Re:Introducing the new Snapchat
by personlurking on Wednesday November 29, 2017 @03:33PM
(#15810577)
I can sort of acquiesce here, due to me being a data point of one applying a theory to a userbase of millions.
But since they likely spend more time as one version of themselves - when no camera is pointed at them - and less time as the on-camera version, I'd argue that the latter is less authentic.
It's a bit like using alcohol (ie, the camera) as a crutch to give yourself permission to loosen up in social situations. It gets the job done but I'd argue it's not authentic.
Why does it matter so much if its authentic? What value does authenticity really give? I'm certainly not advocating for a wholesale change in your character, but it feels good to sometimes act out of character, or to curate experiences and present them to your friends (or the world, depending on what you seek)
Maybe the Instagram experience is how people actually want to behave? And it gives them a chance to express that ideal self. In other words, it's like the phone is a magic wand, and when it's pointed at them, it's suddenly socially-acceptable to break out of their shell and act silly.
Obviously it's weird that it only happens when the phone is pointed at them. But maybe, over time, this "behavioral reinforcement" will give them the courage to act like that all of the time (if that's how they want to be), rather than only when the phone is out.
In other words, the key notion that I challenge is this claim that HN is fit to judge Instagram as a misrepresentation of reality. How can we claim that the moments when the phone is away is more real than the moments when they are out? They both happened, therefore they're both real. And there's this unquestioned assumption that just because people behave a certain way when the phone is away, that's how they truly want to behave, when it may as well be just the opposite.