as an aggregate of private spheres, it consists of all the people one knows privately, but in one place and that it is all open to each other (Daniel Miller, 2011, pp. 174-175). What Miller discusses further is a Trinidadian understanding of Facebook as a place where one can see who people are, and this discussion is picked up in both chapter 5 and 6. One particular argument Miller presents is that Facebook is not just a corporate company and that Facebook is often misused as something global. Yes, it is global in the sense that Facebook is used pretty much all over the world, but as Miller argues, that is also true for whiskey. It does not naturally follow that Facebook is becoming some kind of aggregate entity like a global consciousness or brain (Daniel Miller, 2011, p. 190). This is a view this thesis supports, and I do not discuss Facebook itself as a global phenomenon. I do, however, refer to the company Facebook and its headquarters, as something international in chapter 6, but this should not be misunderstood as a statement of Facebook itself as global. Another point Miller makes is that in Trinidad, Facebook, in similar ways as in Yangon, is used as the internet. That does not, however, suggest that it is because of “Facebook” itself, but rather because of the seamless ways Facebook combine the different interactions and activities that the user wants in one place alone. If another company were able to deliver a similar package, there is nothing that would suggest that the user is unconditionally loyal to Facebook and would not switch (Daniel Miller, 2011, p. 203). Together with Jolynna Sinanan, Miller outlined the “theory of attainment,” which serves as an inspiration in my analysis. This theory suggests that technology, rather than placing itself in between the speakers mediating the conversation, it facilitates it. They argue that people have relationships with each other and that they have relationships with technology, but mostly, we cannot disentangle the two. Furthermore, they argue that people have never reduced their relationships merely to other people. Just a few examples could be; pets, your house, or a bible (D. Miller & Sinanan, 2014, pp. 3-6). This means that “attainment” takes a step further than it is close synonyms, such as achievement. Attainment, in Miller and Sinanan´s view, is when something, a thing or a skill, becomes attained when facilities are taken-for-granted. It goes beyond achievement; it becomes part of humanity. In Socrates view, written text was a direct threat to human memory; therefore, a person who had learned to write would be seen as somewhat less human. It would affect the human “completeness” and create a faulty human. Ironically, the skill of writing is now the reason we know about Socrates belief (D. Miller & Sinanan, 2014). Today a person is by no means regarded as a lesser human when writing. Miller and Sinanan argue that we need to be open to 15