#i dont like social medias. i have never lasted on any site-curated social medias for more than a couple months

[draculagerard]

fucking tumblr. holy shit

[mysticgoblinwriter]

Okay I've been wanting to say this for quite a while now

For Fic Writers, Readers, and Everyone-

Tumblr is bad for your mental health. And not in the "expect bullies-yaddayadda" way.

Oh and - a person disagreeing with you or calling you out for bad behavior (done nicely) is not bullying. So lets just drop that right now.

It sneaks up on you and suddenly you start to care about notes and "famous people" who are the most followed within your fandom

Tumblr is a great place, but only in small doses. Its human nature to want to go with the flow and check what other people think/have been doing. But within doing that you drag yourself deeper into a whirlpool of always wanting to follow this unwritten code of bullshit. Because you don't want to offend anybody, because you don't want to be rude.

You know the rules.-

Reblog/Comment on a fic

Respond to tag games

If you haven't read the latest popular works you're a terrible person

If you don't read your friends fics you're an even worse person

That's all bullshit. If I was writing a book irl every month I would not say to my friends "you must read this or I will not think highly of you anymore"

I do have this to say- cross tagging isn't nice or cool. Its a jerk move. Stop it. That was not said nicely and I am aware of that.

If your friends are true ones, then they know they do not have to reblog your work. If you guilt them into reading it then its not being a real friend. I love my mutuals works! But I don't read them all because tbh I do not read fanfic daily or even weekly. And they understand!!

There's room within this fandom for the readers who read once a week, once a month. Once a year even.

There should never be any guilt about not reading the latest fic, or not wanting to read your fave's work or anything pertaining to the matter.

There's also the tumblr effect which shortens your attention span to about 10 seconds. Are you wondering why you can't watch TV or read a real book anymore? Because you have adapted to the tumblr span and your brain cannot/will not allow you to concentrate because you've been spending all your time getting new exciting info every 10 seconds.

Then there's the authors guilt on which I am directly calling you out on. A lot of authors now want instant response to their published fics and they guilt people into reading them and commenting.

Just maybe they don't want to read your latest fic. Which is FINE. Yes it hurts because you put effort and emotions into it. Also I'm not blaming you fully, its the habitat of this place to expect instant snappy results. Which does not work.

Social Media Habits Do Not Work In Real Life.

Authors in this fandom 'Marvel' have gotten pushy. And its gotten ridiculous. We as authors owe nothing to anybody, and readers also owe us nothing, not even likes. But I think its time to stop making this place harsh for the average reader. That does not mean bend to rude anons wills and the mean readers.

Likes count. Y'all don't want to hear that because you don't want to hear opinions different than yours. Fine. Its your dash and curate it how you want.

But likes are good because it shows me a person read my work, and took an action to show me they did. Reblogs/comments are great.

But guilting people into giving them is not. That's not cool.

There's a serious problem of equating reblogs with self worth on this site and I get that. But finding self worth in others is not the way to go. I get it. I love getting notifs and whatnot. But,,,, its not where its at folks.

When is the last time you wrote for yourself? The last time you didn't have any pressure writing a fic? I see so many authors stressed out about something that should be fun. We've done wrote the fun out writing. This mindset is bad both for the author and the reader.

The emotion that goes into fics is real. I am not discrediting that at all.

Just admit you want validation and attention and work from there. but its never going to be enough. You got 500 followers. Then you want 1,000. Then 2,000. It'll never stop unless you stop it.

I am seriously worried for y'all. So much stress and everyone is treating fic writing like a second job.

Ending notes- My fucks have flown away, look, there's a flock of them flying away as we speak. This isn't to attack anybody or be mean, its just to bring to attention some serious things.

(Incase anybody was thinking this- I do not think myself higher than you just bc I have lost my give a shit. There's days where i get frazzled and expect instant results too. I'm working on that and will always be.)

tl;dr- i dont even know

[computerguideworld-blog]

I fall asleep on my computer: six people on their relationship with the web

New Post has been published on https://computerguideto.com/must-see/i-fall-asleep-on-my-computer-six-people-on-their-relationship-with-the-web/

I fall asleep on my computer: six people on their relationship with the web

As a study shows many people feel unable to switch off from the internet, we ask our readers how much time a week they spend online

Do you spend too much time online? Its a question that may unearth some uncomfortable truths, and if you are worried about how much you use Facebook/Google et al, youre not alone.

The annual communications market report from media and telecoms regulator Ofcom looks at how people cope with spending so much time connected, and this year it found that more than a third of UK internet users are taking digital detox breaks from the web. It found an increasing amount of time we spend online is leading to lost sleep and less time spent with friends and family.

Six people talk about their relationship with the web, and whether they have the balance right. Share your thoughts below the line.

Cary, 61: My friendships have fallen apart and I am gaining weight by being in all the time

Time spent online: 10 to 12 hours a day

At first I used the internet just for responding to emails. Then for reading news online, shopping and chats. Forums were a totally new experience for me I remember finding it amazing that you could talk to someone through a computer. I have tried various discussion forums, even met with few people out of curiosity. I thought the web was so great because of such vast opportunities for meeting people from beyond my immediate circle, of learning from each other, and doing stuff together.

But that hasnt really happened. My friendships have fallen apart and I am gaining weight by being in all the time. The internet affects my ability to sleep too. My day is turned upside down I go to bed very late because I often get carried away reading something. Time flies when I am doing that! I imposed a regime on myself to do things at home but I drag my feet when it comes to going out.

Whatever I need is now on the web: I can do online banking, shop online and find recipes there too. Information is much easier to get, but I do miss that personal contact with people.

Jenny, 27, Kent: I use the internet at work and go straight online when I get home

Time spent online: 10 hours a day I grew up with the internet I remember the whirling beep-boop of dial-up. I use the internet at work, and go straight online when I get home. Im always logging into apps to play games or check my Facebook messages. I have mostly used the internet to stay connected, though, with friends from across the world. In my teens I used MSN to talk to people these days I go on Facebook and join online chats. Having said this, I can happily spend hours away from the net playing with friends, but the habit of checking for updates online is always there.

The internet has always been a way to stay connected for me. I have made amazing friends in the US and elsewhere. It has helped me feel connected, and talk to people about a variety of topics. Seeing a US perspective of the current elections online, for example, has been refreshing.

I dont feel like there are any drawbacks to the internet. I can go without it, but I dont ever feel the need to switch off. I often go camping and never think of my phone because Im with the friends. I suppose you might need some sort of balance but I dont feel like it negatively affects my life at all.

In the early 2000s, MSN was widely used for chatting online, via messages or webcams. Photograph: Alamy

Mel, 24, London: The internet has made my anxiety worse

Time spent online: one to five hours a day

Some days I trawl through the internet looking for inspiration or to help with my work, but over the long summer months this happens less. I started my BA just last year and a lot of my friends have already graduated, have exciting jobs and are generally having more fun (or so Instagram tells me).

Although I feel Im right where Im supposed to be, seeing their carefully curated lives as they appear on social media exacerbates my anxiety. The web is also very addictive. Ive now deleted social media apps and use the sites on my browser for a fraction of the time I used to, but I often feel rubbish after using them.

Ive battled with mental health issues for a long time. Even though at times of deep depression I actually found sites like Reddit strangely helpful, overall I think the internet has definitely made my anxiety worse.

Reddit was particularly helpful after coming out theres a huge queer community on Reddit and the kind of stories and advice there is really helpful.

But even though its made it easier to connect with others, the internet can also turn feelings my of unsettlement into a full-blown meltdown (whether its a post making me think a friend is avoiding me or Ive Googled my symptoms and think Im dying).

Having said that my partner and I wouldnt have met if it wasnt for the ultimate nerve-racking experience of online dating. I guess being shy and anxious and having no clue how to navigate life as a queer woman, it has allowed me to meet new people that I wouldnt have approached in real life.

Ive had to put a ban on phones when my partner and I spend quality time together because although Ive made an effort to use mine a lot less, she will be fiddling around online. I avoid looking at her Instagram and Facebook feeds sometimes. I get Fomo [fear of missing out] and read too much into things, I guess.

Mike, 67, Brittany: The internet lets us keep in touch with family and friends

Time spent online: two to five hours a day

Its made our relocation to France much easier and smoother. The internet lets us keep in touch with family and friends, even while theyre travelling and/or very busy. It also allows us to keep better informed and pursue personal interests and research.

Its a massive help in solving practical quotidian problems (DIY, health, transport, holidays etc). Im more positive about the net and spend more time online than my partner, but it rarely causes tension. We still talk to each other as much as we always did.

Im more positive about the net, and spend more time online than my partner, but it rarely causes tension. Photograph: Sarah Lee for the Guardian

I dont think it affects my ability to get jobs done either; if anything researching online helps me tackle jobs I might have been daunted by in the past.

JP, 65, Bristol: I am online during my first cup of coffee, breakfast, lunch and dinner

Time spent online: eight to 10 hours a day

Before the arrival of internet I used to spend a lot of hours a week researching in the library, reading the news and also writing letters to friends and family so it was easy for me to migrate online. Actually, the internet made everything I enjoy much easier to do. I do, however, consider myself dependent on it, as I am online during my first cup of coffee, breakfast, lunch and dinner (except when I go out to see friends). I usually fall asleep on my computer.

I doubt that it has benefited my life, as all the hours spent online could have been better spent outdoors. The web does, however, satisfy lots of my curiosities, and I can read an endless number of articles from around the world.

Dining al desko: do you eat your lunch by your computer? Photograph: Alamy

It would be hard to see the world without the internet, but I do think we all waste far too much time online. If the internet didnt exist, I would have spent the same amount of time reading, so I dont believe it really affects my relationships. Sometimes it can be a huge distraction, however. I often think, just 15 more minutes, 10 more minutes, and so on, as the hours go by.

Matthew, 30, Northamptonshire: I deleted my Facebook a few years ago and life has been better since

Time spent online: 12 hours a day

I have to use the internet as part of my job in IT support and obviously the web contributes to me earning a decent living so I cant be too negative about it.

Being online all day can get a little tiring at times, however, and about six years ago I deleted my Facebook and my life has been better without it. I have tried Twitter and Instagram too but have since deleted the accounts because I dont feel I need the gratification of a like or a retweet in my life. Sometimes I feel like Im missing out but then again some of the things online are really not beneficial to me or worth keeping up with.

From an educational perspective the internet has allowed me to expand my knowledge across a broad range of subjects. At the end of the day we all have a choice about what we consume online and its all about being sensible.

Due to my thirst for knowledge the internet sometimes does affect my sleep: I have been known to be on my phone until the early hours reading Wikipedia or watching YouTube videos. It could be worse I guess, I could be on Facebook trying to promote my perfect existence like the rest of them.

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/us

[allofbeercom]

2016: the year Facebook became the bad guy

This year has revealed how difficult it is for the social network to make the world more open and connected when the decisions it makes can be so divisive

Mark Zuckerberg started 2016 with a cookie cutter message of hope. As the world faces new challenges and opportunities, may we all find the courage to keep making progress and making all our days count, he wrote on his Facebook wall on 1 January. He and his wife, Priscilla Chan, had just had their daughter, Max, and had been sharing warm and fuzzy photos of gingerbread houses and their dreadlocked dog Beast over the holiday season.

Then 2016 happened. As the year unfurled, Facebook had to deal with a string of controversies and blunders, not limited to: being accused of imperialism in India, censorship of historical photos, and livestreaming footage of human rights violations. Not to mention misreported advertising metrics and the increasingly desperate cloning of rival Snapchats core features. Things came to a head in November, when the social network was accused ofinfluencing the US presidential election through politically polarized filter bubbles and a failure to tackle the spread of misinformation. The icing on the already unpalatable cake was Pope Francis last week declaring that fake news is a sin.

This was Facebooks annus horribilis. Mark Zuckerberg must long for the day when his biggest dilemma was deciding which grey T-shirt to wear on his first day back at work.

It wasnt all bad. None of these controversies made a dent on the bottom line; Facebook had a bumper year for advertising revenue, and the $3bn investment to tackle all diseases (no big deal) through the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative was well received.

But this year has revealed how difficult it has become for the social network to stand behind its mission to make the world more open and connected when the decisions it makes can be so divisive.

Unprecedented power

Thanks to its 1.79bn users and how much it knows about them, Facebook rakes in billions in advertising. In the first three quarters of this year, the company made almost $6bn in profit a big jump from a mere $3.69bn in 2015. They have perfected advertising in a way that makes it extremely enticing. Its so easy to place an ad and get immediate results, said media expert Gordon Borrell, whose analysis suggests that Facebook has taken $1bn away from print publications in the past year. For every new dollar spent by brands online, a whopping 85 cents goes to Facebook and Google at a time when traditional publishers are facing layoffs.

Some believe Facebook has become too big to be regulated effectively.

We dont have the right regulatory paradigm for these globe-striding technology giants, said Carl Miller, research director at the Centre for the Analysis of Social Media at the thinktank Demos. We treat them like neutral utility companies but they are value-maximising commercial entities.

Facebook is a monopoly with too much power, argues author and activist Robert McChesney. When you get companies this big they are not just a threat to democracy, but they are also a threat to capitalism. They suck investment capital and profits away from smaller businesses and screw over the competitive sector.

He has an extreme solution: if Facebook cant be regulated effectively, it should be nationalised to ensure it acts in the interest of the public.

McChesney scoffs at the suggestion that Facebook is acting democratically by serving its many users. Thats self-serving garbage, he said.

Does it not make a difference that Mark Zuckerberg is a principled CEO with good intentions? Not according to McChesney: I am sure the people who produced napalm thought they were doing a good service to protect the free world.

Digital colonialism

One of 2016s earliest missteps was Facebooks mishandling of Free Basics. The company pitched Free Basics as a way to give internet access, and all the wonderful benefits it can unlock, to the worlds poorest people. The catch: it wasnt real internet access, but a selection of apps and services curated by and always including Facebook. In February, the Indian government rejected Free Basics over its violation of the tenets of net neutrality following a public debate in which Facebook was accused of digital colonialism. It was an expensive and embarrassing blow for the social network and indicative that not everyone finds its brand of Silicon Valley techno-utopianism palatable. To compound the issue, Facebook board member Marc Andreessen reacted on Twitter with the tone-deaf and contemptuous line: Anti-colonialism has been economically catastrophic for the Indian people for decades. Why stop now?

Nitin Pai, director of the Takshashila Institution, an Indian thinktank, and a critic of Free Basics, said: Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg must take a long, hard look at what are the values it wants to strengthen or weaken in this world … Unlike other multinational firms that merely sell goods and services to people across the globe, Facebook enables connections among them. It cannot take the usual, and usually untenable, we are apolitical route to international business.

Facebook is a monopoly with too much power, some argue. Photograph: Sergei Konkov/TASS

Indeed, so political are Facebooks global expansion plans that they are said to be working on a censorship tool that would allow them to operate in China once again.

Censorship and accountability

Censorship has been a running theme on Facebook in 2016. Despite insisting it is not a media company and is not in the business of making editorial judgments, Facebook, it seems, is all too happy to censor content when that content violates its own policies or at the request of police. This has led to a number of high-profile blunders in 2016, including the removal in September of the iconic Vietnam war photograph napalm girl from a Norwegian journalists post and the deletion of a breast cancer awareness video in October. In both cases, human moderators made bad judgment calls that the algorithm then enforced across the site to widespread criticism.

In August, Facebook deactivated Korryn Gaines profile during an armed standoff with police at the request of the Baltimore County police department. Gaines, who was later killed by police, had been posting to the social network after barricading herself inside her apartment and aiming a shotgun at police. The incident highlighted the existence of an emergency request system that police can use to get Facebook to take content down without a court order if they think someone is at risk of harm or death.

Elsewhere, Facebook suspended live footage from the Dakota Access pipeline protests and disabled Palestinian journalists accounts; there were also reports it had removed Black Lives Matter activists content.

Zuckerberg accused of censorship after Facebook deleted napalm girl photo

The lack of transparency over this process led to a coalition of more than 70 human and civil rights groups demanding that Facebook be more transparent about its takedown processes and arguing that censorship of user content depicting police brutality at the request of authorities sets a dangerous precedent that further silences marginalized communities.

Reem Suleiman of the not-for-profit organisation SumOfUs added: Theres a lot of doublespeak. Zuckerberg talks about being a human rights defender and champion of civil liberties protection. He hung a Black Lives Matter banner outside of Facebook. These are ideals that the company is claiming to promote, so its totally fair to hold them to account.

Suleiman fears that under Trumps administration, surveillance and silencing of minorities, particularly Muslims and undocumented immigrants, could become more commonplace. Facebook has an ethical duty to protect its users, she said.

Effect on the election

None of 2016s controversies have rattled Facebook as much as the criticism that its failure to clamp down on fake news combined with the way its algorithm places users in polarized filter bubbles shaped the outcome of the presidential election.

Its crazy that Zuckerberg says theres no way Facebook can influence the election when theres a whole sales force in Washington DC that does nothing but convince advertisers that they can, said author Antonio Garca Martnez, who used to work in Facebooks advertising sales department. We used to joke that we could sell the whole election to the highest bidder.

In the runup to the election, misinformation and fake news such as articles suggesting Hillary Clinton was a murderer or that the pope endorsed Trump proliferated on social media so feverishly that even Barack Obama said it undermined the political process. Macedonian teenagers built a cottage industry of pro-Trump fake news sites, motivated by the advertising dollars they could accrue if their stories went viral.

Widespread outrage over the issue led to an internal mutiny and an uncharacteristic climb-down from Zuckerberg. Having initially denied any responsibility, he wrote an apologetic post outlining ways the platform would tackle the problem, including building tools to detect and classify misinformation.

This, combined with the cases of censorship, points to the inevitability of Facebook accepting it is a media company and not just a neutral technology platform.

Some believe that Facebook has become too big to be regulated effectively. Photograph: Dado Ruvic/Reuters

Mark Zuckerberg is now the front-page editor for every news reader in the world. Its a responsibility hes not choosing to accept, Martnez said.

Claire Wardle, from First Draft News, thinks that is changing. They may not have said it yet, but 2016 is the year Facebook recognized they are a publisher. The company is simply reluctant to admit it because its a nightmare.

Weve never had a global newspaper in 192 countries, with all these different legal and cultural contexts and languages, she said.

She points out that Facebook has been very diligent at policing the platform for sexual content and bullying, but now has to do the same for misinformation with a combination of expert human judgment and software. Its not going to be easy and marks a huge cultural shift for Facebook. Algorithms arent yet smart enough to make these decisions. Facebook needs to be honest about that, she said.

Harvard Business School professor Ben Edelman added: They need to grow up … There are duties that come with their size and revenue. Facebook spends more on beer and ping-pong tables than on professionals to vet the quality of the material they show to users.

Problems to come

As we draw towards the end of 2016, Facebook faces a number of looming challenges, including the fact admitted in earnings calls this year that the core site has reached saturation point for advertising. Theyve squeezed the newsfeed lemon as far as it will go, Martnez said. This means it will need to find other ways to make money, presumably through the other companies it owns, including WhatsApp and Instagram, or through virtual reality if it is to continue growing at the same pace.

On the horizon is also the threat of Snapchat a rival that has continually taunted Zuckerberg because of its overwhelming popularity with tastemakers in their teens and 20s. He tried, and failed, to buy it for $3bn in 2013, and since then Facebook has obsessively copied its younger, cooler competitor.

The company will also have a public relations battle on its hand when the movie The Circle, starring Tom Hanks and Emma Watson, launches in 2017. The film, based on David Eggers book, is a cautionary tale about an omniscient, privacy-violating Silicon Valley technology company that has subsumed Facebook, Google and Twitter. The dark and dystopian future it portrays is likely to create mainstream discussion about the ethics and intentions of these companies.

Zuckerberg can draw some comfort from the fact that this intense scrutiny is likely to pass. Facebook is a relatively young company and will experience similar growing pains any maturing company faces as it navigates the teenage years, said Forrester analyst Jessica Liu.

Wardle agrees. Facebook is where Google was five years ago, and in five years time well be having this conversation about Snapchat.

from All Of Beer http://allofbeer.com/2016-the-year-facebook-became-the-bad-guy/

[juliathinksaboutpop]

Week 8: #SELFIE and the Reality (TV) of It All

She's so short and that dress is so tacky Who wears cheetah?  It's not even summer, why does the DJ keep on playing Summertime Sadness? After we go to the bathroom, can we go smoke a cigarette? I really need one But first, Let me take a selfie - ‘#SELFIE’ (2014), The Chainsmokers 

 The Chainsmokers’ 2014 electronic club hit, ‘#SELFIE’, as the music video also explicitly illustrates, follows the adventures of a girl and her friend at a party, whose shallow concerns (i.e. bitching) cover the topics of other girls, clothes, getting hyped, and smoking. ‘But first’, the girl pauses before announcing she needs to take a selfie, as though sitting above all her vapid issues in that moment is the notion of her own self. 

“Welcome to the age of digital narcissism,” proclaims an article in The Guardian, “a world of endless ostentation opportunities and unlimited bragging possibilities. Showing-off has never been easier and, ironically, more celebrated” (Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, ’Sharing the (self) love: the rise of the selfie and digital narcissism’, The Guardian,  https://www.theguardian.com/media-network/media-network-blog/2014/mar/13/selfie-social-media-love-digital-narcassism). And it’s arguably true of the times. The Chainsmokers are on record saying that they based their lyrics off real life women they observed in New York City clubs, and as much as I’d like to lambast the gender bias in that statement, it might be more productive for me to give them credit where it’s due. 

Stereogum called the track “a soulless electro-house meme-song” that was “an avatar for everything despicable about modern electronic music” (Chris DeVille, ‘The Chainsmokers Don’t Suck Anymore, I Promise’, Stereogum, http://www.stereogum.com/1861081/the-chainsmokers-dont-suck-anymore-i-promise/franchises/the-week-in-pop/). I agree, in a way, but also maybe, that’s the point – that the song is supposed to evoke a generic reiteration of clubbing night staples such as indistinguishable synth lead song drops and unwisely documenting the experience, many of which are the eponymous selfies. 

Documentation, and in most instances, self-documentation, is the only part of a night out that savors the specifics. Just like the lyrics of ‘#SELFIE’, all the little details of the night, like the cheetah dress and Lana Del Rey, are subjugated by the song’s peak moment of self-portraiture. When digested as a whole piece, the song captures the morning-after when you’re looking through your camera-roll and random selfies can trigger psychedelic snippets of last night or maybe, even, in a parodic valley-girl spoken word that just so happens to fit that indiscrete club beat still thumping through your hangover. Whatever the circumstance, we’re in an age that realizes that even just the face carries all sorts of auxiliary information (a good night out, a healthy social life, a little too much tequila). How generic or specific these details are, with mobile modes of documentation and complementary apps, heavily dependent on how adept we are at portraying ourselves, which has generated a new multilayered image-dimension to self-consciousness. 

As reality television royalty, the Kardashians, have proved, some times, the more generic the problem, the better. The ratings for Keeping up with the Kardashians started moving upwards once relatable domestic problems took the forefront – Kourtney’s pregnancies, Kim’s marriage, Kim’s un-marriage. That’s the hook of tabloid information – people get to judge other people on grounds they can imagine for themselves. For example, pregnancy and marriage are experiences that are not isolated to the Kardashian’s income bracket. A wide array of audiences are able to say with confidence, ‘I could’ve handled that better’ or ‘I totally get that’. Thus, when the one of the Kardashians posts a selfie, it’s no longer just a face, it’s a face that is famous for living a life that any of us could be living, are living, in some cases. So we’ve come to do just that. 

If it’s easier to pay attention to detail when framed within a site of common interest, what better way to communicate with people than using one of the most basic components of physical identity, the face. However, the face is a site of paradox. As much as it is a platform for vanity, it can also be reconfigured as a tool for negotiating notions of voyeurism and agency, community and separation. It’s a site for people to converge and diverge. Not all of us have the E! News funding to display our personal problems globally, but social media apps such as Instagram and Snapchat provide enough curating opportunities to deftly design our own narratives, (I spoke a little more generally about this in my first blogpost.) information that inevitably gives light and is given light by our selfies. In an image-saturated age, the selfie sort of acts as soft gateway into our lives, reminding us that every story starts with a face, that there is a common denominator for us all. At the same time, when the camera is turned unto oneself, it can scream ‘I’m showing you my face and my story the way I want to be seen’ just as loudly as ‘also, I think I’m pretty’. 

When Kris Jenner wrote in her autobiography about the show, “How can I take these fifteen minutes of fame and turn them into thirty?”, (Kris Jenner, Kris Jenner... And All Things Kardashian, (Simon and Schuster, 2011)) the sense of taking exploitation into one’s own hands reminded me of how Derek Conrad Murray believed that selfies or “online self-portraiture” can be seen as “an oppositional desire and enjoyment in oneself as a response to a culture of devaluing and misrepresentation” (Derek Conrad Murray, ‘Notes to self: the visual culture of selfies in the age of social media’, Consumption Markets & Culture, 18 (6), 490-516 (p.512)). Just like the hipster photographers in Murray’s article, Jenner has her own mode and intention of expressing a valuable idea: rather than tell people not to look even though they will, how can I get them to look even harder, to see even better?