What could it all tell us? The first part of this chapter shows how Facebook became a centerpiece for discussion and critique in the context of this conflict. In the last part of this chapter, I will discuss what this means to my informants, what it can tell us about Facebook’s position in their life? What can it tell us about them as persons? After his work in Trinidad, Miller wrote that in the Trinidadian context Facebook was “the book of truth,” referring to statements such as “on Facebook, you will find who you are” He continues to describe how one cannot see the actual person through face to face conversation; the truth is what you see on Facebook. Lambert asks: “Does Facebook allow us to produce ourselves through first objectifying our self?” (Lambert, 2013, p. 40). if we then follow Miller´s perspective, which also emphasizes the role of objectification, the answer to Lambert´s question is yes. One can produce one’s self through watching the objectified reflection of self, which is, in this case, the profile that is made on Facebook. The performed sociality is then shaped as a fluid form through the frames set by the self and the social frames set by society and by Facebook. As already discussed, Facebook´s context and the social frames produced are shaped by the three levels mentioned earlier. It is all a complex, fluid, infrastructure that is forever changing. A similar way of interpreting Facebook post can be seen in the Yangon context as well. Recall how Mimi and Pemala describe how the real feelings are on Facebook and that what you meet in “real life” can be fake. Following what Miller described, we could then conclude that Facebook helps construct what is perceived as “true persons.” However, according to polymedia theory, Facebook can never exist in isolation; it is defined through its existing or non-existing relations to other media (Daniel Miller, 2011). Facebook would, therefore, never actually be able to show the totality of a person’s life, with all the variations and different contexts. Miller suggests that the ‘public’ that is represented by Facebook is better understood as a combination of private spheres (Daniel Miller, 2011, pp. 174-175). The suggestion would then be that the ‘public’ that Facebook represents is better understood as the combination of the different spheres. This can be understood as the frames that are produced through the three levels. To be a popper, as discussed in chapter 5, can be looked upon as an example of one of these social frames or norms. To avoid being a popper, one must perform according to the social norms in a certain way – to show more of life than just the positive. 85