This is me. Every day of my life.

Up until sixth grade, I had beautiful skin – glowing, smooth and white-as-cream skin. With puberty came the first few bouts of blemishes and my mother whisked me off to our family doctor to get a prescription. Thirteen years later and I’m still dealing with break-outs, except now my skin is ten times worse than it ever was in my teenage years. And you know what? That’s my fault.

Last year, frustrated with the ineffectiveness of the countless prescriptions received from my doctors over the years, I took to the internet. There were many sites that came up in my search queries, but the one that most captured my interest was Acne.org. It was the site’s message boards that I found most fascinating; here, I read about how acne could be caused by various nutritional-deficiencies and how some of the members had managed to clear up their acne by taking multivitamins on a regular basis. I self-diagnosed myself (mistakingly) with various vitamin and mineral deficiencies, began taking different kinds of supplements, completely changed my eating habits and wound up with more inflamed, spotted, irritated and scarred skin than ever before.

I’m not the first one to attempt to self-diagnose a health issue using the internet (and miserably fail). For instance, check out the story that ABC recently did on do-it-yourself cosmetic procedures. The women featured in this story ordered what they thought to be prescription medical drugs and supplies for facial fillers (ie, drugs like Botox) from a web site called DiscountMedSpa.com. The women watched a tutorial video demonstrating how to administer the injections themselves and, when they were through with the procedures, ended up with severe scars and even, in a couple of cases, facial disfiguration.

These guys know what they're talking about

Now, I suppose the easy thing to do would be to blame these unfavorable results on the popularity of the internet and the existence of web sites that allow us to self-diagnose and treat our (presumed) conditions. But we have to ask ourselves, “How intelligent and responsible are we being if we think that and act as if information we’ve found on a random web site holds credence over the advice of our medical practitioners?” (Especially when said practitioners have extensive records on our health history, and likely that of our family, as well.) The truth is, anybody can join Acne.org, post to the forums and give advice, and the woman who represented DiscountMedSpa.com had no idea what the ingredients or medical terms were for the products she was selling. Of course, there are legitimate sites that are run or backed by medical professionals, but even these sites have disclaimers. All in all, the internet is a great tool for acquiring more information about your (possible) condition, but should not be regarded as a replacement for the experience, advice and knowledge of your medical practitioner(s).

I’m still dealing with the effects of having taken matters into my own hands last year, and I don’t blame anyone but me for my decision to do so. However, after doing more extensive research online and realizing that my dermatologist and family physician do not have all the answers and solutions to my skin problems, I am now also seeing a Naturopath and an Energy Healer. And you know what? Things are finally starting to clear up.  :)

It’s now been a year since I did some photographing for one of my acquaintances, and I haven’t yet received any payment for that service (If it were only $50 or so, it would be no big deal, but $500? That could buy one hell of a handbag….) and I am preparing to take this individual to court. I’ve never been to court before, so I freaked out at first, thinking, “Omigod, what if Bob tries to argue that – or this – or THAT? Oh my lord, I don’t know what I’ll do if he tries to argue that…” And then I realized that all of our exchanges over the past year have been through email. I HAVE DOCUMENTATION OF EVERYTHING!!!! (The skies part and doves fly off into the horizon as a rainbow stretches forth from the heavens and touches the earth at my feet.) And not only do I have emails – I have text messages, too! Thank you, sweet Jesus, for making me a pack rat so that I never bother to delete anything. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

When most people talk about the permanence of our words, actions and work, as made possible by technology such as cameras and computers, they often touch on the negative connotations of such permanence. The truth is, there are a lot of instances when this aspect of technology can come in very handy. For example, if the girl working behind the counter in the Telus store accidentally deletes your entire list of contacts from your phone (Oy), you can just go into your email, Facebook and text messages and find (most of) the lost information. What if you forget that ten-page, Sociology research paper, worth 40% of your final mark, at home on your kitchen counter the morning that it’s due? Jump on one of the workstations in MacLaughlin Library and pull up the Google Docs copy that your friend, Shannon, emailed back to you after she was done spell-checking it. Or let’s say that your little brother (who, at nineteen-years old, really isn’t that little anymore) decides to pull a prank on you and delete all of the digital photos that you’ve taken over the past two years (Haha. Just rich). Well jeez, girl, that’s what Photobucket is for –   and if that fails, did you know that your computer can actually be back-dated to the day before the picture-genocide? That is, all of those lost files are fully restore-able. (Take that, nineteen-year old douchebag whose favourite show is Hannah Montana.)

It wasn’t until I began making these little mistakes, having these unfortunate slip-ups and working for unprofessional peers that I came to appreciate the built-in back-up systems that certain technologies offer. Who knew that one day I would be going through my Gmail trash folder, digging up all 32 emails concerning a photoshoot I did the previous summer? I didn’t even know that Gmail kept items thrown in the trash folder! I figured they emptied it once a week or so, just like Hotmail.

Of course, the permanence of technology does have its downside; i.e., you have to be particularly cautious about the racy messages and pictures you create – you never know when they’re going to resurface. I’m not worried, though. I grew out of the skanky-photo phase when Myspace lost the popularity battle to Facebook.

Within the first few weeks of being introduced to the concept of social networking, I spent the majority of my time building my own Myspace page and network of “friends” – ie, people I had added because they either a) lived in a place where I wanted to live, such as California, New York, Paris, etc. b) were involved in an industry that interested me, such as fashion, film or public relations, c) seemed to have an outgoing, fun personality, d) were friends with someone who was already in my “friends list”, e) wore ridiculously cool outfits or f) actually knew me. All of my spare time was spent browsing through others’ “friends lists”, leaving comments and messages and reading profiles. My Myspace curiosity became an fascination, which ever-so-stealthily escalated into a full-blown addiction. Rushing to the computer as soon as I got out of class for the day, staying up at night until 5:00 or 6:00 am, and neglecting my schoolwork, relationships and job, I realized that with a simple click-of-the-mouse, I could travel anywhere in the world, be anyone or do almost anything I wanted. I pestered people I’d never met before with daily messages and comments on their “wall”, only to receive replies along the lines of “Umm… do I know you?” Driven by my need to be someone else, somewhere else, trying desperately to ignore the overwhelming reality of the issues Corbin was struggling with, I dropped out of school and quit my job. I no longer had any use for the real world and its relentless worries and troubles. The real world had failed me, for it had failed Corbin. He had discovered something in it that made him so unhappy that he had decided he didn’t want to be alive anymore, and I suppose I had taken that as my cue to move on and find something that felt a little less real, too.

I’ve never been good at dealing with death, disease, illness or sadness in general. I ask too many insensitive, personal questions; I make wildly inappropriate jokes or avoid the issue altogether; I am annoyingly and uncomfortably perky at funerals; I pull away from hugs prematurely. When Corbin’s downward spiral became painfully apparent, I flit away from him like a bird from a branch that seemed ready to snap. Lest you think me a cold, heartless snake, I witnessed the effects of Corbin’s decision on his family before choosing my own course of action (or lack thereof). I saw how his family fell apart, albeit temporarily, and how Corbin remained a sealed clam throughout it all, becoming more and more withdrawn at school. Myspace was something I just happened to stumble upon shortly after Corbin’s “incident”, as I now tend to refer to it. Myspace offered me something that nothing and no one else seemed to be able to: escape.

After almost two years, I finally decided to leave Myspace for good, kissing goodbye that sweet, make-believe world that I had created. An online stalker had begun sending me threatening messages, thus snapping me out of my fantasy and causing my online life to become shockingly real. Social networking web sites no longer served their purpose. Fast-forward to the present: I would be lying if I said that Corbin and I have picked up where we left off. Our friendship had suffered considerable strains, and even though it has been about three years since we began rebuilding it, I know it will never totally be the same. Part of that is his fault for being closed-off, stubborn and still somewhat withdrawn. Part of it is my own extended absence from reality, my awkwardness with conversation and my uncertainty in approaching Corbin. Maybe if I hadn’t spent so much time in cyberspace, maybe if I had been a more persistent force in Corbin’s life then it might be easier for both of us now. Cyberspace was too easy and it felt too good to actually be good for me – or for us, rather. If I am thankful for anything though, it was the hard lessons I learned when finally pulling out of my internet addiction: 1. There are some freakishly weird people floating around online. 2. I would so much rather be experiencing life through tastes, touches, smells, sounds and sights, rather than just the sounds and sights that the web offers. 3. The internet is surprisingly bad for your health (I gained almost ten pounds since being introduced to Myspace!). 4. Real life can, at times, S-U-C-K like a Dyson DC22 Turbinehead, but checking out is not an option. You miss too many opportunities, surprises and joyful moments and those moments are worth the focus.

Corbin and I have never discussed the “incident”. Neither of us really have the courage nor the social skills to event attempt to touch that topic. However, I did finally manage to say my piece when he graduated this past spring. Because I know he likes to journal, I got him a hardcover, leather-bound notebook from Hallmark as a gift, and wrote inside on the first page a very simple, clear message: “Don’t you ever scare me like that, again.”

Let’s ponder a few of these cases a moment, shall we?

Citizen-turned-web-celeb #1: Cory Kennedy

Cory Kennedy and Mark Hunter

Cory quickly rose to internet fame after being photographed by prolific photo blogger, Mark Hunter. As the two became friends and he continued to include shots of Cory in his posts on a regular basis, her popularity with the online fashion community steadily rose. The resulting boost in hits to Mark’s web site landed Cory a modeling contract, a monthly fashion column at Nylon Magazine, along with several thousand daily hits to her own blog. Mark Hunter himself went on to become an internet celebrity, receiving frequent invites to photograph at exclusive parties and fashion shows, world-wide, and becoming wealthy in the process.

Jessica Rose

Citizen-turned-web-celeb #2: Jessica Rose

For many months, the tens of thousands of people who subscribed to and watched the videos posted by Lonelygirl15 on YouTube couldn’t seem to agree whether or not her videos were scripted. There was much debate about whether the girl was even who she claimed to be. Finally, word got out that the videos were in fact staged, all of the people who appeared in the videos were hired actors, and Lonelygirl15 herself was not 16, but 19-year old Jessica Rose. The creators of the online show had held casting calls, and had met Jessica Rose, which led to her being cast as the show’s lead. The point of the show had ultimately been to see how far the creators could go with making people believe that it was real, and to see how many views it could generate. After the show received several million hits on YouTube and much media attention, Jessica was offered a role in the Hollywood film I Know Who Killed Me.

Citizen-turned-web-celeb #3: Lauren Hastings

Lauren Hastings

Lauren was just another LA model, with nothing but a dream of making it big, when she met and befriended Lindsay Lohan in a rehabilitation program. The friendship quickly turned to rivalry when Lindsay allegedly stole several thousand dollars worth of clothing right out of Lauren’s closet when she was out of town at a photoshoot. Lauren immediately rose to “it” girl status as Lilo-haters everywhere began friending the model on Myspace and posting blogs about her.

Celebrities of every kind – musicians, actors, models, chefs, gossip-columnists – can be created online instantly. All it takes is a few thousand clicks and BINGO – they’ve gone from being relatively obscure to people who get free designer duds with their pancakes every morning. The process is often much more direct than the traditional route to stardom, and the benefits are just as plentiful.

But what exactly is the appeal for everyone else? What is it about these people that makes the rest of us push them up another step on the ladder? Why do we visit certain blogs every day and not others? Why do we “friend” that one person in particular on Myspace? Why do we watch their YouTube videos?

I’m going to guess that the answer is one of the following:

1. The person who has achieved web-celeb status is really, actually, truly quite a) funny, b) talented, c) good-looking in an above-average way, d) knowledgeable, e) well-connected, or f) business-savvy. If this is the case, people who have risen to celebrity status might possibly have not had the opportunity to do so if the internet was not an available medium. It’s likely that we are discovering and becoming intrigued by so many more people simply because we are exposed to them.

2. The person who has achieved web-celeb status is just a relentless attention-whore. Let’s face it: this is an equally possible conclusion. Human beings are curious creatures – we LOVE to know little tidbits of information about others’ private lives (regardless as to whether or not we know them personally). If someone invites the world into their life, via the internet, it’s pretty difficult to resist. Take Toronto’s own web-celeb, Raymi Lauren White, for example. This twenty-something posts extensively about her daily activities and includes dozens of photos of her food, friends, outfits, hang-outs, and home. Her blog receives over 5000 unique hits daily.

I just hope these web-celebs and web-celeb-wannabes realize that the more you expose yourself to the public eye, the more prying it becomes.

I have to politely disagree with Andrew on a few points. The first is his idea that the amount of content posted to Wikipedia on a certain topic must be some indication of that particular subject’s value (as determined by the people who choose – and choose not to – edit the content). Certain subjects or people, such as celebrities and public figures (like Pamela Anderson), are as well-documented on sites like Wikipedia because there is so much information available on them. We do live in a celebrity-obsessed culture, and because of that we have extensive documentation of certain people, and less of others. Maybe it is the technological advancements in general that have allowed us to develop and feed these obsessions and fascinations. Perhaps we shouldn’t be blaming the internet – maybe some of the blame should fall on the development of the television, or film, or magazines. But it’s not just our cravings for a daily dose of Perez Hilton that tips the scales when it comes to Wikipedia’s content. Part of the reason we have so much information on someone like Pamela Anderson vs. someone like Hannah Arendt is that we now have cellphones with cameras and uploading, web-browsing, and email-capabilities. We can post a tweet from anywhere in the world and hundreds of millions of people will be able to read it within seconds. There is more information about Pamela Anderson because we have more ways in which to obtain it – we didn’t have these kinds of technologies when Hannah Arendt was alive. Comparing documentation of the two figures is like comparing apples to shepard’s pie. If you look up the Wikipedia page for Barack Obama, you can see that there is just as much content (if not more) written about him as there is about Pamela Anderson. The story is similar for Stephen Harper. The information posted to Wikipedia is a reflection of the information that is already out there.

The second point that Andrew made that I intensely disagree with is that media requires a central figure to edit and determine the value of the content. Why should one single person be given the privilege to make that decision? As an advocate for animal rights, I highly value the contributions that Pamela Anderson has made to PETA and have quite a bit of respect for the work that she has done. Andrew claims that he idealizes “mainstream media” such as “BBC” or “Dateline”, and compares them to media like Wikipedia. But I have to wonder, if Pamela Anderson did something to make news headlines on stations such as BBC, wouldn’t her story be given more airtime than a story being done on Hannah Arendt? Of course it would – because she is Pamela Anderson! Her name is one that everyone recognizes and that many want to hear more about. Even in “high-end” media that has a central editor, coverage on a celebrity would be more extensive than coverage on a historical figure. This cannot be blamed (I believe) on Web 2.0. It’s just the way the world is.

Throughout my years at university, I became more and more obsessed with pictures, splurging on a $400 Canon Powershot in second year, and then the Rebel T1i in third. And I didn’t just love taking pictures, I loved having my picture taken. As addicted as I am to the creative control of lining up a perfect shot, there’s no denying the allure of a photo’s immortalization factor. Having photos of myself at parties, weddings and nightclubs was almost like having necessary proof that I had lived (in more ways than one).

Then there was Facebook. Sweet, irresistible Facebook with it’s photo-tagging features, and endless album-capacity. This is when the image addiction truly snowballed. I began feeling more and more at ease both in front of and behind the camera; I took pictures of one of my friends, intoxicated, rolling around on the floor with her ex-boyfriend; I set my camera to self-timer and took photos of myself in my underthings – not that the pictures were, by any means, sexy or even slightly attractive (I just thought that my turquoise sweater and lime-green underwear went really great with my thigh-high rainbow socks and wanted to show off the clever combination). Although, I’m not going to lie and say that I skipped the kissy-face/ seductive-pose Facebook photo phase (Trust me, I didn’t). You would think that my friends would be horrified about the fact that I was taking and posting all sorts of embarrassing shots of us – shots that every single one of our, combined, thousands of Facebook friends could see. Instead, I began getting more invites to parties, and always with the encouragement to bring my camera.

What this all eventually added up to was a great heaping pile of incriminating evidence that was begging to be burned. It wasn’t until I quit my Zellers job and began applying for positions that were a bit more career-oriented that I finally had a reason to light the match. I had finally begun to pay heed to the magazines, newspapers, television programs and even internet articles and blogs that warned about the repercussions of Facebook photos. As I sorted through the mess, deleting not only particular Facebook photos, but ones that I had uploaded to Badongo, Flickr and Photobucket as well, I realized the permanence of internet postings and tags. When I Google my name now, 3 years later, the first couple of links that result are still ones for the Badongo photos that I titled “Half naked (my name)”. Of course, the photos have been deleted, so when the link is clicked, the page that appears is a photo-removal notice, instead of a photo. To be honest, I don’t know what’s worse: having a potential employer Google me and see a picture of me in my bikini, sprawled out on the beach in Wasaga, or Google me and see a link for a picture titled “Half Naked (my name)” and never get a chance to see the photo, at all.

As much as I do worry about the consequences of my days of carefree youth, I can’t help but consider the overwhelming numbers of people who are in this boat with me. My cousin, who recently secured a job at the University, has left her mark all over the internet, commenting in caps on public blogs and Facebook fan pages, and posing provocatively for photos on Toronto web sites. I have a particular friend – we’ll call her Karly – who wants to be a plastic surgeon. If she got a toonie for every time she’s been caught, drunk, on camera, she could retire now with a trailer in Florida. And then there’s Amy Polumbo, who was permitted to keep her 2007 Miss New Jersey crown after some scandalous photos of her partying with her friends surfaced.

What these considerations make me wonder is, if the majority of today’s youth are at some point or another the subject of embarrassing or questionable internet content, then doesn’t that limit employers when they are searching for job candidates? Will employers continue to perform internet searches on applicants and attempt to compare and contrast them based on the severity of the search results? Or, in the future, will employers throw their hands up in the air and fall back to judging job applicants simply by the appearance of their resume? Do you want to know what I think? I sincerely believe that as technology progresses and becomes more and more affordable, we are only going to become increasingly relaxed with how, where and when that technology is used. As a result, I believe that, in the coming years, employers, authorities and news media will simply become more lenient and forgiving (and then again, maybe that’s just wishful thinking).