Archive for the ‘ICT’ Category

The Internet or the World Wide Web began with the ARPANET technology in the 1970s (general knowledge needs no citation).  Through this technology many innovations have sprung, creativity flourished, knowledge expanded and individuals in every part of the world were able to communicate – unrestricted by any legislation in a geopolitical system (blogger’s opinion, check with Turn It In for indicators of plagiariasm).

End-users, producers, web developers and everyone has benefited with technology (blogger’s gut feel, can be substantiated by others’ observation), without a cybercrime law institutionalized. Netizens operate under private individual – private business agreements (check any Wiki if you need citation, this is the blogger’s educated guess). Users were not inhibited to present themselves as private individuals in a public domain.

Domains are owned by the website operators – private companies, organizations and individuals who have business  or public service interests. They depend on the traffic flow which refers to the number of users accessing the sites. From the user’s traffic, they gain profit directly or indirectly through shares and advertisements. The more traffic they get over time, the higher the company’s net worth becomes.

With a cybercrime law in effect (not necessarily in the Philippines, because the law is not limited to this country alone), when the provisions are rather broad and terms are not specific, and when its provisions contradict the basic right to freedom of expression, netizens within a geopolitical system become restrained. They are prevented in one way or another to exercise their right using information communication technology.  That itself interferes in the natural system of communication for digital natives in the virtual world. (the rest of the paragraph are the blogger’s opinion, no malicious intent, but mere critical thinking)

If the latter is an acceptable truth, then the law itself must be punished by its own letters, for it caused system interference. Systems in the virtual world are creations of private individuals, corporations and businesses, worldwide. The system is composed of nodes that communicate freely, and actively. (Check the Internet Traffic for this)  Does a country’s legislative mandate cover the whole world, when it strikes on the World Wide Web? Is there anything higher than the statutory law?  (these are products of the blogger’s critical thinking, like many other political individuals jailed their minds were never imprisoned).

Freedom is essential in a democracy. In a democratic environment where freedom resides, reasoning flourish and the society gains from it. Freedom is not absolute, like one can not steal anything from another. Taking someone’s ideas and making it one’s own is plagiarism, but plagiarism is not like that of stealing . Plagiarism is a rather moral issue, only law of conscientiousness and the value for individual integrity can pacify it. Fact, (general truth) even with Intellectual Property Rights Law, plagiarism has been rampant, not only in the academe, in the business industry, but even in politics.

Thinking again, the blogger of this site could not blog so well (blogger’s opinion, needs no citation), because of the law and not because of his passion to blog. Picture is taken from the net from PIFA which freely gives the rights to anyone to post it and repost it. By the way, the Internet does not only operate with copyright protection, there are many other resources operating on Copyleft system (from IEEE, 2010 conference). The blogger apologizes for the inconvenience of using parenthetical notes, when in fact, mostly everything included in this post were his ideas which are product of critical and free thinking. Should he be in jail for any malicious interpretation of any reader, please visit him sometimes.

Instantaneous responses of online users to an object of attention in the Internet can make that material viral and so help the source achieve its intent –  hits for virtual stardom.This aim is not easy to achieve. Network metrics are now available to monitor which are potentially viral for corporations to plug in advertisements.

The Internet as a communication platform allows for any user with access to available free or paid applications to create, upload, download, post and share videos, photographs, texts, music and other programs. What we find now online are various displays that appeal to our multiple senses. Everything is seeking attention, in any form measured in terms of hits, views, reads, likes and shares.

The web is an interconnected network of information. When users connect and access any information in the Internet, others will surely know that behavior. With cloud networking technology, virtual platforms or websites have advanced into a more interactive social community. Business entities have interest on these online sites to connect to the users and market their products.

Consider Youtube, blog sites, and Facebook. In YouTube users can take advantage of its utilities and people can comment and share the videos to anyone else. In Facebook, advertisements are placed on the sidebars of your wall, and with those people or organizations you subscribe to. Sometimes, you will receive notifications of advertisements from your friends, and your friends are using them as well to market their own products. There are bloggers too who write for advertisements, just pay attention to the links and pop-ups aside from the obvious display ads in their site.

The Internet is a hyperreal market, where the users are potential consumers. There the demand for information is heightened by the frequency and the adjunct elements of interest in the displayed attention object. Value to the display object is added when attention is put to it. More views, more shares, more likes, more comments, more backlinks means more hits.  Those make the source an instant online star, and business wise could earn a lot from it.


Passing the Virus On

Instantaneous reactions result from our immediate perception of the display object. “Awesome”, “This gave me goosebumps”,  “Nice”, “good”, “OMG”, “WTF is this?”, “Darn”, “That’s not true”. Those are several of the comments tagged to a viral photo, video, message that we could find in an online social network are public site. Whether we react positively or negatively to the object on display, our consequent response to “share” that.

Online, we still bring our human side as social individuals. We feel and react with and towards another. When we see that someone “liked” what we posted, our esteem is affirmed. When comments  go deeper to tell something about our character or personality, our identity is validated, so we try to sustain such behavior. If we do not get any response from others, we tend to find ways to get their attention with another post, shout out or anything we could share.

Because we are social individuals we share. Since sharing is free, uninhibited and unregulated in a social network and in most interactive sites, we immediately click the like buttons or the share buttons. This reaction is instantaneous. Most often, we do not think and rethink of the consequences our online behavior could have on others. We are not much aware that we make an online display object viral by that instantaneous response.

Then after awhile we realize that we were so ignorant and irresponsible of our actions. That we merely followed bandwagon even if we did not know where it came from and where it is really going. We justify our actions as correct because we know others did the same thing. It is always easier for us to just get along what others are doing, but rarely do we pause and think about what we were doing.

The Internet is a potential source for anyone to make a name for his/her self. It is a potent media to lash on other people. It is an easy source to spread information or any display object like a virus. However, we need to know the source of the information or the material we are sharing, and also their intention, before we make our little individual online space a node to transmit that to our network members. While everyone seems to be interconnected online, we have to be more responsible.


Caught by the Virus

More and more people are getting online. With Wireless Broadband technology more accessible, and mobile communications getting cheaper and more adaptive for online usage, the web has more users connected to a network.

There are two posts in this blog, which I have earlier written, one about a campaign in Facebook dubbed as “invasion of memories” that went viral, and another is on “scampaigns” or “scare” messages that had many panicking about the nuclear radiation coming from Japan when it was hit by a tsunami. However, just recently while I was not busy replying to emails, comments on my blogs or shout outs, I have suspicions as well as criticisms to two videos being shared in my social network.

Malicious Dadalicious – The first video is about how to have a Benilde Accent“. This came infuriating and insulting to many students and faculty members of the school. In this video uploaded in Youtube, a girl named “Dadalicious” tried to tell her story of encountering a student from the said school, whom she despised because of her accent which the girl described as pretentious and characterizing that of Captain Hook’s. She probably wanted to make a funny video and create a name for herself, but she was irresponsible to name a specific school and even identified her friend’s name.

The students from the said school are active online users, and so some of their teachers too. Affected by the video, their instant response was to comment about it, and post their comment in their own Facebook walls. In 24 hours, it had 8,967 visits in YouTube, including my two visits. How this got to a Benildean’s attention must be intentional, if not a curious user must be searching about “Benilde” and unhappily stumbled on this video. Only one graduate of the same school directly replied to it using the same technology.

The video content as per its message was offensive to some, but only one Benildean replied in a video format, while others kept on sharing the said video. Now in this case, the affected ones (offended or not, having the purported accent or not) or just the concerned members of the school’s community are contributing their share by keeping the “link” in their walls. They are making Dadalicious, whose intent was malicious, rise to infamy.

What made this video “viral” though it really is not as per social network metrics, is that it appeals to the emotion with a particular bad taste. It is is insulting and outright directly hitting on some group of individuals. Naming the student or the school are offensive tactics to get some response, practically when it is making a faulty generalization by stereotyping the whole for an impression about a single individual. It was rude, unethical and irresponsible, but since the degree of offense is not immediately obvious to an online user, it stirs curiosity.

Random Girl Video – Another video on YouTube is getting a plenty of hits, likes and shares over Facebook. This video shows a girl singing in videoke at a certain mall. Indeed she has a beautiful voice. The video as of the time of this posting has 373,585 views. Behaving like the others in my network, I checked the link from their wall, because it has been frequently appearing and the video is getting “nice” reviews. But, I reserve some suspicions.

Why would a talented individual keep her face off the screen, like keeping her voice to be heard by everyone else? When this girl has that beautiful voice, she should have auditioned in the proper venues? Is it just because, the video was taken by some random person who happened to like the way she sings and caught it and uploaded it without her knowledge? Does she want to be a sensational hit over the Internet or just happened to be unsuspecting of the said video? There are a plenty of questions as to the intent of displaying the video.

The elements of surprise and mystery are in that video. The voice was brilliant but had no face in it. Anonymity made users more curious to know about the “random girl” and to hear her voice. However, in the same video the name of the “random girl” appears. If you search her name in Facebook, you will find a fan page where you can subscribe. If I am not mistaken access in altering or adding any content to the video is restricted for the owner of the video only. The owner of this video was able to identify the “voice” and his video was a hit. The elements to get the attention of an audience “hungry” for objects of attention were just right there to get such number of views.

It must be sheer surprise for the source of this video to capture it and upload it in YouTube. So far, he has uploaded 137 videos in the site, but only this video has gotten that huge number of views within one week. That video has helped the “random girl” get the attention of online users, that it was even supported Yahoo Philppines SHE.


Display and Attention

Sources of any display online are there for the users attention. They want comments, likes, views, reviews, shares. Advertisers prey on users’ creations shared online, and they are out there vigilantly monitoring the behavior of the online users. They are in the lookout for what is hitting the meters that measure audience share and responses. Those who gets the right number of hits become an instant star.

Traditional media like the television, radio and print are also capitalizing on the potentials of the social media. In some news nowadays, their source of information and materials are those posted online. They are also in the lookout for trends in the Internet and they broadcast this in their news reports. Likewise, online writers, bloggers and copywriters are also immersed in wave of information transferred over the Internet.

The primary reason of display is to get attention. However, online users have selective responses and filters towards materials on display. Despite their possible instantaneous affects, they also have values to make judgments and decisions.  Online users, the active and more so the inactive, would like to be updated, and they have to that tendency to the ride the waves of attention poured into a specific displayed object. The users’ behavior are affected by the many other elements in front of their screen and so with the task they are doing by that time.

So, it becomes more probable that online users tend to take actions that they regret later on. Hitting the keys and clicking the mouse are really easy, being more responsible doesn’t operate that way regarding our online behavior. We need to be responsible with what we share online, as we do not have the control of who can get this and how they will use it, and in most cases, links provide permanence to what we post online.

This month, just before the start of the Philippines’ hosting for the meeting of the Board of Governors of the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the Philippines’ official tourism campaign was launched through CNN, American-based international news network. The campaign bills the slogan “It’s more fun in the Philippines” to invite for local and international tourists.

Viral, youthful and vibrant – simply rolled as fun. That describes what makes this campaign a click. Prior to this campaign, the Department of Tourism in the previous administrations had “Wow Philippines” and then “Pilipinas Kay Ganda”. The country is indeed amazing with regards to its people, its diverse flora and fauna, and in its exhilirating natural beauty. Sadly, most Filipinos have not seen all these so far. The campaign is just a click, although it is questioned as to its originality, being the same slogan used by Switzerland in its 1951 tourism campaign.

The campaign is viral, simply because it was initiated to involve the public for a certain cause with the least cost. Launched in January 2012, it asked the Filipino people to make their say about what they think is more fun in the Philippines. The campaign was simple, people just need to tag the slogan and create their own to an original picture that shows tourist attractions in the country. That was fun because it gave the Filipino a voice, and that the campaign went overboard the traditional brainstorming among ad experts. It went viral through the Internet that engaged the young digital natives.

The advertisement launched presented a youthful perspective on what’s fun in the Philippines. Possibly those pictures posted online were taken by young people, since the process of laying over text to a picture is more common to those generation. The ideas are fresh, very inventive and innovative, something that only the non-traditionally thinking could have made up, just like that of “status update”, “high five”, “mountain biking”. Such are things related to the experiences of the youth.

Nonetheless, the images that go with the messages may not necessarily connect, but they do appeal to the various senses of a tourist. Youthful and vibrant as the images and tags are, the campaign reaches the target tourism market so well, expanding from its regular market of retirees and elderly to the hip and preppy generation. It does invite also the locals to experience the fun in thier own country.

The advert presents images from across the country, its festivities, party, natural wonders, activities to do in the beach. Such images are enticing to anyone to simply let go of worries and stresses, and just have fun while going around the Philipines. Atop these, the element of humor was wittingly applied. The technicalities of the video editing was simple ending it with “what else to see?”. The music was upbeat but not irritating to the ear. Overall, it was an awesome advertisement to boost Philippine tourism.

Billions of people have access to online social networks. Facebook, MySpace and Multiply are among the many social networking sites available for anyone with Internet access. Purposively, they are functional in many ways, but as a glass house of interconnected users, these platforms serve as space basically to see and be seen and to interact with people in a borderless and timeless spa.

Privacy is utmost important to almost everyone. Socially, privacy is an individual right. Psychologically, it is a construct of self-preservation from others. These are contradicting forces that should constraint anyone from joining an online social network. Being in a network makes one a part of a virtual open communication space that is vulnerable to make one’s private life obvious in the public.

Privacy and security are intertwined. One whose privacy is invaded may tend to feel less secure. While individuals have their own sense of security, the security features of a social network may not necessarily meet all one’s requirement. Privacy breach is a security issue. This could lead to stalking, malicious or fraudulent transactions and even identity theft.

While social network developers have the responsibility to put in security devices in the network, the accountability of protecting one’s life and valuable information rest on the social network user. Social networks have functions to publish information from personal facts to the location one is at an instant. It is optional to place these information, and access to these can be limited only to those in one’s network.

However, there are features that identify the user to other users. To illustrate, an FB user’s homepage may be locked for other users, down only to one’s name and avatar. Personalizing one’s wall with one’s picture is one possible way to be identified by other users. The network provides another function in that page to allow for possible connection with that user. Here, the owner of the page has the right and the responsibility to give access to anyone outside his or her network.

With search engines built in the network, any user can find another user. This may take awhile depending on the information made available for the searcher. With millions of profiles in a social network, the searcher will have to be patient in browsing all those results or should be more clever in narrowing down the search terms. With this feature, privacy if that is not being able to be found in a social network is not possible.

Social networks are platforms that connect a user to another user or to multiple users, intantantaneously. Privacy, then, is one’s responsibility. A user may possibly send an invite for a friend to get access to one’s network. The owner then should be able to assess and make a decision whether to accept that person’s request or not. Without really doing some background check on that person, the network may become vulnerable to spams that come through bogus profiles.

One young user, at the age of 8, has in his profile a link that connects to gay porn site. This child does not seem to have any malice or sexual interest yet at his age. His father also has a social network account and is his friend in the same site. But, the father does not seem to be aware of that link in his son’s profile page. Has this child placed the link personally, or someone who had access to his account did for him while he was not aware of it at all?

Full privacy is not possible in social networks. That would be damn right anomalous. The only way to free one’s self from being exposed and vulnerable to other online social network users is not to join any social network at all. The next case then, is whether an account is totally deleted once a user opted to shut it down? Anything and every information people put about their selves can be accessed and used by some total stranger. The permission for that was granted through the social network once the user signed up for an account.

Spelling errors, problems in choice of words, ineffective styles, wrong use of punctuations, poor coordination of ideas, subject-agreement problems, wrong use of verb tenses… the list of evident problematic language use is a taxonomy of both human inadequacy in the use of langauge and the issues of language curriculum perspectives. There are three dominant concepts in English language instruction that are applied in the teaching of English as Second Language, English as Foreign Language or English to Speakers of Other Languages: prescriptive, restrictive and generative paradigms.

It has been a dominant perspective to teach English with emphasis on the grammatical aspect of the language. This traditional approach has had a rich history in the Western educational paradigm. That students were instructed grammar in order to master the language. The rigid rules of language, its syntax, semantics, diction, and other aspects were like transferred to students through remote memorization and practice into writing. Here, students should be able to demonstrate mastery of the rules evident in their use of the language in speech and writing, and measured through their recall of the rules. The prescriptive paradigm of language teaching and learning emphasizes on the consistency of adherence to the rules in the use of language. Thus, the prescriptive paradigm addresses the need for learning the rules of language and applying them in various communication situations.

The other paradigm emphasises a communicative approach to language teaching and learning. This implies that language is a tool for communication, and communication seeks understanding. When there is understanding between communicating agents, language does not matter much anymore. Because language is generative, changes take place in various contexts. Hence, with a generative paradigm on language teaching, learning is contextualized by exposing students into communicative actions, whole language approaches so students will learn, value and use of language more effectively to achieve understanding.

Both the generative and prescriptive paradigms on language teaching can work interdependently. While it is true that language is generative, it is not static or fixed, in the time continuum and within spatial bounds, language use will be vary. But, even communication theories suggest that there are rules in the discourse processes and there are principles in it. One tension point is using a specific ground or criteria for comparison in use of language. There are englishes and not just English in the world.

Between British and Americans who are native speakers of the language are great differences. Compare these native white speakers to other English-speaking countries in Canada and Australia, differences are still noticeable. Moreso, with those of the African English speaking countries. World Englishes vary and change, and so generative. Thus, there is no one drop rule or prescription of language teaching. Critically, keeping an eye to evaluate one country’s use of English to either of British or that of the American’s is hegemonic.

When students could identify the parts of speech, identify the errors, identify the pattern of the sentence, identify the kinds of sentences and identify whatever should be memorized about language, that is teaching which is paralleled to students’ learning of the language. Paper and pencil tests answerable through multiple choices and fill in the blanks should measure language learning. This perspective can be construed as a restrictive paradigm. It results from the idolatrous tendency of language scholars to mimic language that is not native to other speakers of the language. Instead, of understanding a geopolotical system’s use of English and improve it from there, the generative value of language is degenerated to be a form of deficiency.

Such identification of inequity stereotypes non-native English speakers, and so those who find the mimicking convention way too difficult would just give up on increasing their level of proficiency. While others who show just a little mastery, though still imperfect tend to push the less fluent or struggling learner to the side, and so the latter ignores the value of learning the lingua franca, because they feel more confident to be understand when they don’t use the language at all.

Language is generative, there are historical and anthropological evidences to that. Shakespearan or Victorian English are obsolete in the context of modern day conversation, except for extracting meaning from classical literary texts. There are languages that have been extinguished from the tounges of the people. There are new words being coined and used, and they don’t even follow the orthodoxies of language convention. Should we then stick to the rules of language style from centuries past? How does such intention restrict the process of generating understanding on the generative development of human language?

Prescriptive approach to language teaching, still applies, but such conventions are now being questioned. Whose conventions are these anyway? Whose people are using this language convention? Whose culture and time are they representing? The distance of space and time where those conventions were collected as corpus of language use may not be so proximal after all to the present generation of learners. The gorge to be bridged will really be too wide and greatly impossible to help learners acquire a “perfectly modelled” proficiency as prescribed.

While language is generative, the epistemology of language must also be generative. Prescriptions of language usage need reexamination. But, such effort of examination must be grounded and adapted in contemporary context. The world now with its many englishes dwells in communication network, and the basic rule of this networked world is “understanding”. With this frame of thinking, who is not understanding? Is it the one learned of prescribed conventions or the one learned through the experiences of the generative language?

To illustrate this, one student who is very skillful in the use of computers could submit an original written work that is almost flawless of errors. But, the same student when writing with his hand, without the computer could express the same thoughts as he understood them and what was understood by the reader, enormously gross of spelling errors, punctuation errors and sentence structure errors. While tools are there, they must be used to where they can work best for a learner. The prescribed language conventions are also tools, but they also need upgrading and retuning.

In the illustration, the student’s problem is caused by several factors. The student has dyslexia. The student has spent most of his development years reading texts through the computer screen. The paper and the pen are strange and fragile tools for his fingers so agile clicking on the keyboard. Typing for this student is more of a breeze while his penmanship is hardly legible in its ‘crookedness’. The same student was taught to maximize technology with the many other assignments he had before, yet he is placed in foreignly inconvenient situation of working on paper and pencils without the tool he knows best.

The tool that the student knows has all the function keys to check his spelling errors, to look up the meaning of a word, to find a synonym or antonym for a word, to tell him of the sentence errors and options to correct them. Most of these are what teachers learned from the conventions of prescriptive language approaches have never encountered in their lives. Yet, the same teachers love to read the prints. The students create the prints and they can do that exceedingly well with the tools they grew up with. But, teachers will insist, they have to know and practice language withouth technology.

Again, the conventions of language is but just human technology. The time is here, where the reality of a paperless world is in the picture. But, many particularly those in the field of teaching are afraid to withdraw from. The directions for 21st century education must hold true in teaching the students new skills sets. They grew up with the technology, they know how to use it, and they are eager to discover more of it because it works productively for them. However, the tools that are available are restrictively used in language teaching. Language use is different from language in use, teaching language that used to be may not necessarily adapt to the language in use today.

Online social networks, specifically Facebook, have provided people across the world free, accessible and interactive communication platform to present one’s self to others and get the attention of the many other people, and connect even disenterested parties into hyperreal communities. Trending now are calls for reunion, homecoming, assemblies and other gathering of sorts. Here is man’s conquer of the virtual world, extending his territories with technology and so extending his identity.

This phenomenon was made easier when Facebook introduced its group application. Although, prior to this `official’ pages were already in. Here, anyone can open an account, invite and add friends, and do the same stuffs an individual can do in his wall. The group application allows any user to link with other groups, add friends, chat, post multimedia and other documents. Any member of a group can add anyone, unless the moderator kicks someone out. The power here is shared by the moderator to every other members of the group.

Facebook, as a social network, has just become a platform for group interaction and socialization. This manifest in how people are using the tool to connect with a number of people as long they are in the group’s site. Facebook has stepped up from one-to-many networking site to a many-to-many networking site with the introduction of the group application. In this manner, control or moderation is less attended and power is redistributed and shared by all members. Such is what Jurgen Habermas theoritically  describes as an ideal speech situation in the public sphere.

The said technology for group interactions is not new. The earlier versions of the chatroom like that of the MIRC served the same function. But because of the vulnerability of the platform to be intruded by viruses, it slowly got out of the picture. Well, Facebook has to take responsibility for that as well. The hyperreal communities have become more evidently active nowadays. The term hyperreal, according to Baudrillard is the meshing of the virtual and real, so intricately intertwined that the boundaries become gray and the distinction between the real and virtual becomes more ambiguous over time.

Because of the convinience, benefits and advantages of using technology in reaching people and getting them to the discourse process, openly and freely, people have taken the liberty to ‘join’ and be a part of the hyperreal communities. Here, they get updates and they get to interact with a lot of people, even those they do not know or have never had physical contact with. To them, they are in social interaction, just the same as that of the real experience of social interaction. Likewise, they bring their experiences in the virtual world to the real world, or vice versa.

Hyperreal communities are social groups of individuals connected through an information communication network, bound by a common interest, purpose, situation, experiences or identities. The motivation of the members to be in the network are likely to be shared to keep the network active. Performative communication through display and attention keep the line of social exchange alive. Messages posted on the group’s wall or chatroom have to appeal to the various interests and sensibilities of the members or else, communication becomes static.

Because rules and roles are undefined in these communities, unless the moderator establishes so with the agreement of other members, some unexpressed expectations can lead to conflict. This entropy can start from two individuals and then other members will be affected emotionally and psychology. Then, there will be regroupings in support of the parties in conflict. There will also be arbiters and peacemakers. In worst situations, members who do not conform to the ambiguous ‘norm’ will be unfriended or removed from the group. But, due to the vulnerability of technology, the deviant who was casted out can join the group with another identity to shatter the group dynamics again.

The connection established in the virtual community has strong links to the interest of the physical social world. Connection, that is. But the purpose will vary. For socieities that have high collective values, connection in either of the two worlds are esential to one’s esteem and the group’s esteem. The value of unity, cammaraderie, or fraternalization are significant to be projected in the members of the group. When these are violated, group members may lose interest to sustain membership. Distancing and withdrawal are still easy options. Being silent is manifestation of such, when participation in the exchange is construed as engagement and interest.

In the meshing of worlds in the hyperreal communities, the identities of individual members are transcended to cut across the two world. Hence, actions or one’s communicative behavior in the virtual world represents the identities of individuals in the phyisical world. In their exposure to the virtual world, their identities are transformed as well and they bring such back in the physical world. Assuming one opens a group for a clan, based on one’s surname, members who joined the group will feel proud to notice how the imagined and reconstructed ‘clan’ has increased.

New patterns of relationships are developed. In the Philippines, when the natives were given surnames, it was more likely that surnames will be repetitive. So, one can be surprised that there is another family or clan with the same surname from other islands. But with this mere identification, the family is reconstructed. Stories will be told, people will speak in different languages, and there will be no physical semblance at all shared by all those people. This reconstruction of the ‘clan’ goes beyond paternal or ethnic lineage. Even if stories told dont’ match with stories lived, the fantasy in the virtual world can keep the members together, in a while.

It is interesting to inquire on why people open groups and seek connection. Have the people been so tired in their physical world? Have they been so disconnected that they are pushed and pulled to utilized online technology to create virtual connections? How much of these virtual connections live to their purpose of building communities? How long will they be there and how are members affected by these hyperreal communities?