Month: May 2018

Online Media Platforms and Social Networking allow for Deceptive Communication to Occur Online with Ease

 

Online Media Platforms and Social Networking allow for

Deceptive Communication to Occur Online with Ease

Abstract

This paper explores the connection between social networking platforms and the arise of deceptive communication in cyberspace as social media and technology become more interweaved into everyday routines.  The purpose of this paper is to assess how online platforms are changing the role and meaning of identity when evaluating online forums and whether social networking has encouraged deceptive communications upon individuals as new technologies have allowed for misleading and disingenuous interactions with ease. Through analyzing examples and various author studies, further clarity on this topic should be provided to understand if social platforms do indeed influence traditional communications and interactions and if in turn, have affected how identity and communities should be comprehended online.

 

Keywords: social networks, identity, online identity, community, social media, deceptive interactions, catfishing.

 

 

Online Media Platforms and Social Networking allow for

Deceptive Communication to Occur Online with Ease

 

Technology has had a profound effect on the way it has encouraged individuals to come together and communicate (Smith and Kollock, 1999). Online media platforms allow for interactions to differ from traditional face-to-face encounters, which can allow for deceptive communication to occur online, which can result in the presence of a misconstrued and phony identities being commonplace online. This has given way to the arise of catfishing and dishonest interactions in social networking platforms and within dating communities. These social networks have stripped away many of the core signals and concepts that make up the qualities of a conventional face-to-face encounter and therefore has made it easier for phonies to appear on social networks as someone they are not.  (Smith and Kollock, 1999) On these said online networks, communication is fast, inexpensive and reaches people at a world-wide level with platforms that allow for collaboration and interaction that has not yet been seen before this recent decade. (Smith and Kollock, 1999) This raises questions such as “How is the internet changing our basic concepts of identity, self-governance, and community?” (Smith and Kollock, 1999, p. 1). The powerful rise of social networking in accordance with the intensive reliance on technology this modern age has allowed, has encouraged individuals to take part in deceptive activities online, such as the introduction of ‘Catfishing’ on online platforms.

How the Rise of the Net has altered the meaning of Identity Online

The role of identity when evaluating social networks (and the communities that are created within these networks) is significant. When interacting within these social networks and communities, being aware of the persons who you are communicating and interacting with is vital. When communicating in the physical realm, individuals can be certain of whom they are connecting with, due to all the bodily cues that come with physical interaction. When evaluating virtual communication, it’s a very different premise (Donath, 1999). The online world allows people into a space which is abundant with interactive social platforms in which individuals are able to engage and meet with each other. “Instead of people talking to machines, networks are being used to connect people to people…These shifts make the creation of thousands of spaces to house conversations and exchanges between far-flung groups of people practical and convenient. Using network interaction media like email, chat and conferencing systems people have formed thousands of groups to discuss a range of topics, play games, entertain one another and even work on a range of complex collective projects” (Smith and Kollock, 1999, p.3) This has given rise to a completely new definition of identity when evaluating users of the internet, with parallel and multiple identities existing through innumerable platforms through virtual screens at a global scale (Turkle, 1997).

As Pearson (2009 n.p) outlines “Identity- as- performance is seen as part of the flow of social interaction as individuals construct identity performances fitting their milieu. With a heightened self–consciousness, online environments take this construction of performance to another level.” The internet’s technological advancement that has made way for an abundance of social networks, has indeed contributed to the sense of identity for individuals online. The introduction of these social networks is substantial, as the usage of these networks has webbed its way into countless individual’s everyday lives. Considering the limitless social network communities available to people, individuals can now express their identities through social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat. Through Blogs, Wikis or YouTube or even through dating communities like Tinder, eHarmony, and Bumble. There are endless opportunities for consumers of the net to latch their identities onto and “Real life can be just ‘one more window’” (Turkle, 1997, p. 74) These social spaces and platforms in which people are now engaging in and expressing these identities has given rise to the question, are the people we meet and interact with online, in this window, to be trusted?

The Net is Allowing for Deceptive Communication Online with Ease

The rise of the internet has also given rise to questions about the genuineness of the individuals we interact with online, as self-presentation of individuals is an aspect that can be controlled easily raising thought about the authenticity of others online.  “We begin with a consideration of identity, the basic building block of social interaction. All of our interactions, even those with strangers, are shaped by our sense of with whom we are interacting. In face-to-face and telephone interactions, there are a wealth of cues of varying reliability to indicate our identity and our intentions. Our clothes, voices, bodies, and gestures signal messages about status, power and group membership. We rely on our ability to recognize fellow group members in order to know who we can turn to and what we can expect.” (Smith and Kollock, 1991, p.8) With these distinctive physical cues stripped away, it leaves space for the imagination to replace what isn’t there. This means anyone on the internet can be anybody or anything they wish to be. The ease of self-presentation has never been so achievable for individuals and the will to create a persona for yourself is one that many find intriguing. “Critics worry that life on the net can never be a meaningful or complete because it will lead people away from the full range of in-person contact. Or, they worry that people will get so engulfed in the simulacrum virtual reality, they will lose contact with real life” (Wellman & Guilla, 1997). Not only is it of concern that meaning, and loss of contact is possible, But, what does self-presentation mean for individuals online? Are internet users under threat of ingeniousness and unsafe encounters? “O’Brien points out that there is a strain between those who view online interaction as an opportunity to ‘perform’ a variety of perhaps fabricated roles versus those who see cyberspace as a new communication medium between “real people” (Smith and Kollock, 1999, p.12). Moreover, how are we to define and decide who a real person is?

On differing social network platforms, the terms and conditions generally differ regarding whether the users of the site are able to communicate through an alternative identity than the one they were ‘legally assigned’ (Van Der Nagel & Frith, 2015). An example of this; is the controversial “real-name” anti-anonymity movement that Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg is leading. The user policies Facebook outlines specifically state that users are expected to identify as one person. With Zuckerberg stating, “having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity” (Van Der Nagel & Frith, 2015, n.p). However, this has caused some uproar from the drag queen community after Facebook commenced a mass deletion of personal pages from those who prefer to use stage names rather than legitimate names (Buhr, 2014).

Participants of the drag community believe they identify with their stage identities more so than their lawful one and are protesting for the right to express this online. (Buhr, 2014) An extract from their appeal is as follows; “We cannot emphasize enough that Facebook is a poor arbiter of what is or isn’t a real name. Performers with legitimate-appearing names get locked out of their accounts while people with account names like “Jane ICanBeBadAllByMyself Doe” go without scrutiny” (Buhr, 2015, n.p). However, on the flipside of this argument, some argue that the allowance of using multiple identities or illegitimate identities online can be extremely dangerous and can cause major turmoil for some participants of the online world, there have been known “catfishing” incidences that are becoming commonplace amongst Facebook as well as many other social networking sites. “The net is only one of many ways in which the same people may interact. It is not a separate reality. People bring to their online interactions such baggage as their gender, stage in the life-cycle, cultural milieu, socioeconomic status, and off-line connections with others” (Wellman & Guila, 1997, p.3) But what does this signify for our basic concepts of identity, self-presentation and community when people connecting on the social realm have imagined up their own separate reality, and these factors are not true to the person behind the screen.

 Deceiving Communication, Phoney Identities and Catfishing Incidence on Social Media and Dating Platforms

The use of modern technology has become a 21st-century cultural necessity to most individuals, most finding it hard to function without the usage of social media in their daily routines. That being said, there are also certain risks that may accompany the use of particular social networking sites. With online deception and catfishing becoming relatively normal to the online realm, users are at risk of experiencing threatening and misleading encounters online (Blazka, Smith & Smith, 2017). ‘Catfishing’ is a term that encompasses the action of an individual online, enacting on an incident of treachery and deceit by fictionalizing an entire being on the virtual realm (Kotteman, 2015). These predators assume the role of an alternative identity to deliberately trick people into a fictitious romantic or emotive relationship by stealing somebody else’s personal information and pictures or by fabricating a unique identity, and in online forums, this act is becoming progressively more mainstream (Kotteman, 2015). One of the first globally documented cases of Catfishing was recorded by known NFL football player Manti Te’o who was fooled into believing his cyber girlfriend, Lennay Kekua, had passed away from leukaemia, or had even existed (Blazka et al., 2017).

The investigators of the case state; “There was no Lennay Kekua. … She was not diagnosed with cancer, did not spend time in the hospital, did not engage in a lengthy battle with leukaemia. She never had a bone marrow transplant. She did not request he send white flowers to her funeral. Her favourite colour was not white. Her brother, Koa, did not inform Manti Te’o that she was dead. She did not exist. (Kotteman, 2015, p. 2).  She was merely a creation of someone’s imagination to intentionally deceive. After the relationship between Te’o and fictitious Lennay had been so deeply broadcasted by the media, the world was introduced to the phenomenon of Catfishing, and individuals felt disturbed and scared of the online realm they assumed they could trust (Kotteman, 2015). Catfishing is not only common on social networking sites such as Facebook but has also found its way into genuine dating platforms used by innocent customers whom are intentionally searching for a life partner. “With more than one-third of relationships being facilitated through Internet dating and with 45% of online daters citing social networking sites as the primary way in which they connect with potential mates, there are clear psychological and relational implications that make studying online interaction more important than ever” (Kadrich, 2016, p.9).

The conception of online dating has given humankind the chance to witness and observe the shifting traditional standards surrounding relationships online and understand the significant features of online behaviour, such as “impression formation and self-presentation strategies” (Van Der Nagel & Frith, 2015, p. 415). As online dating has considerably transformed from being a “marginal to mainstream social practice” (Van Der Nagel & Frith, 2015, p. 415) over the past decade with 17.5% of internet users claiming they have tried online dating (Kadrich,2016 ), it can be imagined how many individuals now contribute to the online dating world and what that could signify for the genuine partakers who are forced to engage with phonies, and how these misconstrued identities are becoming more common to ensnare a stranger. In some cases, Catfishing is used as a method to scam lonely and vulnerable romantics. Ian Doney was one of many victims of Catfishing, who at 51 years of age, trusted he had finally found love after finding a woman on a single persons website (Computer Act!ve, 2017). He was scammed out of thousands of dollars, sending his ‘love’, money to meet him abroad. She never showed up. He tried again to send her money and meet her, again, to no avail. Doney was eventually scammed into substantial debts and subsequently struggled to afford basic necessities or to even eat. He eventually spiraled into an immense depression and eventually paid the ultimate price by slitting his wrists and ending his life (Computer Act!ve, 2017).

This is just one example of the dire and extensive effects Catfishing and dishonest social networking can have on innocent victims, with researching showing “that roughly 20% of online dating service users use deceptive tactics” (Kadrich, 2016, p. 52) Even if the deception is something as minor as to enhance their appearance online to appear more desirable or lying about education, culture or class (Kadrich, 2016). It is evident that the technologically reliant world in which we live is increasingly becoming more deceptive on these social networking platforms used by individuals everyday, due to the ease and effortlessness it takes for individuals to conjure up a phony identity and ensnare a stranger.

Conclusions

To close, it is undeniably apparent that modern technology has had a powerful impact on the development and progression of social networks and the way in which individuals are now choosing to interact and communicate online with other fellow networkers. As the net provides a space for individuals that is substantially varying to that of a traditional face-to-face encounter due to the lack of bodily cues, it is proving to be a space that can allow for deceptive communication with ease. The existence of fraudulent and phoney identities is becoming more commonplace with cases of catfishing and deception occurring at a high rate on varying social platforms. This is due to the effortlessness it takes for these imitation artists to fictionalise an entire identity on these platforms that run with accessibility and convenience. It is ascertaining to be a space that is potentially threatening concepts of identity and community as we know it and revolutionising how we comprehend these concepts online.

 

References

Blazka, M., Smith, L.E., & Smith, K.D. (2017). Follow Me, What the Harm? Considerations of Catfishing and Utilizing Fake Online Personas on Social Media. Journal of Legal Aspects of Sport, 27, 32-90. Retrieved from http://heinonline.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/jlas27&page=32&collection=journals#

Buhr, S. (2014). Facebook won’t budge on letting drag queens keep their names. TechCrunch  Retrieved from http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/18/facebook-wont-budge-on-letting-drag-queens-keep-their-names/.

Ellison, N., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing Impressions Online: Self-Presentation Processes in the Online Dating Environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 415-441. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00020.x

How can we Detect Online Dating Scammers? (2017). Computer Act!ve (504), 11. Retrieved from https://search-proquest com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1940858972?accountid=10382

Kadrich, M. (2016). Examining the Use of False Identities in Online Romantic Interactions. Retrieved from Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1832346720?accountid=10382

Kottemann, K. L. (2015). The Rhetoric of Deliberate Deception: What Catfishing Can TeachUs. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1707929589?accountid=10382

Smith, M. A., Kollock, P., & Ebooks, C. (1999). Communities in cyberspace / edited

by Marc A. Smith and Peter Kollock. London ; New York: London ; New York : Routledge.

Wellman, B., & Gulia, M. (1999). Virtual Communities as Communities: net surfers don’t ride alone. In M. A. Smith & P. Kollock (Eds.), Communities in cyberspace (pp. 167-194). Retrieved from http://groups.chass.utoronto.ca/netlab/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Net-Surfers-Dont-Ride-Alone-Virtual-Community-as-Community.pdf

Van der Nagel, E., & Frith, J. (2015). Anonymity, pseudonymity, and the agency ofonline identity: Examining the social practices of r/Gonewild. First Monday, 20(3), <xocs:firstpage xmlns:xocs=””/>. doi:10.5210/fm.v20i3.5615

Donath, J. (1999). Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community. In P. Kollock, & M. A. Smith (Eds.), Communities in Cyberspace (pp. 29-59). Retrieved from http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html

Pearson, E. (2009). All the World Wide Web’s a stage: The performance of identity in onlinesocial networks. First Monday, 14(3). doi:10.5210/fm.v14i3.2162

Turkle, S. (1997). Multiple Subjectivity and Virtual Community at the End of the Freudian Century. Sociological Inquiry, 67(1), 72-84. doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.1997.tb00430.x

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

How False Performance of Identity on Instagram Influence Social Comparisons

Abstract

Social networking platforms allow users the ability to control how their identity is presented to others. In the case of Instagram, users can edit and add filters to photos of their choice to be seen by public or private audience. While these features can be used as a form of self-expression, there are often other motivations for performing identity through Instagram. This paper identifies these motivations and outlines the affect that false representations of reality can have on audiences. The paper will examine the work of various researchers on performing identity offline, online identity, social networking use, and Instagram use. The research discussed in this paper suggests that people modify their identity online to conceal negative aspects of themselves in order to achieve a desired impression on their audience, which often includes impressing their social groups and communities. This paper also identifies that distorted representations of identity can cause negative self-evaluation in audiences, who engage in social comparisons online.

Keywords: Identity, Instagram, Social Networks

 

Introduction

This paper will discuss the motivations for self-presentation of identity and how false performances of identity can impact others, with specific reference to Instagram. The paper will draw information from many researchers in the communications field to present the argument that since Instagram allows users to choose how to portray themselves, they can create false perceptions of their identity to others, which in turn, can have a negative impact on the self-evaluation of their audiences. These audiences consist of the user’s offline communities, including friends, family and acquaintances, as well as their online social networks.

According to Pearson (2009), people online can “deliberately choose to put forth identity cues or claims of self that can closely resemble or widely differ from reality”. Due to the nature of online profiles, users do not accurately depict themselves but rather articulate chosen performances (boyd & Heer, 2006). The “performer” manages disclosure on social networking sites, choosing whether to share more private aspects of their constructed identity (Pearson, 2009). Furthermore, social networking platforms with fluidity allow for users to “play with aspects of their presentation of self” while communicating with others (Pearson, 2009). Through the social networking site Instagram, users often present their identity to make themselves appear more favourable, which can induce negative comparisons from their audience who may feel jealous or view their own life in a less positive light.

 

Presentation of Identity Online

Since the way people present themselves online can be significantly different from how they present themselves offline, it is believed that communicating with others in various contexts involves showing different aspects of one’s identity according to the situation (Goffman, 1959; Lazebna, 2015). According to Rettberg (2014, p. 51), when posting a photo to Instagram, people intentionally choose what they “want to remember and share” and what they “want to leave out”. Individuals will conceal aspects that could be perceived negatively and only share positive situations (Seehafer, 2017). Rosenberg and Egbert (2011, p. 4) define the process in which individuals regulate their own behaviour to expose desirable traits as “self-monitoring”. This involves creating strategic profiles and engaging in self-presentation tactics to expose their identity in a favourable light and have a desired impression on an audience (Rosenberg & Egbert, 2011; Seehafer, 2017).

Performances of identity in social networks start within the imagination of users and then are brought to existence with the aid of the tools and technologies of the platform, allowing users to “project, renegotiate, and continuously revise their consensual social hallucination” (Pearson, 2009). It is expected for audiences to believe the online content of others to depict accurate representations of identity that mirror reality, when instead these performances may not be genuine (Goffman, 1959; Seehafer, 2017). In contrast, Lee (2006) argues that self-presentation online is dependent on context, and therefore, interaction is not necessarily dishonest and deceptive. This argument supports Hardey’s (2002, p. 570) belief that rather than constructing “fantasy selves”, anonymous online interactions act as a foundation for building trust and establishing relationships.

Presentation of self on Instagram is mainly made up of an individual’s username, pictures and descriptions, profile photo, and bio, all of which take a part in constructing a user’s online identity. Users often upload photos of themselves with friends, at events, and “selfies” to make their life appear a certain way. A study by Adler (2017), found that the primary motivation for posting selfies was for ego-reinforcement, as these individuals feel better about themselves when receiving likes from others. In contrast to the arguments made in this paper, Adler’s (2017) study also found that participants posted selfies due to high levels of self-esteem and confidence, with one participant stating that posting selfies acted as a way for her to build her self-confidence and show love and appreciation for herself. While some Instagram users may present their identity candidly and confidently, many others use online identity as an opportunity to shape themselves as more favourable to others.

 

Using Online Identity to Belong

Much of the research into the way in which people present themselves to others is based on Goffman’s (1959) belief that individuals modify their identity to adhere to societal understandings and expectations. Goffman (1959) believes that people become characters that play out a performance when interacting with others to achieve a desired impression. Goffman’s beliefs can be applied to the modern Web 2.0 context whereby online users maintain their character and express performances through their social networking platforms, which have grown to become a fundamental factor in the management of identity and social relations (Mascheroni, Vincent, & Jimenez, 2015; Seehafer, 2017). According to Rosenberg and Egbert (2011, p. 5), individuals use self-presentation tactics in order to “make a desired impression on a particular audience”. The motivation for this is derived from individuals’ intrinsic need for acceptance and inclusion (Rosenberg & Egbert, 2011).

According to Pearson (2009), people construct their identities in relation to their networks and communities. People can often feel pressured to fit in with a certain group identity through the construction of their online identity, which can affect one’s reputation within a community (Kollock & Smith, 1999; Rettberg, 2014). Furthermore, Kollock and Smith (1999) argue that upholding and developing one’s identity or reputation is actually essential to the formation of communities. In modern society, people create and update online profiles that conform to society’s standards of self-presentation and social expectations (Mascheroni, Vincent, & Jiminez, 2015). The motivation for individuals to carefully manage and monitor the impressions made by their online identity is enhanced by the public nature of social network profiles (Rosenberg & Egbert, 2011).

One way that individuals try to impress their social groups on their social networks, mainly through Facebook and Instagram, is through uploading photos from particular events. According to boyd and Heer (2006), uploading event photos indicates “friendship structure to outsiders and an expression of appreciation to friends”, which displays participation and inclusion. Instagram has a feature that enables users to tag other people depicted in pictures and add the location that the photo was taken (Ridgway & Clayton, 2016). Additionally, each user’s profile has a “Tagged In” section that shows viewers all the photos that user has been tagged in. Tagging friends in photos can enhance the feeling of community online between friends. It can also help to achieve a desired impression on audiences, possibly that the individual is popular if they upload photos with many people.

 

Using Filters to Alter Reality

Rettberg (2014) argues that people upload photos to Instagram to heighten their own daily experiences and make themselves feel special. Instagram allows users to edit their photos and apply various filters that may conceal aspects of their performance (Seehafer, 2017). Filters are manipulation tools that can be used as a form of self-expression, involving the ability to adjust brightness, colour, saturation, and various other qualities (Hochman & Manovich, 2013; Seehafer, 2017). Instagram filters can create a different “feel” by altering the message communicated by the image (Hochman & Manovich, 2013). Using filters on photos allows for individuals to see themselves from a distance that “makes them new” (Rettberg, 2014, p. 27). By editing and using filters on photos, people are able to display an idealised image of “a socially-accepted and desirable persona” (Lazebna, 2015, p. 2). This idea is supported by Seehafer (2017), who argues that performances of identity online are expected to meet ideal standards and disguise everything that does not fit into these standards.

A study by Reece and Danforth (2017) found that depressed individuals were less likely to apply filters to their photos than healthy individuals. Additionally, the depressed participants preferred a black and white filter as opposed to the healthy participants that favoured the Valencia filter, which lightens the tint of the photo (Reece & Danforth, 2017). This suggests that people who are not depressed are the ones that are more likely to use filters on their photos, and hence, take notice of their impression management.

 

The Effect of Online Performances of Identity on Others

Since social media platforms allow for users to control how they present themselves to others, they contain idealised versions of identity (Hendrickse, 2016). According to Appel, Gerlach and Crusius (2016, p. 44), information presented online is positively skewed, increasing the “probability of unflattering social comparisons”. According to Wood (1996), social comparison refers to comparing oneself to others in terms of self-evaluation, self-improvement and/or self-enhancement. Social comparisons can result in envy, which is heightened when one compares themselves to their friends and peers due to its high personal relevance (Appel, Gerlach & Crusius, 2016). Vogel, Rose, Okdie, Eckles and Franz (2015) support this idea by arguing that social comparisons on social media construct negative effects on well-being and self-evaluation. Goffman (1959) suggests that social distance assists in generating admiration within an audience. This distance is enhanced in an online environment, especially between individuals that have not met offline as a comparison does not require direct contact (Wood, 1996). As many individuals use social networking sites to learn about others without engaging in any social interaction, the likelihood for social comparisons to occur is very high (Vogel et al, 2015; Wood, 1996). This not only involves looking at the profiles of family, friends and acquaintances but also those of strangers, whether famous, a friend of a friend or someone with no social connection whatsoever.

Many celebrities and models have an active presence on Instagram, with millions of followers that see every image they post. One of the most followed people on Instagram is Selena Gomez, who often shares photos containing her “thin-ideal body” (Hendrickse, 2016, p. 2). Gomez and other prominent Instagram influencers all have the ability to apply filters to their images, controlling the way others see them (Hendricks, 2016). While these body and beauty standards are conveyed through various social influences, the most prominent force is mass media, and therefore, social networking sites (Groesz, Levine & Murnen, 2002).  A study by Shelly, Ward, Hyde and Shibley (2008) discovered that exposure to thin body images in the media positively relates to body image insecurities. This evidence is supported by Hendrickse’s (2016) study that found a strong relationship between body image concerns regarding thinness and appearance-related comparisons made on Instagram. Repeated exposure to such images in the media lead audiences to accept such portrayals as representations of reality, causing the thin ideal body to be seen as normal, and even expected (Shelly et al, 2008). Evidently, this affects many women’s satisfaction with their own body, and in turn, decreasing their self-esteem (Shelly et al, 2008).

 

Conclusion

Social networking sites provide a platform for people to represent their identity online through alternate performances (Pearson, 2009). On Instagram, users upload selfies as a way to perform their visual identity. Through performance, individuals engage in impression management in order to make a desired impression on an audience (Rosenberg & Egbert, 2011). Desired impressions are often based around fitting in with social groups, which can help users feel as if they belong within an online community. Rettberg (2014) argues that performance of visual identity online is coercive, and users feel pressured to display a group identity. Instagram allows users to tag others in photos, demonstrating inclusion and popularity while also enhancing the sense of community. Another feature that is widely used on Instagram is the ability to apply filters to photos. While filters may be used as artful expression, they are also a manipulation tool that can distort reality (Hochman & Manovich). Since users can control their performances online, identities often represent an idealised version of reality (Hendrickse, 2016). When viewing the profiles of others online, people use social comparisons by assessing their own life in contrast to the person online. Misrepresenting true identity online can cause audiences to experience negative self-evaluation, and even envy (Appel, Gerlach & Crusius, 2016; Vogel et al, 2015). Such social comparisons are present in examples of thin body performances throughout social media and Instagram. Overall, the affordances of social networking sites like Instagram allow users to perform their identity however they please, and false performances of identity can cause negative social comparisons from audiences.

 

References

Adler, N. (2017). Who Posts Selfies and Why?: Personality, Attachment Style, and Mentalization as Predictors of Selfie Posting on Social Media. (Masters’ Thesis). Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1979342189/B98AB26242254873PQ/1?accountid=10382

 

Appel, H., Gerlach, A. L., & Crusius, J. (2016). The interplay between Facebook use, social comparison, envy, and depression. Current Opinion in Psychology, 9, 44-49. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.10.006

 

boyd, d. (2006). Friends, Friendsters, and Top 8: Writing community into being on social network sites. First Monday, 11(2). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1418/1336

 

boyd, d., & Heer, J. (2006). Profiles as conversation: Networked identity performance on Friendster. Paper presented at the Hawai’i International Conference on System Sciences, Kauai. http://www.danah.org/papers/HICSS2006.pdf

 

Goffman, E. (1969). The presentation of self in everyday life. London : Allen Lane.

 

Groesz, L. M., Levine, M. P., & Murnen, S. K. (2002). The Effect of Experimental Presentation of Thin Media Images on Body Satisfaction: A Meta-Analytic Review. (Vol. 31, pp. 1-16). New York.

 

Hardey, M. (2002). Life beyond the screen: embodiment and identity through the internet. The Sociological Review, 50(4), 570-585. doi: 10.1177/003802610205000406

 

Hendrickse, J. (2016). Appearance-related comparisons mediate the relationship between Instagram use and body image concerns. (Masters’ thesis). Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1873209467/DA8D20FC83F54BF9PQ/5?accountid=10382

 

Hochman, N., & Manovich, L. (2013). Zooming into an Instagram City: Reading the local through social media. First Monday, 18(7). http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v18i7.4711.

 

Kollock, P., & Smith, M. A. (1999). Communities in cyberspace. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/curtin/detail.action?docID=168601

 

Lazebna, A. (2015). The role of communication apprehension, expression of the true self, and fear of negative evaluation in relation to Instagram and selfie use. (Masters’ thesis). Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1730242457?accountid=10382

 

Lee, H. (2006). Privacy, Publicity, and Accountability of Self‐Presentation in an On‐Line Discussion Group. Sociological Inquiry, 76(1), 1-22. doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.2006.00142.x

 

Mascheroni, G., Vincent, J., & Jimenez, E. (2015). “Girls are addicted to likes so they post semi-naked selfies”: Peer mediation, normativity and the construction of identity online. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychological Research on Cyberspace, 9(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.5817/CP2015-1-5

 

Pearson, E. (2009). All the World Wide Web’s a stage: The performance of identity in online social networks. First Monday, 14(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v14i3.2162

 

Reece, A. G., & Danforth, C. M. (2017). Instagram photos reveal predictive markers of depression. EPJ Data Science, 6(1), 1-12. http://dx.doi.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.1140/epjds/s13688-017-0110-z

 

Rettberg, J. D. (2014). Seeing Ourselves Through Technology: How We Use Selfies, Blogs and Wearable Devices to See and Shape Ourselves. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1057%2F9781137476661.pdf

 

Ridgway, J. L., & Clayton, R. B. (2016). Instagram Unfiltered: Exploring Associations of Body Image Satisfaction, Instagram #Selfie Posting, and Negative Romantic Relationship Outcomes. Cyberpsychology, Behaviour, and Social Networking, 19(1), 2-7. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2015.0433

 

Rosenberg, J., & Egbert, N. (2011). Online Impression Management: Personality Traits and Concerns for Secondary Goals as Predictors of Self-Presentation Tactics on Facebook. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, 1-18. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2011.01560.x

 

Seehafer, D. M. (2017). #NOFILTER: Exploration of Instagram and Individuals’ Conception of Self. (Masters’ Thesis). Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1953259657/19BDFB61DAAB4C65PQ/5?accountid=10382

 

Shelly, G., Ward, L., Hyde, M., & Shibley, J. (2008). The Role of the Media in Body Image Concerns Among Women: A Meta-Analysis of Experimental and Correlational Studies. Psychological Bulletin, 134(3), 460-476. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.460

 

Vogel, E. A., Rose, J. P., Okdie, B. M., Eckles, K., & Franz, B. (2015). Who compares and despairs? The effect of social comparison orientation on social media use and its outcomes. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 249-256. https://ac-els-cdn-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/S0191886915004079/1-s2.0-S0191886915004079-main.pdf?_tid=6c25a2ce-7a9f-4be0-a5b0-48b0f6c2970f&acdnat=1522121466_96685f6e0bd68ef2cb27786fbe0015f1

 

Wood, J. V. (1996). What Is Social Comparison and How Should We Study It? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(5), 520-537. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/doi/pdf/10.1177/0146167296225009

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

The Social Media Obsessed Generation Changing the US Gun Debate for the Better

Catherine Paull 

Abstract

This paper explores how the surviving victims of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas (MSD) High School mass shooting have created a strong community and used social media to advocate for tighter gun control. They have formed the Never Again movement that has already gained widespread support, and organized two national events (National Walkout on March 14, and March for Our Lives on March 24). This paper examines how Web 2.0, and more specifically Twitter, has been used to form, mobilise, and maintain online communities. It also explores how social activists can use Twitter to create branding and social capital.

Introduction

“Be a nuisance where it counts. Do your part to inform and stimulate the public to join your action. Be depressed, discouraged and disappointed at failure and the disheartening effects of ignorance, greed, corruption and bad politics – but never give up.”

Marjory Stoneman Douglas (Willingham, 2018).

Marjory Stoneman Douglas was a journalist, environmentalist, activist, and had a high school named after her in Parkland, Florida USA (Willingham, 2018). Her quote was placed near MSD High School on March 14, the day of the National Walkout in North America in response to the school shooting, one month after 17 people were killed (Willingham, 2018). After the horrific event, several MSD students came together and created a movement which swept across North America, and the world, via the web. It is through the affordances of Web 2.0 that this community has been so successful. Twitter facilitated the formation, mobilisation and maintenance of the community, and without Twitter the community may not have formed.

The Never Again movement can be classified as a community of practice that formed as a result of their effective use of Twitter, and maintained through their leaders’ focus and determination. According to Katz, “the essence of the community is one of networked individualism, in which we all choose our own communities, rather than be fitted with others into them involuntarily” (Katz et. al., 2004, p.332). Through Twitter, other users have connected to the movement, and participated in debate surrounding gun reform with the leaders of the Never Again movement. A community of practice has three main features; it has a shared domain of interest, lively and active community members, and has a form of practice (e.g. sharing information, planning events, etc.) (Komorowski et. al., 2018). The Never Again movement can therefore be classified as a community of practice because of the shared interest in gun control, the community members and leaders are very active. Emma Gonzales, one of the more well-known leaders because of her passionate speech at the Fort Lauderdale Rally a few days after the shooting (Witt, 2018), created a Twitter account for the movement and has already posted 1, 653 tweets, and has over 1.5 million followers (Gonzalez, 2018). The community has a form of practice that includes sharing information, creating events (National Walk Out, March for Our Lives), and rallying against the NRA (National Rifle Association) (March For Our Lives, 2018). To understand how social activism is able to utilise the affordances of social media, this paper examines the Never Again movement, focusing on how an online community was formed, its ability to mobilise community members into real-world action, and how self-branding and social capital are used for activism.

Community formation and mobilisation

A community is a group of people connected through a common interest or topic, and it is based on the exchange of information (Katz et. al., 2004). The Never Again community was formed through the social media platform Twitter, using its hashtag tool. The hashtag #NeverAgain was created by Cameron Kasky two days after the shooting in MSD High School in Parkland, Florida (SBS News, 2018). Hashtags are a form of tagging folksonomy, which is a user-generated system of classifying information (Highfield & Leaver, 2015). Bruns and Burgess agree, and further suggest “hashtags are used to bundle together tweets on a unified, common topic,” which is why they can be useful for crisis situations, or activism movements (Bruns & Burgess, 2011, p.5). Hashtags on Twitter allow users to find tweets that are not generated by the people they already follow, and allows people who do not have Twitter accounts to also find posts (Bruns & Burgess, 2012). The #NeverAgain hashtag sparked the movement, and it quickly gained traction on Twitter, and a few days later the community was formed. According to Bruns and Burgess, “it is this very flexibility of forming new hashtag communities as and when they are needed, without restriction, which arguably provides the foundation for Twitter’s recognition as an important tool for the discussion of current events.” (Bruns & Burgess, 2011, p.7). The victims of the school shooting were standing up and talking about gun reform in a way that had never been done before. According to Dana Fisher, an expert on US social protests from the University of Maryland, the shooting happened during a period of intense political activism, which began with the Women’s March the day after President Trump’s inauguration (SBS News, 2018). Fisher argues “people are paying attention to politics like they haven’t before, including children,” and unlike the last school shooting at Sandy Hook, where 20 elementary school children and 6 staff members were killed, the students of MSD High School are older and therefore able to speak up (SBS News, 2018, “What Makes Parkland Different,” para. 3). Professor McAndrew, a mass shooting expert, argues “the ease with which social media is integrated in their lives also gives them an edge when it comes to organising and communicating with each other, as well as with the world at large” (SBS News, 2018). The cohesion of the movement is suggested to have been why it gained so much traction in such a short amount of time (SBS News, 2018).

Some scholars argue online activism is not strong enough to mobilise or sustain a movement, because these communities do not have any face-to-face communication (Harlow, 2011). Huberman et al, also argue there are two types of networks on Twitter – those that “matter” and those that do not (Huberman, Romero & Wu, 2009). The networks that matter are smaller, include people who are friends of the user offline, and they interact more frequently (Huberman, Romero & Wu, 2009). Huberman et al, argues the broader network, which reaches more people, is less influential because there is less interaction (Huberman, Romero & Wu, 200).

However, the MSD students were able to successfully mobilise their online community, and hold two significant protests offline – the National Walkout (March 14) and the March for Our Lives (March 24). According to Aguiton and Cardon, Web 2.0 platforms like Twitter highlight the importance of weak cooperation because they allow weak ties to mobilise and work together to share information (Aguiton & Cardon, 2007). This is demonstrated by the interaction and collaboration between the main organisers (the MSD students) and their weaker ties (their Twitter followers), which generated success for the two events, the Walkout and the March. The movement started online, however, the organisers effectively mobilised their community to flow offline. The National Walkout was originally planned to be a seventeen minute walkout with each minute representing a fatality in the MSD High School shooting, however, in many cities the demonstrations continued (Grinberg & Yan, 2018). According to USA Today, 2,800 schools across North America had students participating in the walkout, with some teachers joining in as well (Bacon & Hayes, 2018). It is estimated that 800,000 people marched in Washington DC on March 24 (Reilly, 2018), which demonstrates the successful mobilisation of weak ties. Marches were also held in Parkland, San Francisco, New York, Oakland, Bethel (location of 1997 school shooting where two students were killed), Newtown (location of the Sandy Hook shooting), and all around the world including Paris (The Guardian, 2018). Not only was online communication effective, it was the only way for these two events to unite students across the country in a way that has never been done before. TIME suggested “they’re the first school-shooting survivors who are old enough, angry enough, and medi-savvy enough to force the nation to grapple with a problem that adults have failed to solve” (Alter, 2018). Bruns and Hanusch argue social media platforms, like Twitter, “offer unprecedented opportunities for users to reshape public understandings of crisis events, contesting or reinforcing mainstream media frames” (Bruns & Hanusch, 2017, p. 1138). This is exactly what the MSD students, and other North American students, are successfully doing now to push back against the NRA. Twitter allowed these students to form and mobilise their online community, thereby turning it into an offline community as well.

Maintenance of the community and its message

The Never Again movement has been prolonged in the global news cycle because the MSD students have control over their message. Two core members of the Never Again campaign have tweets pinned to their Twitter account addressing the issue of others blaming or attacking political parties.

Instead they remind people to support the movement, work together, and advocate for change. After the initial reaction to the event, the MSD students narrowed the focus of their movement to a five core aims – fund research into gun violence and prevention/intervention programs, eliminate restrictions on the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF), universal background checks, ban on high-capacity gun magazines (magazines which hold more than ten rounds, that allow rapid firing), and a comprehensive assault weapon ban (March For Our Lives, 2018). The movement also promotes an increase of voter registration and turnout (for the upcoming midterm elections) (Alter, 2018). Instead of a generalised conversation about gun reform, the Never Again movement has centralised their message. Bastos argues social media platforms, like Twitter, “can rapidly shift between information diffusion and social network formations as users move from specialized to generic topics of conversation” (Bastos et. al., 2018, p.291). This means the centralisation of information allows more people to join the community because there is a clear topic of focus. This makes the movement more inclusive and helps appeal to Americans who do not want to give up their right to bear arms (under the Second Amendment in the Constitution).

Social capital and self-branding

This case study on the Never Again movement demonstrates how branding and social capital on Twitter can be used for social activism. Social capital is the concept of value that is associated to a person or that is constructed and reinforced by social contact, civic engagement, and a sense of community (Katz et. al., 2004). According to Katz, social capital is built through trust, which allows communities to accomplish more than any individual can (Katz et. al., 2004). It has become common practice for prominent public figures to use “self-branding” on social media to increase their social capital (Hanusch & Bruns, 2016, p. 39). The core members of the Never Again movement have effectively accomplished this using the affordances of Twitter. Four of the leaders of the Never Again movement mention their campaign, and demonstrate some aspect of their individuality through their Twitter account bio (refer to Appendix B).

Cameron Kasky brands himself as a Gryffindor (a Hogwarts house in the popular UK book series Harry Potter written by J.K. Rowling), and founder of #NeverAgain (Kasky, 2018).

Delaney Tarr brands herself as a student, an activist, and a “meddling kid” (in reference to the popular kids television show Scooby Doo) (Tarr, 2018).

David Hogg brands himself as a surfer, dreamer, reporter and activist (Hogg, 2018).

Jaclyn Corin brands herself as a “high school girl trying to save the country with her friends” (Corin, 2018).

These Twitter bios are personal, link to the Never Again movement in an effective demonstration of self-branding, and allows people to connect and relate with them. This approach by the leaders of the community builds social capital for the campaign, which influences more people to connect to the movement. In an interview with TIME, Corin suggests that without social media the Never Again movement would not have spread as effectively as it has – “social media is our weapon” (Alter, 2018). As activists, they have utilised the affordances of Twitter powerfully to promote themselves and their campaign.

Conclusion and future research

In conclusion, the Never Again movement has effectively used social media as an activism tool to promote their campaign. The MSD students are part of the generation that has been labeled narcissists by adults and stereotyped as constantly on social media. However, they are utilising the affordances of the very tools, such as Twitter and hashtags, that they are mocked for using, in order to advocate for change and lobby for tighter gun control in a way that has never been done before. According to Alter, “over the past month, these students have become the central organizers of what may turn out to be the most powerful grassroots gun-reform movement in nearly two decades” (Alter, 2018). To those who mock their movement, slander their leaders, and berate their message, Emma Gonzalez’s reply is – “we are prepared to call BS” (CNN, 2018, minute 10:35). In future studies, it will be important to evaluate how other student led social activism online will develop, and determine whether it is as widespread as the Never Again movement. However, in the near future it will be interesting to see how successful the Never Again movement is as the debate for gun control continues. The movement should be followed to determine if effective gun control measures are implemented in North America.

References

Alter, C. (2018, February 21). ‘We Just Had a Gun to Our Heads.’ The Florida Shooting    Survivors Are Transforming America’s Gun Debate. Retrieved from TIME: http://time.com/5169436/florida-shooting-kids-gun-control-debate/

Aguiton, C., & Cardon, D. (2007). The Strength of Weak Cooperation: An Attempt to      Understand the Meaning of Web 2.0. Communications & Strategies, 65(1). Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1009070

Bacon, J., & Hayes, C. (2018, March 14). ‘We deserve better’: Students nationwide walk out in massive protest over gun violence. Retrieved from USA Today:             https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/03/14/thousands-students-across-u-s- walk-out-class-today-protest-gun-violence/420731002/

Barnitt, John [John_Barnitt]. (2018, March 31). Retrieved March 31, 2018, from https://twitter.com/John_Barnitt

Bastos, M., Piccardi, C., Levy, M., McRoberts, N. and Lubell, M. (2018). Core-periphery or decentralized? Topological shifts of specialized information on Twitter. Social Networks, 52, pp.282-293.

Bruns, A. & Burgess, J. (2011) The use of Twitter hashtags in the formation of ad hoc publics. In Proceedings of the 6th European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) General Conference 2011, University of Iceland, Reykjavik.

Bruns, A. and Burgess, J. (2012). RESEARCHING NEWS DISCUSSION ON    TWITTER. Journalism Studies, 13(5-6), pp.801-814.

Bruns, A. and Hanusch, F. (2016). Journalistic Branding on Twitter. Digital Journalism, 5(1), pp.26-43.

Bruns, A. and Hanusch, F. (2017). Conflict imagery in a connective environment: audiovisual content on Twitter following the 2015/2016 terror attacks in Paris and Brussels. Media, Culture & Society, 39(8), pp.1122-1141.

CNN. [CNN]. (2018, February 17). Florida student to NRA and Trump: ‘We call BS’ [Video File]. Retrieved March 28, 2018, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxD3o-9H1lY

Corin, Jaclyn [JaclynCorin]. (2018, April 2). Retrieved April 2, 2018, from             https://twitter.com/JaclynCorin

Gonzalez, Emma [Emma4Change]. (2018, March 31). Retrieved March 31, 2018, from https://twitter.com/Emma4Change

Grinberg, E., & Yan, H. (2018, March 16). A generation raised on gun violence sends a loud message to adults: Enough. Retrieved from CNN: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/14/us/national-school-walkout-gun-violence-  protests/index.html

Harlow, S. (2011). Social media and social movements: Facebook and an online     Guatemalan justice movement that moved offline. New Media and Society, 1-19.  DOI: 10.1177/146144811410408

Highfield, T., & Leaver, T. (2015, January 5). A Methodology for Mapping Instagram Hashtags. Retrieved October 30, 2016, from First Monday:             http://www.firstmonday.dk/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/5563/4195#p4

Hogg, David [davidhogg111]. (2018, March 31). Retrieved March 31, 2018, from  https://twitter.com/davidhogg111

Huberman, B. A., Romero, D. M., & Wu, F. (2009). Social Networks that Matter: Twitter Under the Microscope. First Monday. Volume 14 Number 1. http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2317/2063

Kasky, Cameron [cameron_kasky]. (2018, April 2). Retrieved April 2, 2018, from  https://twitter.com/cameron_kasky

Katz, J. E., Rice, R. E., Acord, S., Dasgupta, K., & David, K. (2004). Personal Mediated Communication and the Concept of Community in Theory and Practice. In P. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication and Community: Communication Yearbook 28 (pp. 315-371). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Komorowski, M., Huu, T. and Deligiannis, N. (2018). Twitter data analysis for studying communities of practice in the media industry. Telematics and Informatics, 35(1), pp.195-212

March For Our Lives. (2018). How We Save Lives. Retrieved from March For Our   Lives: https://marchforourlives.com/how-we-save-lives/

Reilly, K. (2018, March 24). Here’s the Size of the March For Our Lives Crowd in  Washington. Retrieved from TIME: http://time.com/5214405/march-for-our-lives-attendance-crowd-size/

SBS News. (2018, February 23). Who are the #NeverAgain teenagers pushing for US gun control? Retrieved from SBS News: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/who-are-the-neveragain-teenagers-pushing-for-us-gun-control

Tarr, Delaney [Delaney Tarr]. (2018, April 2). Retrieved April 2, 2018, from   https://twitter.com/delaneytarr

The Guardian. (2018, March 25). March for Our Lives: hundreds of thousands demand end to gun violence – as it happened. Retrieved from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2018/mar/24/march-for-our-lives-   protest-gun-violence-washington

Willingham, A. (2018, March 14). In the wave of walkouts, a quote from Marjory Stoneman Douglas becomes a rallying cry. Retrieved from CNN: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/14/us/marjory-stoneman-douglas-quote-walkout-trnd/index.html

Witt, E. (2018, February 19). How the Survivors of Parkland Began the Never Again Movement. Retrieved from The New Yorker: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-the-survivors-of-parkland-began-the-never-again-movement

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International License.

Feature Image attributed to TIME Magazine and photographer Peter Hapak.

Help A Sister Out: Forging positive connections on Web 2.0

Mia Lindsay

Abstract

This paper examines the Facebook page Help a Sister Out, as an example of an online community and third place. It was created in 2015 as a page for women in Perth to ask for advice and seek connections with other women on the page. By observing it as a Web 2.0 third place, it can be seen that Help a Sister Out has certain features that facilitate positive communication and connections between members. This article highlights these features, how they fit within the third place criteria and the way this creates a safe and comfortable environment for it’s members.

Introduction

The creation of online communities in Web 2.0 has broadened the idea of an active ‘third place’, initiating a movement that has seen people from across the world join together to share common interests or ideas. Aldosemani, et al (2015) defines community as “a psychological condition of feeling close to groups of individuals who share membership, influence, common needs and emotional connection” (p.1020). Help A Sister Out in Perth! (No Boys Allowed), a Facebook group created by Ninya Lishus in 2015, allows exactly this. The page provides a forum that women in Perth can join to ask questions to other members, about anything from personal advice, to restaurant or hotel recommendations, to help using Photoshop, and so on. In the 3 years since its creation, the community has grown to over 32,000 members and has 8 active administrators. The page has in many ways become an active ‘third place’, defined by Oldenburg (1989) as neutral locations where users can voluntarily enter and participate that are outside of home, known as first place, and work, known as second place. Initially this meant cafes, restaurants, parks or clubs, but the generation of Web 2.0 has allowed online forums and communities such as Help A Sister Out, to become a kind of third place. The way friendships between strangers are formed, how help and advice is sought through weak ties in the network and the way the administrative services and guidelines of the page limit negative issues are all ways in which this community facilitates positive communication and connections in a Web 2.0 third place. While there are some dangers in taking unsolicited and often uneducated advice from strangers, particularly regarding medical or financial advice, overall the effect of Help a Sister Out as a third place appears to be a positive one.

Creating and maintaining friendships

“Today we are seeing the advent of social networks formed in cyberspace. People meet in online forums and through online dating services; they keep in touch with an unprecedentedly large number of people via electronic media” (Donath & Boyd, 2004, p.1). The online third place is an important sphere in which established friendships could be maintained and strengthened, and new friendships and relationships can blossom. Baker-Eveleth emphasises how “The places become a home away from home. The third place is a comfortable arena to revisit and interact with friends” (2003, p.17). Help a Sister Out creates a comfortable and inviting third place where members are encouraged to freely ask for and give advice to and from other members. It aims to be a no judgement space where people can connect and seek support without the stresses of home or work. The aim of the community is women helping and building up other women.

 

In terms of creating new friendships online, Oldenburg states, “Not even to its inhabitants is the third place a particularly intriguing or exciting locale. It is simply there, providing opportunities for experiences and relationships that are otherwise unavailable”. While many question the validity of friendships formed and maintained online, which will be discussed further in later paragraphs, there are many examples of how people are welcomed and common interests are shared on the page. This can lead to online friendships being born, and those online friendships can later become real life friendships.

A friendly environment in which regular visitors encourage quieter non-regulars to participate in conversation is a defining factor in a successful third place (Baker-Eveleth, 2003, p.16). Regular members on Help a Sister Out make the page seem much more like a community than just a forum that people join, and the friendliness of those members are vital to making a friendly environment that new members want to return to.

“Users may browse members’ profiles and statuses, view photo albums, follow links to recommended, and so forth. Exploration helps physically distant users discover similarities and establish social connections, repurposing their usage to meet individual needs”. Aldosemani, et al (2015) highlights how members can utilise the features of the page to their own social advantage, using it to make connections and forge friendships.

By definition, Web 2.0 enables social interaction through networking platforms such as email, chat room or social media forums (Murugesan, 2010). The growth of these networking platforms has reversed the original friendship flow, in which you are friends with someone in real life, and then you become friends on the Internet through various forums. Now it is becoming more common for friendships and relationships to begin online and graduate in to face-to-face. An example of this is one of the many posts on the page where women are looking to make new female friends in their area. They post about their general locations, likes and interests and what they are looking for in friendship, and invite people to connect with them, subsequently forging new friendships that begin online and can later become face-to-face.

 

Helping each other out

The forming of friendships in these communities is not only beneficial emotionally, as discussed in the previous paragraph, but can also be beneficial in other areas of life. This is emphasised by Baker-Eveleth, who says “getting to know people and interacting with them helps create a network or web, broadening our exposure to other experiences” (2003, p.1). Donath and Boyd agree, describing social networks as “sources of emotional and financial support, and of information about jobs, other people and the world at large” (2004, p.1). Thompson (2008) discusses how the growth of weak ties through social media and online communities can help solve problems such as job hunts or information enquiries. Expanding networks beyond friends and family to distant acquaintances can be very useful because “they’re further afield, but still socially intimate enough to want to help you out”. The whole idea behind Help A Sister Out is based off this theory, as members of the group automatically feel willing to give help to people they feel associated with, usually with the knowledge that if the reverse situation was to occur, people on the page would be equally willing to help them.

With over 32,000 members, the Help A Sister Out community supports Gil de Zuniga and Valenzuela’s idea that weak ties within larger networks allow people access to information or opportunities not available within their immediate circle of family and friends (2011). The strength of these communities lies in the cycle of people forming weak ties and accessing information from them, which then encourages more participation in the community, which further forms more weak ties, and so on. Online communities in particular facilitate conversation between weak ties, as the social barriers of culture, race, gender or ethnicity, which so often stop these connections being formed offline, are not as present online.

Benefits of guidelines and administrative services

Aldosemani, et al (2015), highlight how with the inclusion of generally accepted rules and activities, an online space can also be considered a third space. The administrative services in the Help A Sister Out community play an important role in not only allowing it to become a third place, but also facilitating positive communication. Upon entering the Help A Sister Out page, there is a pinned list of rules that apply to all members of the group. These include rules such as; no meanness, nastiness or rudeness, no ‘name and shame’ posts, be polite, helpful, considerate and supportive, and all adult or sensitive posts must have a trigger warning at the top (Help A Sister Out, 2017).

Administrators have the ability to turn off comments on particular posts, delete posts and comment deemed outside of the page guidelines or remove members. These features help maintain a positive environment where women feel they can post and speak freely without fear of judgment or being attacked for their opinions, so long as those opinions aren’t hurtful. Guidelines for the framework of all online communities, not just Help A Sister Out, are important as they limit space for public humiliation or embarrassment and the sharing of private information on a public forum (Ewbank, et al, 2010, p.32). Ewbank, et al, encourage institution and community organizers to create a safe space online by revisiting and revising current codes and guidelines to limit the vulnerabilities of Web 2.0 community platforms before they become larger issues (2010, p.40).

Aldosemani, et al discuss how a third space should be “accessible and user friendly, designed to facilitate conversation, exhibit a low profile and ultimately reside on neutral ground where the organisation assumes a minimal role in fostering and monitoring conversation” (2015, p.1025). This criteria is reflected in the structure and rules of the page, in which all members are equal and the administrators play little to no role in starting conversations, but rather facilitate a forum for the conversations to occur on their own. But by monitoring the conversations and limiting negative or judgmental conversations, again there is more room created for constructive conversations.

Flaws in the community

Despite the positive conversations and connections being made on Help a Sister Out, there are some dangers to such an environment being built in a Web 2.0 third place. Members giving out unsolicited and uneducated advice on medical or financial issues can lead to a number of problems. For example, someone accepting advice on treatments for a sick child without seeking professional medical advice could very quickly go wrong if the child is wrongly diagnosed or treated. Psychologist Tony White (Ryan, 2015) warned members to be cautious when asking for advice on the page, not only for the risk of wrong advice but also that people can respond with hurtful comments if it’s a topic that may be seen as controversial (for example suicide, abortions, children’s vaccinations).

Stewart (2010) also questions the validity of online friends in comparison to real life friends. Similarly, Thompson (2008) asks, “What sort of relationships are these? What does it mean to have hundreds of ‘friends’ on Facebook? What kind of friends are they, anyway?”. He thinks that it’s possible that having so many connections online, and viewing so much content makes a person spread their emotional energy too thin that they don’t have enough for real-life intimate relationships. Donath and Boyd (2004) imply that people seek more connections online in an attempt to boost their own status, verify their sense of personal identity or to maintain a certain reputation, and thus these public connections are not real. It is possible that for many online communities this may be the case, however Help A Sister Out appears for the most part to be about women supporting other women, answering questions they might not have been able ask in their circle of family and friends, and building friendships from weak ties that offline barriers may never allow.

Conclusion

The facilitation of positive communication and connections in a Web 2.0 third place is highlighted in the case study of Perth-based Facebook community, Help A Sister Out. Involvement in the Help a Sister Out community is an example of how actively participating in a third space can have a positive affect on the rest of a person’s life. Examples of the ways that the page encourages the maintenance of existing friendships and the blossoming of new ones, how engagement with weak ties within larger communities such as this can help individual members, and the role of administrators and community codes and guidelines show the way Help a Sister Out facilitates positive communication and connections in a Web 2.0 third place. While many hold doubts about the strength of friendships created online and the validity of the advice offered on pages such as these, overall it could be seen that the environment created in these communities is a constructive one. Help a Sister Out in Perth (No Boys Allowed) brings women together from across Perth in a community that encourages women lifting each other up and offering each other immediate, mobile and publicly accessible help, advice, support and friendship in a way that would never have been possible outside an online community.

References 

Aldosemani, T. I., Shepherd, C. E., Gashim, I., & Dousay, T. (2015). Developing third places to foster sense of community in online instruction. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(6), 1020-1031. doi:10.1111/bjet.12315

Baker-Eveleth, L. (2003, August). An online third place: emerging communities of practice.

Donath, J., & boyd, d. (2004). Public Displays of Connection. BT Technology Journal, 22(4), 71-82.
DRAFT http://smg.media.mit.edu/papers/Donath/socialnetdisplay.draft.pdf

Ewbank, A. D., Kay, A. G., Foulger, T. S., & Carter, H. L. (n.d.). Conceptualizing Codes of Conduct in Social Networking Communities. Social Computing. doi:10.4018/9781605669847.ch137

Gil de Zúñiga, H., & Valenzuela, S. (2010). The Mediating Path to a Stronger Citizenship: Online and Offline Networks, Weak Ties, and Civic Engagement. Communication Research, 38(3), 397-421. doi:10.1177/0093650210384984Help a Sister Out. (2017). In Facebook [group page]. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/groups/1555723208012564/

Oldenburg, R., & Brissett, D. (1982). The third place. Qualitative Sociology, 5(4), 265-284. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0098675

Ryan, K. (2015 July 18). Help a Sister Out in Perth: Facebook site becomes a support network for WA women. ABC News. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-18/facebook-site-becomes-a-support-network-for-perth-women/6628318

Stewart, T. (2010). Online communities. Behaviour & Information Technology, 29(6), 555-556. Retrieved from https://doi-org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.1080/0144929X.2010.523615

Thompson, C. (2008). Brave New World of Digital Intimacy. The New York Times. 5 September.   http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/magazine/07awareness-t.html?_r=1.

 

Help A Sister Out: Forging positive connections on Web 2.0 by Mia Lindsay is licensed under                              Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

Twitter’s Hashtag Function As A Tool In Developing Online Communities And Social Movements

 

Claire Boys

ABSTRACT

This conference paper will focus on the stream of social networks, specifically concentrating on Twitter and its significance in developing online communities and social movements. It will analyse how Twitter implements the use of the hashtag function within its website to organise, coordinate and manage tweets online. This tool is especially helpful in promoting certain movements, which can translate from online to real life events and actions. Looking specifically at recent events and social movements such as: ‘#BlackLivesMatter,’ ‘#MeToo,’ and ‘#MarchForOurLives,’ and examining just how Twitter has aided the promotion of these movements by being a platform for these movements to be discussed publically. Focusing on these recent events, this paper will highlight just how effective Twitter’s hashtag function is as a tool for developing online communities and social movements.

KEY WORDS

Twitter; hashtags; communities; movements; conversation

INTRODUCTION

Since its launch in 2006, Twitter has become a popular platform for cultural conversation and discussion. It has changed the way in which we communicate to individuals online, whereby posts are succinct, quick updates. Twitters defining characteristic is its 280 characters per tweet limit, (Wagner, 2017), which means its users must utilise these characters in the best way they can. This character limit of 280 was originally even less, at 140 characters per tweet. In 2017, Twitter then announced they were increasing the characters to 280, saying that the limit caused users to: “…remove a word that conveys an important meaning or emotion.” (Wagner, 2017). This shows just how Twitter understands what a social and significant platform it has become in recent years.

Its popularity is likely due to the public nature and accessibility to all of its users, (Brock, 2012). At the end of 2017, Twitter had an average of 330 million monthly active users, (Statista, 2017) which demonstrates its level of influence and engagement. We can especially see this engagement from users culminated in Twitters hashtag function. Hashtags are used as a way to summarize topics and aid in categorizing posts in topic format. This function allows all of its users to search and join these discussions online. Given that Twitters domain is so public, if its users choose to, they can engage with users from anywhere in the world. Also with Twitters ‘trending’ page, it allows users to easily see the most popularly talked about events of the day. This really allows for major emotive discussions and movements to take place on Twitter.

We see these social movements and online communities developing more and more often. This paper will focus on three particular movements that have sparked major conversation online and in actuality. Drawing on the recent social movements of ‘#BlackLivesMatter’, ‘#MeToo’ and ‘#MarchForOurLives’, we can see just how significant Twitter, as a social communicator has been at developing these online communities and social movements.

#BLACK LIVES MATTER

 This social movement is essentially a call to action. It is a continuous protest and challenge to the justice system, (Edwards, 2016). The formation of this movement was due to the case of George Zimmerman, who was acquitted of all charges after murdering 17-year-old African American high school student, Trayvon Martin, (Edwards, 2016). Zimmerman was acquitted on the grounds of self-defence. Martin’s death sparked massive uproar as well as debate about racial profiling and self defence laws in the United States.

Following Martin’s death in 2013, the movement was born and #BlackLivesMatter began circulating on social media. Alicia Garza, who after Martin’s death posted on her Facebook a ‘Love Note to Black People,’ which urged people to come together and ensure that ‘Black Lives Matter.’ Her friend and community organiser, Patrisse Cullors, commented on this post and added the hash tag in front of the phrase. After that, #BlackLivesMatter was born, (Gyunn, 2015). While it may have been created on Facebook, it was Twitter where this phrase really began to surge.

This upsurge was centred around the crucial issue of police misconduct and the racial and social inequity that people of colour face, (Rickford, 2015). The #BlackLivesMatter hashtag from then on became a shorthand device for organising efforts across the United States. As of September 2016, the phrase “Black Lives Matter,” was tweeted over 30 million times, (Wortham, 2016). Using this hashtag helped activists from across the country communicate and broaden their movement to a wider online community. This allowed users and participants of Twitter to, ‘stand in solidarity amongst other participants,’ (Wortham, 2016).

These conversations between activists online are out in the open where anyone can read them. This kind of conversation is a form of social change and one that may not have been as influential without the power of social media. This movement poses a strong protest to the political and social arrangements within our society and with the help of this hashtag has sparked a revolutionary movement, (Rickford, 2015).

#ME TOO

The #Me Too hashtag is a tool to promote an international movement against sexual harassment and assault. It originally started as a word of mouth conversation created by activist Tarana Burke over a decade ago, which aimed to create solidarity among survivors of sexual harassment, (Frye, 2018). But in 2017, #MeToo virally spread online in October after actress and activist, Alysaa Milano, encouraged women to share their experiences with sexual harassment as a response through Twitter. On October 16, within the first 24 hours, the #MeToo was used on Twitter more than 500,000 times, (Smartt, 2017).

This conversation also prompted responses from many high-profile celebrities including: Jennifer Lawrence, Uma Thurman and Gwyneth Paltrow, (Vogue, 2017). The hashtag was promoted to highlight the magnitude of the problem in today’s society. Not only did the hashtag prompt responses of reporting’s of misconduct in the entertainment industry, but also from survivors across the world, with the hashtag trending in at least 85 countries, (Strum, 2017).

Social media networks including Twitter and Facebook became a place for women and some men across the world to share their experiences and aim to de-stigmatize speaking out against this harassment, (Eyerys, 2017). It became a way for many people to raise their hands and speak up about this harassment online. This formed an online community of woman and men who found solidarity and comfort amongst others who shared similar experiences.

In the age of social media, we can see just how effective it is when it comes to social change and movements. This concept of #MeToo was developed over a decade ago, but only last year did the concept reach the large scale it is at now. Tanara Burke created this concept to make a safe space for survivors. It still is that now, only in an online community with a much larger engagement. The number of times the hashtag was used in just 24 hours is mammoth, and brings to light something that evidently many women hadn’t felt able to speak out about before. The immediate and overwhelming response Milano received shows just how powerful social media is at connecting individuals online and creating a sense of community.

#MARCH FOR OUR LIVES / #NATIONALSCHOOLWALKOUT

The #MarchForOurLives movement is a student-led organisation that aims to promote stricter gun control laws within the United States. Founded in February of this year, after a school shooting in Parkland, Florida, took the lives of 17 students, (May, 2018). Survivors of this school shooting rallied together to form an organisation that promotes stricter background checks, legislation, and raising the federal age of gun possession and ownership to 21 years of age, (Jones, 2018).

Members of the organisation promoted that on March 24th 2018, there would be a demonstration rally for gun control in Washington D.C., along with over 800 smaller rallies across the world in support of the organisation. It is estimated that over 2 million people took part in this protest, making it one of the biggest protests ever in the United States, (Lopez, 2018). The event had a range of high school speakers and all students of the school where the shooting took place. One of these speakers included student Emma González, whose speech was considered one of the most memorable by The Washington Post, (Epstein & Amenabar, 2018). As of date González has over 1.5 million followers on Twitter, using the platform to share messages of solidarity and promote gun control.

The ‘March for Our Lives’ official Twitter account as of date has just fewer than 400,000 followers showing an incredible amount of influence. On this platform they have coined the hashtag #MarchForOurLives and continued to promote this after their incredibly successful rally in March. Social media is a vitally important platform for promoting this movement and developing a community online. With the spread of information so effortless, people were able to share their support from across the world. Social media is a way for disparate groups to come together and expand the issues that young people are passionate about.

Not only have students taken part in this cause, but also participated in ‘National Walk Outs,’ to further push the demand for gun legislation in America. These student led #NationalSchoolWalkOuts most recent protest was on April 20th, on the anniversary of the Columbine massacre in 1999, (National School Walkout, 2018). The organisation encourages students to walkout during school hours as a sign of protest against congressional, state and local members to prevent gun violence, (National School Walkout, 2018). This organisation also has incredible active social medias, with the official National School Walkout having over 130,000 followers on Twitter.

Many activists of these organisations plan to continue growing their movement, persuading people and many students to register to vote and attend public forums of debate, (Lopez, 2018). These student run organisations are an incredible showcase of young people creating their own media. Not only have they been able to promote these organisations through the power of social media, but retain an extremely commendable response from so many people around the world. It is an incredibly useful tool to unite people and bring people together who share the same views. It’s an opportunity for people to stand up for what they believe in, and promote their beliefs. Both #MarchForOurLives and #NationalSchoolWalkOut show the power social media and how young people are utilising it to make a community online and push for change.

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

The power and reach of social media is undeniable. It has become a space for people to connect and communicate with individuals from anywhere in the world. Specifically through Twitter, which gives users the opportunity to publicly discuss, engage and promote issues and events within their platform. Twitter’s hashtag function allows users to easily engage in conversation and search current events. Their trending page also allows people to see what is the most popular and tweeted about topics of the day, further promoting the subjects as discussed above.

The social movements of ‘#BlackLivesMatter,’ ‘#MeToo,’ and ‘#MarchForOurLives, have all come to fruition in the age of social media. Without social media to promote these causes, it is hard to say whether they would reach the levels they have today. With millions of individuals engaging in these movements online, it has created an online community of people promoting change for the better.

Activists promoting issues of social change such as racial discrimination, sexual harassment and gun control so publically, allows for people to be easily exposed to these communities. Discussing these issues through Twitter and promoting them via hashtags means for effortless promotion and campaigning of these social issues. As seen through the engagement of these social issues online, Twitter has created a space that allows for the creation of online communities and the promotion of social movements.

It is likely that Twitter’s social effects will only continue to grow as society does. With the nature of Twitters interactive platform and its limitless, international reach, it is evident that it a social podium for change. It is in this regard that Twitters hashtag function provides as a tool for developing online communities and social movements.

 

WORKS CITED

 

Brock, A. (2012). From the Blackhand Side: Twitter as a Cultural Conversation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media , 56 (4), 529-549.

 

Edwards, S. B. (2016). Black Lives Matter. Abdo Publishing.

 

Epstein, K., & Amenabar, T. (2018, March 24). The 6 most memorable speeches at the March for Our Lives in D.C. Retrieved May 3, 2018 from The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2018/03/24/the-6-most-memorable-speeches-at-the-march-for-our-lives-in-d-c/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2c3ac59e1cab

 

Eyerys. (2017, October 15). The #MeToo Movement On Social Media. Retrieved May 2, 2018 from Eyerys: https://www.eyerys.com/articles/timeline/metoo-movement-social-media#event-a-href-articles-timeline-facebook-and-billion-userfacebook-and-a-billion-user-a

 

Frye, J. (2018, Janurary 31). From Politics to Policy: Turning the Corner on Sexual Harassment. Retrieved May 2, 2018 from Center For American Progress : https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/news/2018/01/31/445669/politics-policy-turning-corner-sexual-harassment/

 

Gyunn, J. (2015, March 4). Meet the woman who coined #BlackLivesMatter. Retrieved April 30, 2018 from USA Today: https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/03/04/alicia-garza-black-lives-matter/24341593/

 

Jones, S. (2018, February 28). Student Gun-Control Activist David Hogg Slams Republicans As ‘Cowards’. Retrieved May 2, 2018 from CNS News: https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/activist-david-hogg-slams-republicans-cowards-stupid-sharks-want-sell-more

 

Lopez, G. (2018, March 26). It’s official: March for Our Lives was one of the biggest youth protests since the Vietnam War. Retrieved May 2, 2018 from Vox: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/26/17160646/march-for-our-lives-crowd-size-count

 

May, C. (2018, February 18). Florida student survivors announce “March For Our Lives”: Here’s a time to talk about gun control. Retrieved May 2, 2018 from Salon: https://www.salon.com/2018/02/18/florida-student-survivors-announce-march-for-our-lives-heres-a-time-to-talk-about-gun-control/

 

National School Walkout. (2018). Our Mission. Retrieved May 2, 2018 from National School Walkout: https://www.nationalschoolwalkout.net/

 

Rickford, R. (2015, December 8). Black Lives Matter: Toward a Modern Practice of Mass Struggle. Retrieved April 29, 2018 from New Labor Forum: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1095796015620171

 

Smartt, N. (2017, December 20). Sexual Harassment In The Workplace In A #MeToo World. Retrieved May 2, 2018 from Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeshumanresourcescouncil/2017/12/20/sexual-harassment-in-the-workplace-in-a-metoo-world/#15c545185a42

 

Statista. (2017). Number of monthly active Twitter users worldwide from 1st quarter 2010 to 4th quarter 2017 (in millions). Retrieved April 29, 2018 from Statista: https://www.statista.com/statistics/282087/number-of-monthly-active-twitter-users/

 

Strum, L. (2017, October 25). Twitter chat: What #MeToo says about sexual abuse in society. Retrieved May 2, 2018 from PBS: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/twitter-chat-what-metoo-says-about-sexual-abuse-in-society

 

Twitter. (2018). Twitter Logo.

 

Vogue. (2017, October 16). Celebrities Share Stories of Sexual Assault for #MeToo Campaign. Retrieved May 2, 2018 from Vogue: https://www.vogue.com/article/alyssa-milano-metoo-sexual-assault-campaign

 

Wagner, K. (2017, September 26). Twitter is testing a big change: Doubling the length of tweets from 140 to 280 characters. Retrieved April 29, 2018 from Recode: https://www.recode.net/2017/9/26/16364002/twitter-longer-tweets-character-limit-140-280

 

Wortham, J. (2016, September). Black Tweets Matter: How the How the tumultuous, hilarious, wide-ranging chat party on Twitter changed the face of activism in America . Retrieved April 30, 2017 from Smithsonian Magazine : https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/black-tweets-matter-180960117/

 

 

 

Bread Stapled to Trees: a typical (web 2.0) community?

Author note: Kim Cousins is PhD student and tutor at Curtin University. She can be contacted at kim.cousins@curtin.edu.au.

Abstract

This paper investigates the shift of communities from a physical to an online environment (covering both web 1.0 and web 2.0) and argues that virtual and traditional communities are more alike than they first appear, due to the types of networks employed and developed by participants. Although focused around an absurd topic, the subreddit Bread Stapled to Trees (BST) is an example of a strong virtual community and displays many characteristics of a traditional offline community including weak ties and strong social identity. The benefits for individuals within this type of community are numerous, including peer support and a sense of belonging. However, it should also be acknowledged that virtual communities are not necessarily seen as a replacement for physical communities.

Introduction

Online communities are sometimes viewed as less significant or ‘real’ than physical communities but these two forms of communities are quite similar in many ways (Langner & Seidel, 2014). Online, or virtual, communities allow for specialised discussions to form around often obscure topics between participants who would not likely meet in the offline world due to geographical constraints or varied social structures. Virtual and physical communities are more alike than they first appear, due to the types of networks employed and developed by participants (Cantoni & Danowski, 2015). Although often discounted as being based on weak ties, many of these groups, such as the subreddit BST, create a strong sense of community, belonging and social identity. The premise of BST is simple — community members take photos of bread they have stapled to trees and share the photos online through the link aggregation site Reddit. Other members then provide comments and moderation, as well as their own photos of bread stapled to trees.  As this shows, the term community conjures up many different meanings but the most common one refers to it as a group of people with a shared goal (Ridings & Gefen, 2006). Community can also be defined as a group of people exhibiting elements of “social interaction, common ties and physical colocation” (Hillery, 1982). This interaction between community participants and their involvement in the community then creates a social system, which in turns helps them create and become a part of something bigger than themselves (Katz et al, 2004). In the context of this paper community refers to groups of people sharing an interest in a common activity in order to create a feeling of belonging. This helps give a sense of community and was once found mainly through social groups, sporting clubs and the like. Although these traditional communities still exist, virtual communities have become a source of belonging for many. Howard Rheingold was one of the first to coin the term virtual community, at a time when the internet and online world was relatively new for many of its participants (Rheingold, 1993). Rheingold called virtual communities “social aggregations” and discussed the potential this technology had to bring people together, at a time when people were spending more and more time apart (Rheingold, 1993). The next major step in the progression of virtual communities came when web 2.0 technology became available.

Web 2.0 is both a movement and a set of technological tools (Fuchs, 2014). It has contributed to a shift in society where community is commonly sought online. Starting in the early 2000’s, web 2.0 technology allowed for virtual communities to become interactive places where participants could spend time not only reading about other perspectives but also add to the discussion (Fuchs, 2014). Prior to web 2.0 tools being widely used, virtual communities operated through bulletin boards or electronic mailing lists, which contained static information, and made sharing information possible but a much slower process than it is today (Ridings, 2006; Wellman & Gulia, 1999). Participants could share information, but it was generally text-heavy and unable to be easily edited by others. Read-only access facilitated reading as a way of sharing knowledge and information, but meant participants were unable to engage in conversation (Kubiak, 2013). Web 2.0, with its two-way mode of communication through editing and commenting, made it easier to create spaces for virtual communities through increased communication and collaboration. An almost instant reply is now possible, allowing for deeper levels of communication between participants. Web 2.0 is further defined by trust between participants, collective intelligence and personal control over self-produced data (O’Reilly, 2005). These elements can be seen through Reddit, which follows a forum-style structure based around two main actions — sharing and community.

Networks and ties in community

Communities are an integral part of life regardless of the method participants use to communicate. Traditionally, community was used to denote a physical space, or spaces, where these people met and carried out shared goals (Katz, 2004). Since the growth of the internet and web 2.0 technologies, the spaces in which a community can operate have spread to include online. These virtual communities have not replaced physical communities, but often operate in tandem with them. Where physical communities can be limited in terms of participant numbers, virtual communities can incorporate any number of people. There are several characteristics of virtual communities which align with those of physical communities. A set of rules is integral to the structure of both types of communities, along with respect for other members and a certain level of communication (Feenberg & Barney, 2004). A strong community will have dedicated roles, regardless of whether it operates online, offline or across both environments. Strong communities also make the most of the various networks within them, as created through the ties of the participants. Weak ties and close ties are evident in both virtual communities and physical communities, however the development of virtual communities has led to a change in the way weak ties are used within networks. Weak ties refer to the relationships we form with people who we are not very close to — acquaintances, in other words. The people we are closer to, such as friends and family in most cases, form the basis of close ties, which are dominant in physical communities. However, virtual communities are now full of networks involving both weak and close ties within participants (Raine & Wellman, 2012). Web 2.0 and virtual communities have also allowed for these relationships to become more predominant in our lives. Although we are not particularly close to these people we can often build an idea of their identity through social media posts (Raine & Wellman, 2012).

Platforms such as Reddit encourage the creation of weak ties as well as the opportunity to develop these relationships into close ties. Part of the appeal is not just the ease in joining and participating in these communities, but the chance to share information — especially information based on opinion (Jenkins, 2006). These platforms and forums have developed from initial web 2.0 technologies to offer places where community and a sense of belonging can grow. Reddit creates an interesting type of virtual community as it encourages participants to take a structured role. Redditors are community moderators and the communities on Reddit are self-regulated. Moderation is carried out within each community on Reddit by these volunteers. Much like a physical community has roles and ranks, Reddit communities also assign moderators. These participants are responsible for the look and feel of the community through logos, for example, and by setting the parameters of the community. They act as a gatekeeper by removing offensive comments or participants and have the ability to bestow other participants with the role of moderator (Reddit, 2018). These structured roles have the ability to create, grow and maintain the various types of ties.

 A quick analysis of Bread Stapled to Trees

Reddit is a community space which was initially based on funny videos and LOL-cat humour (Massanari, 2015). Platform policies have shaped the way it is now used and a unique culture has been created by Reddit users. It offers users a more anonymous presence than social networking sites like Facebook. Reputation can be gained through karma points and trophies (much like Snapchat) but users are not required to directly share any information about themselves. Users share links — on anything from current affairs to attaching bread to trees — and discussion is focused around the topics these links raise. With 79,400 members at the time this paper was written (growing from 63,503 members the previous month), BST is already much larger than the average physical community. Stapling bread to trees is acknowledged by the community members as being an absurd activity but fosters a sense of belonging. As community member Comedynerd said:

There are several aspects of the BST community which are similar to those of communities in general. Although BST is not a serious topic, the community follows a set of rules which are clearly displayed on the subreddit (see below).

Moderators, or ‘redditors’ are responsible for shaping and enforcing these rules and are expected to be shown respect by other community participants. Communication takes place within the community via photo posts and comments on other photo posts. Reddit uses a system based on what it calls karma points. Participants are rewarded for both sharing information (through links or photos) and commenting on other people’s posts. Karma points indicate the frequency of positive actions by participants and are voted on by others in the community, giving increased standing and building respect. This is not just a competitive action; it was devised to promote altruistic behavior (Reddit, 2018). This aligns with the O’Reilly’s initial nature of the internet, especially in regard to web 2.0 as a collaborative and community-based forum (O’Reilly, 2005).

Once classified as “novelty accounts” (Bergstrom, 2011), communities such as BST, have a number of benefits for participants looking for the experience of being part of a community. There are many individual reasons why people choose to become a part of specific communities but the overarching factors are to gain information, share values and facilitate human contact (Ridings & Geffen, 2006).  These factors encourage us to become involved with communities and relate to networking and bonding, as well as a sense of belonging. Social identity is a key element of this belonging (Jenkins, 2014) and a major part of communities such as Reddit and BST. Social identity helps drive communities through the creation and ownership of ideas and movements, and it is collective intelligence that drives virtual communities (Jenkins, 2006). By combining knowledge and resources, communities can do much more than individuals. This is true for both virtual and physical communities. Although virtual communities continue to grow in popularity, it should be noted that the concept of physical community is still important. There is current research suggesting the encouragement of physical community centres as a preventative health measure for participants (Monbiot, 2018).

Conclusion

Virtual and physical communities are more alike than they first appear, due to the types of networks employed and developed by participants. This similarity has developed over time, beginning with mainstream use of the web and continuing with the transition of web 1.0 to web 2.0. For the BST community, recording and sharing the physical act of stapling bread to trees creates a feeling of involvement and belonging, as well as social identity. These elements of community were common in our lives when we were heavily involved in physical communities and continue in virtual communities.  Both virtual and physical communities are important in contemporary society and, as the existence and popularity of platforms such as Reddit shows, can provide participants with many benefits. The ties and networks created through virtual communities, even ones based around absurd topics like BST, can be just as strong as the ones formed through physical, offline communities. A global movement involving the act of stapling bread to trees is not likely to cause massive change but the act of building a kind community, based around sharing with others and being a part of something bigger than yourself, could.

References

Aguiton, C. and Cardon, D. 2007. The Strength of Weak Cooperation: An Attempt to  Understand the Meaning of Web 2.0. Communications & Strategies, 65(1).

Bergstrom, K. 2011. “Don’t Feed the Trolls”: Shutting down debate about community expectations on reddit.com, First Monday, 16(8).

Cantoni, L. and Danowski, J.A. (2015). Communication and Technology. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.

Feenberg, A. and Barney, D. (2004). Community in the Digital Age: Philosophy and practice. Maryland, VA: Rowman & Littlefield.

Fuchs, C. (2014). Social Media: A critical introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hillery, G.A. (1982). A Research Odyssey: Developing and testing a community theory. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Jenkins, R. (2014). Social Identity. New York, NY: Routledge.

Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York, NY: NYU Press.

Katz, J. E., Rice, R. E., Acord, S., Dasgupta, K., & David, K. (2004). Personal Mediated Communication and the Concept of Community in Theory and Practice. In P. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication and Community: Communication Yearbook 28 (pp. 315-371). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kubiak, T. (2013). Social Media Measurement, Marketing of Scientific and Research Organizations, 2(8).

Massanari, A. (2015). Participatory Culture, Community and Play: Learning from Reddit. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Langner, B. and Seidel, V.P. (2014). Sustaining the Flow of External Ideas: The role of dual social identity across communities and organizations, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(4).

Monbiot, G. (2018). ‘The town that’s found a potent cure for illness — community’, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/21/town-cure-illness-community-frome-somerset-isolation?utm_source=nextdraft&utm_medium=email, accessed March 25, 2018.

O’Reilly, T. (2005). ‘What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software’, O’Reilly, http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html, accessed April 28, 2018.

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling Alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Raine, L. and Wellman, B. (2012). Networked: The new social operating system. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Reddit. (2018). Frequently Asked Questions. https://www.reddit.com/wiki/faq, accessed April 30, 2018.

Reddit. (2018). Moderation, https://www.reddit.com/wiki/moderation, accessed April 30, 2018.

Rheingold, H. (1993). The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Ridings, C. and Gefen, D. (2006). ‘Virtual Community Attraction: Why People Hang Out Online’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2004.tb00229.x

Wellman, B. and Gulia, M. (1999). Net Surfers Don’t Ride Alone: Virtual communities as communities. In Kollock, P. and Smith, M (eds). Communities and Cyberspace. New York, NY: Routledge.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Banner credit: /u/despot1

PDF Bread Stapled to Trees

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wine brands can influence emotional contagion (transferring of emotional states between peers) among consumer groups on social networks like Facebook and Instagram

Jacinta Gibson

Social Media, Communities and Networks

Key words: brand influence, emotional contagion, social networks, online customer service, brand communication.

Abstract

In recent history, social media has become a popular communication channel for wine brands. Platforms such as Facebook and Instagram allow wine producers to create content at a fraction of the production cost of traditional media-based content. That said, the investment of time needed to appropriately interact with consumers is much greater than the creation and approval of a traditional print advertisement. The return on social media investment is often a topic of debate, with many believing traditional media channels are still the most influential channels for consumer influence. In this paper, I plan to review some of the potential benefits for wine brands engaging in social network activity, to understand the influence their activity has amongst those whom can already be considered customers and those whom could be potential future customers.

Peer to peer recommendation is a key purchasing influencer within the wine market, so it is vital for wine brands to understand how online networks influence the dynamic of peer to peer recommendations. I will first review the impact Web 2.0 social platforms have had on today’s marketing mix, and this impact this has had on brand content and communication. Following this I will outline the convincing points found in literature that has studied emotional contagion in both physical and virtual environments, before concluding with opinion that wine brands can in fact influence emotional contagion among consumer groups on social networks.

Conceptual Background

The rise of social media networks has developed a new dynamic in marketing; applications such as Facebook and Instagram are now considered one of the more prevalent channels through which consumers can engage with brands in a dynamic, ubiquitous and often real-time way (Carvalho and Fernandes, 2018). Social media as defined by Kaplan and Haenlein (2010, p61) can be considered the “group of internet based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and it allows the creation and exchange of user-generated content”.  Social internet applications like Facebook have amplified the user-generated content participation rates amongst consumers as well as encouraged direct communication between brand and customers regardless of their physical location differences. This in turn has seen a lot of wine brands build online communities via their social media networks.

The dual content creation phenomenon of social media networks has changed the dynamic of the brand and consumer relationship and although various studies have reviewed the positive implications of brand communities, there has not been a lot of research done in the field of brand expression; the consideration of how the tone and emotion in which a brand expresses itself may or may not influence the behaviour of its online community.

Recent estimates suggest 1.4 billion people actively use Facebook daily, whilst Instagram has close to 800 million users (Statista, 2018). A consumer survey conducted by the Nielsen Company in 2012 found that approximately 1.2 billion people use the Facebook platform to follow brands with their main motivations being the desire to learn more about the brand or hear of othe people’s experiences with brands (Maecker et al 2016). Therefore, social network communities are now considered part of a brand’s audience commodity, viewed in the same light as those consumers whom read print media or watch television, that said; the distinct differences between the audience commodity on social networks at that of those consuming traditional mass media is the ability for user-generated content, direct brand to consumer personalised communication, community-building, and electronic word of mouth (eWOM) (Murugesan 2010).

The Nielsen Group’s 2012 survey also found that of the 28,000 consumer participants, 92% reported trusting word of mouth from friends and family, whilst 70% reported trusting online consumer reviews (Dijkmans et al 2015). These statistics demonstrate the value consumers put on peer to peer recommendations. It also highlights the fact that the majority of online users are willing to trust the opinion of a stranger that has taken the time to review a service or a brand, meaning their network of potential influencers increase well beyond those whom they personally know or are within their current social networks.

The prior point is critically important for wine brands as wine is a subjective consumer good, that is to say; it is often up to the individual’s taste preferences as to whether or not the product is enjoyable. It is also an experiential based product, closely linked to the experience consumers have when visiting wine regions and tasting the product in the producer’s cellar door. Therefore, once customers have purchased a bottle of wine or visited the cellar door, there is an opportunity to share their consumption experience via reviews, likes, rates and comments in a multitude of online applications including; social networks, retailer website and blogs to name a few. Regardless of the experience expressed, this post-purchase involvement helps others within their community to validate their opinions regarding specific wines. In this regard, social media engagement is acting as a platform to express eWOM and influence peer group opinions (Maecker et al 2016). Peer to peer recommendation is a key purchasing influencer within the wine market, so it is vital for wine brands to understand how online networks influence the dynamic of peer to peer recommendations.

Literature Review

Emotional contagion is a well-established field of study that acknowledges peer to peer emotional states can be transferred to one another, leading people to experience the same emotions as others in their network without their awareness (Kramer et al 2014). “Data from large real-world social networks collected over a 20 year period suggests that longer-lasting moods (e.g. depression and happiness) can be transferred through networks.” (Kramer etc al 2014 p. 1) Some commentators challenge the theory of emotional contagion due to the correlational nature of the study environment. They have concern that contextual variables or failure to account for the participants’ shared experiences, like emotional states after face to face social interactions, are not accurately reflected in the experimental results (Kramer et al 2014). To summarise in simplicity the findings of most studies, evidence suggests that both positive and negative moods correlate in networks that share personal interactions both verbal and non-verbal.

Far fewer studies have investigated emotional contagion via online social networks; however there have been three noteworthy, large sample size experiments conducted in recent years which have found some compelling evidence (Kramer et al 2014). The most noteworthy experiment was done in 2014 by Kramer, Guillory and Hancock, reviewing Facebook, the largest online social network in the world. They wanted to demonstrated the degree to which people (N= 689,003) that were exposed to manipulated emotional vocabularies in their news feed started to change their own posting behaviours, in particular whether exposure to emotional content led to people posting content that was consistent to that which they were exposed to (Kramer et al 2014). The outcomes of the research demonstrated three key findings that affirm the presence of emotional contagion through social networks:

The first significant finding was that emotional contagion does occur via text-based computer facilitated communication. This is significant for brands because it means that text written by marketing teams has the ability to impact emotional contagion, a human being in the flesh is not required for such effect.

The second substantial finding was that psychological and physiological qualities via contagion have been suggested, based on correlational data form social networks. This second finding needs to be considered by content marketeers as the tone and imagery used to create brand content is now demonstrated to have emotional implications for their audience. It also means that regular user generated content could have the ability to influence psychological and physiological change in the posters’ social network.  Also linked to this point and found to be the third critical finding was that; people’s emotional expression via posting online predicts their friend’s emotional expressions, with some of these behaviours still being articulated days later.

An interesting point from the Kramer study for wine brands to consider is that the manipulated news feed content was not directed towards any single individual, therefore, it could not just be the result of some specific interaction with a happy or sad friend but rather a result of the general tone of the samples’ news feed (Kramer et al 2014).

Whilst the results of the Kramer study are very compelling due to the sample size and conclusive findings, other research conducted (Chou & Edge 2012; Haferkamp & Kramer 2011; Saugioglou & Greitemeyer 2014) suggests positive posts by others have negative effects on mood due to envy and the feeling that others have a better life. A study conducted by Dian de Vries et al (2017) focused specifically on Instagram and found that whilst the viewing of strangers’ positive posts did have some degree of negative effect on the participants of the study, there was also a noteworthy link between their reaction to strangers’ posts and that individual’s tendency to participate in social comparison orientation regularly regardless of the environment. The study also found that individuals who do not tend to compare themselves to others had positive emotional responses to viewing strangers’ positive content (de Vries et al 2017). Whilst these results do not provide a definitive answer to the impact of either positive or negative emotional effect, they do support the theory that individuals do adopt emotions expressed by others and support the theory that emotional contagion can occurs through viewing others’ social media posts.

Social media platforms now play a substantial role in the communication channel mix for wine brands. Facebook and Instagram allow wine producers to create content at a fraction of the production cost of traditional media based content, however; the investment of time needed to appropriately interact with consumers is much greater.  These communities require continuous monitoring and engagement to ensure brands meet the expectation of their customers who choose to engage with them in the social media context. Online brand communities have a different dynamic to online friendship communities, although there is little literature available to clearly differentiate the two. De Valck et al (2009 p.185) defines online brand communities as “a specialised, non-geographical bound, online community, based on social communications and relationships among a brand’s consumers.”

Consumer engagement or the degree to which an audience engages with a brand’s content is often central to the discussion surrounding these online brand communities (Brodie et al 2013). These terms refer to a participants’ interactions or interactive experiences with the brand via its’ online communities and are considered to be value creating. As Brodie explains, “consumer engagement is seen both as a strategic imperative for establishing and sustaining a competitive advantage, and as a valuable predictor of future business performance.” (p105) The quality of engagement can also be reviewed by analysis the cognitive and behaviour aspects of consumers. Wine brands can analyse to what extent consumers are aware of, interested in and participate in particular brands’ activities. Within the virtual brand community environment, consumers’ become active participants in an interactive process of multiple feedback loops as well as provide almost immediate communication directly to the brand owner or amongst their other online networks (Roderick et al 2013). A study completed in 2015 by Dijkmans, Beukeboom and Kerkhof found “that engagement in company’s social media activities positively related to corporate reputation, especially among non-consumers.” (p64) Significantly, it was found that some of this reputation building was the result of emotional contagion. A survey conducted by Insites Consulting in 2012 found that 55% of participants were connected to brands via their social networks with the majority of eWOM content being positive commentary and less than 10% negative (InSites Consulting 2012). Insites Consulting also found that 8/10 consumers that were driven to interact with a particular brand did so as they wanted to co-create with the company they admired. Brodie et al (2013) also found this to be a key consumer motivator along with 7 other specific situations that motivate consumers to make contributions: (1) venting negative feelings, (2) concern for other consumers, (3) self-enhancement, (4) advice seeking, (5) social benefits, (6) economic benefits (cost saving), (7) platform assistance (8) helping the company (making co-contribution to better the offering). Gwinner et al 2004 also found similar motivators, stating that:

“our review of the literature has led us to suggest 11 distinct motivations consumers may have in engaging in eWOM communication on Web-based opinion platforms: concerns for other consumers, desire to help the company, social benefits received, exertion of power over companies, post purchase advice seeking, self-enhancement, economic rewards, convenience, seeking redress, hope that the platform operator will serve as a moderator, expression of positive emotion, and venting of negative feelings.” (p 44)

Often content posted by a brand will have a positive tone of voice and encourage a positive consumer response. In contrast to this, often content that is initially posted by consumers can be negatively directed towards a brand due a bad customer experience. In the Dijkmans et al 2015 study the results indicated that the net effect is actually positive regardless of the initial emotion if the company responds to the consumer’s complaint via the social network. Dijkmans work found that prompt customer service responses that solved problems, regardless of the initial complaint, helped to strengthen the perception of the brand more so than no activity at all. This result correlates with other studies (Van Noort and Willemsen 2011) that also found responding to customer complaints on social media help other potential customer evaluate the brands’ credibility.

Literature Findings

The literature read unanimously concludes that emotional contagion via virtual social communities does exist, yet the influence of these emotions (either positive or negative) is still a topic of much debate. Despite this, wine brands should be vigilant towards online networks as content relating to their brand will be posted regardless of the brand’s online presence; and whilst the content may or may not have positive intent, there is a window of opportunity for a wine brand to engage with the customers and influence the tone of voice that is present within the online community.

Customer service management is paramount when it comes to building positive emotion behind a brand as regardless of the brands’ page interactions or the ability to proactively resolve questions and concerns, the fact customers have chosen to engage in “real” dialogue with the brand helps to lower the customers inhibition threshold to contact the company via other channels, strengthening the engagement opportunity outside of the virtual realm (Maecker et al 2016). In addition to this, the post purchase behaviour of consumers online helps other potential customers to validate their opinions  (Maecker et al 2016) in this regard, social media interactions become a great tool for improving a wine brands’ reputation via word of mouth, which prospective customers receive product information from trusted sources in their social network.

It is evident that building dual content via online networks should be encouraged by marketing teams in order to achieve greater consumer engagement. Achieving high levels of consumer engagement is desirable for wine brands as it enhances the brand’s reputation, increases customer loyalty and influences future purchase decisions of current customers and potential customers (Dijkmans et al 2015).

The literature indicates that the time invested in social media interaction amongst online brand communities does indeed strengthen a brand’s credibility, reduces the risk of churn, builds reputation amongst potential customers and in turn, generates more profitable consumer relationships. It also indicates that there is opportunity for wine brands to influence emotional contagion amongst consumer groups on Facebook, but the literature and research to date does not support this for Instagram. The effect of emotional contagion on the Instagram platform requires additional research before brands can make truly informed decisions around investment of marketing resources.

 

References

Brodie, Roderick J., Llic, Ana., Juric, Biljana., & Hollebeek Linda. (2013) Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: an exploratory analysis, Journal of Business Research 66, 105 – 114.

Carvalho, Ameliz. & Fernandes, Teresa. (2018) Understanding customer brand engagement with virtual social communities: a comprehensive model of drivers, outcomes and moderators, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 26: 1-2, 23-37.

Chou, H. & Edge, N. (2012) They are happier and having better lives than I am: the impact of using Facebook on perceptions of others’ lives, Journal of Cyber-psychology, Behaviour, and Social Networking, 15, 117-121.

De Vries, D.,  Möller, A., Wieringa, M., Eigenraam, A. & Hamelink, K. (2018) Social Comparison as the theft of joy: emotion consequences of viewing strangers’ instagram posts,  Media Psychology, 21:2, 222-245.

Dijkman, C., Beukeboom, C, & Kerkhof, P.  (2015) A stage to engage: social media use and corporate reputation, Tourism Management 47, 58-67.

Haferkamp, N. & Kràmer, N. (2011) Social comparison 2.0: examining the effects of online profiles on social networking sites, Journal of Cyber-psychology, Behaviour, and Social Networking 14, 309-314.

Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, P., Walsh, G. & Gremler, D.  (2004) Electronic-word-of-mouth via consumer opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the internet? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18, 38-52.

InSites Consulting (2012) Social media around the world, retrieved from  https://www.slideshare.net/InSitesConsulting/social-media-around-the-world-2012-by-insites-consulting/17-Clear_expectations_fromconsumers_visvis_brands1

Kaplan, A. & Haenlein, M. (2010) Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media, Business Horizons, 53 (10), 59-68.

Kramer, A., Guillory, J. and Hancock, J.  (2014) Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks, Journal of Psychological and Cognitive Sciences, 111 (24): 8788-8790.

Maecker, O.,  Barrot, C. & Becker, J. (2016) The effect of social media interactions on customer relationship management, Journal of Business Research 9: 133-155.

Murugesan, S. (2010) Handbook of research on web 2.0, 3.0 and X.0 technologies, business and social applications, Multimedia University, Malaysia & University of Western Sydney, Australia.

Noort, G. and Willemsen, L. (2011) Online damage control: the effects of proactive versus reactive web care interventions in consumer-generated and brand-generated platforms, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 1-10.

Sagioglou, C. and Greitemeyer, T. (2014) Facebook’s emotional consequences: why Facebook causes a decrease in mood and why people still use it, Journal of Computers in Human Behaviour, 35, 359-363.

Valck, D.,  Bruggen, V., and Wierenga, B.  (2009) Virtual communities: a marketing perspective. Decision Support Systems 47, 185 – 203.

Statista (2017) Number of daily active Facebook users worldwide as of 4th quarter 2017, retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/346167/facebook-global-dau/

Virtual Gaming Communities: In the Realms of the Everlasting Alliances

Abstract

In the past decades, online gaming has instilled itself in a prime spot in the entertainment industry. With millions of gamers all around the world, the focus is on the numerous online gaming communities growing exponentially and the social capital they bring along. This study aims to deconstruct the online gaming experience by using First-Person Shooter games (FPSGs) and Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing games (MMORPGs). These two distinct gameplays have huge fan followings and the online game spaces have allowed interactive and long-lasting bonds amongst the players. Further research is done to understand the online gaming communities as “third places”, how virtual identities have a positive impact on one’s sense of self and also how virtual communities promote social engagement by blurring geographical, physical, religious, ethnical, cultural, and temporal boundaries amongst others. There is no denying that online gaming has brought about a revolutionary means of developing virtual communities and promoting digital identities and these communities are here to stay.

 

Virtual Gaming Communities: In the Realms of the Everlasting Alliances (Click for PDF)

  

New media including the Internet and video games have become one of the topics widely discussed and researched, in the past decades, by scholars and academics. Online gaming platforms have provided alternate spaces for communication, cooperation, social interaction and forming relationships which overcome mere physical and cultural boundaries. Some of the underlying studies have focused on the accumulation of social capital derived from online gaming and the communities formed within the realm of gamers. A fascinating side of the digital gaming culture, namely, the motivation of the gamers to stay loyal or committed to certain guilds (Hsiao & Chiou, 2012, p. 75) – online gaming communities – is also looked at to better understand social gaming experiences.  This paper digs deeper into the theories put forward by previous research on how online gaming communities are presently referred to as “third places” (Steinkuehler & Williams, 2006, p. 889) that aim to promote connectivity, social engagement, collaboration and integration whilst influencing the concept of identity on a personal level, and in terms of group identity. These types of mediated communication and communities have increased the social capital among gamers without disrupting society or alienating non-gamers.

Based on Baudrillard’s frame of work (1995, p. 6) and with the backing of Frostling-Henningsson (2009, p. 557), it is reiterated that virtual communities, part of the computer-generated virtual worlds, are but extensions to reality itself: hyperrealities. The paper will firstly focus on deconstructing First-Person Shooter games (FPSGs) and Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing games (MMORPGs) in order to showcase how online gaming has instilled meaningful communication and long-lasting virtual communities without catering for prejudices, stereotypes and discriminations. Next, the various motivational factors which attract gamers and keep them coming back for more will be looked at while underlining “the relationship between the psychological needs of the user and the social gaming situations provided by the virtual environment…” (Di Loreto & Gouaïch, 2010, p. 1). Thirdly, this exposé will address the perception of self and others as virtual identities through the online gaming communities. Needless to say, that the social capital gained through playing online games and integrating gaming communities allows for a growth in a player’s network and develops a sense of loyalty amongst gamers. Online communities have persevered throughout temporal and spacial dimensions given their intangible and unrestrictive characteristics. Digital gaming platforms have but reinforced and strengthened the lifespan of these virtual communities whilst enabling gamers to identify themselves freely and assert their virtual self with conviction.

 

Digital Gameplay Experiences

Understanding FPSGs and MMORPGs

As mentioned at the beginning, “the desire to play is triggered by the interaction between personal and environmental factors” (Di Loreto & Gouaïch, 2010, p. 1); in this case, FPSGs and MMORPGs are the environment and more specifically, Call of Duty and World of Warcraft respectively. The online gaming platforms mentioned are two of the most popular games in the world and ranked amongst the best in their respective genre. Millions of players log in daily and as pointed out by Koivisto (2003, para 5), the interaction between players is the turning point that impacts on the gaming experience of the gamer. This interaction can be both verbal and non-verbal communication, without exiting the realm of the gameplay; some of FPSGs’ and MMORPGs’ non-verbal communication would include character’s clothing and accessories, the actions undertaken, the in-game guilds chosen, and the way players’ chosen characters move in a given scene. On the other hand, the online aspect of gaming allows for an optimum use of technology and the Internet in terms of verbal communication. The latter can be either synchronous or asynchronous and one-to-one or one-to-many communications.  Gamers constantly maintain contact and follow each other’s progress in the game through private messages, group chats, in-game chats and conversations, system broadcasts, discussion forums.  

World of Warcraft is a MMORPG taking place on a fictional and fantasy world called Azeroth whereby the Alliance (heroes) and the Horde (villains) are fighting the ultimate battle. The appealing features of World of Warcraft include attractive graphics and audio, action sequences, narratives, and character customisations – such as name, gender, race, class, faction, and so on. World of Warcraft’s storyline highlights how “players create an avatar that evolves and interacts with other avatars in a persistent virtual world” (Billieux et al., 2013, p. 1). World of Warcraft can be played in three different dimensions, namely, “player versus player (PvP), player versus environment (PvE), and role-playing (RP)” (Williams et al., 2006, p. 342).  Role-playing allows gamers to follow their chosen and customised characters, alongside other members of the same guild, throughout quests and adventures as they defeat enemies, acquire new skills and gain new levels. Williams et al. (2006, p. 340) explains how World of Warcraft is equivalent to “a vibrant third place”, housing and inspiring social bonds no matter how impersonal or meaningful they can become. The in-game experience amounts to life-like experiences that allow for “social interaction and relationships” (Steinkuehler & Williams, 2006, p. 889).

Moving on to the example illustrating FPSGs, Call of Duty, this game franchise allow players to live through a series of missions and challenges by enacting a character. And as the genre of the game suggests it, the main objective of the chosen character is to shoot other characters. Frostling-Henningsson (2009, p. 557) explains how the virtual world of Call of Duty transports the gamers to a fantasy world which aims to make “the impossible possible”, that is shoot and kill people. FSPGs offer a more intensive gameplay as gamers could play synchronously in cyberspace. Shooters usually play in teams or groups of the same online community (guild) competing against each other. The game design and the narrative of the FSPGs are constructed far from the reality and its occurrences; a motivating point for gamers to take out their frustration (unleash their wrath) in the virtual world whilst knowing that such behaviour is condemned in real life. From Frostling-Henningsson’s (2009, p. 562) point of view, playing FSPGs “can be interpreted as a way of connecting to people, connecting as ‘brothers in blood’”.

Online Gaming Communities: An Insight

With millions of gamers around the world, the focus is on the numerous online gaming communities growing exponentially and the social capital they bring along. In retrospective, it is very clear that “online gaming was first and foremost about communication” (Frostling-Henningsson, 2009, 558) and the Internet greatly facilitated this worldwide connectivity. The two distinct online games mentioned above have huge fan followings with online game spaces which have allowed interactive and long-lasting bonds amongst players. Online communities create bridges to overcome physical distance and time disparities for gamers to mingle, share and interact with each other. This continuous increase in social engagement is the foundation of strong and long-lasting online gaming communities. Trepte et al. (2012, p. 832) highlight the fact that socialising is the strongest pull for gamers to start engaging in a particular online game. Following the same line of thought, online gaming communities regroup players in in-game guilds and teams; and studies show that “social online gaming could accordingly strengthen existing friendship ties and create new ones by providing a shared focus of activity” (Domahidi et al., 2014, p. 109). Meng et al. (2015, p. 19) address the “multimodal connectedness” that exists amongst players given the numerous communication channels available to them via the gaming platforms. The study about “multimodal connectedness” brings forth the use of various in-game communication channels to increase trust amongst gamers and therein encourage community-building.

In-Game Friendships

When it comes to socialising on online gaming platforms, Kowert and Oldmeadow (2015, p. 556) point out that gamers acquire “a sense of closeness, belonging, and security” from the attachments from other members in the online communities. The popularity and accessibility of online video games have been associated to the increase of a player’s social circle. Engaging in social gaming undeniably facilitates interactions between a player and his entourage that gradually lead to friendships. As explained by Kowert et al. (2014, p. 385), gaming community members are not just online acquaintances, the relationships are meaningful and as real as ever:

“One’s co-players are often more than just individuals who help achieve in-game instrumental goals. Co-players often become close, trusted friends and valued sources of online advice”.

Furthermore, Trepte et al. (2012, p. 838) reveal how online gaming proves to be “a valuable social resource” that offers potential for offline friendships from the social capital gained by gamers online. Another important aspect of forming attachments, specifically friendships in gaming communities, is how “socially phobic players may employ online games to satisfy social relational needs while avoiding stress experienced in offline social environments” (Sioni et al., 2017, 12). This clearly depicts the positive impacts that online gaming communities have on players and their self-perception. As friendships and bonds are formed in the digital world, people grow closer emotionally and allow for the perseverance of online social support.
Social Virtual Identities

Digital self-production is the primary asset for someone to belong in an online community. In order to be properly represented and recognised online, a player ought to build an image of himself or herself through their characters in a game and the roles they carry out, which is referred to as an avatar. In some cases, this simulated version of a gamer becomes as real as life itself. MMORPGs give players the chance to overcome any sort of boundaries, socially and culturally, and also enhance their self-esteem (Sioni et al, 2017, p. 11). Developing a virtual identity is subjective yet gamers also have a group identity when they form part of a particular community. Fraser et al. (2014, p. 523) similarly advocates that “an individual’s differentiation and integration within a group structure shape the individual’s identity development as it relates to and influences their group identity”.

In some instances though, worried parents, teachers, and the media amongst others have brought up a lot of concerning issues about whether or not online gaming could be addictive and harmful when it came to young adults and teenagers. The media primarily associated the violence in games to teenagers’ aggressivity and unwillingness to follow societal rules. The information gathered from the study about Internet gaming disorder carried out by King et al. (2016, p. 493) explain that understanding the profound gaming behaviour and how withdrawal symptoms from online gaming could be summed to the simple fact that the players would feel bored, miss their online friends and even lack mental stimulation. No serious case of addiction to gaming has been reported and researchers still find themselves uncertain to characterise online gaming using addiction or violence concepts. On the opposite hand, some studies mention how “virtual worlds hold great potential for the psychological growth of its users” (Kowert & Oldmeadow, 2015, p. 557).

The above argument all but reaffirms the notion that social virtual identities are growing exponentially and they undeniably hold quite an importance in online communities. Williams et al. (2006, p. 358) demonstrate in their research the lengths gamers, specifically in MMORPGs, would go to maintain their virtual identities, acknowledge the other online personas around them in the digital world and thus creating the adequate platform for emotional and social support. The latter further show how online gaming communities empower gamers to construct their own identity virtually and reap the benefits in terms of “psychological growth” (Kowert & Oldmeadow, 2015, p. 557). The online communities also bring forth Belk’s (2013, p. 477) concept of “extended self”; whereby gamers are presented with an opportunity to re-invent or embody a virtual identity. Individuals hold their online avatars vigorously close to their hearts. In the case of MMORPGs, “the player is the character. You’re not role-playing a being, you are that being; you are not assuming an identity, you are that identity; you are not protecting a self, you are that self” (Bartle, 2004, p. 155). Gamers get so immersed in their virtual identities that everything in the digital world becomes as real as reality itself be it the gameplay or the relationships and the communities they belong to therein, the assertion of a group identity.

Conclusion and Discussion

In this study, a deeper analysis of the function and dynamics of online gaming communities has been carried out. It is crucial to point out the qualifying features of these virtual environments: first and foremost, online communities ease interaction and communication without any time or space constraints and secondly, they give members a sense of belonging that transcends any social awkwardness or any phobias gamers undergo in real life on a daily basis. Steinkuelher and Williams (2006, p. 903) note that online communities’ “relationships can broaden social horizons or world-views, providing access to information and new resources”. Additionally, there has been numerous research conducted on how online gaming and the virtual identity have positively impacted on a gamer’s personal opinion of himself (Sioni et al., 2017, p. 15). Player-to-player interactions have encouraged collaboration, participation, teamwork and even friendships in both FPSGs and MMORPGs; this clearly shows that the social aspect of online gaming platforms and online communities motivates gamers while allowing a continuance to the gameplay. Personalised avatars and screen names are the stepping stones into the aesthetically pleasing virtual world that is online gaming. A player’s expertise increases accordingly with his time spent in the game and on the online communities. The learning curve for a gamer happens alongside other players and no one is left out. Gaming communities provide both online and offline support as research has shown. A recurring point in several studies is that newbies start playing an online game – whether out of curiosity or boredom or on someone’s recommendations – but ultimately stick around on the virtual platforms because of the interactive guilds and gaming communities. There is no denying that online gaming has brought about a revolutionary means of creating and maintaining virtual communities along with long-lasting ties amongst gamers; and these communities are here to stay.

Virtual Gaming Communities: In the Realms of the Everlasting Alliances – Click for PDF

 

References

 

Bartle, R.A. (2004). Designing Virtual Worlds. Berkeley, CA: New Riders. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/JLKgTK

Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and Simulation. Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Press. Retrieved from  https://goo.gl/GffKh9

Belk, R.W. (2013). Extended Self in a Digital World. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 477-500. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/671052

Billieux, J., Van der Linden, M., Achab, S., Khazaal, Y., Paraskevopoulos, L., Zullino, D., & Thorens, G. (2013). Why do you play World of Warcraft? An in-depth exploration of self-reported motivations to play online and in-game behaviours in the virtual world of Azeroth. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 103-109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.07.021

Di Loreto, I. & Gouaïch, A. (2010). Social Casual Games Success is not so Casual. Research Report #RR – 10017, 1-11. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/fj6WgK

Domahidi, E., Festl, R., & Quandt, T. (2014). To dwell among gamers : Investigating the relationship between social online game use and gaming-related friendships. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 107-115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.023

Fraser,J., Shane-Simpson, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2014). Youth science identity, science learning, and gaming experiences. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 523-532. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.048

Frostling-Henningsson, M. (2009). First Person Shooter Games as a Way of Connecting to People: “Brothers in Blood”. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12, 557-562. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2008.0345

Hsiao, C.C., & Chio, J.S. (2012). The effects of a player’s network centrality on resource accessibility, game enjoyment, and continuance intention: A study on online gaming communities. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 11, 75-84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2011.10.001

King, D.L., Kaptsis, D., Delfabbro, P.H., & Gradisar, M. (2016). Craving for internet games? Withdrawal symptoms from an 84-h abstinence from Massively Multiplayer Online gaming. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 488-494. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.020

Koivisto, E. (2003). Supporting Communities in Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games by Game Design. Paper presented at the Digital Games Research Association Conference. Retrieved from http://www.digra.org/dl/db/05150.48442.pdf

Kowert, R., Domahidi, E., Festl, R., & Quandt, T. (2014). Social gaming, lonely life? The impact of digital gameplay on adolescents’ social circles. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 385-390. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.003

Kowert, R., & Oldmeadow, J.A. (2015). Playing for social comfort: Online video game play as a social accommodator for the insecurely attached. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 556-566. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.004

Meng, J., Williams, D., & Shen, C. (2015). Channels matter: Multimodal connectedness, types of co-players and social capital for Multiplayer Online Battle Arena gamers. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 190-199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.007

Sioni, S.R., Burleson, M.H., & Bekerian, D.A. (2017). Internet gaming disorder: Social phobia and identifying with your virtual self. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 11-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.044

Steinkuehler, C. & Williams, D. (2006). Where Everybody Knows Your (Screen) Name: Online Games as “Third Places”. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 11, 885-909. http:// dx.doi.org /10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00300.x

Trepte, S., Reinecke, L. & Juechems, K. (2012). The social side of gaming: How playing online computer games creates online and offline social support. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 832-839. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.12.003

Williams, D., Ducheneaut, N., Zhang, L., Yee, N., & Nickell, E. (2006). From Tree House to Barracks: The Social Life of Guilds in World of Warcraft. Games & Culture, 1, 338-361. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1555412006292616

 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Facebook is ruining our real identity

Abstract

This paper explores several articles that report on result from research conducted on how Facebook is ruining our real identity. The articles show how Facebook is ruining our identity in different forms. The article of Mehdizadeh (2010) demonstrates how the target for some now in their use of Facebook ends up being the way by which they can curry affirmation, status, being celebrated and, by development, certainty through their profiles and postings. This paper examines Jabee and Afshar (2016) to suggest that there were more than 148,000 setbacks of personality burglaries in the UK in 2015, differentiated and ideal around 94,500 of each 2014. Facebook has made individuals lose a few fellowships and overlook how to collaborate with others up close and personal. It can be argued that Facebook has been ruining our real identity by changing people’s self-esteem as it makes them to think what people are thinking about them. Facebook user’s identities are in danger as their personal information are being stolen by hackers which is causing lots of problems nowadays.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Facebook is ruining our real identity

INTRODUCTION

Social media site is a famous type of communicating with companions around the bend and around the world. It has turned out to be one of the best types of communications even over the mobile phones. Like innovation, our species has adjusted to fit present day times. Through these adjustments, we have started to impart through our recently created innovation by methods for online networking. In the present society, we are encompassed by social media sites, for example, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and different sites that can customarily devour our lives. The world is closer and more associated due in no little part to social media sites, and loved ones a huge number of miles away are yet a tick away. Anybody with an email account and an Internet connection can transform Facebook into a soapbox and this social media platform has featured worldwide governmental issues and made nearby groups more tightly. With around 350 million dynamic users, Facebook is a standout amongst the most famous networking site ever (Valenzuela, Correa & Gil de Zúñiga, 2017). While it might have advantages, for example, interfacing one with companions, it might likewise have exceptionally negative impacts that could be irreversible. At a speedy look, Facebook might be seen as a captivating and pleasant site, yet the addictions that occasionally emerge from abuse connect to lethal impacts. In this conference paper, it will be shown how Facebook has been ruining our real identity as it brings the world together. People’s real identities are in danger in this virtual world as their self-esteem are being destroy by making them think what people believe or talk about them and also their identity are being stolen by other people for dangerous activities. Also Facebook is detaching users from their digital persona is another way of how their real identities are being affected.

  1. FACEBOOK IS DESTROYING SELF-ESTEEM

Social media sites are not simply taking your information and spreading false news, in the present day online networking is making us paranoid, envious and harder to interface with. Facebook was at first set up to have just a single sort of “companion,” so every individual you acknowledged as a companion would see the greater part of your posts. For the last number of years, the site has been extending its alternatives for arranging by “close friends,” “colleagues,” and different groups, for example, those in light of region or school friends, so users can shape their news feeds and make focused on postings (Gonzales & Hancock, 2011). Some new social issues have risen because of these merged groups of friends. Would it be advisable for a Facebook user to tag his companion “JONH” in a photograph he posted on Facebook in the event that he realize that his companion Ben disdains her? In the event that he doesn’t tag her, will she be affronted? Regardless of whether he don’t post an update, does he has to request that John not tag him in one of her updates since he is worried about Ben’s conceivable response? All these types of questions keep copping up on a Facebook user’s mind. Also Facebook has made us move far from communicating our self-identities and toward developing facades in view of the responses to these questions, “By what means will others take a look at me?” and “How might I guarantee that others see me positively?” The objective for some now in their utilization of Facebook turns out to be the manner by which they can curry acknowledgment, status, being famous and, by expansion, confidence through their profiles and postings (Mehdizadeh, 2010). Mindfulness and self-expression offer approach to impression administration and self-advancement.

The cruel truth is that the majority of us are simply searching for validation. We simply need a group of individuals to “like” our post. It influences us to feel imperative. It influences us to feel well known. You cherish hearing that a notification come in. You cherish standing out enough to be noticed. You cherish the sentiment endorsement that accompanies every single “like” your new post receives. The issue is that Facebook enables you to “enjoy” this intuition without any difficulty. And after that you get dependent. You “require” to feel this validation now and again to like yourself… You start to depend on “likes” keeping in mind the end goal to be sure (Kariou, Antoniou, Bebetsos & Athanasios, 2016). When you’re exhausted, or anxious, checking your telephone gives you a comment. However, in the event that you’re always perusing through photographs, sending messages, or contemplating what to post straightaway, you can never really be locked in with what you’re doing. Your brain will dependably be wandering. You’ll never have the capacity to hang out with companions, watch a film, or go out on the town without worrying about checking your telephone. And this will keep you from being a sure, grounded man (Andreassen, Pallesen & Griffiths, 2017). Confidence comes when you connect with completely with what you’re doing and act without considering or second-speculating yourself. Be that as it may, in case you’re dependent via Facebook, at that point it will be about difficult to accomplish a completely certain, current situation with mind. You will dependably have that “desire” to see the most recent updates.

  1. FACEBOOK IS RUINING OUR IDENTITY BY GIVING RISE IN IDENTIFY THEFTS

Hackers are progressively utilizing social networking sites, for example, Facebook for prompting enormous ascent in identity fraud. The quantity of casualties of data fraud ascended by 57 computers a year ago, Cifas, the fraud prevention service, said. There were in excess of 148,000 casualties in the UK in 2015, contrasted and right around 94,500 of every 2014 (Jabee & Afshar, 2016). Fraudsters frequently trawl online networking destinations to discover individual data, for example, your name, date of birth, address and name of your bank. They will accumulate the data in various ways, including hacking if an organization that holds data about you doesn’t ensure its information appropriately. They will likewise utilize web-based social networking to “put the bits of somebody’s character together”. With the expanded worldwide utilization of social networking sites, there are more open doors than any other time in recent memory to take characters or execute misrepresentation on the web. For instance, information posted on Facebook and numerous other online networking destinations can be utilized by offenders. On the off chance that you post that you’re away in the midst of a vacation, you’ve opened yourself up for theft. On the off chance that you specify that you’re away on business for an end of the week, you may leave your family open to attack or burglary. With regards to stalking or taking a personality, utilization of photograph and video-sharing sites like Flickr and YouTube give further bits of knowledge into you, your family and companions, your home, most loved side interests and interests (Nosko, Wood & Molema, 2010). Regardless of whether you delete your Facebook account and cut yourself off from online networking sites, there’s likely sufficiently still data about you out there to help the hackers get to your budgetary life. Free games and quizzes appear like fun, however ordinarily their motivation is to steal data about you and your companions. Identity tests on Facebook. Numerous are set up by character criminals to get individual data about you.

After some time, Facebook affects singular prosperity, rising awful emotions on an opportunity to-time premise and reduction fulfilment of life. One of the primary reasons is fake identity. A report has stated that around 83 million profiles from various one billion were not genuine profiles (Demange, 2010). It is to be featured that a person’s actual personality is the thing that separates and recognize one’s self on the planet. It is molded through the impacts of religion, culture, encounters and individuals in a single’s life However, Facebook has to a great degree empowered fake personality, which are thus reassuring the digital dangers and ruining genuine characters of individuals. Digital threats are e-borne acts; they can possibly influence a computer or system frameworks or even their information or honesty. One of the fundamental illustrations that will be considered as for the exchange of fake character and digital dangers is digital stalking. Digital stalking might be thought to be where one can steal the client’s personality by distributing purposeful publicity about the client as far as photographs or content to pornhubs. One case is a “requital porn stalker” who utilized private photographs which was saved money on a memory card making a phony profile of his ex and transferred “unequivocal” photographs of her. This prompted the ex’s endeavour to suicide. The fake introduction in this manner demonstrates a fake character overshadowed the genuine personality in the above case through Facebook (Wu, Chou, Tseng, Lee & Chen, 2017). Hereby, it can be expressed that genuine character has been dissolved with the nearness of individuals who claims to be the client on acclaimed SNS among which Facebook is one.

  1. FACEBOOK IS DETACHING US FROM DIGITAL PERSONA

Facebook won’t be a positive impact in a person’s life in the event that it is being utilized as a genuine expansion of their real identity. It is a personality that is as of now delicate to genuine ecological powers and mental hindrances and can be entertaining. Facebook can be fine, on the off chance that users treat it like what it is at its centre and nothing more. It isn’t worked for depth, riveting exchange and common talk. It is particularly not worked for significant social personality. This social media tool is worked to share goodies of data, pictures and memes. It is for keeping free tabs on individuals we don’t generally have room schedule-wise to become more acquainted with on a more profound level. Getting it done Facebook is a façade where we consent to not consider excessively important, in light of the fact that we comprehend our real life identity runs considerably more profound than a photo and two or three updates (Hevern, 2011).  Facebook is enticing people to assemble ‘mediated associations’ with screens, gadgets, the cloud and soon, by means of expanded and virtual reality, as opposed to with genuine individuals that are directly before our noses. Facebook has astutely changed real human fellowship with a relatively dark mirror type simulation that is a sort of virtual reality that sustains off the human requirement for positive confirmation. Facebook has moved toward becoming precisely the inverse of social since there is literally nothing social around an algorithmic meta-brain whose exclusive concern is to get inside our heads and control our reasoning with the goal that it and its promoters can pitch more stuff to us.

In a national study directed from 2010 – 2015, young people by and large spend over 7.5 hours utilizing Facebook a day (Tsay-Vogel, Shanahan & Signorielli, 2016). With various types of media having a powerful impact in a youths’ life, their apparent social standards are genuinely affected. Teenagers are impacted by the content they are uncovered, concerning their insight about the world, their states of mind and values, and their conduct. The attention to Visual ID is posted all over online networking sites and is spread all around magazines and television programs, in the wake of taking a gander at a few numbers. Researchers have discovered that up to 73% of young lady’s utilization social networking sites and I do feel that there are a great deal of risks in the wake of taking a gander at these insights and how simple it is for youngsters to get to this data and the simplicity high school girls need to mirror their role models (Oberst, Wegmann, Stodt, Brand & Chamarro, 2017). Many individuals endeavour to make another self through social networking sites. With applications like Facebook, individuals attempt to make a veneer of themselves. They do things they wouldn’t do in reality, another identity is framed to seem as though somebody extraordinary. You at that point lose your trust of individuals on the web; however for a man whose lost, online networking can be an outlet to let everything go namelessly. There are individuals who can state whatever they need to the world without feeling excessively condemned. A few people utilize this unknown energy to assault other individuals (Arteaga Sánchez, Cortijo & Javed, 2014). For the general population who utilize it as a type of articulation, it enables them to have the security of demonstrating their interests without the inclination that they will be oppressed.

CONCLUSION

To conclude, Facebook has caused people to lose some friendships and forget how to interact with others face-to-face. It can be argued that Facebook has been ruining our real identity by changing people’s self-esteem as it makes them to think what people are thinking about them. Also Facebook hacks is leading to rise in identity thefts and Facebook is detaching us from digital persona. This has prompted individuals overlooking meaningful gestures and getting to be unbalanced. That as well as thought that it was harder to make companions in view of Facebook. There might be some good parts of Facebook and other online networking sites yet the good is exceeded by the bad. There are an excessive number of negative things that originate from the use and introduction to Facebook or any online networking site. Every good thing accompany a cost and the cost of Facebook is too huge for all the terrible things that accompany it.

Reference list:

Andreassen, C., Pallesen, S., & Griffiths, M. (2017). The relationship between addictive use of social media, narcissism, and self-esteem: Findings from a large national survey. Addictive Behaviors, 64, 287-293. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.03.006

Arteaga Sánchez, R., Cortijo, V., & Javed, U. (2014). Students’ perceptions of Facebook for academic purposes. Computers & Education, 70, 138-149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.08.012

Demange, G. (2010). Sharing information in Web communities. Games And Economic Behavior, 68(2), 580-601. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2009.08.006

Gonzales, A., & Hancock, J. (2011). Mirror, Mirror on my Facebook Wall: Effects of Exposure to Facebook on Self-Esteem. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, And Social Networking, 14(1-2), 79-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2009.0411

Hevern, V. (2011). The self on Facebook and deceptive identity. Psyccritiques, 56(45). http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025934

Jabee, R., & Afshar, M. (2016). Issues and Challenges of Cyber Security for Social Networking Sites (Facebook). International Journal Of Computer Applications, 144(3), 36-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.5120/ijca2016910174

Kariou, A., Antoniou, P., Bebetsos, E., & Athanasios, K. (2016). Teen Athletes: Facebook, Self Esteem and Self Perception. International Journal Of Social Science And Humanity, 6(2), 94-97. http://dx.doi.org/10.7763/ijssh.2016.v6.625

Mehdizadeh, S. (2010). Self-Presentation 2.0: Narcissism and Self-Esteem on Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, And Social Networking, 100722182519069. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2009.0257

Nosko, A., Wood, E., & Molema, S. (2010). All about me: Disclosure in online social networking profiles: The case of FACEBOOK. Computers In Human Behavior, 26(3), 406-418. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.012

Oberst, U., Wegmann, E., Stodt, B., Brand, M., & Chamarro, A. (2017). Negative consequences from heavy social networking in adolescents: The mediating role of fear of missing out. Journal Of Adolescence, 55, 51-60. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.12.008

Tsay-Vogel, M., Shanahan, J., & Signorielli, N. (2016). Social media cultivating perceptions of privacy: A 5-year analysis of privacy attitudes and self-disclosure behaviors among Facebook users. New Media & Society, 20(1), 141-161. doi: 10.1177/1461444816660731

Valenzuela, S., Correa, T., & Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2017). Ties, Likes, and Tweets: Using Strong and Weak Ties to Explain Differences in Protest Participation Across Facebook and Twitter Use. Political Communication, 35(1), 117-134. doi: 10.1080/10584609.2017.1334726

Wu, S., Chou, M., Tseng, C., Lee, Y., & Chen, K. (2017). Detecting In Situ Identity Fraud on Social Network Services: A Case Study With Facebook. IEEE Systems Journal, 11(4), 2432-2443. doi: 10.1109/jsyst.2015.2504102