Itchy scratchy selfie

Reason #347 to stop taking selfies:

Head lice.

The now-infamous group selfie has led to more head-rubbing than ever before, apparently with a less-than-pleasant side effect. "Teens are sticking their heads together every day," says California lice expert Marcy McQuillan. And she's not talking about team work. McQuillan says she's seen a huge increase in cases of lice this year, especially among teens. The little critters must be having a field day jumping from head to head while unsuspecting teens stare at the camera making faces. I hate to make light of such a serious epidemic, but some of this expert's quotes are priceless.

"Selfies are fun, but the consequences are real."

I could see that line plastered across some PSA with a picture of a girl itching her head and wearing a showercap.

But don't abandon selfies just yet. This "expert" is only one person making these claims, which are backed up by pure observation. All of this publicity might not hurt her two "Nitless Noggins" lice-treatment centers, either. Other doctors are more dubious about the connection, saying it normally takes more than the typical 10 seconds needed to snap a selfie for transmission to occur. Whether or not selfies are to blame, it never hurts to play it safe. The next time you pose for a selfie, use protection.

http://flickrhivemind.net

Snapads: The future of Snapchat

On Valentines Day I opened Snapchat and saw I had "pending snap" from an unknown source. I didn't recognize the username, and I had to accept the request to view the snap. Curiosity won (who knows, maybe it was a secret admirer?), but it was just an advertisement. "A special gift just for you!" it said, with a picture of a little blue Tiffany's box.

It may not have been the snap I was hoping for, but it shows the potential Snapchat has to make money in advertising. Snaps are brief- only a matter of seconds- and you can stop viewing them instantly, so there isn't much to lose by opening one. Plus there's the whole element of excitement because you never know what you're going to get. That logic applies to our friends, so why wouldn't it apply to brands?

Snapchat doesn't have a revenue model yet, but research indicates native advertising could really work. A study by Sumpto revealed that 45 percent of college kids would open a snap from a brand they didn’t know, and 73 percent would open a snap from a brand they did know. When I found that pending snap, I was too curious to leave it sitting there even though it was from a source I didn't recognize. I almost certainly would've opened it if it was from a brand I liked. And Snapchat has access to enough of our personal information to segment and target users for specific brands. Imagine waking up in the morning to a snap from Starbucks of a steaming mocha. Effective, much?

Brands could even take it a step further and offer coupon deals, redeemable by screenshotting the snap and presenting it at a local store or restaurant. The built-in time limit on snaps would make this advertising kind of exciting, like a race to claim an offer.

Snapads could become a normal part of the experience before we know it. The trick for Snapchat will be targeting ads to make them more relevant (and less annoying) to users, and making sure their frequency doesn't compete with the regular snaps from friends that we all enjoy.

Kimmel cries wolf, again...

Fool me once, Kimmel, shame on you. But fool me twice......

In September, Jimmy Kimmel fooled us all with this twerking fail video of a girl lighting herself on fire after her friend opened the door she was twerking on. I remember passing my phone around with friends laughing hysterically at the blunder. A few weeks later I discovered it was fake, and I remember feeling a little duped and disappointed. Then the Sochi wolf, potentially the most epic #SochiProblems tweet ever, got us again.

When it comes to capitalizing on popular trends, Kimmel has it down. Twerking was the hot thing in September when he released his hoax, and the #SochiProblems and #SochiFail hashtags were hugely trending throughout the Olympics. With thousands of people posting their twerking attempts to YouTube last year, nobody considered the possibility of an imposter. Similarly, with all of the outlandish (and completely true) tweets coming out of Sochi, everyone just accepted a wolf on the loose as another to add to the list.

So who's to blame: The journalists who Kimmel made a fool out of because they didn't check to make sure the wolf was legit, or Kimmel who intentionally and unashamedly posted fake footage, arguably to draw more attention to his late-night talk show?

Personally, I think it's a little unfair to bash all the journalists who fell victim to his prank. I doubt they took the time to fact-check all of the bizarre photos that were tweeted before that, including the strange bathroom signs and questionable-looking tap water. Why would they? Who would want to fake that? Moreover, Kimmel worked with U.S. Olympic luge star Kate Hansen to pull off his latest stunt, tweeting out the video through her account. She's a well-known athlete with a large Twitter following who's staying in the Olympic Village, and she'd been actively posting to her account throughout the events. It seemed pretty legit. Plus her wolf video instantly went viral, so even though reporters didn't have confirmation it was real, it was still newsworthy.

I think if anybody's really to blame here, it's Jimmy Kimmel. His twerking and Sochi wolf stunts exploit the difficulty of fact-checking social media, and they bring a lot of publicity to his show. It's easy to film a fake Sochi video and make journalists look dumb by juxtaposing clips of their reports on it. Especially if you ally with a famous Olympian to do your dirty work for you. If journalists can learn anything from his stunts, it's to remain skeptical when reporting on news that comes out of personal social media accounts. It can still be newsworthy and make a funny story, but it shouldn't be presented as fact. You never know when Kimmel is wearing skis behind the curtain.

 

The multi-billion dollar industry nobody talks about

A little over a month ago, a freshman student at Duke University discovered just how quickly a secret can spread. She admitted to a male friend that she works as an adult film star after he recognized her in a video he'd watched online. She explained that she was in the industry to pay for Duke's $60,000 per year tuition, which her family couldn't afford. Within a day, the internet transformed a word-of-mouth secret into a viral piece of gossip that the entire campus knew. The phrase "freshman pornstar" was trending on several social media sites during the weeks after her secret leaked, and she received hundreds of new Facebook and Twitter follower requests. The exposure has brought her an immense amount of scrutiny, attention and judgment. Duke's student newspaper, The Chronicle, published a long article a few weeks ago that tells her story based on a month of interviews with her. The article uses fake names to keep her real identity private.

I chose to write a post on this topic not to gossip about a juicy story coming out of our rival university, but because it's fostered a really interesting dialogue related to some of the issues we've discussed in class. I heard about the story on Facebook this weekend when several of my friends shared a link to an article in which she tells her story, in her own words, for the first time. It begins with "I am a freshman. I am a pornstar. You know nothing about me." Her story responds to the many comments that have been circulating about her choice to work in the porn industry. She vehemently defends her profession, calling it liberating and empowering. She points to a problematic culture at Duke that suppresses female sexuality and stigmatizes women who embrace it. But what I think what is most interesting is that she considers herself a feminist, but she works in an industry that many people find inherently anti-feminist.

Here is a brief excerpt from her statement:

I am well aware: The threat I pose to the patriarchy is enormous. That a woman could be intelligent, educated and CHOOSE to be a sex worker is almost unfathomable.

Many of my classmates have written blog posts about the portrayal of women in the media. Some discuss the media's tendency to commodify and sexualize women, and others point out the problem with making women out to be victims. Either way, sex sells. And the billions of dollars of revenue generated each year by the porn industry prove that this is, quite literally, true. So my question to my classmates is, where does her story fit into our discussion of women in the media? Does she send a positive message by embracing autonomy and control over her own sexuality, or does her participation in an industry that helps her make a living off of her body only perpetuate the problems so many of us have discussed?

Or, is it really none of our business at all how she chooses to pay for college.

Did our phones ruin the win over Duke?

This is a response to my classmate Rachel's post about an issue that seems to keep coming up in our blogs. In it, she questioned whether constantly being on our phones detracted from the experience of UNC beating Duke Thursday night. It's true-- I was in the middle of the ecstatic, adrenaline-pumped mob that sprinted from the Dean Dome to Franklin Street after the buzzer-- and the mob was scattered with lit screens. It seemed like everyone was trying to simultaneously bask in glory and capture it on video. So Rachel poses the question: Can we really live in the moment with our phones out?

My answer is, probably not. Anyone who tries to argue that being on his/her phone has no effect on their experience is kidding themselves. But the great thing about our phones is that they have the ability to make a memory permanent. When I scrambled to press 'record' on my phone before I rushed Franklin, my friend rolled her eyes and yelled, "no phones! We just beat Duke!" as if the moment was way too sacred to taint with the presence of technology. Then the next day she asked me to send her the video so she could share it with her family.

In the moment, phones might be annoying and a little invasive, but everyone reaps the benefit of the memories they provide. Today I saw a YouTube video of the victory celebration, starting with students rushing the court in the Dean Dome and ending with them jumping over bonfires and climbing telephone poles on Franklin. I was overcome with the same feelings of pride I felt two nights ago. It was like living the experience all over again. I chose to take a video while I rushed Franklin because I knew I'd be glad I did later (I've re-watched it at least 10 times). Others prefer to keep their phones zipped up and celebrate with no distractions, which works out for them too because somebody else always captures it and posts it online.

When my dad rushed Franklin Street from Carmichael Auditorium after UNC beat Duke in 1979, nobody had a cell phone. There were no tiny squares of light bobbing along with the crowd to take a video. I still love hearing my dad describe how it felt being in that moment. But the difference with our generation is that we get to show our kids that moment, and I think that's a cool thing.

This was my view. Still beautiful from the nosebleeds.

The war you've never heard of

                                                    gigaom.com

We are in the middle of a war that is monumental to our nation's future. And it's being waged not with bayonets, but with bandwidth.

Since its founding the internet has been a free place, where the mice have just as much access as the giants. But just over a month ago, a court decision sparked a war that called into question the very ideals on which our internet was founded. What's at stake? Our precious hours of Netflix binge-watching, and an internet democracy at risk of devolving into a trafficking tyranny. Seeing as the outcome will have massive ramifications on my ability to procrastinate, I've summed up the major events and battles that have brought us to today.

The Players:
Internet Service Providers (ISPs) -- Verizon, Comcast, etc.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Content Providers -- Netflix, Hulu, Google, etc.
U.S. Courts
The Obama administration 
Commonfolk (internet users)

Dec. 2010- The FCC decrees that ISPs must treat all internet traffic equally

Jan. 14- A U.S. appeals court strikes down the FCC's "net neutrality" law, opening the door for ISPs to discriminate when charging for bandwidth

Jan. 21- Netflix CEO Reed Hastings threatens to "vigorously protest" any attempt by ISPs to seize his bandwidth

Jan. 31- President Obama firmly sides with net neutrality and says he's confident the FCC will use force to save it, if necessary

Feb. 5- Verizon denies allegations on the homefront that it punishes services like Netflix that hog bandwidth, insisting it treats all traffic equally

Feb. 13- Comcast joins forces with Time Warner Cable, allying two of the country's largest and strongest broadband providers

Feb. 14 - Netflix releases season two of House of Cards

Feb. 18- Netflix customers on the Eastern front complain about sluggish video speeds

Feb. 19- The FCC decrees "no blocking" rules to prevent ISPs from hindering access

The war rages on, with no certain future. Wealthy empires hold the key to our viewing pleasure, and the laws that once kept them at bay have been toppled. Can the government intervene and protect our free content? Or will the commonfolk suffer slow speeds amidst a war of power and profit? Only time will tell.

~Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Bandwidth~

Brands a make her dance

Set a clear message, be professional, be consistent, be original.

These are a few tips I found on a PR blog about how to "brand yourself" online. In an increasingly digital world and competitive job market, people say it's more important than ever for millennials to establish a personal brand. There are a plethora of resources out there to help people build a brand and make it stand out against competitors. Career coach Lisa Quast gives this advice in a Forbes article called "Personal Branding 101" :

Your game plan should include more than just branding yourself in social media – it needs to include all aspects of you, as a product. Defining your plan needs to include the tangible and intangible characteristics of personal branding including attire, hair, makeup, behavior, verbal and non-verbal communication.

Sounds pretty overwhelming, huh? I certainly think it does. From the moment I set foot in the journalism school at Carolina, I've been hearing the word "branding." It's essential for marketing a product and distinguishing your company. But the idea of having to brand myself has always made me feel a little suffocated. What if some days I like to lay around in pajamas and binge on Netflix, but other days I like to wake up early and go on a 5-mile run? I'm not entirely a couch potato, but I'm not entirely a fitness guru either. Sometimes I like to use my social media accounts to post mindless humor, and other times I use them to speak on political issues I care about.

I think the growing need for millenials to brand ourselves puts a lot of pressure on us. Before we can even legally drink a beer, we're supposed to decide who we are, and then convey that across all our social media platforms and in our daily lives down to how we act and what we wear. My problem with all of this is that humans aren't shiny products to be marketed and tied up in a neat little bow. People are complex, multi-faceted, and often inconsistent. Our inconsistencies are what make us unique, and our goals are constantly changing in response to new discoveries. But yet, we're often told as students to establish our career goals now and maintain a consistent, professional brand to match.

To add even more pressure to ourselves, our brand must be original. The blog post I found on personal branding says, "Don't try to brand yourself as the next Martha Stewart... People love diversity. Plus, there's only room for one Martha in this world." Well, to all you people with a passion for recipes, crafts and home decor, guess you'd better find something else. Sometimes I think the pressure to be unique and stand out leads us to define ourselves in a way that doesn't totally encapsulate our personalities. We're so preoccupied with trying to paint the proper picture online that we risk losing the essence of who we really are. And then there's the fact that the things we put out on the internet don't just go away. If I was asked to brand myself several years ago, I might come up with something very different than the brand I'd use today. But the permanence of what we post on the internet implies that we should be constantly building upon one brand with a holistic, overarching goal.

Instead of declaring a "brand" for ourselves and monitoring all our behavior to match it, I think we should reverse the direction. Follow our passions, hone our unique skills, and let our personal brand emerge naturally. If we continue to be overly concerned about the perfect image to project to employers, we'll lose the little idiosyncrasies make us us. Even in a cut-throat job market, it's still about people connecting with people.

Selfie etiquette?

I know some people love to rant about the infamous "selfie" that has clogged our social media feeds and reduced us all to shameless narcissism, but I kind of like them. Well, sometimes. I think there is nothing funnier than a well-placed, well-timed selfie. But there are also certain times and places where a base level of etiquette should deter anyone from taking them. Take last week, when a high school senior took a selfie with a corpse at a cadaver lab during a class field trip. Her school quickly discovered the selfie on Instagram and threatened to suspend her, but shouldn't it kind of go without saying not to snap photos of your face next to a dead corpse?

This may be an extreme example, but questionably-timed selfies have long been around. There was an entire tumblr for "funeral selfies" (exactly what it sounds like) until it stopped posting in December. The most recent post, on Dec. 10, 2013, reads "Obama has taken a funeral selfie, so our work here is done." The post refers to Obama's controversial selfie with the Danish PM taken at Nelson Mandela's memorial service. Not nearly as egregious as the high school student's, but it still got people talking about selfie etiquette and where to draw the line.

I think the bigger issue surrounding the selfie is the ubiquity of technology that permits us to take them at any time and place, even if it's totally inappropriate. I went to a funeral a few weeks ago, and two different phones went off during the short, 45-minute service. Cell phones beep and buzz during class almost daily. We all carry our phones with us constantly, and with that constant connectivity comes a responsibility to draw our own lines for when the use of technology is inappropriate. And the fact is, each of us has own idea of where that line should be drawn. My family bans texting at the dinner table, but some families go out to dinner only to play on their phones and sit in silence. People will continue to debate over when the pervasiveness of technology goes too far, but for now I think we can all at least agree that "cadaver selfies" should not be a thing.

My 6 favorite things social media brought to the Duke/UNC rivalry

1. This Craiglist ad 
   
2.  This Instagram post of the weather forecast (credit to my friend, Katherine Hill)
   
   
3. UNC grad Joshua McIntyre's YouTube video of the treacherous trip from Cameron Indoor to the Dean Dome
   
4. This tweet of a genius t-shirt design

      5.  This petition for UNC alumni to let students fill the Dean Dome on Feb. 20 (SIGN IT)

      6.  This list of top Twitter posts after Duke couldn't handle the snow (shoutout to Professor Robinson for making it on there)

Trolls will be trolls

In class Monday we watched a TEDxToronto talk by Steph Guthrie called "The Problem with 'Don't Feed the Trolls'". She calls upon people to take a stand against "trolls," the people who use the internet as an outlet for their misogynist and racist beliefs. Guthrie rejects the common wisdom "don't feed the trolls," which suggests that the best way to deal with online bigots is to ignore them. Fueling their fire only feeds their egos and gives them what they want-- a reaction, right? But Guthrie says that's all wrong and that we should, in fact, be fighting back online. She argues that silence makes the trolls feel validated and only perpetuates their sexist beliefs, but exposing them with an army of opposition can bring about real change.

Before I talk about my problem with her philosophy, let me say I completely acknowledge that misogyny and racism are alive and well on the internet. We've all seen it on our Twitter feeds, probably most recently after Coke took a stab at embracing diversity in its Superbowl ad and was met with a firestorm of outrage (how dare they sing "America the Beautiful" in languages that accurately reflect America's demographics). There was a swift response from the rest of the online community who were eager to attack the attackers, and voila, another Twitter war between two immovable sides that both think they're right.

While I in no way condone some of the bigoted and ignorant things I've seen on Twitter, I disagree with Guthrie that we should always fight back. Why? Because anyone who actually espouses those kind of views on the internet isn't going to change because you call them out. In my experience, they usually feed off of it. And what I don't want to do is give the voice of a minority of offensively racist people disproportionate attention. Maybe I'm being cynical in suggesting that intervening won't do any good, or maybe I'm just realistic. Because more often than not, the trolls will come right back at you with more people who think like them, and you'll find more people who think like you, and the two sides will battle it out from their respective corners until they realize that finding middle ground is impossible. I do think there is a place for meaningful dialogue on the internet, but you're not going to find it in 140 characters.

It's very unsettling that there are real people out there who tweet some of the things they do. But my philosophy is not to feed them, but rather to unfollow them, sit back, and let the natural selection of the internet render them extinct.

Real hippies don't put it on Pinterest

Today I stumbled across a mini-war sparked by a writer from Elite Daily, a blog that purports to be "The Voice of Generation Y." I won't get into whether I think Elite Daily is a fair or accurate representation of my generation, but I certainly find some of the articles entertaining. Anyway, the article, by Lauren Martin, is called "Could It Be? Millennials Are The New Generation Of Hippies, But With Better Weed." She basically argues that millennials have ushered in a new modern-day "hippie" era reminiscent of the 60s. She draws parallels between Woodstock and Bonnaroo, between Vietnam War protests and the Occupy Wall Street movement, and between marching for segregation and marching for gay rights. She points out our general culture that mixes drugs and rebellion with movements for change, acceptance and freedom (the legalization of marijuana was pretty central to her argument).

Two days later, Bryce Rudow of The Daily Banter fired shots back, claiming that no, millennials are not hippes, even if they wish they were. He argues that the music festival culture popularized by Bonnaroo and Coachella is linked to giant corporate entities that true hippies lived to hate. He picks apart her argument in a lot of ways, but what I found most interesting (and what actually relates to technology and the media!) is how he tied the internet to his argument. Martin didn't directly address the internet in her piece, but I imagine she'd say that it acts as a platform for free expression and creativity. After all, the internet has propelled political movements and proliferated the work of small artists.

But Rudow argues that the internet has actually rendered us one of the least "free" generations in history. Rudow says hippies of the 60s tried to be what they saw as authentic, forging their own aberrant paths against the hands of corporate and governmental dominance. But millennials, he argues, are trapped in a "prison of awareness" formed by the internet. Everyone is aware of what we do, and we're aware of what everyone else does around us. We exhibit so many facets of our lives through social media because we need validation. And within this sphere of constant judgment and observation, we're actually conforming to norms, not rebelling against them.

I've thought a lot about this myself, even before reading these two articles. The rise of Urban Outfitters and the resurgence of record players and flowery headbands in our generation no doubt resemble the hippie era. But this is where I agree with Rudow's retort: Many times, these idealized and glamorized depictions of "hippie culture" are found on Pinterest boards and Instagram feeds. Pinterest is overflowing with models who rock the middle hair part, high-waisted denim and tie-dyed crop tops. We seem more concerned with projecting these images and values into cyberspace than living them out in our daily lives. And more importantly, by participating in Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, we're actually selling ourselves to the corporate domination that hippies defied. We're willingly handing over our data to massive servers to do with it what they please.

Am I suggesting we should all cut out social media cold turkey? Of course not. I use it daily and I like it that way. But I do think the parallels between millenials and the hippies of the 60s are far fewer than they might appear on the surface. The challenge for our generation will be to find our own meaning of authenticity in an era when our lives are constantly on display.

If you love it, list it

Today I was making a list of all the things I need to do this week, and I started thinking about how much I love lists. Something about putting your thoughts into numbered lines makes them seem so much more manageable. I hardly ever finish all the things on my lists, but just checking off a few of them makes me feel like I've gotten somewhere.

And then I realized I'm clearly not alone in my love of lists. The internet seems to have caught on as well. I get my news from theweek.com, a website that publishes a list every morning of "10 Things You Need to Know Today." I love it because it takes the work out of finding out the important things happening in the world. Instead of surfing through an endless sea of headlines, I get all of the highlights neatly numbered right in front of me. The Daily Beast does something similar, called the "Cheat Sheet," a vertical list of all the day's top headlines and a short blurb with each.

But we all know Buzzfeed is the king, making numbered lists out of anything and everything. Buzzfeed lists cover just about every subject, from "Jokes You Should Send Your Mom Right Now" to "Sad Meals Every College Student Knows." I even saw one today titled "8 Signs You're Wearing the Wrong Bra Size." Like, really? You need 8 signs before you're clued into the fact that your bra doesn't fit? But the point is, people love lists. They provide a refreshing burst of simplicity in the information overload that is the internet. They take all the noise and clutter and organize it into short pieces we can digest. In a world with an overwhelming number of voices competing for our attention, sometimes it's nice to just be told what you need to know.

Response to "A Thank You Note"

Today I was scrolling through my classmates' blog posts, and I came across a really poignant entry by Mary Alta Feddeman that got me thinking. In it, she writes a thank you note to the internet. It immediately caught my attention because we all tend to display a sort of innate cynicism toward the internet (I mean, my blog is entitled "World Wide Woes"). People often treat the internet as a tool that proliferates ignorance and diminishes the value of face-to-face interaction. We tend to cast Google in this Big Brother-esque light, with its users the innocent victims of invasive, data-crunching tech giants. But as Mary points out, the internet doesn't have to be all bad. In fact, the benefits the internet can provide may drastically outweigh the misfortunes. The internet can be a platform for meaningful engagement and for diverse voices to be heard.

"You’re good for a lot of things, and you’ll forever be only as good or as bad as the people who log on."

It was this final line of her thank you note to the internet that really stuck with me. The internet is a tool, and like any other tool, it can be used for good or for bad. YouTube can be used for free access to copyrighted music, or it can be used as a platform for discovering new artists' talent. Twitter can be a way to anonymously bash people we don't like, or it can be a way to creatively express our grievances. Facebook can lure us to mindless distractions, or it can help us reflect on the most significant events in our lives. 

The internet is empowering, and ultimately, its users choose how to use that power.

Twitter doesn't give a win to the Biggest Loser

Many may have tuned into or heard about the season finale of NBC reality show The Biggest Loser Tuesday. Winner Rachel Frederickson, a 24-year-old former athlete, dropped from 260 pounds to a mere 105. She lost a total of 155 pounds, a staggering 60 percent of her body weight. The winner is selected according to percent body weight lost, making Rachel the clear winner of the $250,000 grand prize.

But not everyone was impressed with the outcome of the finale. Rachel's thin frame had people tweeting all sorts of things about how "concerned" and "disturbed" they were, with many using the hashtag #anorexia. Several disgruntled fans tweeted that NBC should revoke the title from any contestant who dips below the healthy BMI range. At 5 feet 4 inches tall, Rachel has a BMI of 18, which is considered underweight.

The show's trainers, Jillian Michaels and Bob Harper, also appeared shocked by the transformation. This picture of their expressions as Rachel took the stage was all over Twitter after the live finale:

The Biggest Loser is a show whose entire goal is for overweight people to shed pounds. Most contestants received nothing but teary hugs and congratulations after their hard work landed them at a healthy weight. But Rachel was met with a wave of criticism for taking her weight loss "too far." Social media has opened up a whole new world for scrutiny and judgment that can instantly transform a winner into the actual biggest loser. While it is undoubtedly important to promote healthy forms of weight loss, I think people should step back a moment before taking to Twitter and shouting "anorexia!" At her original weight, Rachel was dealing with some major body image issues, and she probably still is. While it's important to promote healthy and active lifestyles, I think it's even more important to consider how social media exacerbates body issues in the first place. Throwing Rachel into the Twitter lion's den isn't going to do her any good.

Share you darkest thoughts... anonymously

Some people have pointed out an emerging trend for apps to try to connect people in ways that are more like how we connect in real life. Real life doesn't store our data forever. Real life doesn't allow us to choose the perfect illuminating filter to enhance the sunset in our Instagram photo. The founders of Snapchat said their app was designed to mimic real conversations, when moments are fleeting and uneditable. Now, several more apps have popped up that are built on the same logic. But how real-life are they really?

An app called Secret allows you to post your deepest, and sometimes darkest, thoughts anonymously to your friends (it uses your phone contacts). The app's tagline is "speak freely," and it describes itself as a place where you can openly share thoughts with your friends without judgment. Some people post about depression and addiction. Others share beautiful moments caught on camera, all without the "bragging" that comes from associating posts with your profile. A similar predecessor to Secret, called Whisper, is based on the same concept but shares posts with everyone, not just your contacts. A few recent posts from Whisper's home page read:

"Waiting for you is like waiting for rain in this drought, disappointing."

"I have to mentally, physically and emotionally stop myself from texting you every day."

"19 years old and about to start the process of adopting my baby brother."

These "whispers" generate thousands of "likes" and hundreds of comments from other anonymous users offering sympathy and advice.

I'd never heard of these apps until now, but I have a problem with the notion that they might somehow more closely mirror "real life." Why would I need a platform for anonymously sharing sad thoughts with my friends? If I was upset about something personal, I'd find a lot more comfort in having face-to-face, real-life (and not anonymous) conversations with them. Scrolling through Whisper's home page was honestly a little depressing. I can't help but think that people are seeking solace online because they lack meaningful connections with friends they can trust.

Sure, when we use social media like Instagram and Twitter we may overly care about our online "persona," tweaking details of our life to make them more attractive. But at least with these apps we're held accountable to the content we post, which creates platforms for people to learn from and interact with each other. Any time websites are founded on anonymity, you tear down the incentive for meaningful engagement. In real life, we are tied to our actions. I don't think there is anything "real-life" about Secret or Whisper. Just like the things we do and say, the things we post online are an extension of ourselves and our thoughts, even if they're a little bit filtered.

All hail the Foodgram

If you have an Instagram, you've probably posted at least a few pictures of food. Sometimes a meal just looks too good to not snap a photo before you dive in. But my food Instagrams have become a major habit, to the point where I'm usually "that girl" hovering an iPhone over her meal at a restaurant. It's probably not the most polite thing to do at the dinner table, especially if the restaurant is dimly lit and your automatic flash goes off. Then everybody knows exactly what you're doing.

But I'm not the only one with a food photo habit. In fact, there is an entire Tumblr solely dedicated to "Pictures of Hipsters Taking Pictures of Food". Scroll through it if you ever want a good giggle. It made me realize how silly I look when I do it. Side note-- I'm not sure when "hipsters" became the main culprits of this phenomenon.

I especially like posting pictures of meals when I'm visiting a new city or trying something new. Below are a few of my most recent "foodgrams." The top photo is lunch in downtown Asheville, the center is brunch in Brooklyn, and the bottom photo is the "Carolina burger" from the newly-opened Hickory Tavern in Carrboro.

See? Aren't you hungry now?

I've noticed a few times that staff have given me dirty looks for Instagraming my food instead of just eating it. But what they don't realize is how social media sharing can bring in way more business to the restaurant. Whenever I post a foodgram, I tag the restaurant location. Then when my Instagram followers see a delicious-looking meal, they know exactly where to find it. I shamelessly admit that I've seen foodgrams before that prompted me to actually go out and order the same meal. And even if most people aren't quite that motivated, sharing photos still generates buzz for the restaurant. It's like getting your customers to do the work for you. It also gives restaurants an incentive to keep making top-notch, Insta-worthy meals. The way I see it, foodgraming is a win-win. Perhaps restaurants should get a lot more comfortable with phones at the dinner table.