The internet is a wide, wonderful, and fast-evolving place. In the words of Lovink (2012), “once the internet changed the world, now the world is changing the internet”. In the same way that the television is the electronic hearth of a modern day home, the internet is the catalyst for a modern day social life.

Instead of hardcopy party invitations, we create Facebook events. Instead of complementing our friends dress in real life, we comment on their photos. Instead of composing and posting a letter, we send an email. Instead of scouring a newspaper for information, we type a query into a search engine.

We are constantly and endlessly connected to the internet and every account on every platform somehow intertwines with the next.

Stephen Hill, in his book “The Tragedy of Technology” suggests that the “direction of change is a product of the particular alignment between the technological possibilities and the societies and culture that exists”, which would mean that the technology that we engage with, the online media that is so heavily embedded in our lives, is a reflection of the capabilities of ourselves. As we develop, the means by which we communicate does also, hence why we are so technologically switched on, because our communicative devices are the same.

Looking back retrospectively on my week of constant blogging, I became hyper-aware of my Internet tendencies. As Internet culture has evolved, so have I. For example, as Facebook grew and developed into a social media application, the meme renaissance began, and features such as tagging became more widely utilised.

By day five of consistent blogging, I had come to an incredibly interesting question: does the quality of the communication reduce as the modes of communication increases?

This question was raised by noticing that I was using several platforms to communicate with the same person at the same time. For example, I would Snapchat my best friend the snack I was eating while also tagging him in memes on Facebook. Our conversations on each respective platform were disjointed and had no profound meaning or purpose, and didn’t have a fulfilling ending. Instead, they just broke off after one of us got busy or forgot to reply.

Instead of maintaining a steady and sustaining conversation that involved equal participation via a singular platform, I communicated trivial occurrences that happen in my day to day life via a variety of applications. I maintained these lighthearted conversations in my busy life and was able to stay in touch with the people I cared about without having to get stuck in a drawn-out conversation. For a bad replier such as myself, these are convenient, however the quality of the conversations declined significantly.

In this day and age, the conversations we have take place predominantly online, and it is here that communication has evolved most. Social media enables us to have multiple conversations at one time, when it was only less than four decades ago that conversations prominently took place face-to-face.

So, does the quality of a conversation reduce when the amount of platforms that it takes place on increases? Certainly. My conversations became broken and less profound when the amount of platforms multiplied.

In the aftermath of 7 days of consistent blogging, it is safe to suggest that we are all blogged out. However, in light of this activity, some very interesting questions have been raised about the ways by which I engage with social media, why I have developed these practices and perhaps where these practices have stemmed from.

The element of consistent blogging that I probably struggled with the most was my exploration of the question why? It felt extremely foreign to have to explain why I like certain photos, why I post particular things, why I use a specific platform for a specific purpose, and why I do it at a precise time of the day. I had never felt the need to take a step back and ponder why I had adopted particular media practises and how they had even come about, but once I did, some very interesting concepts came to light.

Firstly, I realised that I have developed a strong impulse to post on Instagram and send pictures via Snapchat. I wondered why this was, and came to the conclusion that Instagram is probably my most private social media platform, as I have been very conscious about who follows me and who is able to view my account. My Instagram account is private, and I only approve follow requests from people whom I know very well and have an invested interest in. I do not follow celebrities or bloggers and keep my Instagram as a selective diary of my every day life as well as a means of keeping up with my 62 followers whom I mutually follow. In regards to Snapchat, the concept of control comes in to play again, this time due to the fact that I can choose whom I send my content to, similar to sending messages, instead with images.

I can be a very private person, and I feel that Instagram and Snapchat were the most convenient means of expressing myself and documenting my life while also being very particular with who views my content. This bids a very interesting question: is anything that is posted on the Internet really personal? Is it possible to lead a private life while engaging with online media?

My answer is yes. However, monitoring, surveillance, and privacy settings are essential in doing so. Adjusting my settings and ensuring my accounts are private have made my life as private as I would like it to be. There is a certain extent to which I would like to be engaged with online media, and I am able to draw my own line and be selective with who follows me and views my content. The more private my account is, the more comfortable I feel disclosing information about myself on the respective platform.