Airbrushed Sexting: What We Can Learn From Snapchat

Airbrushed Sexting: What We Can Learn From Snapchat

When I first learned about Snapchat in early 2012, I laughed it off. It seemed like a fun, novel idea but not a potential staple in our digital lives. As a long time text and chat user, I was used to permanence in my written communication. I wanted my past conversations to have a searchable history. There’s something delightful about being able to sift through one’s past messages and see how relationships have evolved over time. When crafting a text with a new acquaintance, there’s something comforting about reading through one’s past exchanges to gauge the tone of the conversation and to see what past messages worked in tight situations. But these are the ramblings of an over-cerebral nerd, someone who could probably thrive with a prescription of “a little less thinkin’.”


I realized that, in analyzing the specific merits of textual communication, I lost the big picture: Snapchat, and the rest of the ethereal communication apps, is a better model of real, face-to-face interpersonal interaction than, say, SMS or messaging.

Human history, up until about 5000 BC, was an invisible thread. People lived their lives, told stories to their tribes, and passed on. The important information stuck in memory and persisted in the group for weeks, years, or generations. As long as it was immediately useful it was recalled and rehashed. The origin stories and parables stayed alight for centuries and even millennia, providing groups with important life-knowledge and a sense of purpose. But most of what has occurred in this blue dot called Earth has never existed beyond the vibrating neurons of its observers. With the advent of somewhat sophisticated writing in the Bronze Age we started to make our invisible personal experiences visible.

All of this is to say that with the advent of instant, ephemeral visual communication, we have moved away from the relatively recent construction of permanence in our communication, and have created a close approximation to face-to-face interaction. We’ve moved closer to our natural communication preferences; what our perceptual and cognitive apparatus evolved to do. It’s why many describe the pictures and messages in Snapchat as “more real." As Sean Haufler, a student at Yale, writes:

"Snapchat’s time limits make snaps more engaging. Since snaps disappear seconds after they are opened, users feel comfortable sending spontaneous and personal messages that they would not want ingrained into digital histories. Sending a headshot to a friend via text feels forced, but sending a warm gaze or a silly face via Snapchat is natural. Snapchat pictures tend to be candid and unprepared, which makes the messages feel more personal, more real. Additionally, since every message has a time limit, users are present when opening snaps. Snapchat attracts its users’ full attention since they have only a few seconds to capture the details of each message. This engagement makes the experience more satisfying – it feels like a real conversation. Interestingly, Snapchat maintains the feeling of a one-on-one conversation even when messaging groups."

But the question always becomes: Then why aren't closer approximations to face-to-face communication, such as Skype, FaceTime, etc., more popular? I think there are two primary answers:

  • Asynchronous communication is convenient: We always have a few moments to spare throughout the day. But we don’t always have unbroken chunks of time with which we can chat.

  • Staged communication lets us present our best self: Real-time communication, like Skype, doesn’t let us hide anything. People can see our face in its entirety in real time. There’s no chance to frame the shot to perfection, add a filter, and make it as flattering as possible.

    So in the modern battle for attention, it seems that ease, convenience, and self-flattery win out over fidelity and responsiveness. With impermanent asynchronous messaging we’re able to have a somewhat uninhibited, free-flowing conversation while simultaneously showing our best selves. This is known as a win-win. As we continue to evolve our methods of communication, we’ll continue to see even more pronounced examples of this same pattern: Authenticity with a sheen. Realism without the worms. Life with all the glory, thanks to a little airbrushing. 

    Image credit: Danil Nevsky/Shutterstock

    U.S. Navy controls inventions that claim to change "fabric of reality"

    Inventions with revolutionary potential made by a mysterious aerospace engineer for the U.S. Navy come to light.

    U.S. Navy ships

    Credit: Getty Images
    Surprising Science
    • U.S. Navy holds patents for enigmatic inventions by aerospace engineer Dr. Salvatore Pais.
    • Pais came up with technology that can "engineer" reality, devising an ultrafast craft, a fusion reactor, and more.
    • While mostly theoretical at this point, the inventions could transform energy, space, and military sectors.
    Keep reading Show less

    Why so gassy? Mysterious methane detected on Saturn’s moon

    Scientists do not know what is causing the overabundance of the gas.

    An impression of NASA's Cassini spacecraft flying through a water plume on the surface of Saturn's moon Enceladus.

    Credit: NASA
    Surprising Science
    • A new study looked to understand the source of methane on Saturn's moon Enceladus.
    • The scientists used computer models with data from the Cassini spacecraft.
    • The explanation could lie in alien organisms or non-biological processes.
    Keep reading Show less

    CRISPR therapy cures first genetic disorder inside the body

    It marks a breakthrough in using gene editing to treat diseases.

    Credit: National Cancer Institute via Unsplash
    Technology & Innovation

    This article was originally published by our sister site, Freethink.

    For the first time, researchers appear to have effectively treated a genetic disorder by directly injecting a CRISPR therapy into patients' bloodstreams — overcoming one of the biggest hurdles to curing diseases with the gene editing technology.

    The therapy appears to be astonishingly effective, editing nearly every cell in the liver to stop a disease-causing mutation.

    The challenge: CRISPR gives us the ability to correct genetic mutations, and given that such mutations are responsible for more than 6,000 human diseases, the tech has the potential to dramatically improve human health.

    One way to use CRISPR to treat diseases is to remove affected cells from a patient, edit out the mutation in the lab, and place the cells back in the body to replicate — that's how one team functionally cured people with the blood disorder sickle cell anemia, editing and then infusing bone marrow cells.

    Bone marrow is a special case, though, and many mutations cause disease in organs that are harder to fix.

    Another option is to insert the CRISPR system itself into the body so that it can make edits directly in the affected organs (that's only been attempted once, in an ongoing study in which people had a CRISPR therapy injected into their eyes to treat a rare vision disorder).

    Injecting a CRISPR therapy right into the bloodstream has been a problem, though, because the therapy has to find the right cells to edit. An inherited mutation will be in the DNA of every cell of your body, but if it only causes disease in the liver, you don't want your therapy being used up in the pancreas or kidneys.

    A new CRISPR therapy: Now, researchers from Intellia Therapeutics and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals have demonstrated for the first time that a CRISPR therapy delivered into the bloodstream can travel to desired tissues to make edits.

    We can overcome one of the biggest challenges with applying CRISPR clinically.

    —JENNIFER DOUDNA

    "This is a major milestone for patients," Jennifer Doudna, co-developer of CRISPR, who wasn't involved in the trial, told NPR.

    "While these are early data, they show us that we can overcome one of the biggest challenges with applying CRISPR clinically so far, which is being able to deliver it systemically and get it to the right place," she continued.

    What they did: During a phase 1 clinical trial, Intellia researchers injected a CRISPR therapy dubbed NTLA-2001 into the bloodstreams of six people with a rare, potentially fatal genetic disorder called transthyretin amyloidosis.

    The livers of people with transthyretin amyloidosis produce a destructive protein, and the CRISPR therapy was designed to target the gene that makes the protein and halt its production. After just one injection of NTLA-2001, the three patients given a higher dose saw their levels of the protein drop by 80% to 96%.

    A better option: The CRISPR therapy produced only mild adverse effects and did lower the protein levels, but we don't know yet if the effect will be permanent. It'll also be a few months before we know if the therapy can alleviate the symptoms of transthyretin amyloidosis.

    This is a wonderful day for the future of gene-editing as a medicine.

    —FYODOR URNOV

    If everything goes as hoped, though, NTLA-2001 could one day offer a better treatment option for transthyretin amyloidosis than a currently approved medication, patisiran, which only reduces toxic protein levels by 81% and must be injected regularly.

    Looking ahead: Even more exciting than NTLA-2001's potential impact on transthyretin amyloidosis, though, is the knowledge that we may be able to use CRISPR injections to treat other genetic disorders that are difficult to target directly, such as heart or brain diseases.

    "This is a wonderful day for the future of gene-editing as a medicine," Fyodor Urnov, a UC Berkeley professor of genetics, who wasn't involved in the trial, told NPR. "We as a species are watching this remarkable new show called: our gene-edited future."

    Quantcast