So is there now a duality to whom the fictional audience serves; it works for the tweeter as a vehicle for authenticity and as a method of constructing a marketable image?

Alongside wealth and consumer-metrics of status, a new method of ranking people.

"Seen as" but carefully "managed" to keep it professional.

What would the ranking of social media sites be from "Most Private" to "Least Private?" And how would one determine that rank?

Meaning that all of these tools are lost when online, but the behaviour they construct is still present.

To maintain authenticity? Is authenticity then often conflated with humility?

And thus even people who talk to themselves keep the more private subjects in their heads.

Breaking the fourth wall, as it were?

Hmm. They consider talking out into the internet akin to talking to oneself. Does this imply that most tweets are one-sided, with little opportunity for a discussion as it happens between two people face to face?

Background.

I wonder if some new form of conscious language arises from this rupture. Do people have to manually create their dialects, and how does one form an in-group language if anyone reading it is simultaneously in and out of the group?

Social constructs and social contracts here again.

"All the world's a stage..." Creating or perceiving an audience is the only social cue that people get on social media; the argot used, the extent of self-censorship, even the willingness to accept or reject ideas relies on a person being aware of who is listening.

Berman is summarized to add one point on the argument for authenticity's "salience" where counterexamples are listed below.

Here the author turns the example his source provides into a starter for one of their arguments.

I wish more news articles looked at something from this perspective. I understand the need to have news regularly hampers long-term studies like searching for the source of conflict, but the news is too liable to let their own biases slip in and color it, even when just reporting the facts. Just reporting the actions and results with not much time on the causes does very little in aiding long-term solutions.

Judging by how it is referred to later, it seems rap is the battlefield, whereas the greater evils of sexism, and the racism that spawns it are the war in general.

This is the crux of the argument. Rap is not art, no matter what devices it uses, because of its content to those charging others based on lyrics alone. It is later stated that no other genre is used this way, because rap is not art. It's representative of a cultural divide between what is considered art and what is not by those in the courthouse. (Sidenote: would libraries be considered art galleries for literature?)

So covers, specifically rock covers, fit into a gap between allographic and autographic. Where every performance is at once an original and a copy, imbued with authenticity from the artists themselves and not from the work they are performing.

Here the idea that authenticity cannot be noticed by the self returns. Interesting to note the author does not share that perspective.

This is the main argument of the author's section on recording. It could be anyone's song before, but once recorded it belongs to the recorder unless another recording becomes more popular.

Here Wordsworth writes about what his contemporaries say about language and its impact on metrical compositions, and Wordsworth's own opinion on the subject. The rest of the paragraph follows as a dissection of sorts for poem.

Well, yeah, given your definition of "art," it has to move someone.

Why does Vendler propose that lyric poetry is this deep, intimate view of the soul?

Curious way to describe reading poetry; does this author find understanding it a chore? Or are they acknowledging the tendency for poets to go overboard on the flowery language?