sharing photos, uploading videos and podcasting to tell their firsthand accounts of breaking news. News corporations are taking advantage of these platforms by signing up to any form of social media to expand their readership. Australia’s version of 60 minutes has 30,328 followers on Twitter and their own hashtag titled ‘extraminutes’ that is active before and after the show’s screening. Each ‘tweet’ contains a link that directs the user to either their website, an image or a video. Ordinary work hours are transformed into a 24-hour news cycle. Despite this, the reason why major news corporations are relocating online is due to the audience’s demand for accessible, immediate and condensed information. Since Twitter has a 140 character limit, news corporations are forced to focus on the crux of a news story, the breadth of the details, though short, still inform their audience whether or not they are at the scene.



Caption: The above two images is a screenshot of 60 Minutes Australia Twitter profile and hashtag #extraminutes. These photos illustrate the amount of followers who actively use Twitter to access news and to further their opinion on particular issues. The specially designed hashtag is referred to after the 60 Minute program airs on TV. This news corporation frequently encourages its audience to share content such as links, images and videos that may be of some relevance to the news story. Photo by: Fiona Lu.

In 2008 there was a hostage crisis in Mumbai. Citizen journalists were using microblogging service Twitter feeds to tweet eyewitnesses accounts during the disaster. CNN reporter Stephanie Busair emphasised “it was the day social media signaled itself as news-gathering force to be reckoned with.”[5] Similarly the Sandy Hook shooting attracted thousands of views around the world. Celebrities and political figures were tweeting their condolences and shared information with the public (their followers). Those with millions of followers and influence were furthering the news stories via hashtags, links and images. 


As demonstrated by these two events, social media has allowed the public to engage with content as it is delivered in real time. The content transcends time and space. It is publicised so it is readily available to everyone. There are no limitations or restrictions that prevent people from accessing information. These citizen journalists are enlarging the civic space by creating a marketplace of ideas where anyone can put any issue on the agenda, so long as they comply with basic rules concerned with social etiquette. Thus professional journalists are finding difficulty attracting the public’s attention within this densely packed public space. 

As new and old media are linked in a global network, scholars argue the individual journalist is reduced in an ever widening ‘communication machine.’[6] A journalist’s identity may not be recognised in an ocean of ideas, but their voice is not absent. They still have the freedom to express their perspective without being shunned down. There are no intermediaries preventing citizen journalists, professional journalists or the public from inhabiting or mediating this space. Journalism is increasingly driven by the exigencies of on-demand publishing and what’s more consumer participation in the news journalistic process through the possibilities of web 2.0.[7]

The growth of new media channels has led many to question whether social online media might be supplanting conventional journalistic channels, such as newspapers and television, for information. This growth is previewed in the current media landscape that is experiencing a gradual but inexorable shift from print to audiovisual.[8] 

In a study conducted by the University of Wollongong, reading news online is now becoming a habit for many people.[9] Currently 40% say they get most of their news about national and international affairs from the Internet.[10] The online ad business is flourishing compared to newspaper ad revenue with companies set to expand to $34.4 billion in 2014.[11] In Australia, the Central Intelligence Agency estimated 70% of Australians are Internet users, and according to the Nielsen Net Ratings report, 10 million of them are active users.[12] On Internet World Stats 13,597,380 million Facebook users were recorded on the 31st of March 2012 to have created a Facebook account.[13]

The successfulness of how their content engages with the audience is measured by the authenticity of the news story. Blogs maintained by citizen journalists remove the perception journalists are impersonal and detached observers, whose writings are generally in favour of a political pursuit or idea. These ‘citizen journalists’ uphold a similar duty as professional journalists in the proliferation of news. The journalistic values of truth, accuracy, impartiality and diversity of opinion are still strengthened online, however what distinguishes professional from citizen journalists are the intermediaries that intervene before publishing. 


Before publishing an article, a news editor would usually assess whether it the story is newsworthy, and correct any grammatical or punctuation errors. News editors would ensure the piece is free of bias and monitor the methods used by journalist to obtain information was ethical and legal. The very act of publishing itself demonstrated a new capacity to locate textual errors with precision and to transmit this information simultaneously to scattered readers.[14] 

Likewise traditional media entities had to wait for confirmation before they made official reports. In October 2011 a small aircraft experienced some difficulty at the George Charles airport in St Lucia and had to land in an emergency situation. Citizen journalists immediately assumed the incident was a “plane crash” as they posted on social networking sites. The traditional media organisations did not issue that statement, and if they did this would affect their reputation and credibility. The ability of the Internet to immediately post content can be disadvantageous. Without intermediaries, information is not accounted for. 


Moreover with the rise of the Internet, online news is overtaking newspapers as news outlets. The Internet has changed how information is presented and archived. Parikka stated archives attempt to offer new kinds of storage space where the audience become active agents in participating in media events.[15] Users are utilising the Internet not only to benefit their private social lives but to understand public life as well. 

Eisenstein contended private life as well as public affairs underwent transformation as new mediums encouraged a sharper divide between these two zones.[16] The private merges with the public as multimedia allows users to ask questions to reporters and editors about the choices they made while researching and writing a story, along with feedback or input within their homes. This encouraged citizen journalists to incorporate not only emotional depth and first-hand experience of an event/crisis,[17] unlike the distancing approach of mainstream media; they also invite their target audience to participate in domestic dramas rather than global ones.[18] Badelt states “today’s audience want to be a part of the media, rather than passive receivers. Not only do they want to comment on the news, they want to be a part of creating it.”[19] 


In July 2005 on the day of the London bombings, the BBC News’ website used images sent by citizens who were affected by the attacks. Within six hours the BBC received more than 1,000 photographs, 20 pieces of amateur video, 4,000 text messages and 20,00 e-mails.[20] The public were participating in the BBC’s coverage than never before. As shown during this crisis, the public offered new information and thus news coverage becomes a partnership between the source and receiver. This two-way capacity represents a significant departure from traditional one-way flow of information from papers to users, and greatly improves the channels of feedback.[21] A commentator said traditional journalism is the outside looking in, whereas citizen journalism is the inside looking out.[22] In order to get the complete story, having two perspectives are essential to producing a balanced article. 


With the rise of the Internet, some predict the demise of mainstream media at the hands of citizen journalism. This is untrue, as both views continue to compete to win favour from the public. An example is Palestinian journalist blogger Heba Zayyan. Across the Arab World, most local newspapers and broadcast news programs are either directly or indirectly state controlled, and thus often subject to strict censorship.[23] Zayyan’s purpose was to reach the ‘Other’ and address Western stereotypes that all Palestinians are ‘terrorists.’ Like other citizen journalists, she was driven by a common goal, that is, to correct any wrongs that affect the interests of the audience. Zayyan endeavored to raise international awareness that Palestinians do not just exist as images in the news. Instead, she pursued to tell a truth different from mainstream media. Below every blog entry, Zayyan had a comment box for her audience to contribute their own views on issues she discussed in real time. 

According to professional journalism, confirmation and re-confirmation of information is the hallmark of this profession. Zayyan did not delete comments, nor impose a filter that required her approval. Unlike professional journalism where intermediaries would validate the information and statistics she was to post, Zayyan possessed multiple roles the modern journalist serves, which the Internet supported. The very core of journalism focuses on reporting truthfully and informing the public of any information concerning their welfare. Zayyan positioned herself as a human ‘filter,’ where she assumed responsibility for providing important news or content that suited the needs of her audience.[24]


In an age where technology has dominated everyday life along with the Internet vastly shaping interaction, anyone can equip themselves with these tools to reach a specific audience and express their opinion in any publishable form available to them. There are forums such as RVANews Network and Watchdog International, and avenues for blogging such as Blogger and Wordpress that can be linked to a separate domain to store news written by the ‘average Joe.’ By allowing and expanding communication between journalists and their audience, “the internet has created a new sphere where everyone can be a journalist”.[25]


Caption: The above is an example of a citizen journalist forum. This website was founded on the ‘third man’ which is the traditional role of a reporter who writes from the neutral perspective of a third person. The Third Man strives to be fair and unbiased in his observations and reports. The Third Report states it is seeking “citizens like you to become Third Men and Women.” Photo by: Fiona Lu.


In conclusion, society has undoubtedly witnessed the transformation of publishing in social life and the role of traditional intermediaries in journalism that govern this public domain. The speed at which news and information circulate online is steadily increasing, thus publishing and particularly the media are considerably affected. The hierarchical barriers, which consist of authoritative intermediaries such as editors and publishers, that once governed journalism are dismantled and no longer have a prominent role in disseminating information. Mainstream media are no longer the primary source of news. Today, user-generated content are classified as news and is relied upon by thousands of Internet users. It has become growing phenomenon as original reporting of local events contributed by ordinary citizens continues to increase.


However, despite the differences between traditional and citizen journalists, they are still effectively working together as “watchdogs” to hold the government and corporations accountable. Overall, both roles are constantly transforming in a context where technology has enabled the news to be distributed in unconventional ways, and has expanded communication across a diverse range of demographics, cultures and countries.




[1] Hashim, N and Meloche J 2007, ‘Australian Online Newspaper: An Exploratory Study on Internet Saavy Users Using Q-Methodology’, University of Wollongong Research Online, accessed 10 June 2013, <http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1436&context=commpapers>. 


[2] Freebase 2013, Mashable, San Francisco, accessed 10 June 2013, <http://mashable.com/category/citizen-journalism/>.

[3] Sambrook, R 2005, ‘Citizen Journalism and the BBC’, Neiman Reports, accessed 10 June 2013, <http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reportsitem.aspx?id=100542>.

[4] Allan, S and Thorsen E 2009, ‘Citizen Journalism (Global Crises and the Media), Peter Lang Publishing.

[5] Busari, S 2008, ‘Tweeting the terror: how social media reacted to Mumbai’, CNN Asia, 27 November, accessed 10 June 2013, <http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/11/27/mumbai.twitter/>.

[6] McQuail, D, Goulding, P and Bens de E 2005, “Communication theory and research’: Beyond Journalism: A profession between information society and civil society’, Sage Research Methods, p. 7, accessed 10 June 2013 from Sage Research Methods, Sage, IBSN: 9780857024374. 

[7] Chris Brogan 2010, Creative Commons, United States, accessed 10 June 2013, <http://www.chrisbrogan.com/journalism-is-not-publishing/>.

[8] Above n 5, p. 4.

[9] Above n 1, p. 2. 

[10] PewResearch for the People & the Press 2008, PewResearch Center, Washington, accessed 10 June 2013, <http://www.people-press.org/2008/12/23/internet-overtakes-newspapers-as-news-outlet/>.


[11] NewsCore 2010, ‘Internet overtakes newspapers for ad revenue’, The Australian, 16 June, accessed 10 June 2013, <http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/internet-overtakes-newspapers-for-ad-revenue/story-e6frgakx-1225880141309>.


[12] Above n 1, p. 2.

[13] Internet World Stats 2013, Miniwatts Marketing Group, accessed 10 June 2013, <http://www.internetworldstats.com/facebook.htm>.

[14] Eisenstein, E 1979, ‘Defining the initial shift: some features of print culture’, The Printing Press as an Agent of Change, vol. 1, p. 80.

[15] Parikka, J 2013, ‘Archival Media Theory: An Introduction to Wolfgang Ernst’s Media Archaeology’, Digital Memory and the Archive, p. 15.

[16] Above n 13, p. 133.

[17] Above n 4, p. 30. 

[18] Ibid.

[19] Burkholder, C 2009, Center for Journalism Ethics School of Journalism & Mass Communication University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin, accessed 10 June 2013, <http://www.journalismethics.info/citizen_journalism/blogging.htm>.

[20] Above n 3.

[21] Above n 1, p. 3.

[22] Gonsalves, A 2005, ‘Bloggers, Citizen Journalists See Katrina From The Inside’, InformationWeek, accessed 10 June 2013, <http://lion.chadwyck.co.uk.wwwproxy0.library.unsw.edu.au/searchFulltext.do?id=R04737314&divLevel=0&queryId=../session/1370839559_609&trailId=13E91E8E3ED&area=abell&forward=critref_ft>.

[23] Above n 4, p. 86. 

[24] Howard Owens 2008, Wordpress, United States, accessed 10 June 2013, < http://howardowens.com/2008/01/26/six-roles-or-job-duties-modern-journalism/>.

[25] Above n 18.
Saturday, 17 October 2015 @ 19:22  0 dislikes

(Image: Wikipedia)


It is undeniable the Internet is a gateway to the actual-world and virtual-world. Since the emergence of Linden Lab’s Second Life (“SL”), it has become increasingly difficult to distinguish between actual-reality and virtual-reality. Often, one would assume the identities, relationships, and societies generated online are imaginary illusions, or unrealistic interpretations of the real-world. Undoubtedly, there is no actual connection between the two realities, nor are they entirely identical.[i] As a “substitute reality,” the virtual-world enables the formation of fluid cultural identities known as “avatars,” and imposes unbridled control and freedom over self-representation. Contrastingly, the actual-world is bounded to the law of nature, including embodiment, presence, and time.[ii] Yet this does not prevent virtual-worlds from changing actual-world selfhoods, or providing a temporary escape that defies life-and-death existence.[iii]

Because everyday practices of identification and interaction are reconfigured online, offline behaviour is consequently affected. The expectations and fantasies governing self-perception are extracted from actual-reality and assimilated into virtual-worlds. The artificial objects, spaces, properties and communities embodied in virtual-worlds are modeled on representations of everyday environments. Thus, one would describe SL as a social “MUD” (multi-user dimension) because it is partially textbased, and a “GUI” (graphical user interface) that combines realistic 3D visual elements with interactive tactile and audio experiences. The ability of humans to construct graphical representations of their “self,” and customise their virtual personas, transforms what it is to be human in the actual-world. 

Though it is natural for humans to adopt multiple “selfhoods,”[iv] “avatars” can be physically modified to express “durable aspects” of self-identity.[v] Romance, or “affairs,” on SL create new forms of intimacy,[vi] despite adverse effects on actual-world relationships. The gap between what is actual and virtual is blurred when the user dissociates from reality. Thus, this essay will argue virtual-life is not separate from actual-life on the basis that: Firstly, human experience and identity is culturally mediated in SL. Secondly, SL is powerfully conducive to intimacy,[vii] and it cultivates social ties. Thirdly, communities in virtual-worlds invite experimentation and creativity,[viii] so users can express unexplored parts of themselves.[ix]

Avatars: Real self or ideal self?

It is usual for humans to articulate and recreate their real-world dreams and desires through media. SL emerged from the social-historical context, which allowed the present moment to be characterised by new consumption patterns.[x] Lipovetsky coined the term “hypermodern self” to explain the “consumerist spirit” has infiltrated culture,[xi] including what constitutes an “ideal” life. SL is a product of this culture because as a virtual-world it gratifies its users emotionally, physically, and sensually. Hence SL allows individuals to have new sensuous experiences, which can improve on their quality of life.[xii] As a user-created world, SL users are “hypermodern individuals.” They are free from responsibility and having to account for their choices and behaviour, and its consequences.[xiii] This not only challenges the boundaries between the mind and body in the virtual-world and real-world, but also the person and the environment when they enter these realities.

According to Rymaszewski, SL is the “perfect place to get your fantasy on…and there’s no other place for becoming something you aren’t, or…for working out what it is you want to be.”[xiv] As a “sociomental space,”[xv] SL users are empowered to gratify their psychological and relational fantasies[xvi] by exploring their “hidden selves,”[xvii] and experimenting with non-conventional identities.[xviii] 

While there is no dividing line between what is fact and fiction in virtual-worlds, such boundaries are further blurred when identity construction in SL involves interaction between actual-reality and virtual-reality. When users are first introduced to SL, “reality” is altered when “both ‘worlds’ bleed into each other.”[xix] Humans constantly experience the virtual as real because it elicits a response from the brain and body to engage with it.[xx] Moreover, the identities of SL embody multiplicity, although this does not mean SL residents live a “double life,” in the sense they reserve a specific “self” for each world. Instead, one resident believed their role was redefined online without real-life (“RL”) implications.[xxi] 

Similarly, another said virtual selfhoods “behave differently…people just suppress certain aspects of their personalities and accentuate others.”[xxii] The responses of these SL users demonstrate the concept of Descartes’ “Cartesian mind.” The SL users’ comments demonstrate their brain exhibits different behaviours and facets of selfhood[xxiii] as a response to realities the body is presented to.[xxiv] Certainly, the actual-world and virtual-world equally share the capacity to shape identity construction and management through avatars as vehicles of role-play and embodiments of people.

By definition, “avatar” is the Sanskrit word for “a form of self,”[xxv] which is the user’s alter ego.[xxvi] It is also described as a movement from virtual to actual, a “decarnation” or “invirtualisation” of the self.[xxvii] When SL users enter virtual-reality they manifest their “offline self” when they intersect with a technological object. They are a position from which the self encounters the virtual,[xxviii] making the virtual environment and phenomena it fosters real.[xxix] 

Inevitably, their actual-world and real-world identities will merge into one when their offline consciousness makes decisions for their digital identity. Anarbaeva interviewed female SL user “Teresa” who confirmed her fear of being sexually harassed in RL determined her virtual-world appearance. Teresa said, “I chose a deliberately androgynous first name [on SL] as I anticipated being able to change from male to female, and other various creatures.”[xxx] Teresa wanted to “borrow a bit of male privilege,” so her SL identity and RL gender remains elusive to other SL users.[xxxi] In this case, the “androgynous” first name is a pseudonym or “screen name” SL residents adopt in the beginning of their life course online. The screen name is unchangeable, and has significant meaning attached to it.[xxxii] It facilitates the online identity, and gives insight into their “true self” or “ideal self,” they wish to employ in RL.

Psychologists and anthropologists (Taylor 2000; Boellstorff 2008) attempted to reconcile why SL users prefer virtual life to RL.[xxxiii] They discovered disembodiment and anonymity of avatar representation establishes a new mode of identity production.[xxxiv] These “names” identify the lives of residents in the virtual-world, as an expression of the multitude of virtual disembodied or “alternative” selfhoods they can occupy. A transsexual male SL user who has a female avatar said, “Here in SL I created something new in myself that I never realised was there before. At first it was just role-playing, but then I grew to love Pavia [avatar]. I kept infusing myself into her…Pavia started coming out in the real world. I became her, she became me.”[xxxv] 

In summary, the virtual-world is, in the words of Massumi, “Like a black hole. It sucks everything in.”[xxxvi] The real-world identity gets trapped in this “hole,” so the virtual body is treated with higher regard than the user’s embodied flesh. It “sucks” in RL norms and standards, and spits out opportunities for the user to construct their ideal self. Eventually, the “virtual body becomes the preferred vessel for the non-corporeal mind,”[xxxvii] and may encapsulate what is culturally accepted as “beauty,” or adopt a “fantastical transcendent character”[xxxviii] that opposes traditional conceptions of being human. Thus, the multiplicity of user-created avatars expands the user’s creativity, and adds value to facets of their real-world selfhood, which the virtual-world deconstructs. Because identity is changeable and volatile, there is tension between accuracy and the desire to meet standards of attractiveness in portraying offline bodies.[xxxix] 

On one hand, in virtual-reality SL users have the opportunity to satisfy “neglected ego needs” in a therapeutic manner, and express their desires.[xl] The disparity between the corporal and virtual bodies is actual-reality prevents people from claiming identities that are inconsistent with their physical characteristics (e.g. gender, height and race) due to the deficiencies of human flesh. Hence, the virtual-world relies on the imagination, and disregards societal and physical limitations.

As a result, SL has opened the door to new identity experiences, thus changing former conditions of the construction of identity.[xli] In the documentary, ‘Life 2.0,’ a male web developer characterised his avatar as a schoolgirl, “Ayya Aabye.” When he registered an account, he adopted this pseudonym as his SL username, which became a part of his virtual-world identity. He said Ayya affected everything about himself, including the way he acted. He viewed himself as “an observer…sort of a driver, because [Ayya] is guiding [him]. She knows what she wants [him] to do, and [he] does it.”[xlii] Ayya released him from his suppressed childhood memories of being molested by his father. She granted him the opportunity to explore his tainted past, and to be free from it. He explained, “It felt like the old Ayya was giving up…and conceding to me. Allowing me to be more myself.” This conflicts with the expectation avatars are extensions of “real offline selves,” since they are virtual embodiments of real people.[xliii] 

Male SL user Freddy in Anarbaeva’s research spoke about his avatar as an extension of his real-life self because “Freddy” (his name offline) plays a “pivotal role in all the decisions that Joseph makes and sometimes it is inevitable. In essence Freddy defines who Joseph is.”[xliv] Giddens claimed identity is not given as a result of the individual’s action-system.[xlv] Identity has to be routinely created by the self, current motivations, and situational conditions.[xlvi] Role-playing as the avatar Ayya attached meaning to her persona, and empowered her user to accept his RL struggles. Consequently, his avatar encouraged him to deconstruct himself in a virtual-world that amplified his dissociation with the RL. It is within this space that online interactions transferred into actual-reality, and thus followed and transformed SL users when they are offline. 

Therefore, these multiple, and mobile identities represents a way of seeing the real-world and virtual-world as connected and active, regardless of which realm they participate in the present. Inevitably, it “takes over their whole being, where every thought, every movement, every sound” adds vibrancy to virtual space.[xlvii]

Community: Micro-worlds

Similarly, role-playing allows users to explore their real-life selfhood without judgment or criticism, and has a crucial role in determining cultural affiliations, and histories.[xlviii] “Furries,” vampires, and robots are role-playing communities in SL that predate outside of virtual-worlds. These subcultures radically reconfigure the virtual-self to what they consider their true self is or should be. Users forge relationships, which strengthen community and belonging in virtual space. In relation to “furries,” this group is a form of “totemic” identification with animals,[xlix] where users wish to be a particular animal, real or imaginary.[l] They are an example of post-human identities that challenge ontological categories of nature/culture, and human/animal.[li] 

Since the virtual-world encourages users to explore their creativity, these subcultures allow users to experiment with their persona with people who share similar interests. In SL there are “furry hangouts,” where “furries” gather in dance club to converse, enter contests, and dance. Though they may never meet in the actual-world, there is a possibility this subculture will expand into the real-world like the “furry convention.” 

Further, these subcultures essentially assign a face to a “faceless” community.[lii] SL, in a broad sense, is plainly a virtual-world that contains islands. The user-generated content and communities add personality to virtual-realty, allowing users to determine their life course freely. In this case, the “furrie” culture promotes an alternative lifestyle and gives the user purpose since SL is not goal-oriented. In this case, there is clearly a gap dividing actual-reality and virtual-reality. It is unlikely SL users will attach animalistic or fantastical traits as an aspect of their real-world identity. Though the boundaries remain, these communities actually unite users together in friendship, which can progress into something greater, to the point where the virtual-world will naturally merge with the real-world.

Intimacy: Passion in cyberspace?

Additionally, the virtual-world is tied to real-world desires of finding love and belonging in a community. Maslow states these are complementary “desires” that concern understanding, aesthetic appreciation, and spiritual needs.[liii] Generally, users primarily enter virtual-worlds in search for stimulation, escape, or to satisfy emotional needs, which sometimes the real-world cannot fully provide. It is inevitable once SL users adapt to their “new” life, romance and sexual intimacy are sought after.

With reference to Maslow’s needs hierarchy,[liv] the reasons why SL users partake in online relationships, and how this affects both realities, are as follows. Firstly, self-oriented confidence. SL residents are convinced their avatar represents what amounts to “beauty” in the real-world. If their avatar is an extension of their selfhood, intimacy will build the user’s confidence and instil hope they are capable of being loved. Also, virtual-world intimacy may remove any real-world misconceptions about relationship. 

Secondly, independence and freedom makes physical safety not a concern when avatars are not exposed to the same physical dangers facing humans. Likewise, the level of anonymity in virtual-worlds prompts users to experiment with themselves, and each other without actual face-to-face communication. 

Thirdly, reputation, attention, and recognition drive SL residents to seek relationships online, in order to find comfort, flee from their current real-world relationship, or satisfy their ego. In the documentary ‘Virtual Adultery and Cyberspace Love,’ SL user Kristen believed her “RL was diabolical.”[lv] When she met Steve (husband) on SL, she was in control of her life again. She spoke of getting her old self back. Daniel affirms interacting through an avatar stimulates the “observing ego,” the ability to look at oneself objectively and rationally.[lvi] This proves users can resolve real-world issues in the virtual-world, and these solutions can be applied in real-life. Thus, virtual-reality can precede and frame actual-reality.

Moreover, “when life and love is less than perfect in RL, the escape SL offers can be more seductive than the real-world.”[lvii] This introduces the issue of fidelity when residents who are in a committed relationship in the actual-world, fall in love online. This poses a question of the extent to which virtual intimacy can threaten the gap between the actual and virtual, and the people in it.[lviii] Real-world housewife Carolyn claimed having a SL account was “like being reborn again.”[lix] Her affair with an avatar hindered her relationship with her husband and children, as she had no sense of time or space when she was with her online lover. Instead, her space was redefined, which brought disorder into her real-world. The virtual-world had priority over her actual-reality. Further, she described the intensity of her feelings for him, as “like any other type of connection you would make with somebody.” When they first met her feelings for him was magnified. Her heart was “racing a little faster,” while she yearned to “know what he was about…how he felt, and how he thought.”

According to Boellstorff, SL romances are more real than actual-world romances. The willingness of residents to reveal their “real” self behind the avatar to their online lover demonstrates the gap separating the virtual and actual no longer exists. A report discovered users exchanged actual-world information outside SL.[lx] They were emailing photographs of their real-life self, and made attempts to contact each other via phone or meeting in real-life. This demonstrates the real-world is not segregated from the virtual-world. Pain and pleasure can be felt and communicated across these realities. 

An example is if a user discovered their companion sent a fake photograph of themself, this could lead to strong feelings of betrayal, which would fracture the relationship, and importantly trust. Another is when the user no longer signs in on SL, their companion wonders whether they are dead in real-life. Hence, the visual capability of seeing their companion on SL is significant. It enhances the emotional, mental, and physical experience of intimacy in virtual-reality.[lxi] What it is to be human in the real-world is redefined when virtual-worlds accommodate experiences involving heartache or loss. Though actual-reality and virtual-reality was intentionally encoded separately in SL as “1st Life” and “2nd Life,” the boundaries are subverted when intimacy transcends virtual-reality and changes the concept of love in real-life.

In conclusion, the virtual-world has real-world ramifications. The social actions of humans in the actual-world inspire their behaviour in SL,[lxii] whereas what occurs in the virtual-world is viewed as real and meaningful[lxiii] as the ones encountered offline.[lxiv] Eventually their virtual existence can take a life of its own,[lxv] resulting in the real-world to slowly diminish in importance.[lxvi] 

For this reason, patterns of interaction and traditional practices are recreated in this multimedia environment. No longer are users encumbered by social constraints or the physical limitations of the tangible world. The intensity of experiencing SL as an “immersive dimensionless semblance of lived space,”[lxvii] not only heightens the user’s engagement as a SL resident, but also provokes their emotions and thought process in the actual-world. Thus, the virtual-world is part of the real-world. Both realms continue to exist together regardless of whether the user chooses to keep these realities separate. While the virtual world is not entirely perfect or ideal in the long-term, it may be a good deal safer than the physical world we live in now.[lxviii]







REFERENCES

[i] Massumi, B 2008, ‘The Thinking-Feeling of What Happens’, Inflexions, 1, accessed 7 June 2014, <http://www.inflexions.org/n1_The-Thinking-Feeling-of-What-Happens-by-Brian-Massumi.pdf>, p. 20.
[ii] Suler, J, 2004, Two Paths of Virtual Reality, Rider University, accessed 7 June 2014, <http://users.rider.edu/~suler/psycyber/vrpaths.html>.
[iii] Dibbell, J 2011, My Tiny Life: Crime and passion in a virtual world, 2nd edn, Julian Dibbell, p. 52
[iv] Boellstorff, T 2008, Coming of Age in Second Life: An Athropologist Explores the Virtually Human, Princeton University Press, United States of America, p. 211.
[v] See Taylor, T.I 2002, ‘Living Digitally: Embodiment in Virtual Worlds’, in R. Schroeder (eds), The Social Life of Avatars: Presence and Interaction in Shared Virtual Environments, Springer-Verlag, London, p. 41.
[vi] Above n 4, p. 169.
[vii] Van Gelder, L 1991, ‘The Strange Case of the Electronic Lover’, in C Dunlop & R K (ed), Computerization and Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices, Academic Press, Boston, p. 366.
[viii] Ensslin, A 2011, ‘Avatar Needs and the Remediation of Architecture in Second Life’, in A Ensslin & E Muse (ed), Creating Second Lives: Community, Identity, and Spatiality as Constructions of the Virtual, Routledge, New York, p. 195.
[ix] Turkle, S 2001 ‘All MOOS are Education – the Experience of ‘Walking through the Self’, in C Haynes & J.R Holmevik (eds), High Wired: On the Design, Use, and Theory of Educational MOOs, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, United States of America, p. 12.
[x] Cited in Gottschalk, S 2010, ‘The Presentation of Avatars in Second Life: Self and Interaction in Social Virtual Spaces, Symbolic Interaction, vol. 33, no. 4, fall, p. 506.
[xi] Ibid.
[xii] Ibid, p. 507.
[xiii] Ibid.
[xiv] Rymaszewski, M, Wagner, J.A, Wallace, M, Winters, C, Ondrejka, C, Batstone-Cunningham, B, Rosedale, P 2007, Second Life: The Official Guide, Wiley, Indianapolis, p. 301.
[xv] Chayko, M 2008, Portable Communities: The Social Dynamics of Online and Mobile Communication, State University of New York Press, New York.
[xvi] Above n 10, p. 508.
[xvii] Suler, J 2004, The Psychology of Cyberspace, Rider University, accessed 7 June 2014, <http://users.rider.edu/~suler/psycyber/index.html>.
[xviii] Rosenmann, A, Safir, M.P 2006, ‘Forced Online: Push Factors of Internet Sexuality: A Preliminary Study of Online Paraphilic Empowerment’, Journal of Homosexuality, 51, pp. 71- 92.
[xix] Cunningham, K 2006, ‘Virtually Transformed: Second Life’s Implications for the Status of the Body’, cited in Gottschalk 2010, p. 505.
[xx] Fink, J 1999, Cyberseduction: Reality in the Age of Psychotechnology, Prometheus Books, New York, pp. 128-129.
[xxi] Above n 4, p. 130.
[xxii] Ibid, p. 129.
[xxiii] Suler, J 2004, Identity Manageent in Cyberspace, Rider University, accessed 7 June 2014, <http://users.rider.edu/~suler/psycyber/identitymanage.html>.
[xxiv] Descartes, R 1989, The Passions of the Soul, Hackett Pub Co Inc, Indianapolis, accessed 7 June 2014, <http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/pdfs/descartes1649.pdf>.
[xxv] Above n 4, p. 128.
[xxvi] Fetscherin, M, Lattemann C 2008, ‘User Acceptance of Virtual Worlds’, Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, vol. 9, no. 3, accessed 7 June 2014, <http://www.csulb.edu/journals/jecr/issues/20083/paper5.pdf?origin=publication_detail>, pp. 231-242.
[xxvii] Above n 4, p. 128.
[xxviii] Ibid, p. 140.
[xxix] Above n 5, p. 41.
[xxx] Anarbaeva, S.M 2012, ‘Samarita Ibanez: An Identity Journey from Life to Second’, Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, vol. 5, no. 1, May 2012, accessed 7 June 2014, <http://journals.tdl.org/jvwr/index.php/jvwr/article/view/6176>, p. 8. 
[xxxi] Ibid. 
[xxxii] Above n 4, p. 92.
[xxxiii] Joyce Bettencourt 2008, Wonderland: Virtual Adultery and Cyberspace Love, United Kingdom, online video, accessed 7 June 2014, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POE0nBKFo9Y>.
[xxxiv] Bargh, J, McKenna, K.Y.A, Fizsimons, G.M 2002, ‘Can You See The Real Me? Activation and Expression of the ‘‘True Self’’ on the Internet’, Journal of Social Issues, vol. 58, no. 1, accessed 1 June 2014, <http://smg.media.mit.edu/personals/chi2004/private/papers/bargh.pdf>, pp. 33–48.
[xxxv] Above n 4, p. 150.
[xxxvi] Above n 1, p. 22.
[xxxvii] Jones, D.E 2008, ‘I, Avatar: Constructions of Self and Place in Second Life and the Technological Imagination’, Georgetown University, accessed 7 June 2014 from gnovis Journal, p. 14.
[xxxviii] Lastowka, G, Hunter, D 2004, ‘The Laws of the Virtual Worlds’, California Law Review, accessed 7 June 2014, <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=402860>, pp. 3-73.
[xxxix] Book, B 2004, ‘Moving Beyond the Game: Social Virtual Worlds’, Cultures of Play Panel, State of Play 2 Conference, October, accessed 1 June 2014, <http://deby.net/FILES/3d/ARTICLES/moving%20beyond%20the%20game%20-%20social%20virtual%20worlds.pdf>, p. 8.
[xl] Daniel, J 2008, The Self Set Free, Therapy Today, accessed 7 June 2014, <http://www.therapytoday.net/article/show/68/>.
[xli] Nagy, P 2010, ‘Second Life, Second Choice? The effects of virtual identity on consumer behavior. A conceptual framework’, accessed 7 June 2014, <http://kgk.uni-obuda.hu/system/files/pnagy.pdf>, p. 171.
[xlii] Jason Springarn-Koff 2010, Life 2.0, online video, accessed 7 June 2014, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUwD7u7wwcY>.
[xliii] Above n 39, p. 8.
[xliv] Above n 30, p. 9.
[xlv] Giddens, A 1991, Modernity and Self Identity, Oxford: Polity Press, p. 52.
[xlvi] Above n 41, p. 172.
[xlvii] Above n 1, p. 29.
[xlviii] Above n 4, p. 133.
[xlix] Ibid, p. 198.
[l] Au, W.J 2005, Furry Like Me, New World Notes, accessed 7 June 2014, <http://secondlife.blogs.com/nwn/2005/04/furry_like_me.html>.
[li] Graham, E.L 2002, Representations of The Post-Human: Monsters, Aliens, and Others in Popular Culture, Rutgers University Press, United States of America.
[lii] Above n 4, p. 194.
[liii] See Maslow, A.H 1943, A Theory of Human Motivation, York University, accessed 7 June 2014, <https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-5-JeCa2Z7hNjZlNDNhOTEtMWNkYi00YmFhLWI3YjUtMDEyMDJkZDEx
NWRm/edit?pli=1>, pp. 370-396.
[liv] Above n 8, pp. 191-193.
[lv] Above n 33.
[lvi] Above n 40.
[lvii] Above n 33.
[lviii] Above n 4, p. 185.
[lix] Above n 33.
[lx] Above n 4, pp. 15-266.
[lxi] Above n 10, p. 503.
[lxii] Dourish, P 2004, ‘A History of Interaction’, in Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, p. 18.
[lxiii] Taylor T.L 2006, ‘Beyond Management: Considering Participatory Design and Governance in Player Culture, First Monday, Issue 7, accessed 7 June 2014, <http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1611/1526>.
[lxiv] Above n 4, p. 20.
[lxv] Shields, R 2002, The Virtual, Routledge, London.
[lxvi] Cline M.S, 2005, Power, Madness, and Immortality: The Future of Virtual Reality, e-book, accessed 7 June 2014, <http://books.google.com.au/books
id=7OxbJWzIaVEC&pg=PA196&lpg=PA196&dq=overstimulation
+sensory+virtual+worlds&source=bl&ots=
OryNoKC787&sig=ZqWkyz4g
2hc9VzFNhudGnqwXucY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=q
xZ8U77PE4uZkgW61oHYBQ&ved=0CEgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=
overstimulation%20sensory
%20virtual%20worlds&f=false>, p. 196.
[lxvii] Above n 1, p. 29.
[lxviii] Above n 42.