Senft’s argument states that people cannot use the internet to traffick microcelebrities.

There is a significant difference between before the advent of the Internet and the new media. Theresa’s article declares that users of commercially owned social websites as unpaid labourers are not to produce new forms of “attention property”，but ” the Internet as playground/ factory”. This can make people develop themselves and find some job in the Internet.

Micro-celebrity can bring some problems for people.

Fristly, it can lead people to question the difference between privacy and publicity. There is a question. How do people look at the public figures who decide on “public privacy”, those already famous actors have obliged to use social networking sites to ” talk like their friends ” with fans? As a result, how should people base on the theory of “speaking as one’s own” put forward by Twitter users?

Sencondly, the microcelebrity and super-public presence can result in a social phenomenon that has been called ” strange familiarity”. The term “familiar stranger” means those who know each other visually rather than by name. The Internet can make people understand stranger’s stories and people are often attracted to some stories and give their own ideas. These ideas can produce some misreading and hurt someone. However, Mirco thinks that it is not a kind of a misreading. It is to rouse people to have a new type of ethics. Microcelebrity can give people a variety of ways of transposition thinking. We have to explain why we chose to watch events happen in front of us as if we could do nothing about them. We also have to explain why we chose to take action. Of course, in an age of information provided by the public, it is our responsibility to know directly those who we believe need to establish unfamiliar and familial relationships, especially those who live around the world.

I think that filmic narrative is hard to be combined with an interactive role for the user. In Bolter’ articles, they purpose a kind of strategy to remediate between new mediums and older mediums. For example, using computers and video games remediate film to readjust its use. It changes the characters and content from a movie to a game such as The Lord of the Rings. The borrowing of film technology is significantly essential. Players give control to the system. The system plays brief information for gamers. Characters of the film still are kept. Moreover, when game designers want to adopt the transparency and authenticity conveyed by movies, they can use some conventions in the films because they want to make people feel a kind of sense that they insert themselves into a filmic world, which means that users become active participants rather than an audience that is controlled by director. For film’s response, filmmakers will readjust the roles and backgrounds of successful video games such as Mortal Kombat. In general, mainstream film ‘s essential remediation for digital media is its visual effects to persuade the observer. Although the editors and directors have controlled film’s content, the young modern viewer tends to use video and computer games to think. Therefore, the camera movement in the Matrix recalls can make modern viewers remember their control of space in the games. It becomes an attempt that makes players feel a kind of immersion by interacting with games. However, it cannot threaten the producers of a mainstream film. So, the opinion of viewers is still be controlled by the filmmakers despite their want to adopt some of the representational approaches of new digital media. The mainstream films are still conservative. In fact, the competition between old and new media continues. Possible interactions, narrative and visual representation between viewers or users will determine the future of the film, as well as some of the most popular computer game types and other possible digital forms.