Reading the article “QR Codes for the Dead“, I wondered what made me so uneasy about QR codes on grave stones? Cemeteries are viewed as quite, reflective and cathartic spaces not only to mourn but to reflect. So when people armed with smart phones can view personal information of the deceased is that cathartic experience made obsolete? The QR codes take you from being in the moment of that specific location to a cyber space in which isn’t tangible. You can see and feel the grave stone and know that the deceased is laying under but the QR code link takes you to a different dimension of time and space. With growing anxiety of technology such as smart phones and VR goggles replacing “being in the present moment”, do QR codes on grave stones replace that moment with something not fully real or tangible? While grave stones are tangible and lasting pieces of one’s life QR codes could very well become obsolete in a very fast technologically advancing society. The article also mentions the upkeep of links and data of these codes specifically if a QR code company goes under or a link is broken. For instance, while I was on a scavenger hunt in Chicago, QR codes were used as clues to the next location. A link was broken on one of the locations and we were unable to figure out our next clue. Thus, is a QR code truly lasting and relevant as a normal grave stone?
Although some companies offer private codes for only friends and families, others give you the option to be accessible to the general public. Public internet spaces are very prone to hackers and internet trollers. My anxiety of QR gravestones can partly be due to trolling. Thus, the encryption of a virtual grieving space becomes very important. An unsuspecting mourner looking to find more information on the deceased could potentially view harassing information about the deceased, malware or advertisements. This makes the grieving process less authentic and more traumatic to the griever.
From both commercial and personal perspectives, the internet and overall growth of social media platforms remain contentious in their public reception, expanding and encouraging new forms of social expression and communication but not without a troubling human cost. In her article “LOLing at tragedy: Facebook trolls, memorial pages and resistance to grief online” Whitney Phillips explores in depth the phenomenon of trolling, specifically on Facebook, unearthing the very tension between freedom of expression and harmful engagement within social media relationships and networks. From her extensive article one thing remains clear: trolling cannot be boiled down to the good guy/bad guy paradigm many use to unilaterally vilify internet trolls. While trolling can be downright destructive and harmful in its activity, this involvement equally reveals the greater hypocrisy of social media platforms themselves, which glorify and sensationalize human trauma for commercial or self-interested ends (not so different from trolls, after all).
What I find most interesting in Phillips’ article is her analysis of the different permutations of identity that appear online—a sort of shape-shifting which stems from a growing societal preference for anonymity and multiplicity (and the protection and freedom they afford). She notes in particular the rhetorical distinction between the use of first and third person on Facebook, observing:
For every “real” user who is continuously reminded of and interpolated by their own “I,” every troll user is continuously reminded of and interpolated by the “I” they’re not, an ongoing process of emotional repudiation that explains why Facebook trolls frequently shift to the third person to describe their own actions (and may also help explain the ease with which trolls detach from the havoc they wreak — in their minds, it’s not exactly them doing the damage).
Strikingly, the multiplicity of the self allows for a certain level of emotional distancing in these online relationships, further blurred by the impersonal digital environment in which they exist. As multiplicity within social identity becomes more commonplace, do we need to reimagine our definition of citizenship and social participation? To what extent to do these cloned or alternate identities possess authority and legitimacy? Where is the line between character performance and the “real” individual? And finally, at what point does this alternative identity become its own functioning entity, no longer an extension of its maker, but rather an individual actor with its own rights and responsibility?
With social media it is now possible to have multiple identities, creating virtual clones of ourselves and others. Source: “Cloning – A Useful Technique for Mankind.” N.d. Blogs. Web. 15 Mar. 2017.
Reading Phillips’ article I immediately thought of Yik Yak, a social media platform most simply described as an anonymous twitter, which initially gained popularity thanks to the liberating anonymity it afforded its “yakkers.” However, alongside this promise of freedom came an even greater cost, namely, that users were suddenly able to express harmful, offensive, and downright disgusting beliefs without any social consequence. Down-voting, a built-in protection within the app, allowed unpopular posts to be removed from the feed after five “downs.” However, this protection was limited at best, functioning to minimize damage rather than serving as a preventative measure. Any recipient of slander could still have their reputation publicly tarnished in the time it took to gather five downvotes. Trolling and Yik Yak posting may serve different functions and distinct communities, however their central reliance on anonymity suggests a more threatening reality within society at large: what humans are capable of if emancipated from society’s surveillance.
This leads us to a fundamental question: who do we protect and whose responsibility is it to do so? Phillips herself identifies this dilemma, stating, “Indeed, from the moment that memorial trolling took hold, Facebook has had to walk a very fine line between protecting its users and protecting itself.” Traditionally, crime within society falls under state and government authority. But what about when it occurs on digital platforms? Anti-trolling, itself a form of policing, is reminiscent of the lone ranger or even the classic cowboy—enforcing “justice” but with an unregulated, and arguably equally dangerous level of independence and subjective reign. So who is to blame? Most importantly, if a person has multiple identities, which gets persecuted: the social identity or the digital one? Where is this accountability located? Just take Phillips’ example of Sean Duffy, wrongfully arrested and accused of being the online persona, Pro Fessor. Can criminal justice accommodate the blurring of these identity boundaries? Unclear.
References :
Phillips, Whitney. “LOLing at Tragedy: Facebook Trolls, Memorial Pages and Resistance to Grief Online.” First Monday 16.12 (n.d.): n. pag. 5 Dec. 2011. Web. 15 Mar. 2017.
