Virtual is Real: The Relationship between Online and Offline Identity

25/04/2010 Emily 19 comments

Abstract: From the advent of the internet, scholars and the wider media have been enthralled by the potential that the internet’s anonymity provides for the creation of new identities that forgo the traditional boundaries of race, gender, and religion, while others have been critical of the potential for harmful identity deception. It is my aim, however, to prove that these perceptions are flawed and that identity online is closely tied with identity offline in a way that limits the creation of entirely new online identities. This paper will draw evidence from various sources, including studies of identity online and trends in social network use, to demonstrate that aspects of one’s ‘real life’ identity are always present in one’s ‘online’ identity.

Virtual is Real: The Relationship Between Online and Offline Identity
By Emily Murphy, for Online Conference on Networks and Communities
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 2.5 Australia License.

The social environments and communities made available by the internet and, in particular, the World Wide Web, have given rise to new forms of identity expression through communicative platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and role-playing games. These platforms provide specific means for presentation of the self, including ‘profiles’, avatars, content-creation, and comments, all of which can be purposefully shaped by their creator. Because factors such as these are the only markers of identity on the internet, there is widespread belief that one’s identity on the net is undependable and could easily be forged, as well as a common notion that ‘online’ identity is separate from the real. However, all online identity markers rely to some extent on one’s previous experiences, opinions, and ways of thinking – causing offline and online self to be intertwined in a way that doesn’t allow for an entirely separate online identity. In this paper I endeavour to reveal the ways that offline and online identity are interdependent to highlight the growing invalidity of treating the Web as a separate, virtual, environment.

Many consider one’s activities online to be relatively separate from the real world – with interaction being “disinhibited” with “different identities [that people] use online” (Grohol, 2006). In the early days of the internet, it was particularly common to protect one’s identity by using an online handle and concealing personal information such as home address and full name. While these are common identifiers, identity is made up of more than just names and places – identity can be described as a set of socially distinguishing “personal characteristics or attributes” (Fearon, 1999). As such, a person’s identity can be considered to be the amalgamation of a multitude of factors, including their opinions, experiences, social affiliations, and psychological attributes, as well as more defining factors such as name and nationality. Taking this into account, individuals cannot completely conceal their identity by hiding physical factors such as name and location – everything a person says and does, even online, unavoidably presents some amount of information about that person and how they identify themselves. Even in cases of deliberate identity deception – such as false profiles in online dating sites – the existing knowledge and experience of a Web user restricts their ability to falsify information. Studies have concluded that concern about such deception is “only partly justified” (Hancock et al. 2007), with untruths being either minor or easily detectable. An intuitive method of spotting lies about identity involves the presence or absence of “assessment signals”, a term used by Amotz Zahavi (1993) to describe reliable signals that are inherent to, and thus evidence of, a particular trait. For example, bulging muscles are a reliable indicator of strength, and extensive academic knowledge is, arguably, a reliable affirmation of someone’s claimed identity of an academic. Discussion of this subject both in relation to the Web and in the wider context of deception in general (Donath, 1999) has revealed a lack of assessment signals, which can include signals evident online such as appropriate grammar and relevant knowledge, as an intuitive method of regularly identifying possible falsities. In other words, identity deception is not as easy as simply lying about characteristics of oneself – if evidence of the truth of these claims is not self-evident, the created identity fails to be convincing.

In addition to the above disincentive to outright lying, it is also difficult to subtly craft an online identity that does not relate to an aspect of your existing self. While it is common to consider online identity in terms “aspects of self” (Turkle, 1997), it is more difficult to create a persona that hides prevalent aspects of your identity. Defining characteristics such as one’s established opinions and ways of speaking would have to be consciously altered – which in practice, proves difficult. For example, one Usenet newsgroup featured a note cautioning against one particular user, warning “If you see a densely worded rant featuring characteristic words such as “medusa”, “pseudospoofing”, “treachery” … it’s probably him, no matter what the From: line says.” (Donath, 1999). In this example, the writer is using the writing style of the person in question to identify them – the nuances of this particular person have formed a large part of their identity online, despite their attempts at concealing their identity using different account names. In Erving Goffman’s book The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1956), he distinguishes between information ‘given’, which is intentionally shared to assist in the main purpose of an encounter, and information ‘given off’, which is information incidentally shared in a way one has little control over (Miller, 1995). Often, as in the Usenet example, information integral to one’s identity is ‘given off’ during the discourse of internet-based communication.

The extent of the relationship between online and offline identity can perhaps be realised by studying the ways in which deliberately-created online identities shape and are shaped by regular, offline aspects of identity. In role-playing environments such as online multi-player games and Multi-User Dungeons (MUDs), players create characters to interact in a virtual environment. Because there are few limits on what these characters can be or do, online games and role-playing environments are seen as settings for exploration and re-creation of self. Despite the potential for creativity and transformation of self, the experiences of the game relate directly or indirectly back to one’s real life experiences. In interviews with participants in MUDs, one sociologist (Turkle, 1997) encountered an individual who played ‘Archilles’, a courteous, poetic character described as his “ideal self” (Turkle, 1997). By embodying the virtues and characteristics that this player holds in high regard, he reveals some of the aspirations that make up his individual identity. In another example, thirty-four-year-old Case plays female characters that are strong and “smart-mouthed”, embodying the assertive, dynamic aspect of his everyday self, as well as revealing his opinions about the social treatment of different genders. Case does this “without compromising the values he associates with his “whole person”” (Turkle, 1997), while carrying these values into the online world and developing his real-life identity online. These examples demonstrate the ways ‘real’ identity is always present in a person’s created selves on the internet.

In recent times, this link between offline and online identity has become increasingly recognised, as social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and even Youtube further blur the already-weak distinction between online and offline presence. Facebook, for example, brought the practice of freely sharing real photographs, names, and other personal details into public normality by transitioning from a relatively safe, sheltered environment to a globally-available social networking site (Yadav, 2007). Facebook’s focus is on a person’s existing social reality, and social networking sites such as this aim to be a reflection of real world connections by encouraging users to carry over their offline identity into the online world. Microblogging site Twitter also reflects the social norms of real life, in that a large number of acquaintances can be ‘followed’, but only a small percentage of these contacts are regularly and meaningfully interacted with due to “scarcity of attention and the daily rhythms of life and work” (Huberman et al. 2008) – just as one can interact with a large amount of people in day-to-day life, but only consider a few of these to be ‘friends’. Given the short and potentially trivial nature of Twitter posts, users are encouraged to broadcast the insignificant, everyday happenings of their life – a 2009 study about the content of tweets revealed 79% to be ‘pointless babble’ or ‘conversational’ (Kelly, 2009). By mirroring the social realities of real-world social interaction, Twitter contributes to online identity being increasingly integrated with what Web users consider real life. The nature of such social sites make the already-existing link between identity on the internet and identity in the ‘offline’ world clear, encouraging Web users to treat the internet not as a separate world, but as an extension of real life.

Despite the new platforms for expressing one’s presence on the internet, individual characteristics and experiences continue to affect the expressions of identity in much the same way as they do in the offline world. As apparent in examples of Usenet and MUD users, defining traits ranging from one’s opinions of perfection to subtle nuances and ways of speaking continue to shape one’s identity online – whether this identity is considered by the user to reflect their real-world character or not. These aspects of identity become apparent through the social discourse within the communities of the internet, while assessment signals and information ‘given off’ define the reliability of one’s declared identity. Social networks further blur the distinction between online and offline identity by reflecting real-world social realities and encouraging users to carry over their full identity to the online environment. Thus, offline identity is not separate from one’s self in the virtual world, but rather, offline and online representations of identity intertwine in an inescapable way.

References

Donath, J. (1999.) Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community. Comunities in Cyberspace. Retrieved March 29, 2010, from http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html

Fearon, J. (1999). What is Identity (as we now use the word)? Retrieved April 2, 2010, from http://www.stanford.edu/~jfearon/papers/iden1v2.pdf

Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. United States: Anchor Books.

Grohol, J. (2006). Anonymity and Online Community: Identity Matters. Retrieved April 3, 2010, from http://www.alistapart.com/articles/identitymatters

Hancock, J., Toma, C. & Ellison, N. (2007). The Truth about Lying in Online Dating Profiles. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Retrieved April 3, 2010, from https://www.msu.edu/~nellison/hancock_et_al_2007.pdf

Huberman, B., Romero, D. & Wu, F. (2008). Social networks that matter: Twitter under the microscope. Retrieved April 2, 2010, from http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0812/0812.1045v1.pdf

Kelly, R. (2009.) Twitter Study Reveals Interesting Results – 40% is pointless babble. Retrieved April 4, 2010, from http://www.pearanalytics.com/blog/2009/twitter-study-reveals-interesting-results-40-percent-pointless-babble/

(For graphed results see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Content_of_Tweets_Graphed.png)

Miller, H. (1995). The Presentation of Self in Electronic Life: Goffman on the Internet. Embodied Knowledge and Virtual Space Conference. Retrieved April 3, 2010, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.144.6097&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Turkle, S. (1997). Multiple Subjectivity and Virtual Community at the End of the Freudian Century. Sociological Enquiry, 67, 72-84. Retrieved March 29, 2010, from http://www.mit.edu/~sturkle/pdfsforstwebpage/ST_Multiple%20Subjectivity.pdf

Yadav, S. (2007). Facebook – The Complete Biography. Retrieved April 4, 2010, from http://mashable.com/2006/08/25/facebook-profile/

Zahavi, A. (1993). The Fallacy of Conventional Signalling. Retrieved March 31, 2010, from http://jstor.org/pss/55797

Identity in Communities and Networks deception, identity, MUDs, real life, Social Networking, Usenet

Edit in Admin

Comments

Written by Emily about 2 years ago.

Online dating is quite an interesting topic in relation to online and offline identity – I look forward to reading your paper.

It’s interesting that you’ve said that online self is a case of how close one wants to stay to one’s ‘real’ self; I agree with this, to an extent. In my research for this paper, it soon became clear that the individual has a huge influence on the representation of their identity online – for example, the contrast between a MUD-er and a Facebook user is quite clear in that one chooses to actively recreate their identity, and the other typically carries over most aspects of their offline self.

What these two types of Internet users have in common, however, is that both cannot completely control the way their identity is portrayed online. There will always be aspects of self that can’t be controlled – and I think your point about the physical and emotional input that we put in to our online self is a great example of why this occurs
Written by Emily about 2 years ago.

Hi Tama, thanks for your comments!

The idea of the internet as providing total anonymity, as you described, is the kind of cultural myth I attempted to counter in my paper. It’s my belief that these kinds of ideas and attitudes towards the internet are still present today, although I’m not sure why – perhaps because this first impression of the web as a place for boundless identity exploration is hard to shake, as first impressions often are.

But I think that my paper’s argument will soon become outdated as the notion that offline and online are the same becomes increasingly accepted. The idea of being able to escape your ‘real’ self online is becoming increasingly outdated with the rise of social media as the most popular use of the web ¹ , and the growing connectedness and searchability of the content we post online.

¹ Paul, I. (2010). It’s Official: Facebook Rules the Web. Retrieved May 14, 2010, from http://www.pcworld.com/article/191635/its_official_facebook_rules_the_web.html
Written by Emily about 2 years ago.

Hi, thanks for your comment! Twitter is a really interesting social media tool because of the bite-sized nature of it’s content – I would like to explore the topic of identity and Twitter specifically at some point, because I think it could be a really interesting example of how aspects of our identity perpetuate the content we create, even when this content is very small and somewhat limited.

Also, I know what you mean about friends ‘hacking’ each others accounts – it’s usually very obvious when status updates are written by anyone other than the account owner! The unique style of writing, as well as the quirks that make up a person, prove very hard to replicate in these cases.
Written by PaulaB about 2 years ago.

Hi Emily,

Your paper provided me with good information that relates to my conference paper in some points. I did the online dating.

Your wrote in your conclusion:
“Thus, offline identity is not separate from one’s self in the virtual world, but rather, offline and online representations of identity intertwine in an inescapable way”

May I add a comment to this that is based on my research for my paper on this website.

I strongly support that online identity should be mirror our offline indentity despite an absence of our full physical body. Althought – we use our fingers to type words and our brain to put our thoughts out to communication in cyberspace (physical effort) and then emotional input. I agree with your conclusion that off/online identity is not separate – it is the same. We remain Jane X or John X; however, online oneself is usually a case how close or far one wants to stay close to real oneself with knowledge that offline representation presents more flexible environment to distance oneself from real self.

If found the off/on line identity topic quite complex and there is and will be lots of debates, research and PhD coming up from this topic.

All the best with your studies
cheers
PaulaB
Written by Tama Leaver about 2 years ago.

Hi Emily,

A great paper – you’ve convinced me. I remember when the web was new so much of the advertising by ISPs and tech companies was along the lines of ‘be anyone you want to be’ and these notions really helped set up the myth that you could be anonymous online. I think your point that you really can’t escape the cultural baggage of your self, along with the conscious and unconscious linguistic and textual cues this entails, is well made. Early internet users often got caught up with the myth they could ‘try out’ differences of gender or race by simply typing that as their self-description online; there’s a substantial body of literature critiquing these early naive ideas, but it’s certainly notable how susceptible these ideas were in teh mid-1990s! Thanks for a great read!
Written by Scott Mackenzie about 2 years ago.

Hi Emily,

I really enjoyed reading your paper, you helped me to finally gain some understanding of the popularity of Twitter (while I know it was not the main focus) I have attempted to use twitter many times with little success but now it makes more sense to me, so thank you.

I agree with your comments about online identity and the transferral of offline nuances in speech etc. and have noticed this effect in both social networking sites and email where a friends accounts were “taken over” by another friend playing a practical joke. It was instantly recognisable that the person writing was not the one who owned the account even though they attempted to duplicate their writing style etc.

Very well researched paper and an enjoyable read, I wish I had included some of those references in my paper too!

Scott
Written by Peter Mullen about 2 years ago.

The small movements comment is about the issue of hindsight being applied to almost anything, as they all have started as small movements with individuals agitating for change.

This identity and control issue that is my focus are both intertwined. I’ve just been watching a report on TV about some individuals auctioning their virginity online. I can’t help but think that this is stepping over boundaries, both from a identity and censorship perspective. Had to ask myself the why, and it comes back to values – my core values at 53 are different than those of someone 25ish. It will be the battle of these values that will decide the control (or lack) and how virtual identity is shaped in the future.

Pete
Written by Emily about 2 years ago.

You mention the internet as a ‘safe’ venue of identity expression: I agree that the activities, including the process of identity growth, that we undertake online definitely spill into our offline lives. In my paper, I mainly discussed how offline spills into online, but it does work both ways, because our offline and online selves are so closely linked. Another paper in this conference, Scott Mackenzie’s “The reconstruction of Self: Virtual communities and the need for many me’s” ¹, discusses how this blending of online and offline selves can have negative effects, because one’s sense of self can become distorted.

But of course there are also plentiful positive results of having a flexible avenue for self-expression, including the “life and cultural changing results” that you mentioned. Turkle’s (1997) ² work on the subject also reveals various benefits of recasting self.

Is there any particular issue that you are referring to when you mentioned the “small movements” in relation to identity?

¹ Mackenzie, S. (2010). The reconstruction of Self: Virtual communities and the need for many me’s. Retrieved May 10, 2010, from http://networkconference.netstudies.org/2010/04/the-reconstruction-of-self-virtual-communities-and-the-need-for-many-me%E2%80%99s/

² Turkle, S. (1997). Multiple Subjectivity and Virtual Community at the End of the Freudian Century. Sociological Inquiry, 67(1). Retrieved May 9, 2010, from http://www.mit.edu/~sturkle/pdfsforstwebpage/ST_Multiple%20Subjectivity.pdf
Written by Michael N about 2 years ago.

To add yes I agree, trust in chat rooms can be cultivated though I would argue that in many cases some people are too trusting. A lack of assessment signals does mean trust is difficult to cultivate, but also some get an idealism of the other person based on text and pictures and feel let down when they leave the chat room and go elsewhere. Interesting comment you made thanks for that.
Written by Emily about 2 years ago.

Thanks for your comments! Donath’s article, as you mentioned, has a lot of interesting information on the differences between ‘assessment’ and ‘conventional’ signals, as well as on how these signals are interpreted.

Other researchers, however, put more emphasis on the culture of trust that is prevalent in online communities, such as chat rooms ¹. I find this research ties in closely with Donath’s, as well as what I’ve said in my paper. For example, a lack of assessment signals fails to cultivate trust, and thus, a member of an online community can be identified as somewhat undependable, even if they are not outright identified as a deceptive signaller.

¹ Hsu, M., Ju, T., Ye, C., Chang, C. (2005). International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 65(2), 153-169.
Also see Iftikhar, A. (2010). A Dichotomy of Trust in Virtual Communities. Retrieved May 10, 2010, from http://networkconference.netstudies.org/2010/04/a-dichotomy-of-trust-in-virtual-communities/
Written by Peter Mullen about 2 years ago.

Hi Emily. Just had to comment. As I was reading your response I could not help but think of how this topic (as a generalisation) mirrors some of the defining moments throughout history – the banning of the slave trade by Britain or the Suffragette movement to name a couple. By these I mean how small movements ended up with life and cultural changing results. Because we now have a ‘safe’ venue for identity expression, will this now spill over to off line.

I’ve been following another paper by Kathleen on gender swapping on line and can see how these, although separate issues, are very similar in potential outcomes. Along this line, it will be interesting to see how some closed states will attempt to control this self expression of identity. My paper is around this state attempt of control and it will prove very difficult as on and off line identities collide I think.

Pete
Written by Emily about 2 years ago.

It’s true that the different contexts of the internet can allow people to express themselves in a less restricted way because some of the usual rules and expectations of communication don’t always apply in online environments – on an online forum or even Twitter, for example, you might not feel that you have to tailor your posts for a particular person because your audience is so broad. On the other hand, of course, it can be considered that the internet offers less opportunity for freedom of speech because of the searchability, replicability and persistence of the information we post online ¹.

Also, I like your analogy of Social Networking Services as a cafe – they contain several people who are there for varying reasons; some who know each other, some who do not, and some who are in the process of meeting each other. For me, this metaphor is more fitting than the popular term “global village” ², because the term “village” implies a tight-knit community – which is not always the case when it comes to the internet.

¹ Boyd, D. (2007). Social Network Sites: Public, Private, or What? The Knowledge Tree. Retrieved May 9, 2010, from http://kt.flexiblelearning.net.au/tkt2007/edition-13/social-network-sites-public-private-or-what/

² This term was popularised by McLuhan, M. to describe the effect of technology on communications. Read more at McLuhan, E. (n.d.) The source of the term “Global Village”. Retrieved May 9, 2010, from http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/mcluhan-studies/v1_iss2/1_2art2.htm
Written by janette about 2 years ago.

Kudos to those who can pull off an alternative identity!

I agree that perhaps the internet can allow people to be more their true/ideal self.
The supposed invisibility of the internet permits people to express themselves more truly and openly in certain situations – almost like talking aloud to yourself or quasi journaling …

SNS have blended the offline and online identities into one. SNS are just another social space – the same as the cafe.

Thanks for an interesting paper.
Written by Emily about 2 years ago.

The clues we leave about our ‘real’ self online very well may be a result of some desire to make ourselves known – personally, I think the fact that the identity markers that leak into our online “aspects of self” (Turkle, 1997) is largely because pretending to be someone else altogether, with no trace of what you usually think of as your identity, seems too much like lying – either lying to yourself, or lying to those who interact with your online persona. But of course, a whole range of factors come into it – including the fact that it’s just too difficult to completely disguise yourself, as I discussed in the paper.

As for where I see this issue in the next few years: I’m not quite sure. Anonymity online definitely seems to be on the decline. Whereas the early web was characterised by avatars and hiding behind made-up usernames, our offline identity seems to be becoming much more a part of out virtual selves – just look at Facebook, and the fact that using a false name is a violation of their Terms of Service ¹. It’s possible that anonymity will be increasingly frowned upon, in which case mandatory creation of a ‘virtual handle’ that unifies all aspects of your online identity isn’t improbable.

And what you said about the schism effect between those who participate online and those who don’t is so very true! As more and more people rely on social networking sites for communication, those who aren’t online are increasingly excluded. For example I find it much harder to organise events with people who aren’t on Facebook, and sometimes these people completely miss out on invites or important news because of it.

Turkle, S. (1997). Multiple Subjectivity and Virtual Community at the End of the Freudian Century. Sociological Enquiry, 67, 72-84. Retrieved May 7, 2010, from http://www.mit.edu/~sturkle/pdfsforstwebpage/ST_Multiple%20Subjectivity.pdf

¹ Facebook’s Terms of Use can be found at http://www.facebook.com/terms.php
An example of Facebook’s action against those using a false name is the case of Jon Swift. Popa, B. (2007). Facebook User Banned for Using Nickname Instead of Real Name. Retrieved May 7, 2010, from http://news.softpedia.com/news/Facebook-User-Banned-For-Using-Nickname-Instead-Of-Real-Name-69834.shtml
Written by Peter Mullen about 2 years ago.

Hi Emily.

Great paper. Its been interesting for me to cast my mind back over the last decade with the way that identity has become part of our virtual self. You raise some very valid points about people hiding their identity, however its you last for mine that is the most relevant – “offline and online representations of identity intertwine in an inescapable way”. It also appears to be having a schism effect between those with a virtual footprint and those without. I’m very protective of my identity online, however as you discuss we all leave clues and ques to who we are, wonder if its some deep seated need to be ‘known’.

In the ever evolving virtual world, where do you see this issue in the next few years. One comment is that between you and Belindam where you discussed the impact that this is now having on business. Might we all be given a ‘virtual handle’ at birth, hmmmm, food for thought.

Pete
Written by Michael N about 2 years ago.

I find it interesting you wrote about the way people can have multiple identities online but can be found out by the text and images they post. This would suggest that their values and beliefs do not change and they still want to make a point to the virtual group. As said in Donath’s (1999) article:

For a deceptive signaller to be caught, someone must make the effort to assess the honesty of the signal (termed the cost of probing among biologists).

I have seen this at work in chat rooms. If someone has a bad repuation and the site allows them to come back, the person needs to be careful about postings and chat text as they are found out and the pattern happens again.

Good paper, structured well and added to more information on identity in cyberspace that this stream has produced, it is always a good learning experience to see how people interpret the literature in this area.

Donath, J. (1999.) Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community. Comunities in Cyberspace. Retrieved May 2, 2010, from http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html
Written by Belindam about 2 years ago.

That’s certainly true. Some companies have strong policies banning employees from commenting on the company. I think Telstra has a policy like that.

What you said about blurring the distinctions between offline and online identity and false identity suggests an expectation on trust online. We trust that people are who they say they are. If you are interested you should check out this paper on trust in virtual communities.
http://networkconference.netstudies.org/2010/04/a-dichotomy-of-trust-in-virtual-communities/
Written by Emily about 2 years ago.

That’s pretty cool! And a good example of the prevalent nature one’s ‘real-life’ identity, considering the (arguable) restrictiveness of Twitter as a form of expression. I’ve had similar experiences – in one case I bumped into someone in a chat-room who I knew well from another online community, and soon recognised them from their tone, mannerisms, and the visual style of their artwork. These kinds of experiences seem to be quite commonly occurring evidence of the strong link between self and online identity – and by extension, the links between our various online fronts.

I’m quite interested in what you said about large companies taking an interest in the online activity of their employees. I’ve heard of cases where individuals have drastically compromised the security of organisations by using social media carelessly – earlier this year an Israeli soldier posted information about an upcoming mission on his Facebook page, causing the mission to be called off¹. By failing to recognise the cross-over between their professional and online life, that soldier caused a breach of security.

It looks like what Telstra is doing, through its tracking and its social media policy², is both acknowledging this relationship between online and offline, and forcing their employees to acknowledge it too.

¹ Details of this incident can be found in news reports such as this: McGregor-Wood, S. (2010). Facebook Details Force Israeli Military to Cancel Operation. ABC International News, March 4. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/International/facebook-details-force-israeli-military-cancel-operation/story?id=10006343
² MacBean, N. (2009). Telstra cracks down on Twitter, Facebook Mischief. ABC New, April 20. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/20/2547223.htm
Written by Belindam about 2 years ago.

I was interested in your comments that web users are encouraged to view the web as an extension of their real lives.

This is certainly the case in the business world, where there is a lot of cross-over between their web and business lives. Many companies such as Telstra use trackers to allow them to trace what people have said about them on sites like Twitter and Facebook, just by tracking any mention of their company name.

With regards to your argument that people inadvertently reveal themselves in the way they write. Recently, I located a friend’s tweets and I found, even though he used an assumed name, I was still able to recognise his personality and sense of humour by the way he wrote, even in the space of 160 characters.

Comment Pages:

Online Conference on Networks and Communities

Virtual is Real: The Relationship between Online and Offline Identity

Comments

Categories

Tags

Latest comments

Meta