Revising the point I want to make

Almost everything we do nowadays generates content, which is recorded and is increasingly available to everyone else.
Increased use of social tools is exposing the true differences and similarities between us. This is creating wide consensus is making us more tolerant to certain things and adverse to others. Large groups (which I am to prove are equipped with 'bullshit-metres') can be formidable when an individual is facing them. In order to find acceptance within such a group, one is best course of action is to be genuine. This is true even before the wish to belong to said group has arisen, when there was no apparent need to be sincere, because our recorded generated content and past interactions serve as our reputation.

Revised Research Question

New social tools are rapidly changing the way groups communicate, plan and execute actions. We are almost constantly connected to everyone we know and have the potential of connecting with countless others. In other words we are constantly a part of the crowd.
How should we as individuals behave when we engage with it?

How to interrogate Case Studies

Here are the research questions I will ask about all case studies:

1) what is the case study, who made it, when?

2) how is content generated (the system)?

3) how freely available is the content (based on what level of access I have to it)?

4) how does it reflect on the differences and similarities between contributors?

5) what power does the crowd have to moderate content?

6)are there rules all participants must adhere to?

7) what tracks to participants leave?