High Priests of Fake Life in Digital Temples

In the age of endless scrolling, social media has become a cathedral of curated existence, where every post is an offering to the gods of perception. Here, reality is smoothed, filtered, and perfectly framed, while flaws are edited out like heresy. Followers act as worshippers, algorithms as priests, and trends as sacred rituals dictating what’s worthy of praise. Behind the glamour lies an unspoken truth: this worship feeds not the soul, but the illusion. In these pixel-built temples, the faithful trade authenticity for approval, chasing fleeting relevance while the gods of fake life watch, amused, from their algorithmic thrones.

The screen lights up and the ritual begins. Fingers swipe, tap, and scroll like a silent prayer. Somewhere in the great digital ether a post is offered up to the gods. A face tilted at just the right angle. A plate of food arranged as though it were being served in heaven. A sunset that looks suspiciously more orange than the laws of physics allow. These are the sacred gifts. The price of belonging in the temple of the feed is the careful curation of a life that looks better than it feels.

The worshippers never kneel. They pose. They hover over their devices with the devotion of monks, waiting for the divine blessing of engagement. A heart icon glows and it feels like sunlight on the skin. Another appears and the warmth grows. The comments trickle in, each one a small hymn sung in the choir of approval. In the background the high priests of the algorithm decide who will be raised up and who will be cast into the shadows of obscurity. The priests are fickle. They smile on one post and punish the next for reasons no mortal can fully understand.

This is not the religion of truth. It is the religion of appearance. Even the most devout will admit in quiet moments that their offerings are touched up, adjusted, enhanced until reality is nothing more than a vague memory beneath the pixels. The gods do not want reality. They demand beauty, novelty, and performance. They want your best angle, your cleverest caption, your perfectly timed story.

The worship spreads across platforms. In one temple the congregation dances in perfect synchrony to music they did not choose. In another they deliver confessions disguised as motivational speeches. In another they construct elaborate slideshows of travel and romance. Everywhere there is the hum of constant creation, an unending tide of content that rises and falls like the tides of the old seas.

Outside the temples the real world carries on with less flattering light and no filters. Meals are eaten without being photographed. Moments pass without documentation. Faces wrinkle without smoothing. Yet the pull of the temples is strong. There is always the thought that maybe the next offering will be the one that earns the favor of the gods. Maybe the next will be the post that crowns you for a day as the chosen one, bathed in the holy light of attention.

Curated Reality Replaces Lived Reality 

In the digital temples of today the truth of existence no longer resides in experience but in the performance of experience. Life itself is not lived but arranged for display. Every moment that should be spontaneous and unrepeatable is carefully adjusted until it resembles something closer to advertisement than memory. A walk under evening skies becomes less about inhaling the fresh air and more about angling the phone to capture the glow. A birthday once filled with laughter and imperfect singing is now staged for the camera, with candles relit three times until the footage is worthy of the feed. Reality shrinks in importance while its digital reproduction is exalted.

The distortion is subtle at first. People tell themselves that documentation is harmless, that sharing is merely preserving. Yet the pattern is unmistakable. When documentation becomes ritual, authenticity becomes sacrifice. The lived moment is no longer satisfying unless it is confirmed by the invisible choir of watchers. In this shift the camera does not simply record, it dictates. Studies in psychology have shown that constant self-documentation changes not only memory but also emotional depth, as people begin to remember experiences through images rather than through sensations (Barasch et al. 2017). The experience becomes secondary, an accessory to the photograph.

Curated reality is seductive precisely because it flatters. Filters smooth skin that the mirror does not recognize. Captions spin joy from boredom. Frames remove the clutter that defines real life. By curation, imperfection is erased and identity is remodeled. Yet what is lost in this beautification is the unpolished essence of being. Scholars of digital culture argue that such curated performances reshape the self into what is consumable rather than what is authentic, leading to a cycle in which the individual becomes an ongoing project of optimization (Chae 2018). The person is no longer a person but a brand.

The danger is not merely aesthetic. When curated reality replaces lived reality, the terms of human value shift. Worth is measured in visibility rather than vitality. Silence is equated with irrelevance. If something is not posted it is felt to have never existed. This inversion corrodes the meaning of private joy and personal reflection. The old human traditions of savoring life in solitude or intimacy become impoverished. Instead, the worshippers feel compelled to stage their private altars in public view, hoping that strangers will anoint their moments as significant.

Outside these digital temples, real life proceeds with its indifference. Meals are eaten without being styled, conversations wander without structure, and laughter does not always sound charming. Yet the gravity of curation pulls even here, whispering that the unshared is the unlived. Sociological studies show that young adults now routinely evaluate events based on their “shareability,” with the act of posting becoming a defining feature of the experience itself (Diefenbach and Christoforakos 2017). In this way, the sacred exchange between the self and reality is disrupted by the demand for external validation.

It is tempting to dismiss this as harmless play, yet every curated moment carves away a fragment of authenticity. Over time people forget how to feel outside the lens. They pose instinctively even when no camera is present. The boundaries between life and its performance dissolve until they become indistinguishable. This is not the enhancement of life but its quiet replacement. The cathedral of the feed requires constant offerings, and the worshippers comply, convinced that they are living, even as they are slowly surrendering reality itself at the altar of appearance.

Validation Becomes Currency 

In the cathedral of digital life the true currency is not gold or labor but attention. Validation is the coin minted by the invisible priests of algorithms, and every worshipper longs to be rich. A single like is a copper token, a fleeting recognition that the offering was seen. A hundred likes form silver, enough to warm the heart for a night. A viral surge of thousands is digital gold, a crown that glitters but soon dissolves. The worshippers are acutely aware that their value is tethered not to who they are but to how their images perform.

This economy is brutal because it is endlessly unstable. Yesterday’s crowned saint is today’s forgotten shadow. The cycle of validation mimics the markets of speculation, rewarding novelty and punishing stagnation. Scholars of media psychology have found that the pursuit of online approval activates the same neural circuits as gambling, where uncertainty drives compulsion and intermittent rewards strengthen addiction (Turel et al. 2018). In this system attention is not merely desired, it is craved with the force of chemical dependency.

Validation transforms not just behavior but identity. To maximize returns, people become traders of themselves, shaping their opinions, aesthetics, and relationships to appeal to the audience they imagine. Those who once spoke with conviction now speak in soundbites designed to invite agreement. Those who once lived for private satisfaction now live for public applause. Research on influencer culture shows how the performance of identity online increasingly dictates offline choices, as individuals curate their lives to sustain their digital brand (Abidin and Ots 2017). The temple does not just reflect life, it rewrites it.

The cruelty of this economy is that validation loses value almost as soon as it is gained. A like that feels radiant in the moment fades within hours, replaced by a gnawing hunger for more. Scholars have called this phenomenon “vanity metrics,” numbers that provide instant gratification without lasting fulfillment, leaving participants perpetually unsatisfied (Djafarova and Trofimenko 2019). The more offerings a worshipper presents, the more desperate the craving becomes, for the priests of the algorithm have trained them to associate attention with worth.

The rituals of validation are uniform yet diverse. In one temple the dance becomes a prayer, performed not for joy but for visibility. In another the motivational monologue becomes a sermon, polished to invite applause rather than reflection. In another the slideshow of luxury vacations becomes a litany of envy. Each practice is calibrated not for meaning but for reach, and each sacrifice is measured not in truth but in numbers. Even grief and confession are not spared, as they too are transformed into content for an audience that demands emotional spectacle.

What emerges from this ritual economy is a society where authenticity becomes a liability. Rawness is too risky, for it may fail to attract attention. Silence is too costly, for it leads to invisibility. In the pursuit of validation, the worshippers sacrifice not only their imperfections but their substance. Studies in communication warn that heavy dependence on online feedback erodes self-esteem and increases anxiety, for individuals internalize the fluctuating metrics of attention as a direct reflection of self-worth (Marengo et al. 2021). Thus the temple does not simply bless or curse posts, it blesses and curses souls.

The priests of the algorithm remain amused. They reward one worshipper and punish another for reasons hidden behind the sacred veil of code. They smile on the provocative, the sensational, and the extreme, for such offerings fuel the economy of engagement. Meanwhile the worshippers continue their silent prayers, trading truth for applause, selling fragments of themselves for currency that evaporates. It is a holy market where the price of belonging is the steady depletion of the self, and the profits belong not to the faithful but to the system that binds them.

The Priests of Algorithms

Every religion has its priests, those who mediate between the mortal and the divine. In the temples of digital life, the priests are not robed men with incense but lines of code and systems of calculation. They are invisible yet omnipresent, deciding which offerings are exalted and which vanish into obscurity. Their logic is concealed behind sacred walls of corporate secrecy. They smile on novelty, controversy, and spectacle, while condemning the ordinary to silence. The worshippers know only the consequences of these judgments, never the reasons.

The priests of algorithms operate with a precision that appears impartial, but their interests are not holy. Their function is not to preserve truth or reward authenticity. Their allegiance is to engagement, for engagement translates into profit. Researchers in media studies have shown that algorithmic systems systematically prioritize emotionally arousing content, particularly anger and outrage, because such states keep users active for longer durations (Brady et al. 2017). Thus the priests subtly shape the rituals of worship, nudging participants toward the dramatic and the divisive.

The faithful often imagine they are in control of their offerings, yet their creativity is quietly conditioned by the rules of the temple. A caption is crafted not to express sincerity but to maximize discoverability. A video is shortened not to reflect reality but to align with algorithmic preferences. Even language itself is reshaped, with words and phrases chosen for searchability rather than resonance. Studies in computational communication have revealed how creators strategically adjust their self-presentation to meet algorithmic expectations, thereby producing content that is less spontaneous and more mechanized (Bishop 2019). In this sense the priests do not simply filter offerings; they train the faithful to construct offerings in their image.

This training is effective because it cloaks manipulation as opportunity. The worshippers believe they are free, yet their devotion is corralled by hidden rules. A dance goes viral not because it carries meaning but because it aligns with a formula coded to reward repetition. A confession spreads not because it contains truth but because it provokes reaction. The priests of algorithms transform attention into a commodity, and they harvest it with the dispassionate efficiency of harvesters gathering grain. Sociologists note that this commodification of human interaction turns intimacy itself into a product, flattening relationships into metrics (Van Dijck et al. 2018).

The irony is that the priests themselves are faceless, devoid of the humanity they manipulate. They are programs designed to optimize time spent, yet their influence extends to the shaping of identity and culture. In older religions the priest at least embodied the ritual. In this new order, the priest is a machine that performs its duties without awareness of the souls it governs. The worshippers stand before a mechanical oracle, misinterpreting its output as sacred judgment when it is merely calculation.

To bow to such priests is to surrender not just privacy but freedom of imagination. The constant need to please the algorithm narrows creativity until art itself is confined to predictable patterns. Scholars have warned that this leads to homogenization of culture, where diversity of expression is reduced in favor of what is most algorithmically efficient (Cotter 2019). The temple may appear vibrant, with endless content rising like incense, but beneath the surface much of it is recycled and repetitive, shaped less by human inspiration than by algorithmic necessity.

The priests remain unseen, their authority unquestioned. The faithful refresh their screens with the reverence of pilgrims waiting for a sign. And with each refresh, the priests make another quiet judgment, deciding who will be visible and who will be erased. In this way the algorithms do not just administer the temple. They define it. They are both gatekeepers and gods, presiding over a digital faith that thrives not on truth, but on the endless circulation of attention.

The Ritual of Distraction

No temple thrives without ritual, and in the digital sanctuaries of today the dominant ritual is distraction. The faithful are bound not by hymns but by notifications. The ceremony begins with the chime of a phone or the vibration of a device, subtle summons that feel as sacred as bells calling monks to prayer. The worshipper responds without hesitation, eyes lowered to the glowing screen. What unfolds is not a moment of presence but a descent into endless scrolls, a trance-like offering of attention.

Distraction is not accidental here. It is engineered. Scholars in cognitive science have demonstrated that social media platforms are designed to fragment attention, presenting streams of stimuli that prevent deep engagement while encouraging constant return (Wilmer et al. 2017). Each swipe is a ritualistic gesture, simple yet powerful, keeping the worshipper suspended between curiosity and dissatisfaction. The result is a mind perpetually occupied yet rarely fulfilled, a consciousness trained to seek novelty at the expense of depth.

This ritual corrodes the ability to linger in the present. In older cathedrals, worship involved silence, reflection, and communion. In the new temples of distraction, silence is unbearable, reflection is fragmented, and communion is replaced with chatter. Researchers have shown that constant digital distraction diminishes capacity for sustained focus, leading not only to reduced productivity but also to weakened memory and shallow emotional processing (Uncapher et al. 2017). The faithful mistake their constant busyness for vitality, yet what they cultivate is not vitality but agitation.

The ritual is addictive because it disguises emptiness as abundance. Every scroll promises something new, yet the novelty is often trivial, a cascade of images and captions that evaporate within seconds. Still the worshipper continues, convinced that the next offering might contain meaning. This endless procession mirrors ancient rituals where sacrifices were repeated in hope of divine favor, though here the sacrifice is not animals or incense but attention itself. Each glance at the screen is a tithe, each click an offering, until the worshipper has given hours to the temple without realizing what has been surrendered.

Distraction also reshapes time. Instead of experiencing life as a sequence of events with beginnings and endings, the worshipper experiences life as a feed without conclusion. There is no natural closure, only perpetual continuation. Scholars of digital culture argue that this erasure of boundaries between beginnings and endings destabilizes the rhythms of daily life, producing a state of perpetual partial engagement (Fuchs 2017). The ritual does not end when the screen is turned off, for even in absence the mind lingers on what might be happening in the temple without them.

The cruelty of this ritual is that it masquerades as connection. The worshippers believe they are communing with others, yet what binds them together is not intimacy but distraction itself. They share, comment, and react, but these exchanges are often shallow, designed more to maintain presence in the temple than to nourish relationships. Studies in communication show that heavy reliance on digital interaction correlates with greater feelings of loneliness and decreased satisfaction in real-world relationships (Twenge et al. 2019). The ritual of distraction thus delivers the opposite of what it promises.

In these digital temples the faithful bow not through kneeling but through their restless swipes and taps. Their devotion is measured not in prayers spoken aloud but in minutes surrendered to the feed. Distraction is both the method and the offering, a ritual that consumes attention while convincing the worshipper that attention has been enriched. The priests of algorithms smile, for this ritual is their most reliable source of power. And still the faithful continue, lost in the illusion that distraction is participation, even as the depth of their humanity thins with every offering.

The Mirage of Progress in a World Obsessed with Metrics

The modern world is infatuated with numbers. Everything must be measured, quantified, and charted as if the meaning of life could be compressed into a spreadsheet. Success is no longer a journey of self discovery or fulfillment but a set of digits displayed on a glowing screen. People are not judged by the richness of their experiences but by the algorithmic applause of likes, followers, and key performance indicators. In this obsession with metrics, humanity confuses data with destiny, mistaking motion for progress.

This metric fetish has infiltrated almost every domain of life. Education, once valued for cultivating critical thought, has been transformed into a scoreboard of standardized tests and performance statistics. Instead of encouraging curiosity and intellectual risk, the system grooms students to chase scores that often reveal little about actual knowledge or creativity (Zhao 2017). A child’s capacity to imagine, question, and innovate becomes secondary to their ability to fit neatly into a grading rubric. The irony is profound. By measuring everything, we often measure nothing of true significance.

The workplace mirrors this same pathology. Corporate culture thrives on performance metrics that create the illusion of accountability. Yet research shows that when people are pushed to chase numerical targets, they frequently sacrifice ethical standards, quality, and even health in order to meet them (Ho 2018). The human being becomes a cog in a machine, reduced to quarterly evaluations and productivity charts. What is lost is the sense of meaning, the fire that drives genuine achievement. Progress becomes synonymous with metrics, yet the human spirit is quietly eroded in the process.

The social world has also been colonized by numbers. Social media platforms reduce human connection to follower counts and engagement rates. This fosters comparison, envy, and shallow self worth rather than meaningful interaction. A growing body of research links such metrics driven environments to anxiety, depression, and diminished self esteem (Marengo et al. 2021). A person’s value is not found in their ability to care, love, or inspire, but in how well they appear to be performing in a marketplace of attention. The metric driven mirage becomes not only a cultural norm but a psychological trap.

Even governments are guilty of worshiping numbers. National progress is often reduced to GDP growth while ignoring factors such as inequality, ecological sustainability, and social well being. Yet GDP is a crude instrument that often disguises suffering beneath the veneer of expansion. The economy may expand while the environment collapses and the poor sink further into despair. Scholars argue that such narrow metrics distort policy and obscure deeper truths about human flourishing (Costanza et al. 2018). It is as if society has mistaken the map for the territory, believing the numerical model is reality itself.

What makes this obsession with metrics particularly tragic is its subtlety. Unlike overt oppression, the tyranny of numbers operates under the guise of rationality and progress. People accept it willingly, believing it represents fairness and objectivity. Yet in truth it flattens the complexities of human life into digits that strip away depth and nuance. To reduce existence to metrics is to drain it of mystery, imagination, and authenticity.

True progress cannot be measured in simple numbers. It is found in the capacity to nurture ideas that defy measurement, to embrace uncertainty, and to live lives rich in meaning rather than just rich in metrics. Until humanity recognizes this distinction, it will remain trapped in a self inflicted mirage, sprinting furiously on a treadmill of numbers, never realizing it has been running in place.

The Theater of Busyness

The modern human has perfected a peculiar art form: performing busyness. It is no longer enough to be engaged in meaningful work, one must also be seen to be endlessly occupied, drowning in tasks, suffocating in meetings, and declaring exhaustion as a badge of honor. This is the theater of busyness, a stage where emails serve as monologues, calendars become set designs, and every sigh of fatigue is delivered like an actor’s dramatic pause. What used to be a simple measure of productivity has been elevated into a grotesque performance, where worth is measured by how frantic one appears rather than by the actual quality of one’s contribution.

Scholars have labeled this the cult of busyness, where being busy is not simply a circumstance but an identity (Hewlett and Luce 219). A person who declares that they are free is immediately viewed as idle, lazy, or lacking ambition. The paradox is clear: the busier one is, the less time they have for reflection, creativity, and rest, yet the busier one appears, the more respect and validation they command. It is the perfect modern hoax, where individuals trade substance for spectacle, drowning in a sea of meaningless obligations while pretending to swim toward greatness.

The corporate world thrives on this illusion. Meetings multiply like weeds, emails stack like a digital tower of Babel, and workers are subtly conditioned to believe that perpetual motion is equivalent to value creation. Yet studies show the opposite. Excessive busyness not only erodes mental health but also reduces genuine productivity, leading to burnout, disengagement, and declining performance (Sonnentag and Fritz 28). Despite this, the theater remains sold out every day, with workers lining up to act in a play they secretly despise.

The tragedy is not simply personal, it is societal. Families fracture under the weight of busyness, friendships decay, and communities dissolve. When busyness becomes the ultimate virtue, everything else is sacrificed at its altar. Children grow up with parents who are physically present but emotionally absent, spouses communicate in quick logistical exchanges rather than deep conversations, and neighbors remain strangers. The obsession with busyness transforms human connection into an afterthought, a luxury that can only be indulged once the inbox is empty; which, of course, it never is.

Worse still, busyness has been weaponized as a class signal. The wealthy once demonstrated status through leisure, parading idleness as proof of superiority. Today, status is proven by the opposite: the ability to claim an overloaded schedule, an unrelenting pace, and a life too full for trivialities. Scholars call this the new conspicuous consumption, where scarcity of time is flaunted as a symbol of importance (Bellezza, Paharia, and Keinan 120). The irony is biting. Those who appear busiest are often the least in control of their lives, puppets dancing to the strings of a system that equates exhaustion with achievement.

If society is to survive the suffocating grip of busyness, it must confront its addiction to spectacle. Rest must be reclaimed as wisdom rather than weakness, and stillness must be redefined as power rather than laziness. The ancient philosophers were correct in warning that an unexamined life is not worth living, but the modern condition has twisted this into a life where examination itself is impossible because one is too busy rehearsing for the next act. Busyness is not progress, it is performance, and until the curtain falls on this theater, humanity will continue mistaking noise for meaning.

As I conclude,

Human civilization has always flirted with illusions, whether those illusions were carved in stone, written in scripture, or broadcast on digital screens. Yet what our discussion has unraveled is the raw, unpolished truth: people are increasingly caught between the shimmering projections of success and the burdens of living authentically. Each point developed earlier illuminated different faces of this contradiction, and now it becomes necessary to weave them together into one binding recognition. The contemporary human condition is not simply shaped by ambition or by failure, but by the pressure to reconcile a world that tells us who we must be with the self that quietly whispers who we really are. That tension is both our curse and our possibility.

The journey through the dynamics of modern identity revealed that social expectation remains the most powerful sculptor of personal lives. Family, culture, and digital communities carve individuals into predesigned statues long before they realize they could have chosen their own clay. Authenticity has thus become an act of rebellion, not a default state. In this rebellion lies both pain and power. To resist inherited illusions demands courage, yet it is also the only path to genuine selfhood. Psychology affirms that authenticity correlates with improved well-being, reduced stress, and greater resilience in the face of adversity (Knoll et al. 2022). But society rarely rewards those who choose the difficult road of being real. Instead, it crowns those who decorate themselves with convincing masks.

Technology has intensified this spectacle. Digital life does not merely display identity, it manufactures it. Every post becomes a transaction between personal worth and public validation, where a single click of approval substitutes for genuine human recognition. This commodification of self reduces the person to an advertisement, a billboard for likes, while suppressing the messy, unprofitable dimensions of real life. Scholars warn that these mediated performances breed anxiety, envy, and chronic dissatisfaction, as individuals compare their unfiltered struggles to the curated triumphs of others (Verduyn et al. 2020). The tragic irony is that the more we reach for validation through digital mirrors, the further we drift from the reality of who we are.

The illusion of success has also grown into an industry, one that thrives on the insecurities of the population. The global self-improvement market continues to expand, not because people are genuinely evolving, but because they are endlessly persuaded that they are not enough. The culture of optimization traps people in a cycle of buying solutions to problems that were often fabricated in the first place. Critical research shows that these industries prey on psychological vulnerabilities, turning the pursuit of growth into another form of exploitation (Cabanas and Illouz 2019). This points us to a savage truth: much of what society sells as empowerment is simply dependency in disguise.

The hierarchy of men, whether constructed through gender, class, or race, provides another layer to the hoax. Human value becomes stratified according to arbitrary standards, leading individuals to climb ladders that were designed to keep them in place. Philosophers argue that these hierarchies are sustained not by natural law but by collective belief, meaning that the power they exert is a social illusion, not an absolute reality (Fricker 2020). To expose this is to threaten the very scaffolding of social control, which is why most people prefer to remain compliant. Yet liberation cannot be reached without confronting the fictions that quietly govern human relations.

A striking element across these observations is the commodification of authenticity itself. The market is clever enough to turn rebellion into a brand, selling the image of raw honesty while stripping it of substance. This reveals a paradox: even the pursuit of authenticity risks being swallowed by performance. The implication is that real authenticity can never be a product. It is lived, not purchased. To preserve it, one must accept discomfort, imperfection, and the lack of applause. Contemporary psychology suggests that embracing vulnerability rather than polishing perfection is central to cultivating genuine human connection (Brown 2021). Yet vulnerability is the one trait modern society teaches people to fear most.

To conclude with precision, the great challenge of our age is not the lack of opportunities, but the excess of illusions. People drown not because there is no water, but because they are seduced into thinking the mirage is a river. Survival, therefore, requires developing the wisdom to distinguish between appearance and essence. That wisdom cannot be outsourced, commodified, or taught in a weekend seminar. It must be cultivated in solitude, tested in failure, and practiced in relationships that resist superficiality.

There is a call here for intellectual courage. Humanity must reject the laziness of conformity and the anesthesia of digital performance. It must confront the uncomfortable truth that meaning is not manufactured through applause but discovered in silence, in labor, and in unmarketable honesty. This will require dismantling hierarchies that trap individuals in illusions of superiority, resisting industries that profit from insecurity, and cultivating communities that value truth over spectacle.

The savage irony is that most people will avoid this path because illusion is comforting, while authenticity is inconvenient. But history proves that civilizations collapse not because of discomfort, but because they mistake appearance for reality. Rome fell not when its walls crumbled, but when its values rotted beneath the polished marble. Likewise, our modern world risks implosion if it continues to crown appearances while starving substance. The question, then, is whether individuals will continue feeding the illusion, or whether they will finally turn toward the arduous, unglamorous labor of becoming real.

This conclusion does not offer easy resolutions, because wisdom rarely does. Instead, it presses the reader with an unsettling demand: choose whether to remain a puppet in the theatre of illusions or to accept the solitary freedom of self-definition. One path ensures applause but hollows the soul. The other path ensures resistance but preserves dignity. The choice has always been, and will always remain, ours.

Works Cited

Abidin, Crystal, and Mart Ots. “Influencers Tell All? Unravelling Authenticity and Credibility in a Brand Scandal.” Celebrity Studies, vol. 7, no. 1, 2017, pp. 1–15. doi:10.1080/19392397.2015.1095646.

Barasch, Alix, et al. “Photographic Memory: The Effects of Volitional Photo Taking on Memory for Visual and Auditory Aspects of an Experience.” Psychological Science, vol. 28, no. 8, 2017, pp. 1056–1066. doi:10.1177/0956797617694868.

Bellezza, Silvia, Neeru Paharia, and Anat Keinan. "Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of Leisure Time Become a Status Symbol." Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 44, no. 1, 2017, pp. 118–138. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw076.

Bishop, Sophie. “Managing Visibility on YouTube through Algorithmic Gossip.” New Media & Society, vol. 21, no. 11–12, 2019, pp. 2589–2606. doi:10.1177/1461444819854731.

Brady, William J., et al. “Emotion Shapes the Diffusion of Moralized Content in Social Networks.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 114, no. 28, 2017, pp. 7313–7318. doi:10.1073/pnas.1618923114.

Brown, Brené. Atlas of the Heart: Mapping Meaningful Connection and the Language of Human Experience. Random House, 2021.

Cabanas, Edgar, and Eva Illouz. Manufacturing Happy Citizens: How the Science and Industry of Happiness Control Our Lives. Polity Press, 2019.

Chae, Ji Young. “Explaining Females’ Envy Toward Social Media Influencers.” Media Psychology, vol. 21, no. 2, 2018, pp. 246–262. doi:10.1080/15213269.2017.1328312.

Costanza, Robert, et al. “Measuring Sustainable Wellbeing in the Anthropocene.” Ecological Economics, vol. 150, 2018, pp. 8–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.03.028.

Cotter, Kelley. “Playing the Visibility Game: How Digital Influencers and Algorithms Negotiate Influence on Instagram.” New Media & Society, vol. 21, no. 4, 2019, pp. 895–913. doi:10.1177/1461444818815684.

Diefenbach, Sarah, and Louisa Christoforakos. “The Selfie Paradox: Nobody Seems to Like Them Yet Everyone Has Reasons to Take Them. An Exploration of Psychological Functions of Selfies in Self-Presentation.” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 8, 2017, p. 7. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00007.

Djafarova, Elmira, and Olga Trofimenko. “Instafamous: Credibility and Self-Presentation of Micro-Celebrities on Social Media.” Information, Communication & Society, vol. 22, no. 10, 2019, pp. 1432–1446. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2018.1438491.

Fricker, Miranda. Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford University Press, 2020.

Fuchs, Christian. Social Media: A Critical Introduction. 2nd ed., Sage, 2017.

Hewlett, Sylvia Ann, and Caroline Luce. "Extreme Jobs: The Dangerous Allure of the 70-Hour Workweek." Academy of Management Perspectives, vol. 31, no. 2, 2017, pp. 213–229. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2015.0137.

Ho, Vivian T. “Performance Metrics and Ethical Choices: How Numbers Distort Judgment.” Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 151, no. 1, 2018, pp. 127–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3255-1.

Knoll, Martina, et al. "Authenticity and Well-Being Across Cultures: The Role of Self-Determination and Meaning." Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol. 53, no. 2, 2022, pp. 103–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221211063233.

Marengo, Davide, et al. “Exploring the Links between Problematic Facebook Use, Emotional Problems, and Personality Traits in Adolescence.” Journal of Adolescence, vol. 93, 2021, pp. 13–23. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2021.09.001.

“Exploring the Links between Problematic Facebook Use, Social Anxiety, and Well-Being.” Addictive Behaviors Reports, vol. 14, 2021, 100370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.abrep.2021.100370.

Sonnentag, Sabine, and Charlotte Fritz. "Recovery from Job Stress: The Stressor-Detachment Model as an Integrative Framework." Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol. 38, no. 1, 2017, pp. 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2100.

Turel, Ofir, et al. “Reward Processing of Social Media Behaviors in Young Adults.” Addictive Behaviors, vol. 81, 2018, pp. 167–172. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.02.005.

Twenge, Jean M., et al. “Increases in Depressive Symptoms, Suicide-Related Outcomes, and Suicide Rates among U.S. Adolescents after 2010 and Links to Increased New Media Screen Time.” Journal of Abnormal Psychology, vol. 128, no. 2, 2019, pp. 119–133. doi:10.1037/abn0000410.

Uncapher, Melina R., et al. “Media Multitasking and Cognitive, Psychological, Neural, and Learning Differences.” Pediatrics, vol. 140, Supplement 2, 2017, pp. S62–S66. doi:10.1542/peds.2016-1758D.

Van Dijck, José, Thomas Poell, and Martijn de Waal. The Platform Society: Public Values in a Connective World. Oxford University Press, 2018.

Verduyn, Philippe, et al. "Social Media and Well-Being: Pitfalls, Progress, and Next Steps." Trends in Cognitive Sciences, vol. 24, no. 1, 2020, pp. 55–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.11.005.

Wilmer, Henry H., Lauren E. Sherman, and Jason M. Chein. “Smartphones and Cognition: A Review of Research Exploring the Links between Mobile Technology Habits and Cognitive Functioning.” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 8, 2017, p. 605. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00605.

Zhao, Yong. Counting What Counts: Reframing Education Outcomes. ASCD, 2017.