Month: May 2018

Privacy and Censorship in Chinese Web Communities

Abstract

            This paper explores the privacy and censorship issues among web communities in China. This paper looks at the different social media platforms banned in China such as Facebook, Twitter and Google and their Chinese controlled replacements including WeChat and Weibo. This paper will introduce the reasons for the Chinese government to invade the privacy of its people and understand explore whether such restrictions will continue to be accepted by its citizens or whether such strategies would backfire on the very essence that the concept was developed around.

Keywords: privacy, China, surveillance, censorship, freedom

The emergence of new smart and intelligence technologies has changed the dynamics of global commercial competitiveness and also provided enterprises with real-time outcomes. On the other end of the pendulum, the use of the internet for social communication has experienced a trending away from traditional internet censorship towards a next generation of censorship and surveillance undertaken by Governmental regimes. This is due to social media being perceived as portraying political insensitiveness and the extreme censorship and surveillance by government authorities have chipped significantly away at the fragility of human freedom for a voice to the right of speech. Perhaps, this paper would examine the democratic viewpoint of whether media scrutiny is of social benefit or a fallacy for political demarcation.

The Cost of the Internet

            Previously, it was a laborious effort to plod through countless physical files and books. Today, our access to any type of data is instantaneous because of technological advances, involving computers and the Internet.

However, trying to maintain privacy on the Internet has become increasingly challenging because an individual may be tracked online by creating digital footprints whenever we use our emails, web browsers, search engines and social media sites.          How can our details be protected so that our lives are not manipulated for the entertainment or benefit of others? Recently, Cambridge Analytica used personal information taken without authorisation from Facebook’s profiles of US voters and harvested the data towards a political outcome. 

To what lengths have we handed over our privacy?

In the event that existing database is hacked or on sold, the privacy of the Internet user is lost. Although there are many ways to minimise intrusion into our electronic space, once we have dipped our toe into the Internet pond, can our privacy be truly guaranteed?

Contrary to what the public believes, not all those concerned with security and privacy are hackers or terrorists. Some governments have taken the surveillance of Internet usage to an extreme and China is racing towards a pervasive system of algorithmic surveillance. (Mitchell & Diamond, 2018). The Chinese government tracks and monitors their citizens online with a surveillance system called Golden Shield, allowing easy access to local, national, and regional records on each citizen. (Mitchell & Diamond, 2018) So far, this ambitious project is confined to a content-filtering Great Firewall. Examples of foreign internet sites which have been caught up in this Firewall and prohibited from the Chinese cyberspace are Google, Facebook, and The New York Times. For example, Facebook was blocked in China following the 2009 Ürümqi riots because Xinjiang independence activists were using Facebook as part of their communications network. According to the Renmin Ribao, the official newspaper of the Chinese Communist Party, 80% of its citizens agreed that China should punish Facebook (July 10, 2009). Some Chinese users also believed that Facebook would not have been able to progress successfully following these issues because the Chinese alternative Renren has many features similar to Facebook and complies with government regulations regarding content filtering. Although users were able to access Facebook in limited areas such as hotels favoring the patronage of foreigners, however, Facebook is still blocked according to Mazur (2017).

In addition, the communist party-state is also developing a scoring system on its citizens as a form of control on its own society. For example, depending on whether a person’s use of the Internet is deemed to be positive or negative (which refers to anything discriminatory against the Chinese government in any form), these activities transpose cumulatively onto the scoring system. The ability to obtain a financial loan or visa for overseas visits is dependent on where on the scoring system a person sits. This means that China is placing obstacles in the path of civil liberties on the pretext of undertaking surveillance to monitor crime and terrorism.

With a population of 1.4 billion (Worldmeters, 2018) and growing, it is known as the country with the highest number of mobile users worldwide (Pochtler, 2018). For example, in January 2018, there were about 1.4 billion subscribed and registered mobile phone users and China has set very strict guidelines on how the Internet is used in China. The level of strictness it administers over what the citizens posts is to ensure that no comments are placed online to cause the government to “lose face”.

The current statistic reflects its netizens’ unquenchable appetite for capitalism and contrasts China’s foray into the Internet landscape. In September 1987, Professor Qian Tianbai sent China’s first E-mail titled “Crossing the Great Wall to Join the World” which marked the beginning of the Internet in China. The Chinese government foresaw the potential and by the first quarter of 1990, a pilot network of education and scientific research (NCFC) for the Zhongguancun area was initiated using World Bank loans to build a high-speed interconnected network and a super-computing centre. In that same year, China officially registered its top domain name as CN. (Evolution of Internet in China, 2001)

In the beginning, the Chinese government undertook efforts to facilitate the use of the Internet by slashing fees charged to the dedicated circuit users by half. This resulted in a proliferation of users by 30 June 1999: 1.47 million PCs connected to Internet with 4 million Internet users and 29,045 registered domain names of CN with a total of 9,906 WWW web sites. (Evolution of Internet in China, 2001)

Since then, the government has been tracking existing user profiles and if one is found to have been associated with any comments deemed illegal or anything that will affect either China’s or its leader’s reputation, that particular outlet would be shutdown. The issue of censorship in China was further exacerbated when President Xi was offended by the citizens, in a meme likening him to Winnie the Pooh (Hernandez, 2018). The reason why the protesters created this meme was because they were unhappy with the presidential term limits and thought this protest would bring about changes. (Brimelow 2018) However, the cartoon was immediately censored as Chinese government is very particular that citizens should respect their leaders.

To further tighten up its already stringent regulations, “the government is starting to put together a real name registration and setting up a social credit system to tie one’s online activity to one’s physical identity. This makes it much more difficult to participate in that [meme] culture.” (McLauchlin, 2017) In addition, the English letter ‘N’ was briefly censored as it was used to also highlight unwanted attention to the President’s political tenure. This meant that social scientists were prevented from expressing dissent mathematically by using N > 2, with ‘N’ being the number of Mr. Xi’s terms in office (Hernandez, 2018)

The various social media platforms including Facebook, Youtube, Instagram and Twitter were banned in China because the companies refused to comply with the government’s policy of editing articles prior to being posted online (Beam, 2013) According to blogger Michael Anti, it was forseeable that Twitter would not last long because “Twitter is a tool which can put all the sensitive things and sensitive guys together, very quickly. That’s the very thing that the Chinese government doesn’t want to see in China,” (Branigan 2009) Banning such sites reiterated the governing party’s control over its people. (LaFraniere & Barboza, 2011) However, similar platforms such as Sina Weibo (Weibo) and Wechat, emerged in China to fill the void.

Weibo is the largest Chinese web application. (Yu & Asur & Huberman, 2011) It is also known as a space for freedom of speech and a platform for the community to access important news, however, not without the fear of retribution from the governing bodies. (Monggilo, 2016, p.169) Although a clone of Twitter, Weibo was created with microblogging services on the application, with the ability to monitor the keywords that are trending and other new words viewed as having the ‘potential to offend’ list. (Yu & Asur & Huberman, 2011) However, when Weibo failed to censor the content prior to posting online, it was suspended for a week. (Sun, 2018)

Widely used by 902 million daily users and about 38 billion daily messages sent on the platform, WeChat is poised to become China’s electronic ID system” (Liao, 2018). Lien & Che (2014) agrees that WeChat has become an important social media platform in China since the blocking of other social media platforms. However, the government is also able to monitor and track what the Wechat users are doing and all the information posted online are shared with the government. (Tech, 2017) The Chinese government has also created microblog operators to monitor social media accounts, delete all the false information online and to duplicate a copy of what the users have posted for six months. (The Associated Page, 2018) The limitation of freedom of speech in China is an issue that affects the everyday lives of the Chinese people, due to their opinions and ideas being regulated and monitored by the government. (Asamoah, 2016)

WeChat has many features that can help the government to track any data that they require such as “heat map”. This is a feature that had been installed with locationtracking abilities to find out about protests or areas that need a higher security to control order. (McLauchlin, 2017) Perhaps, this is a strategy by the Chinese government to prevent the same level of international scrutiny that took place after the 1976 Tiananmen Square incident. Besides, WeChat also plays a role in shaping public opinion. Five cent army, which is also known as wu mao, refers to a group of Chinese citizens that are paid by the government to post online statements in order to create interest in the Communist Party. This activity is predominantly undertaken by “public opinion analysts” who rely on tools such as big data analysis and cloud computing to undertake their surveillance. (McLauchlin, 2017)

Although it is widely recognised within China that WeChat is a platform that is massively monitored, its owner (Tencent) has attempted to convince users to “rest assured as respecting user privacy has always been one of WeChat’s most important principles.” (Liao, 2018) In flexing its political muscles on its own people, the Chinese government has effectively clamped down on the country’s freedom of speech, a freedom that is taken for granted in Western cultures. However, the message that China wishes to convey is “as long as you’re not doing anything weird and plotting against the government, they’re not going to dig through your data” (Liao, 2018)

China has not only tightened censorship of the Internet and media and passed a new law regulating foreign nongovernmental organizations but has also launched ideological campaigns in universities and think tanks. Perhaps, the most intimidating strategy employed to date is the arrest of rights lawyers, feminists, foreign NGO workers, bloggers, environmental activists and others who are viewed not to tow the political line. (Segal, 2016, p.5)

Who benefits?

            Companies and consumers in China have traditionally not had any expectations for individual privacy. It was also a given that this kind of privacy did not always leave to negativities because of the perceived benefits including the prevention of terrorism and the guarantee of a safe and peaceful existence. Compared to snooping accepted at home where typical multi-generational households were overcrowded, the government’s poking around in one’s business didn’t feel like an extreme intrusion. (Minter, 2017)

Companies such as Alibaba and Tencent Holdings have been taking advantage of this casual attitude, granting themselves complete freedom to disclose user behavioral profiles to third-party vendors and users have recourse in the event the data has been misused. (Zuo 2017)

In a 2015 survey by a Chinese internet security organization, 44% of Chinese websites had security vulnerabilities resulting in data leakages. There has also been a sharp increase in theft of personal information, with losses estimated at $13.2 billion. (Yu, 2014) Cyber-thieves have little to fear from the law and many third-party brokers ply their trade in the open because law enforcement agencies often do not pay any credence to related reports. However, China can no longer afford that kind of complacency because the Chinese are growing more demanding for changes and international companies have begun to lose trust to invest in China.

Internet and Privacy in the Western World

            The beginnings of the Internet in Australia followed a path similar to China and were once the property of an exclusive community steeped in academia. (Zobel, 2014)   Existing restrictions meant that the Internet protocols were only adopted after attaining a level of maturity and technology progressing rapidly from 1989 onwards, witnessed by the   proliferation of small devices with wireless access to the Internet (Clarke, 1994)

However, tensions between liberty and authoritarianism have resulted in ongoing efforts by the government to overcome the anonymity offered to Internet users and enable increased governmental control. Methods such as ‘tunnelling’ techniques to close down portion of the transmission capacity required for ‘virtual private networks’ and using people to use authority issued identities which can be authenticated are some examples to facilitate surveillance. (Clarke, 1999)

In the UK, the ISPs are required to store user internet history for a certain period enabling messages months ago to be easily retrieved. Details on calls, texts and website history can be used in the event of a police investigation. (Forrest 2016). Australia has legislated similar strategies in overcoming terrorism. Therefore, is the control exerted by these governments different from China and will it be a matter of time before views of governments globally will be in agreement that total social control is the only solution forward?

Conclusion   

            The world today is accustomed to placing a positive reliance on interconnected networks, with the added freedom of social media expression. However, severe curtailment of this freedom in China has eroded the cornerstone of the rule of law for its people.

While China’s actions may be viewed as rather extreme, it could also be said that the Chinese people have displayed a lack of understanding of cohesiveness enjoyed by other countries regarding social media. While strict enforcement of censorship to social media outlets has positively ensured the lack untoward social behavior in China, the downside to this fallacy is that its citizens are often left in the dark about any inappropriate conduct or wrongdoings by their own government.

The fundamental truth is that the global internet is ideally a knowledge gathering resource to empower individuals but it is also a tool for control through censorship and surveillance by politically sensitive governments where the norm is “By the stroke of a pen by the legislative draftsman, the civil liberties of an individual may be snatched away without a minute’s notice”.

 

 

 

 

 

References

Asamoah, N. (2016). Freedom of Speech : China and the Case of Ai WeiWei. Honors Council of the Illinois Region Papers. Paper 3. Retrieved from http://dc.cod.edu/hcir2016/3

18642283_ConferencePaperFinal 1

The Associated Page. (2018). China orders microblog operators to tighten censorship. Retrieved from https://phys.org/news/2018-02-china-microblog-tighten-censorship.html

 

Beam, C. (2013). Chinese Embassies Love Facebook- Even Though Chinese Citizens Are Banned From It. Retrieved from https://www.techrepublic.com/article/privacy-issues-abound-as-uk-passes-controversial-snoopers-charter/

 

Branigan, T. (2009). China blocks Twitter, Flickr and Hotmail ahead of Tiananmen anniversary. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/jun/02/twitter-china

 

Brimelow, B. (2018). Winnie the Pooh memes are getting banned on social media after China announces Xi Jinping may stay in power for life. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com.au/winnie-the-pooh-memes-china-censored-xi-jinping-2018-2?r=US&IR=T

 

Choy, P. (2013). Facebook and Twitter in China! Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20131212145054/http://www.headlineasia.com/facebook-and-twitter-in-china/

 

Clarke, R. (1994). Asimov’s Laws of Robotics: Implications Information Technology Part 2. Computing Miluex, 27(1), p. 57-66. DOI: 10.1109/2.248881

 

Clarke, R. (1999). Internet privacy concerns confirm the case for intervention. Communications of the ACM, 42(2), p. 60-67. doi: 10.1145/293411.293475

 

Evolution of Internet in China. (2001). Retrieved from http://www.edu.cn/introduction_1378/20060323/t20060323_4285.shtml

 

Forrest, C. (2016). Privacy issues abound as UK passes controversial ‘snoopers’ charter’. Retrieved from https://www.techrepublic.com/article/privacy-issues-abound-as-uk-passes-controversial-snoopers-charter/

 

Hernandez, J.C. (2018). China’s Censors Ban Winnie the Pooh and the Letter ’N’ After Xi’s Power Grab. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/28/world/asia/china-censorship-xi-jinping.html

 

Jacobs, A. & Helft, M. (2010). Google, Citing Attack, Threatens to Exit China. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/13/world/asia/13beijing.html

 

LaFraniere, S. & Barboza, D. (2011). China Tightens Censorship of Electronic Communications. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/world/asia/22china.html

 

Liao, S. (2018). How WeChat came to rule China. Retrieved from https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/1/16721230/wechat-china-app-mini-programs-messaging-electronic-id-system

 

Lien, C. H. & Cao, Y. (2014). Examine WeChat users’ motivations, trust, attitudes, and positive word-of-mouth: Evidence from China. Journal of Computers in Human Behaviour, 41, p. 104-111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.08.013

 

McLauchlin, H. (2017). We(Chat) The People: Technology and Social Control in China. Retrieved from http://harvardpolitics.com/world/wechat-the-people-technology-and-social-control-in-china/

 

Minter, A. (2017). Chinese learning the value of privacy. Retrieved from https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2017/03/25/commentary/world-commentary/chinese-learning-value-privacy/#.Wu-BXNOFPR0

 

Mitchell, A. & Diamond, L. (2018). China’s Surveillance State Should Scare Everyone. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/02/china-surveillance/552203/

 

Monggilo, Z.M (2016). Internet Freedom in Asia: Case of Internet Censorship in China. Journal of Government Politics, 7(1) p. 153-179. http://dx.doi.org/10.18196/jgp.2016.0026

 

Mozur, P. (2017). Blocked in China, Facebook is said to seek a Shanghai Office. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/technology/facebook-china-shanghai-office.html

 

Park, P. (2018). China’s Weibo social media suspends portals after reprimand. Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/27/chinas-weibo-social-media-site-suspends-portals-after-reprimand.html

 

Pochtler, A.M. (2018). Number of mobile cell phone subscriptions in China from January 2017 to January 2018. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/278204/china-mobile-users-by-month/

 

Rutherford, M. L. (2017). What Personal Information Does Meitu Take? Here’s What The Free App Collects From Your Profile. Retrieved from https://www.bustle.com/p/what-personal-information-does-meitu-take-heres-what-the-free-app-collects-from-your-profile-32314

 

Segal, A. (2016). China, Encryption Policy, and International Influence. Hoover        Institution. Stanford University.

 

Sun, L. (2018). Weibo’s Growth Could be Derailed by Chinese Regulators. Retrieved from https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/02/02/weibos-growth-could-be- derailed-by-chinese-regulat.aspx

 

Tech. (2017). Social media and censorship in China: how is it different to the West. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/41398423/social-media-and-censorship-in-china-how-is-it-different-to-the-west

 

Waddell, K. (2016). Why Google Quit China and Why It’s Heading Back. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/why-google-quit-china- and-why-its-heading-back/424482/

 

Worldometers. (2018). China Population (Live). Retrieved from http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/china-population/

 

Yu, L., Asur, S. & Huberman, B. (2011). What Trends in Chinese Social Media.Computer Science, Computers and Society. Cornell University Library.

 

Yu, E. (2014). Alipay sorry for customer data leak. Retrieved fromhttps://www.zdnet.com/article/alipay-sorry-for-customer-data-leak/

 

Zobel, J. (2014). How Australia connected to the internet 25 years ago. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/Conference paper-australia-connected-to-the-internet-25-years-ago-28106

 

Zuo, M. (2017). Who’s buying, selling and stealing your personal data in China?Retrieved from http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2097629/whos-buying-and-selling-your-stolen-data-china

 

 

 

Why we play online games and how it effects our communication with others online and offline

Abstract

               This paper discusses the realm of online communication and how games such as massively multiplayer online role playing games (MMORPG’s) are effecting our communication with others. Works such as Homo Ludens by Johan Huizinga and the telling’s of Herodotus are discussed with relevance to current and historical applications of the essence and importance of play. Drawing on relevance to discuss elements of the magic circle and a third space, Pokémon Go has been used as a recent example of how these concepts are prevalent in all types of games, as well as providing brief relation to World of Warcraft and The Sims in terms of synthetic worlds and breaking the magic circle.

Keywords: magic circle, synthetic worlds, third space, online games, MMORPG’s, online communication, relationships, communities.

PDF available here

 

Gaming and Communication

Games and play can create new circles of communication that exist outside of normal social circles, known as the third place. Online games and traditional games are influenced by a magic circle, that defines what rules are relevant in the real world, and in the game world. The proceeding text is an explanation of synthetic worlds, and how it is different from the “real world” explained within a current online context of MMORPG’s and with reference to traditional games and play, directly providing examples from the recent Pokémon Go and also the 2,500 year old story of how the Lydians saved their civilisation with games.

Discussion of the concept of play and the introduction of the magic circle was first conversed by Dutch anthropologist Johan Huizinga in 1938, in his book Homo Ludens. Huizinga states that “we find play present everywhere as a well-defined quality of action which is different from “ordinary” life.” (Huizinga, 1949, p 4). Over centuries play has been adapted to the technologies of the current time, for example there are statements recovered from the Greek historian Herodotus describing the famine in Lydia over 2,500 years ago. He states: “These games they invented as a resource against the famine, and thus they used to do:–on one of the days they would play games all the time in order that they might not feel the want of food, and on the next they ceased from their games and had food: and thus they went on for eighteen years.” (“Herodotus on Lydia”, 2012). This later led to the civilisation being divided in half, with half leaving Lydia in search of new lands, later becoming the Etruscans, later known for the Roman Empire, and therein saving their civilisation. As mankind make technological advancements, online games become a more prevalent pastime or career path and the essence of play and the magic circle evolves from the case described in Lydia to what we have now online. With current technology allowing communities to connect over online games from all over the world, developers are able to create games that impact the world and encourage people to be more active members of their community. Whether it be for their own benefit, such as Pokemon Go encouraging people to go out, walk around and explore. Or be it something on a larger scale such as RUFopoly, an interactive game designed to make people think about the challenges faced in the rural-urban fringe development (“RELU – RUFopoly | Birmingham City University”, 2011).

There are those that argue that there is no magic circle, such as (Liebe, 2018). The Magic Circle is described as a scenario where the rules of the real world are suspended, and new normative rules are created in the game space. I believe that this is relevant in terms of online games such as World of Warcraft or The Sims, as there would be some rules that are relevant in the real world and in the game world, such as a character or person needs to eat to survive. But there are also those that would not apply, and other rules would take place, and in circumstances where the magic circle is broken, or the unspoken rules of the game is broken, the laws or rules of that world do not apply, and the person is no longer playing the game, they are playing their own modified version of the game where new rules apply. For example, when a player uses cheat codes in the Sims to change a Sims mood, age or needs, they are operating outside of the magic circle, as they are no longer playing the game the way that it was intended. With the example of The Sims, because it is not an online game played with other people, it is not so controversial that people break the magic circle, however in online synthetic worlds such as World of Warcraft, if someone was to use cheat codes to increase their character wealth or in game experience in this synthetic world, it can break the trust between players and become an unpleasant environment.

Edward Castronova is a Professor of Telecommunications and Game Design and works with the economics of synthetic worlds. He discusses online games such as MMORPG’s in the context that “the synthetic worlds now emerging from the computer game industry, these playgrounds of the imagination, are becoming an important host of ordinary human affairs.” (Castronova, 2007, p. 2). This is relevant in terms of games such as World of Warcraft or EVE Online where people spend most of their day or it is even their full-time job, to play the game and earn in game currency, which can in turn generate real world profits. One of the main aspects of these online games, is the social interaction that they facilitate between people that they never would have met had it not been for this “third space”. It gives people the ability to communicate with people that they otherwise wouldn’t know and gain an understanding of other perspectives that they would not have known about from closer niche communities or their direct offline communities. Online communication can also often provide non-biased opinions as they do not directly know the person that they are talking to, close relationships can often hinder the response that the person may give because they are unsure of the response they will get especially if it is a personal topic or controversial topic that they fear they may be judged on. Whereas online if you are communicating with people that you don’t personally know, you are less likely to hold back opinions because there is fewer consequences if the people you are talking to do not agree with your response, they will likely not have to interact with those people again if they choose nor will they be likely to see them in person, so there are fewer consequences. This can be a negative thing as it often promotes the “keyboard warriors” mentality of people saying whatever they want and having no fear of repercussions, although that is often the realm of social media, and gaming chats are generally more focussed on the task at hand. These synthetic spaces have allowed for the creation of a specific third space where people create new circles of communication, specific to that particular context, such as World of Warcraft, the communication or chats within that synthetic world are based around talking about the game, which enables the distinction of a third space. There have been reports by Frostling-Henningsson, 2009; Jansz & Martens, 2005; Jansz & Tanis, 2007 cited in (Trepte, Reinecke & Juechems, 2012) that “Gamers report that the social side of gaming is important to them and one of the strongest motivators to engage in gaming.”

The Internet, and online games in particular can also facilitate communication about topics and interests that are not available elsewhere, particularly in small offline networks where people of similar interest may be difficult to find. The internet has enabled communication about topics and interests, that in small direct communities for example in small towns or isolated neighbourhoods, people may not have the opportunity to express their interest in these topics or issues with others of the same interest. Communities such as World of Warcraft facilitate communication between people all around the world, that they would not have had the opportunity to communicate with. This opens an avenue for people that struggle with social interactions face to face as well, as it allows them to talk to people of similar interest in a way that they are comfortable with and can express their opinions more confidently. It gives people the skills and understanding on how to communicate with people that they are not familiar with online and therefore give them an insight into a community or subject that they would not have been knowledgeable in, given their close offline relationships. Relationships and communities developed via games can often be stronger than others because to play a game, you have to trust that the people you are playing with will follow the rules of the game and you are connecting over a similar interest in the game. Take an example of Pokémon Go. Although players need an internet connection to play the game, it is an augmented reality game which encourages players to go out into the world and explore and interact with other players, which can form new friendships and community circles.

To gain a clearer understanding of these topics, lets look at an example of Pokémon Go more deeply. The game became widely successful around the world being released July 6, 2016 by developer Niantic, and at June of 2017 there had been an estimated 752 million downloads of the application (Smith, 2018). However, popular the game may have been when it came out, users quickly left the game, with users peaking at 28.5 million and dropping to under 5 million in the US after 6 months (Siegal, 2017) due to lack of game content and buggy servers. Nearly two years later and the game has lost quite a lot of its player base, and those left would be classed as the “hardcore” or “dedicated” players. A lot of these players would have established groups of players that they frequently play with and enjoy spending the time playing the game with. This is evidence of a third space, whereby there may be some overlap with work and social circles and the Pokémon Go community, but it is also a separate circle of people, that the player has met while playing the game. The synthetic world being the augmented overlay that the game has created of the world.

Although it utilises real world landmarks, the game itself is played within a virtual overlay of the real world. Megan Farokhmanesh recounts the events of the 2017 Pokémon Go Fest in Chicago, which was widely regarded as a failure for the players and Niantic. 20,000 tickets were sold for the event with some participants flying in from other states and countries to participate in the first official event hosted by Niantic (Farokhmanesh, 2017). Although it was widely unsuccessful as reported by the players having network issues and generally not being able to play the game, the event created a magic circle. The designated area within Chicago was that magic circle where new game rules applied to those that attended the event, which were different to those outside of the event space, and did not purchase a ticket, those players experienced the game as it normally is, beside from the mobile network issues experienced in the area, due to the sheer number of players attempting to connect to the servers.

As games have evolved over the centuries, they have been saving civilisation in more ways than one. They saved the Lydians by allowing them to pass time through a famine, and an increasing amount of games such as RUFopoly have been created to help change the world, and help people gain an understanding of how they can help the world through playing games. Communities have also thrived through the creation of online multiplayer games such as World of Warcraft, which has brought together millions of players since its release, all working together striving for the same goal; winning. There has been an increasing amount of discussion over whether online games have been helping or hindering human social development, while there are studies showing that games hinder social capital, it becomes dependent on the context in which the research is done, and what games are being analysed. Games such as Pokémon Go have allowed people that don’t go outside and interact with people and live unhealthy lives, to go out and explore and meet new people and interact with people all playing the same game, even if those people have nothing in common except that they play the same game. This has been highly beneficial in allowing people to become more open minded and social with people that they would not have known otherwise and increases peoples motivation to go out and socialise more, with the help of a video game.

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Castronova, E. (2007). Synthetic worlds (p. 2). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Farokhmanesh, M. (2017). I went to Pokémon Go Fest, and it was a disaster. The Verge. Retrieved from https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/25/16019404/pokemon-go-fest-refunds-disaster-review

Herodotus, . (2012, January 18). Herodotus on Lydia. Ancient History Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://www.ancient.eu/article/81/

Huizinga, J. (1949). Homo Ludens: a study of the play-element in culture. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Huynh, K., Lim, S., & Skoric, M. (2013). Stepping out of the Magic Circle: Regulation of Play/Life Boundary in MMO-Mediated Romantic Relationship. Journal Of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(3), 251-264. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12011

Liebe, M. (2018). There is no magic circle: on the difference between computer games and traditional games. Potsdam, Germany: Universität Potsdam. Retrieved from https://publishup.uni-potsdam.de/opus4-ubp/frontdoor/index/index/year/2008/docId/2558

RELU – RUFopoly | Birmingham City University. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.bcu.ac.uk/research/-centres-of-excellence/centre-for-environment-and-society/projects/relu/rufopoly

Steinkuehler, C., & Williams, D. (2006). Where Everybody Knows Your (Screen) Name: Online Games as “Third Places”. Journal Of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(4), 885-909. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00300.x

Smith, C. (2018). 80 Amazing Pokemon Go Statistics. DMR. Retrieved 2 April 2018, from https://expandedramblings.com/index.php/pokemon-go-statistics/

Siegal, J. (2017). Four out of five ‘Pokemon Go’ users have quit. BGR. Retrieved 2 April 2018, from http://bgr.com/2017/04/03/pokemon-go-popularity-2016-users/

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(3), 832-839. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2011.12.003

 

 


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

Conflict, Authenticity and Deception: The Impact of Trolls on Communities and Networks

Abstract

This paper will discuss how identities within technologically mediated communication channels have drastically impacted communication between online community members. This communication failure has resulted in conflicts within online communication sites, such as Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Twitter. This paper discusses the lack in social capital which will eventuate in conflict and friction within an online community. The focus on identities highlight the differences that are perceived by other community members including trolls by utilising examples such as the Madeline McCann case and the Australian Republic Movement. These differences are based on interpersonal comparisons reflecting past experiences in dealing with all aspects of authenticity and deception.

 

Keywords: Conflict, social network, identity, community, authenticity, deception, social capital.

 

Introduction

Conflict is applicable in all forms of communication, both online and offline, which often stem from within a form of a community. Typically, this conflict is due to a clash of identities with individuals or group of identities in specific community, were levels of support differs from community members. Communities are defined as a group of people that depend on social involvement and communication. (Katz et al., 2004, p. 217) This is evident through the traditional face-to-face discussions most commonly used today or alternatively through an internet-mediated communication channel, such as Facebook Messenger, Instagram or YouTube. But either way, conflict is inevitable within communities where identities express member opinions over a thread of time or a subject matter. This paper will argue that the lack of social capital will create conflict (friction) in an online community from identities that are empowered by community member differences through online communities. These differences are based on interpersonal comparisons reflecting past experiences within the aspects of authenticity and deception with a focus on trolls within social media.

 

Expression of Identity on Social Media

Before we dive deeper into how conflict manifests through social media and trolling. Jensen based his media definition as the “socially formed resources that enable human beings to articulate an understanding of reality, and to engage in communications about it with others” (2008, p.45). This definition best describes the differences in traditional communications whereas digital interactions utilises modern technology mediated devices enabling online communications. With this understanding, it is essential to note that the main difference between offline and online communities is that online communities are not bound by geographical locations and are asynchronous. Some communities are started offline with face-to-face contact and then precede to move online, a common example would be a group chat through Facebook messenger. This community is formed offline in a social physical space, which then moved online for convenience and accessibility before meeting offline again. Sole online communities, in comparison are formed without any face-to-face contact and communication is sent to multiple members, often being instantaneous, resulting in zero-time delay between messages. These online communities have no intention of progressing offline to remain anonymous and create their own performed identity.

A large majority of these online communities are commonly held on Web 2.0 platforms. Boyd and Elision define social networking sites as “web-based services that allow individuals to; construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system; articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection; and view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system” (2007, p.4). Social networking sites such as Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn, allows ‘friends’ that embodies a weaker bond in a relationship between members. Hence the membership process of a social networking site, members have an opportunity to protect their personal interest by not disclosing informative data on their profile. These social networking sites in the main do not verify any information, reinforcing the view that a members ‘online self’ may be different to their ‘actual self’. This process provides choices for members to participate within an online community, creating an opportunity for friction or conflict to arise.

Online community membership grants you several choices in order to express a non-verbal expression; whether the message remains authentic or deceptive about your identity online. Within these communities, members can remain individualistic within a group or provide support to other group members which requires time or expertise in the online community. Jensen (2011) defines this choice of social interactions as relations of availability, accessibility and performativity. That is “What is known……? Who knows what……? and Who says and does what – in relation to whom?” (Jensen, 2011, p.50). As an example, conflict may can stem from the use of Facebook to market an event, where the invitee loses control with unexpected attendees via mass communication to unintended participants. This concept underpins the notion that our online identity comes with a choice.

Further Pearson states that “Online, users can claim to be whoever they wish. Like actors playing a role, they can deliberately choose to put forth identity cues or claims of self that can closely resemble or wildly differ from reality” (2009, p. 1). Pearson then goes one to argue that our identity is like a performance, everchanging to suit the situation, meaning that our identity is not fixed at any point in time, but is instead a fluid construct that is evolving into what we deem appropriate. A key concept to this argument is that members of an online community may hide their true identity in full or part, where misaligned intentions can create conflict within an online community. This concept may lead to conflicts within social networks as it opens the door to deceptive conduct within the community, disturbing the flow of interaction (Coles & West, 2016).

 

Identity and the Community

A key feature of a community is that it must itself have a sense of identity, which are known to the members within the community (Kendall, 2011). Furthermore a community itself “confers identity and participant identities also play an important part in the formation and continuation of communities” (Kendall, 2011, p.318). From the above quotes, it can be applied that members may not contain similar knowledge and attitudinal elements of a ‘real community’ but in fact be dissimilar. This contradiction as described by Kendall (2011), directly relates to online communities – where conflict and/or friction between members may arise. Further, members are concerned about the ability of a community to mask their identity, which can relate to whether a participant is authentic or deceptive while engaging online. This was evident in the case of Madeline McCann where communities clashed over the parent’s involvement her disappearance. These communities were recognised as either Anti-McCann’s or Pro-McCann’s. These groups clashed over twitter, creating friction and conflict between the participants, that lead to different group identities within the one community. Both identities used emotive language to enhance their identities while at the same time strengthening the divide between the two groups (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017).

Emotional baggage held by group members can also lead to different identities that share common threads in the most part but be polar opposite on other views. This is particularly most noticeable with identifiers such as a person race and gender (Kendall, 2011). Donath raises the point that “knowing the identity of those with whom you communicate is essential for understanding and evaluating an interaction” (1999, p.1) particularly where the evaluation outcome is subjective. This was demonstrated with the differing opinions on how the Republic Movement in Australia provided alternative methods to select their head of state, appointment versus election (Charnock, 2001). Kendall (2011, p.318) further stated that group members can “mask their identity, or to present a deliberately deceptive identity”, to notionally benefit their members where they feel best represents themselves, authentic or not. As in the Republic Movement, the perception bias of this selection can create friction and prevent the movement progressing within the political online community.

 

Social Capital

It is important to consider the level of social capital required to create and maintain any social network. Figure 1, as shown in the Appendix represents a framework for the creation and maintenance of online communities is grounded on sociological and information technology concepts (Vivian & Sudweeks, 2003). The framework demonstrates the connection between social spaces, social capital and identity for members in the social formation of relationships. Overall social capital can be beneficial to online communities as it creates trust and honesty between members, which is vital for the survival of the online community. Eklinder-Frick, Eriksson & Hallén (2015, p.2) defines social capital as a “resource in society, where it is associated with trust and social cohesion”. Even with idiosyncratic opinions – online communities can thrive as long as trust and honesty prevails in the community. However as stated by Annen (2003, p.451) social capital is described “as a player’s reputation for being cooperative within a social network”, where any conflict within this framework can only assume the greater good will be accepted from members in determining the final outcome. But unfortunately, this is not likely to occur where cooperation is required and not forthcoming in communities where controlling behaviours from individuals does not conform to typical norms. A lack of cooperation will further discourage trust and create conflict / friction with differing knowledge and attitudinal elements over time. This is reinforced by Annen (2003) where control over a community is only developed over time and through regular communications. A lack of participation by members due to conflict will lead to poor online community performance.

 

Authenticity

When members participate in online communities, a conflict or friction situation is bound to occur given the membership process for social networking sites, even if the members are being authentic to themselves. This is due to the fact that every member’s idiosyncratic opinion originates from distinct cultural backgrounds and past experiences. According to Buendgens-Kosten, authenticity in its broadest sense is “related to the notions of realness or trueness to origin” (2014, p.1) and is referenced to the characterisation of language to the quality of text (spoken or written). So, while it is important to remain authentic to one’s self while participating in online communication sites, it is critical to remain cautious to the dangers of the internet as it is related to members cultural backgrounds and limiting the amount of identity performance taken place. This is done in a hope to avoid being characterised as a troll, who are aggressive, disruptive and deceitful (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017).

 

Deception

Social networking sites also allows for fake accounts to be created, where impersonation between members can occur with no mechanism to actualise the authentic identity. Regrettably, indirect trust is assumed for social networking sites without any verification. This deceitful tactic is most commonly known as catfishing, where one individual lures someone into a relationship through a false or factious persona. This is a downfall of online communities with no way to authenticate your identity within these communities. This idea of social caption and trust are closely linked as deceitful communication tactics represents a lack of social capital, allowing the likes of trolls and catfishes to “create conflict for amusements sake” (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017, p.76) which further reinforces the need for members to protect their identity online. As an example, Stone (1992), shows a woman who was supposedly talking to a ‘fully disabled old lady’ named ‘Julie’, who in actual fact turned out to be a “middle aged male psychiatrist” who simply wanted to talk to other women as a woman (Stone, 1992, p.2). In this case while the intent was not malicious the tactic demonstrate deception, mis-trust and potential conflict.

Deception can also be found in social networks through the concept of trolling. This is where someone pretends to be a genuine member of a community, by sharing the passion and identity of a group, but then deliberately attempts to “disrupt the community by baiting participants” (Kendall, 2011, 319). Baiting is the process in which a member of the online community deliberately posts to anger or disrespect other members of the community. The consequences of such trolling, as stated by Donath (1999, p.71) is that; “Trolls can be costly in several ways. A troll can disrupt the discussion on a newsgroup, disseminate bad advice, and damage the feeling of trust in the newsgroup community.” Furthermore, in an online community that has become sensitised to trolling “the rate of deception is high – many honestly naive questions may be quickly rejected as trollings” (Donath, 1999, p.71). This extract reinforces the damage that trolls can have on a online community, but also the level of conflict or friction that can arise between the troll and the impacted existing members.

Trolling is a common problem today with some serious cases punished by criminal conviction, however these consequences are the exception rather than the rule (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017). This has resulted in the spreadability of trolling, which has in the majority been unpoliced. The increase in trolling has followed the rise in social media networks, with the number of social network users purported to be 2.46 billion as of 2017 (Statista, 2018). With this significant statistic, it’s only a matter of time before conflict rises between users, with social capital and trust being eroded from online communities. An example of trolling was evident in the aftermath of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in 2007. This case saw a group of trolls on twitter, under pseudonyms, posting about how the parents were responsible for the abduction of their daughter (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017). These tweets were often “abusive and antagonistic and are also known to engage in verbal attacks against anyone who takes to Twitter to support the McCanns” (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017, p.71). The consequences of trolling through online communities, can often lead to the polarisation of beliefs, attitudes and values amongst the community, making trolling not only unpleasant but also very unethical where it has the ability to cause great harm (Coles & West, 2016). The actions of trolling has the potential to generate vast amounts of conflict and friction with communities, which can span years. This is evident in the McCann case with the hashtag on twitter receiving 100 tweets every hour (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017). Deception and indirect trust are key concerns for members within online communities today, without a foundation of authenticity.

 

Conclusion

This paper discussed the key elements that formed the creation and maintenance of online communities which highlighted the importance of identities, social capital and the relationships built in the social formation of an online community. With these concepts, frameworks and constructs, I have argued that conflict and or friction can apply in all forms of online communities where authenticity is non-existent. This conflict is substantially due to the expression of idiosyncratic opinions within communities that impact community identities over a thread of time and subject. This paper argues that the lack in social capital will create conflict and friction where differences exist in attitudes between members on the basis of past experiences in dealing with the all aspects of authenticity and deception.

 

 

Appendix

Figure 1: A conceptual framework for the creation and maintenance of social networks (Vivian & Sudweeks, 2003).

 

 

References

Annen, K. (2003). Social capital, inclusive networks, and economic performance. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 50(4), 449-463. doi:10.1016/S0167-2681(02)00035-5

Baym, N. K. (2011). Social Networks 2.0. In M. Consalvo & C. Ess (Eds.), The Handbook of Internet Studies (pp. 385-405). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x

Buendgens-Kosten, J. (2014). Authenticity. ELT J., 68(4), 457-459. doi:10.1093/elt/ccu034

Coles, B. A., & West, M. (2016). Trolling the trolls: Online forum users constructions of the nature and properties of trolling. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 233-244. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.070

Charnock, D. (2001). National identity, partisanship and populist protest as factors in the 1999 Australian republic referendum. Australian Journal of Political Science, 36(2), 271-291. doi:doi:10.1080/10361140120078826

 

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

Eklinder-Frick, J., Eriksson, L. T., & Hallén, L. (2015). Social Capital, Individuality and Identity. Paper presented at the IMP Conference, Kolding, Denmark. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:820088/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Jensen, K. B. (2008). Media (Vol. 9). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Jensen, K. B. (2011). New Media, Old Methods –Internet Methodologies and the Online/Offline Divide. In M. Consalvo & C. Ess (Eds.), The Handbook of Internet Studies (pp. 43-58). Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

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 Annals of the International Communication Association (Vol. 28, pp. 315-371): Routledge.

Kendall, L. (2011). Community and the Internet. In M. Consalvo & C. Ess (Eds.), The Handbook of Internet Studies (pp. 310-325). Hoboken, NK: Blackwall Publishing Ltd.

Pearson, E. (2009). All the world wide web is a stage: The performance of identity in online social networks. First Monday, 14(3). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2162/2127

Statista. (2018). Number of social network users worldwide from 2010 to 2021 (in billions) [Fact sheet]. Retrieved from

https://www.statista.com/statistics/278414/number-of-worldwide-social-network-users/

Stone, A. R. (1992). Will the real body please stand up? In M. Benedikt (Ed.), Cyberspace: First Steps (pp. 81-118). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Synnott, J., Coulias, A., & Ioannou, M. (2017). Online trolling: The case of Madeleine McCann. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 70-78. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.053

Vivian, N., & Sudweeks, F. (2003). Social Networks in transnational and Virtual Communities Informing Science, 1-7.

 

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

Online LGBT+ Communities and Exploration of Alternative Identities

Abstract

With the evolution of online spaces, the way young people develop and explore their identities and various communities has changed drastically. For those in minority groups, like the LGBT+ community, the evolution of online spaces has become a place where they can learn and experiment with the identity and engagement with communities in a space that is safer than doing so in offline environments. The main argument is that online spaces provide LGBT+ youths with a place where they can effectively explore and develop their gay or queer identity through experimentation online and participating in supportive online communities. Anonymity, cyberbullying, and privacy are topics that are also referenced and addressed throughout this paper, in relation to youth (especially those in the LGBT community) and their online practices.

 

 

Introduction

The development of online spaces and social media has provided young people with a way to explore their identity through online communities, especially within minority groups like the LGBT+ community. Throughout this essay we will be using some terms whose definitions are often argued about. When discussing ‘youths’ this age range directly references those between the ages of 13 (which is the age restriction for many social networking sites or SNSs) to 20. Identity will be referenced as the character and intricacies of a person who make up who they are, which can be subject to change over time and with new experiences. What qualifies as a community is often debated between scholars, but in the context of this essay we will take community to mean a network of people, connected by a common interest, demographic, or location. In this paper I will argue that the evolution of online spaces and communities provides youths, especially those in the LGBT+ community, with a safe space to research, experiment with, and develop their identity, alternative communities, and societal constructs. Van Der Nagel & Frith (2015) assert that the freedom the web contains, with options like pseudonymity and anonymity, provides “important avenues for productive identity play, self-exploration, and behaviour contextualisation online”; Greenhow & Robelia (2009) “analysis revealed that SNSs … allowed students to formulate and explore various dimensions of their identity and demonstrate twenty‐first century skills”. Engaging with other people and different information online is a healthy way for teens and young people to broaden their knowledge, interact with others, build relationships, experiment with identity, break away from perceived limitations, and test social boundaries. While the internet can obviously provide some dangers in regard to privacy, especially to children and teens that may be vulnerable, the positive effects of engagement in online spaces far outweighs the negatives.

 

Gain knowledge on different communities

Adolescence is a time of change not only physically but mentally, where young people are exposed to new and exciting experiences and try to find how they fit in with those around them, and how they wish to construct and portray their identity. Many young people may identify as a minority and are overwhelmed by not fitting in with those around them, and lack access or have limited access to discourses that sway from the majority in their physical communities. However, many young people become interested in different subcultures, race, gender, sexual orientations, religions and more, and want to seek out more information on what interests them. Furthermore, many are not in an environment where it is safe or acceptable to pursue information on alternate lifestyles. However, with the development of the internet and online spaces, young people have an infinite supply of information at their fingertips, where they can pursue information about their interests in a way that is exclusively controlled by them. The LGBT+ community, among many other minority groups, have benefitted greatly with the introduction of the internet, Subrahmanyam, Greenfield & Tynes (2004) saying “the virtual world of teen chat may offer a safer environment for exploring emerging sexuality than the real world.” LGBT+ support has grown exponentially over the last few years, and many websites, like Tumblr, are hubs for those within the community. The internet not only provides support in exclusively online spaces, but can help facilitate engagement and understanding with offline communities as well. In a study conducted on sample group of 16-24-year-old LGBT youth, “results suggest that LGBT youth are motivated to fill gaps in their offline sexual health resources with online information. Further, participants perceived the Internet as an efficient way to discover offline LGBT events and services relevant to sexual health.” (DeHaan, Kuper, Magee, Bigelow & Mustanski, 2013). From these studies, we can see how young people can access information on subcultures and minority groups in order to help form their identities, with “results indicating that new media enabled participants to access resources, explore identity, find likeness, and digitally engage in coming out.” (Craig & McInroy, 2014).

 

Participate in different communities

Expanding on the previous argument, online spaces and communities allow for young people to engage with communities that they otherwise wouldn’t, and express parts of their identity they may otherwise be embarrassed about in an offline situation. It is true for all ages that many people struggle to find an offline community where they feel they fit in and that has the same interests, however during adolescence where hormones are heightened, and an onslaught of changes can cause a feeling of alienation, this can feel overwhelming to many young people, especially those who may identify with a minority group like the LGBT community. Fear of judgement and the prospect of not fitting in, or being bullied, weighs heavily on teenage shoulders, and having the ability to pursue recreational interests online allows them to engage with communities they may not otherwise, because of geographical constraints or simple lack of confidence. “Peer victimization and unwanted sexual experiences were more commonly reported by LGBT than non-LGBT youth” (Ybarra, Mitchell, Palmer & Reisner, 2015) which causes many LGBT teens to be too afraid of openly coming out or engaging with offline community activities. Having the ability to use a pseudonym or remain anonymous online, also adds that layer of comfort for teens who may be struggling to identify or engage with their community offline and want to keep their online practices separate. Online communities can provide emotional support for young people in the LGBT community and often helps them form friendships, Ybarra, et. al, (2015) reporting “LGBT youth were more likely than non-LGBT youth to have online friends and to appraise these friends as better than their in-person friends at providing emotional support.”

 

Break away from forced identity

In a similar vein, the internet not only allows you to develop your identity but can also act as a medium for you to break away from it; the internet can allow young people to break away from physicality and interact with others free from their insecurities. As noted above, anonymity is a tool that allows people to separate themselves from their offline identity, and experiment with new facets of themselves away from limitations based on their appearance, that they may place on themselves or have placed on them by others. Of young people, Valkenburg and Peter (2011) say “online anonymity may lead to less concern about their physical appearance (eg, pimples, blushes), which may facilitate adolescents’ online self-disclosure and self-presentation, and, as a result, their opportunities for approval and social acceptance. Further than just blemishes, minority groups that are discriminated against can break away from the prejudice they may face because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, socio-economic status, or location, and interact with others on the web as someone completely different. The same can be said for those in majority groups who wish to gain information about the experiences of those who may face different treatment to their own. This allows young people to interact with others differently from how they normally would, helping them gather more information on how identity impacts the interactions you have in different communities. Having the option to break away from the identity forced on you can be a helpful way for young people to view their identity separate from factors they can’t control, and analyse the way in which they act and react to those around them.

 

Experiment with identity

Generally, everyone experiments with their identity and self during adolescence, and experimentation is essential in both emotional and physical development as well as finding out how they wish to fit into society; Boyd (2007) says “learning society’s rules requires trial and error, validation and admonishment; it is knowledge that teenagers learn through action, not theory.” Pearson (2009) says that identity is performative, changing depending on your environment, and as online you are represented merely by pixels, “these performances exist within the imagination of users who then use tools and technologies to project, renegotiate, and continuously revise their consensual social hallucination”. In other words, “SNS platforms provide areas which are disembodied, mediated and controllable, and through which alternate performances [of identity] can be displayed to others” (Pearson, 2009).  Having the freedom to explore and craft the identity that they want and translate that into the online space, can help teens to figure out if that is a side of their identity that they want to present more of the time. In the LGBT+ community, many young people may have multiple social media accounts, one for their more subdued identity, and one for the part of their identity that is overtly gay. These can be spread over different websites or within the same one, for example a more openly gay persona is displayed on Tumblr than on Facebook. This can sometimes be for safety reasons, shielding their sexuality by having a different profile, and redirecting people in your offline communities to the less controversial profiles. Testing out their different personas and experimenting with how they present themselves online can help to get an idea of how they would like to present themselves as a whole, especially as they become more comfortable with their sexuality or find themselves in a more supportive environment. In Gray’s (2009) study of LGBT+ youth “many shared the belief that their identities expressed inherent desires that they were born with but that remained buried under the baggage of community norms”, which internet exploration and experimentation helped them to come to terms with.

 

Risks of exposure to infinite publics

One of the main issues with having such a free and open space as the internet, is privacy issues. While most SNSs provide privacy features, many young people choose not to enable these features, allowing strangers to follow their profiles and potentially gather information that could come to harm them in both online and offline spaces. Two factors could potentially be affecting why young people are choosing to have open profiles; O’Sullivan (2012) discusses the “online disinhibition effect”, which has been observed that “we reveal far more personal detail and seek more private information from others when we communicate using these technologies [online spaces] than we would in person”; In a small study conducted by Gershon (2012), interviews with two groups of students revealed that many didn’t understand how public their digital writing [and posting] was. Pearson also discusses how identity and relationships are performative, with a front stage performance meant for the public, and back stage meant as private or intimate, saying “online, these mediated environments mean that there is a blurring between front–stage and back–stage: what feels like an intimate space can be under the watchful electronic gaze of a large unknown audience; what is being acted out as a front–stage performance could have no witnesses.” (Pearson, 2009). Whatever the cause, this lack of understanding or disregard for privacy among young people, is an especially concerning topic when considering people who want to physically harm or violate children get unlimited access to photos, information, and the identities of vulnerable young people.

 

Cyberbullying and anonymity

Cyber-bullying is often contributed to the fact that when online, a sense of responsibility for one’s words or actions is lessened by the fact that the people are separated by a computer, and so the sense of accountability is somewhat reduced, especially in teens who are just learning how to properly communicate and navigate the world and others around them. Van der Nagel & Frith (2015) say:

“Flaming, trolling, and doxing are all negative consequences related to anonymity and pseudonymity online. As many people have argued, the ability to comment under disposable identities, or even under no identity in the case of anonymous comment sections, can encourage people to act in uncivil ways.”

Trolling has become a fixture on almost every social media site, where people write provocative comments for the sole purpose of getting a reaction out of someone, which arguably fosters unhealthy interaction and teaches young people that it is something normal and even common to want to evoke negative reactions from people with differing opinions. Performing, or being the victim of online cyber-bullying and bullying practices like trolling, can negatively impact a young person’s formation of identity by teaching unhealthy ways of interaction and lowering confidence.

 

Learn about and form relationships

Many arguments against use of SNS’s claim that if we are only interacting through devices then ‘real’ relationships are not able to be fostered, as young people don’t learn to communicate face to face, or form ‘real’ bonds. However, Maczewski (2002) notes that the net generation, those growing up surrounding by the internet and technology, “Rather than losing social skills, N-Geners are actually developing these skills at an earlier age than their parents’ generation. N-generation children have a new medium to reach out beyond their immediate world… learning precisely the social skills which will be required for effective interaction in the digital economy.” Although written before the spread of SNS’s, Wellman & Gulia’s (1997) research into online vs offline communities also discount the negative argument, saying they basically function in the same ways, and that “people on the Net have a greater tendency to develop feelings of closeness on the basis of shared interests rather than on the basis of shared social characteristics such as gender and socioeconomic status”, which can “foster high levels of empathetic understanding and mutual support”, which is a deeper and more useful connection than a community that is only joined by location. The internet also provides a space where those with difficult lives can turn to in order to experience relationships that are healthier or more supportive, a pattern which has been observed by Wolak, Mitchell & Finkelhor (2003); their studies found that teens who are highly troubled and have difficulty in relationships with their parents, two occurrences which are not uncommon with LGBT+ youth, were more likely to form online relationships. In these situations LGBT+ youths can turn to those with similar interests or situations online, in order to form supportive relationships and develop their ability to communicate in a healthy way. Giving teens full control over their online interactions can be stressful and frightening for their guardians, however, allowing teenagers to experiment with boundaries in an online environment could be beneficial in learning social etiquette in an environment that is safer than it would be offline. Exposing teens to a safe, removed environment where they may encounter opinions and discourses different from their own, and allowing them to interact as they please provides an experience that may otherwise be dangerous to them in ‘real’ life.

 

Conclusion

We can see how youths, especially LGBT+ identifies, use online spaces as an environment to explore, experiment, and develop their own identity, learn social boundaries, and participate in alternative communities. Online, where a person can share as much or little of their information as they like, LGBT+ youth can be shielded from backlash and potentially dangerous situations they would otherwise encounter if attempting to perform the same activities in their offline environments. Learning about their identity through research, performance, and engaging with online communities can help LGBT+ come to terms with themselves, and inform them on how they want to present themselves in their offline, everyday lives.

 

References

boyd, danah. (2007) “Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life.” MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Learning – Youth, Identity, and Digital Media Volume (ed. David Buckingham). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

 

Craig, S., & McInroy, L. (2014). You Can Form a Part of Yourself Online: The Influence of New Media on Identity Development and Coming Out for LGBTQ Youth. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 18(1), 95-109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19359705.2013.777007

 

DeHaan, S., Kuper, L., Magee, J., Bigelow, L., & Mustanski, B. (2013). The Interplay between Online and Offline Explorations of Identity, Relationships, and Sex: A Mixed-Methods Study with LGBT Youth. Journal of Sex Research, 50(5), 421-434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2012.661489

 

Foster, D. (2015). Private Journals versus Public Blogs: The Impact of Peer Readership on Low-stakes Reflective Writing. SAGE Journals, 43(2). http://journals.sagepub.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/doi/10.1177/0092055X14568204

 

Gray, M. (2009). Negotiating Identities/Queering Desires: Coming Out Online and the Remediation of the Coming-Out Story. Journal Of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(4), 1162-1189. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01485.x

 

Greenhow, C., & Robelia, B. (2009). Informal learning and identity formation in online social networks. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 119-140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439880902923580

 

Maczewski, M. (2002). Exploring Identities Through the Internet: Youth Experiences Online. Child and Youth Care Forum, Volume 31(Issue 2), 111–112. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1015322602597

 

O’Sullivan, L. (2012). Open to the Public: How Adolescents Blur the Boundaries Online Between the Private and Public Spheres of Their Lives. Journal of Adolescent Health, 50(5), 429-430. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.03.001

 

Pearson, E. (2009). All the World Wide Web’s a stage: The performance of identity in online social networks. First Monday. 14(3). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2162/2127

 

Subrahmanyam, K., Greenfield, P., & Tynes, B. (2004). Constructing sexuality and identity in an online teen chat room. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 25(6), 651-666. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2004.09.007

 

Valkenburg, P., & Peter, J. (2011). Online communication among adolescents: An integrated model of its attraction, opportunities, and risks. jahonline.org. Retrieved 2 April 2018, from https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(10)00426-X/fulltext

 

Van Der Nagel, E. and Frith, J. (2015). Anonymity, pseudonymity, and the agency of online identity: Examining the social practices of r/Gonewild. First Monday, 20(3), Retrieved from http://www.ojphi.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/5615/4346

 

Wolak, J., Mitchell, K., & Finkelhor, D. (2003). Escaping or connecting? Characteristics of youth who form close online relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 26(1), 105-119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0140-1971(02)00114-8

 

Ybarra, M., Mitchell, K., Palmer, N., & Reisner, S. (2015). Online social support as a buffer against online and offline peer and sexual victimization among U.S. LGBT and non-LGBT youth. Child Abuse & Neglect, 39, 123-136. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.08.006

 

Social Media: Helping to Decrease Isolation to Members of Rural Indigenous Communities

Abstract

The paper will explore the different ways that the use of the Internet, in particular social media effects members of minority groups such as the Indigenous community. It will argue that the increasing uptake of social networking sites in rural Indigenous communities, especially among youths, is a positive change as it helps to foster new communities, decrease social isolation and increase political activism. I will explore how participation in online communities such as ‘Blackfulla Revolution’ helps to decrease the sense of isolation that members of rural communities may feel but also address concerns about other ways that social media can detrimentally affect a community real life community too. I will also look closely at the connections that the Internet helps to foster between members of different rural communities and how it helps to build their sense of identity and political awareness. This paper will explore the theory of social capital and how these newly found online communities and sense of political identity can translate into and influence real life action.

Reasons Behind the high level of Social Media use in Indigenous communities.

Since the creation of social networking sites on the Internet the traditional definition of community has been challenge the communities that are created on them. No longer is there a need for a common physical location as the common location has become the internet. These groups are able to form communities with members from all different locations who share a common interest, culture or cause.

In recent times the uptake of social media channels across Australia has been growing but most surprisingly the highest growth rate we have seen is with Indigenous youth between the ages of 15 and 24 (Rice et al, 2016). A survey conducted by McNair Ingenuity Research Institute into the media usage habits of 400 members of the Indigenous community found has that in the wider Australian population 42 per cent of people are members of Facebook versus over 62 per cent of people living in remote Indigenous communities (Callinan, 2014). Reasons suggested by Matt Balogh in the article include the fact that Facebook provides a means of ‘instant and affordable communication’ that can help to bridge the geographical distance between people with similar interests, friends and family (Callinan, 2014).

Boyd (2007) acknowledges that involvement on social media in all youth, not just Indigenous youth has an effect on their identity formation and is used as a tool in modern times to help remove the filter that is put on news by traditional media sources. This may explain the large levels of Indigenous social media uptake as being a minority group they are greatly affected by the filtering most media outlets places on news stories. Engaging and participating in online communities with their peers through social media can help youth to further understand the world around them through the views of their chosen community and help to further develop their sense of cultural identity. For example Indigenous youth who do not live in remote communities and are unable to visit them can connect with those who do online to form their own opinions on social issues that may occur in these places without having to rely on the media. This was not always possible as previously all news was filtered through media outlets and portrayed only the opinion of the outlet. Communities are able to use social media to tell their own stories and for once have the platform to make their voices heard that were once ignored by the media. Rice, Haynes, Royce and Thompson (2016) note that Indigenous youth use social media to help strengthen their identities and feel power and control over their lives. Social media provides them with this opportunity as it allows them to connect with other Indigenous communities online and develop views and opinions on Indigenous issues that media filtering may not have afforded them the chance to do. Further evidence to support that Indigenous youth view social media as fundamental to their sense of identity and community is a survey done by Bronwyn Carlson that found that 73% of Indigenous individuals that answered think social media helps them express their identity whilst 81% were members of online Indigenous communities (Carlson, 2017).

Facebook groups such as ‘Blackfulla Revolution’ allow Indigenous people from all over the country to come together and comment on issues that affect them, that they may have in common with others or would like to make other members aware of. Many of the posts on the page carry messages of support or are discussions about issues that members may not have been exposed to if they were not a part of this community and help to contribute further to each members sense of offline and online identity. Lumby (2010) found that Indigenous youth use Facebook as a way to identify and connect with other Indigenous youth without having to have met them in real life, the Facebook group ‘Blackfulla Revolution’ is one example of this happening with member of this group forming connections with one another without having met in real life. The creation and participation in these communities by Indigenous community members has led to decreased feelings of isolation in remote communities and created a new definition of what a community looks like to them. Traditionally a community was defined as “people living in one locality” (Collins English Dictionary, 2012) but groups like ‘Blackfulla Revolution’ on Facebook have changed this and removed the need for people to be located in the same place to contribute or be a part of a community.

A study conducted by Bronwyn Carlson (2017) and funded by the Australian Research Council on social media revealed that some participants who are members of the Indigenous Community would feel a sense of loss if social media was no longer available similar to the sense of loss they would feel if they were no longer able to be a part of a real life community.

The sense of loss mentioned points to the fact that social media does indeed help to form meaningful relationships that support members of remote Indigenous Communities in the same way as their geographical community does. Social media platforms have allowed communities to form that never would have had the chance before, such as private groups who help to teach Indigenous languages that were thought of as lost (Carlson, 2017). The 8-way model of Aboriginal pedagogy that is explored by Townsend (2015) includes story sharing, community links, deconstruct/reconstruct, non-linear, land links, symbols and images and non-verbal as important ways that Indigenous people learn. These ways of learning can all be enhanced by social media, for example story sharing can be done with greater efficiency on social media as a user is able to share their story to large groups of people at a time (Townsend, 2015). Community links that exist in the real world already can be strengthened and expanded by the creation of social media groups. This correlation between the 8 ways and the principles of social media may also explain why the uptake of social media has been so rapid in Indigenous youth (Townsend, 2015).

Perceived Negatives to the Uptake of Social Media on Indigenous Communities

Some participants in a study on social media uptake revealed that racism, other forms of online abuse and media coverage of traumatic events involving members of the Indigenous community were hard to avoid when using social media (Carlson, 2017). John Barlow the founder of Electronic Frontier Foundation argues that while racism and abuse may still exist on social media the benefits of collaboration, connectivity and the support Indigenous communities members receive in the online world outweighs the negative comments (Carlson, 2017). Montgomery (2014) states that “Indigenous communities are at risk of being negatively affected by online racial vilification and cyber bullying” (Montgomery, 2014). It is mentioned later in this article that most often than not the problems experienced are solved by the community banding together to identify problems and find a solution. The article later states that the internet can also be used to empower Indigenous communities to fight racism (Montgomery, 2014). It can also be argued that as the issues of racism and bullying exist in the real world too they are not exclusive to the Internet and social media. Social media communities such as the ‘Blackfulla Revolution’ page on Facebook can help members of the Indigenous community to deal with the racism they are subjected to online and help to combat it. For example the pinned post on the page is a warning that the page admin will screenshot any racist comments, racist jokes or racist name calling then share it on the page and name and shame the culprit. This is an example of the community taking matters into their own hands and coming together online to support one another.

Another issue that is mentioned when researching the introduction of the social networking sites into remote Indigenous communities is generational disparity. Elders in remote Indigenous communities have expressed concerns that the increase in use of the Internet may cause loss of cultural practices, loss of language and create a lack of respect for elders in the youth in the community (Kral, 2014). Although generational disparity may cause issues between members of the same geographical physical community social media can be used to open up connections and memberships to new communities that were once not possible to join or feel accepted by. Matt Balogh states that the average age of Facebook users in Australia is increasing and this could mean generational disparity becomes less of an issue as older members of the community embrace social media as one of their new ways to communicate and relate to others (Callinan, 2014). A study that was conducted also argues that while non-Indigenous youth around Australia are dropping platforms like Facebook Indigenous youth are increasing and using this platform to engage with older generations and maintain intergenerational connections (Carlson, 2017). Social media also allows older members of the community to feel included and provides them with meaningful family and cultural connectivity (Carlson, 2017). Facebook pages that create online communities devoted to the preservation of traditional practices and languages with much wider audiences than real life communities have been set up to try to combat some of these fears.

The Internet Increasing Political Activism Among the Indigenous Community

With the increasing use of the Internet and social media amongst Indigenous people it is natural that communities have been set up online that support political issues that they are passionate about. Social media helps to increase political activism in the Indigenous Community by helping to alert them to issues that they may not have previously been aware of and also spread awareness about causes that are affecting them to the rest of the community to garner larger support. As social media platforms are also a way to distribute information to the masses instantaneously and call for action ‘Activism 2.0’ has begun (Harlow, 2011). It takes the beliefs and actions of on online community and brings them into the real world. It also allows them to engage by giving them a platform to share the issues that they are concerned about and ‘enables diverse and dissenting Indigenous voices’ to be heard (Dreher, 2015). An example of this kind of political activism online is the 2009 murder of Rodrigo Rosenberg, pages protesting the current President who had been accused of the murder were set up and had gained over 28,000 friends in three days (Fieser, 2009). Rodrigo Rosenberg example is an excellent showcase of the exponential increase in social capital that can be facilitated by social media. Social capital has been defined by Putnam (1993) as “features of social organisation, such as trust, norms, and networks, that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated actions.” An example of using social media to increase social capital for an Indigenous political agenda is the page ‘Warriors of the Aboriginal Resistance – WAR’. Pages like this have changed the way politics has worked by helping to create ‘participatory politics’ that is more open to minority groups to have a say (Cohen and Luttig, 2016). Internet users can also use social media to help organise protests that translate their efforts online into real world results through services such as Facebook events like ‘Stolenwealth Games Protest’. This has happened because social media has allowed members of minority groups to get around the filters that the media once placed on news and content and it is not governed by socioeconomic resources (Cohen and Luttig, 2016).

 Conclusion

Despite the perceived drawbacks to remote Indigenous communities using the Internet and social media the benefits such as an increased sense of identity, connection to online communities that decrease feelings of isolation, encourage collaboration and build meaningful relationships whilst also increasing in levels of political activism out weight the negatives. This paper proves that although these factors do negatively impact Indigenous communities there are ways that these issues can be combatted and overcome by the community such as the formation of groups that combat racism and preserve traditional practices and languages. Overall social media in Indigenous communities is used to develop a sense of identity, foster new communities, decrease social isolation and increase political activism and the social capital available to these minority groups. For all these reasons I believe that the new definition of community that does not require a physical location that has been created through social networking sites has had a positive effect on the Indigenous community.

References:

Boyd, D. (2007). Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Learning – Youth, Identity, and Digital Media Volume. Retrieved from                                                            http://www.danah.org/papers/WhyYouthHeart.pdf

Callinan, T. (2014, August 26). Remote Indigenous Australians rely on Facebook to stay in touch. NITV. Retrieved from https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/nitv-news/article/2014/08/26/remote-indigenous-australians-rely-facebook-stay-touch

Carlson, B. (2017). Why are Indigenous people such avid users of social media? The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/27/why-are- indigenous-people-such-avid-users-of-social-media

 

Cohen, C.J., & Luttig, M.D. (2016, September 9). How Social Media helps young people – especially minorities and the poor – get politically engaged. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-   cage/wp/2016/09/09/how-social-media-helps-young-people-especially-minorities-and- the-poor-get-politically-engaged/?utm_term=.12eef11c110a

 

William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. (2012). Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged. Retrieved from http://www.dictionary.com/browse/community

Dreher, T. (2015). Indigenous voices and mediatized policy-making in the digital age.  Information, Communication & Society, 19(1), 23-39. Retrieved from https://www-tandfonline-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/doi/full/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1093534?scroll=top&need    Access=true

 

Fieser, E. (2009). A murder prompts demonstrations. Global Post, 16 May. Retrieved from  http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/the-americas/090515/murder-prompts-demonstrations?page=full

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

 

Kral, I. (2014). Shifting perceptions, shifting identities: Communication technologies and the altered social, cultural and linguistic ecology in a remote indigenous context. The Australian Journal of Anthropology, 25(2). https://doi-org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.1111/taja.12087

Lumby, B. L. (2010). Cyber-Indigeneity: Urban Indigenous identity on Facebook. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 39, 68-75. Retrieved from    http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2271&context=artspapers

 

Montgomery, H. (2014). The Internet: The benefits, problems and legal difficulties for Indigenous Australians. Indigenous Law Bulletin, 8(14), 19-23. Retrieved from https://search-informit-com-   au.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/fullText;dn=20151304;res=AGISPT

Putnam, R. (1993). Making democracy work. Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Rice, E.S., Haynes, E.,Royce, P., & Thompson, S.C. (2015). Social media and digital technology use among Indigenous young people in Australia: a literature review. International Journal for Equity in Health. Retrieved from    https://equityhealthj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12939-016-0366-0

Townsend, P.B. (2014). Mob Learning – Digital Communities for Remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Tertiary Students. Journal of Economic and Social Policy, 17(2).    Retrieved from       https://epubs.scu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1333&context=jesp

Creative Commons License

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

Identity as a performance: How identities are formed within the fashion community on Instagram

Abstract

This paper will argue how identities online can be shaped by their chosen communities, focussing on the fashion community on Instagram. However, these identities can sometimes be false and deceptive, which can be due to the demands and expectations within the community. Instagram has been influential within the fashion community as it is photo based, easily allows users to stay connected and create new connections. It allows users to develop a fan base and influence which can lead to being discovered and endorsed by fashion brands. Using definitions and ideas, this paper will examine the relationship between the two concepts focussing on how identity can sometimes be deceptive and the motivation behind this within the fashion community on Instagram.

Keywords: virtual community, community, identity, online identity, social media, Instagram, performance, deception, fashion, hashtags.

Introduction

The concept of what makes a community has been challenged since the development of new communities mediated through electronic communication technologies along with the way users can portray an identity. Traditionally the idea of community is considered to consist of four concepts; a place to live, a spatial unit, a way of life and social system (Katz, Rice, Acord, Dasgupta & David, 2004, p. 317). There has been an emphasis on a physical basis for a community to function throughout the years along with the inherent unity to the self, the norm of one body, one identity (Donath, 1999). However, the emergence of new virtual communities has caused the concept of communities to be challenged and redefined. Communities on Instagram can stay connected through the use of hashtags. The virtual community has allowed users form new identities different to their physical ones. However, social media communities can allow users to portray a chosen identity online which can sometimes be false and deceptive for their own benefit.

Virtual Communities & Hashtags

Katz et al. (2004) suggests that the majority of community constructs rely on social interaction and in essence, a community is a social system. This allows the concept of community to go beyond the physical definition, where a community exists only by having a geographic location (Katz et al., 2004). The physical community occupies its own physical setting and many consider the physicality of community formation important for the sense of belonging. Members within physical community’s form groups with people who exercise local autonomy in meeting their needs in a specific locality (Katz et al., 2004). The virtual community refers to communities mediated through electronic communication technologies such as social media, multiuser domains (MUDs) and internet relay chat, and also sustained through personal communication technologies such as messaging, mobile phones and email (Katz et al., 2004). The “virtual” part of a virtual community suggests a place without a geographic location which is what a traditional community is based around, and it means the primary form of communication is electronic or enabled by technology (Ridings & Gefen, 2004). Virtual communities continue to provide a social system and social interaction.

Dennis, Pootheri & Natarajan (1998) characterise virtual communities as groups of people with shared interests or goals where electronic communication is a primary form of interaction. Groups might meet regularly online to discuss a subject of interest to all members. It is argued that virtual communities are worthy of being considered a community despite not having a geospatial location like a traditional physical community. This is because of the nature of virtual communities linking large groups of people to share, ideas, feelings and desires (Katz et al., 2004). The virtual community provides ties and homogeneity by interest rather than physical location and locally isolated. Ridings & Gefen (2004) describe virtual communities as “groups of people with common interests and practices that communicate regularly…in an organized way over the internet through a common location or mechanism”.

A community is described to become “a metaphor for the primary ties outside of the households that provide us with larger social systems”. Virtual communities allow users to create and preserve ties among people who are physically separate (Katz et al., 2004). The removed physical aspect of a community also removes the traditional belief that there is an inherent unity to the self, there is one body, one identity (Donath, 1999).

Instagram is a social media platform which allows users to find and create social ties by the use of hashtags. The use of hashtags allows users to expose their brand or persona to large targeted audiences. Hashtags can be chosen to relate to a certain topic or interest, so users who relate can easily find the content and increase engagement. Hashtags help organise and categorise photo and video content which assists the process of discovery and community engagement (Loren, 2017).  Hashtags are not limited to a geographic location, which easily allows communities to form and create new connections around the world. The fashion community, like many others, is based on shared social practices and interests, unlike physical communities which are based on shared social and physical boundaries.

There are different types of hashtags including branded hashtags and community hashtags (Loren, 2017).  The use of community hashtags helps connect like-minded user around a specific subject, such as #evachenpose or #ootd. These types of hashtags can improve the searchability of a user’s posts, gain followers and grow the user’s own personal community (Loren, 2017). For example, the #evachenpose hashtag was created by Eva Chen, a fashion based instagramer and director of fashion partnerships at Instagram with 882k followers, which includes a photo of the user’s shoes, handbag and piece of fruit in the backseat of a car, which can be used sometimes as an alternative to the traditional #ootd (outfit of the day) post. This hashtag has accumulated 29.1k posts over a number of years. The #evachenpose appeals to users in the fashion community, people who like handbags and shoes and people who follow the Eva Chen Instagram (@evachen212). Chen has developed her own Instagram community and following which can be maintained and developed through the hashtag.

Instagram also allows users to ‘follow’ hashtags allowing them to stay up to date with other users in the community. Users can interact with each other by messaging each other, commenting on each other’s posts and ‘liking’ pictures and videos people post. A community is achieved through the member-generated content and the self-sustaining process it creates: “as more members generate more content, the increased content draws more members” (Ridings & Gefen, 2004). Hashtags can be utilised by the user to describe and portray their chose identities and connect to different communities.

Identity as a performance

Virtual communities allow users to put forth identity claims of the self which can be accurate or false to reality. Social media networks act as a stage in which the user can ‘perform’ and identity. Pearson (2009) puts forward that “identity-as-a-performance is seen as part of the flow of social interaction as individuals construct identity performances fitting their social environment”. Social networking platforms offer spaces which are disembodied, mediated and controllable, and also allow alternate performances for other members of the community (Pearson, 2009).

These performances by users online exist within their imagination who then use tools and technologies online to project and renegotiate their chosen identity (Pearson, 2009). Users create not only their online selves but also their staging and setting in which these selves occur by manipulating online communicative codes. However, these stages maybe social media networks which the user has chosen to be a part of. According to Schwartz & Halegoua (2015) through selected “images, videos, status updates, profiles, friend lists, visible conversations, tastes and interests, and comments that appear on their profile, social media participants present a highly curated version of themselves”. The ability to select what other people see can allow a user to put forward different identities and personas depending on the community they want to be part of and different to who they are offline. For example, if the user chooses to be a part of the fashion community on Instagram, they will then perform an identity suited for that community and follow those social cues and renegotiate their chosen identity.

 

Deceptive identities online

The online virtual community and the user as the performer, are disembodied and electronically re-embodied through the cues and signs they choose to represent their identity (Pearson, 2009). These cues and signs online can be dependent on the virtual community the user is part of. However due the fluidity the user has over the self online, the identity they perform can be inaccurate or misleading to their audience. A user can put forward as many personas online as they have time and energy to create them (Donath, 1999).

Some Instagram accounts can be fake using stock images or images of someone else without their permission. These accounts can also pay for fake followers and engagement. Purtill (2017) reported the company Mediakix created two fake Instagram accounts, @wanderingggirl and @calibeachgirl310, from scratch using stock images and secured four paid brand endorsement deals between them worth US$500 in total. This was a stunt to prove how easy it was to become an Instagram influencer. According to Purtill a user can become a fake influencer by;

  1. Finding photos: Stock images can be used or photos can be taken by the user.
  2. Purchase fake followers: It can cost around US$3-8 per 1000 followers through easy-to-find websites.
  3. Purchase engagement: It can cost 12 cents per comment and between US$4-9 per 1000 likes.
  4. Make money: get into contact with brands for endorsements.

This shows how easily users can grow and develop their Instagram accounts or several, depending on how many identities they wish to have or communities they are part of. Aspiring fashion influencers seek to accumulate a fan base which will enable fashion brands to find models and influencers to represent them. Celebrities and models are often chosen by fashion brands based on how relevant they are on social media which provides a better and more engaging story for the public (Payne 2016). This is a motivation for users to put forward deceptive identities so they can get more endorsements and influence. They can put forward as many as they desire and have the energy for. However, it can be difficult for other users to see what is ‘false’ and what is ‘true’ on Instagram.

A user can be deceptive by using items and content which do not belong to them and create a false identity. For example, users can hire clothing or bags for content to appeal to a community and its members. Instagram provides a platform for individuals in which normal societal cues are not available which allows deception to be easier. Assessment signals that help users determine deception are unavailable online (such as government issued identification) or it is not required to verify the identification of online identity (Tsikerdekis & Zeadally, 2014). According to Tsikerdekis & Zeadally (2014), conventional signals are used which are not verified and can represent deceptive information. Ways in which a user is deceptive includes information about the user’s identity, content of their posts or profile page and the channel in which communication takes place (e.g. messaging, video chat). The manipulation of any of these three categories reflects deception. Instagram allows profile management, the absence of identity verification and focuses on content which creates an environment which can be subject to deception within the three categories put forward by Tsikerdekis & Zeadally (2014). Users develop identity goals, which are used to avoid shame and embarrassment, project a more favourable image and increase social desirability (Grossman, 2017).  On Instagram, this might include creating a fake profile with false information to increase self-worth and appeal to users within a community, such as using an alternative profile picture or content. They construct their identity based on their social setting and follow communicative codes within that setting.

Conclusion

Instagram allows for identity to be a performance which can differ in communities. Identity on Instagram can also be false and deceptive depending on the user’s desires. The virtual fashion community on Instagram is maintained through electronic communication tools, such as messaging, commenting and ‘liking’ content. Instagram allows the formation of virtual communities through communicative tools and hashtags. False information can easily be concealed through strategic editing and omission of information. These tools can also shape the user’s identity performance online within their chosen communities. The traditional idea of having one body and one identity has changed with the emergence of social media, such as Instagram. Users now have the ability to create and maintain as many identities as the have the time and energy for.

References

Dennis, A. R., Pootheri, S. K., & Natarajan, V. L. (1998). Lessons from the early   adopters of Web groupware. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(4), 65–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1998.11518186

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

Grossman, M. (2017). Study of social media users: The relationship between online deception, Machiavellian personality, self-esteem and social desirability. Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. Retrieved from https://search-proquest.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1946736580?accountid=10382

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.      Available: http://www.comm.ucsb.edu/faculty/rrice/A80KatzRiceAcordDasgupt David2004.pdf

Loren, T. (2017, March 30). The ultimate guide to instagram hashtags in 2017 [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://later.com/blog/ultimate-guide-to-using-instagram-hashtags/

Payne, C. M. (2016). Visual storytelling: Fashion brands engagement through instagram. Available from Proquest Dissertations &These Global. Retrieved from https://search-proquest com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1886812809?accountid=10382

Pearson, E. (2009). All the World Wide Web’s a stage: The performance of identity in online social networks. First Monday 14(3). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/artile/viewArticle/2162/2127

Putrill, J. (2017, August 18). InstaFraud: How fake instagram ‘influencers’ are gaming brands for money. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved from  http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/how-fake-instagram-influencers-are-gaming-brands-for-money/8821440

Ridings, C., & Gefen, D. (2004). Virtual Community Attraction: Why People Hang Out Online. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 10(1).  Available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083  6101.2004.tb00229.x/full

Schwartz, R., & Halegoua, G. R. (2015). The spatial self: Location-based identity performance on social media. New Media & Society, 17(10), 1643-1660.http://10.1177/1461444814531364

Tsikerdekis, M., & Zeadally, S. (2014). Online deception in social media. Communications of the ACM, 57(9) 72-80. https://doi.org/10.1145/2629612

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

 

Facebook has created an online engagement approach that allows businesses intrusive access to consumers through data collection and user segmentation

Abstract
This paper examines social networking service, Facebook, and the way in which it provides businesses with intrusive access to potential consumers through paid advertising. It examines how Facebook collects data from a platform user and allows businesses to conduct paid marketing campaigns that use this information to target specific audiences. It looks at how effective this approach is in comparison to more traditional forms of consumer engagement and also discusses the issues associated with the collection of user data, of most relevance the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

Keywords: Social media networks, Facebook, online communities, consumer engagement, online marketing, user segmentation, Cambridge Analytica

 

Introduction
Online social networking platforms have created new ways for people to communicate with each other, ways which are now exceedingly popular (Arnaboldi, Conti, Passarella & Dunbar, 2017). Facebook is the most visited of these online networking platforms with more than 600 million users worldwide (Ramsaran-Fowdar & Fowdar, 2013).

Its use is habitual, with the majority of users logging on multiples times per day to post photos, videos and text updates for followers, receive similar updates from friends, and view entertainment sources and Facebook pages they follow. Social media platforms have become a ritualised part of users daily lives, often visited before getting out of bed in the morning and before falling asleep again at night time (Alhabash & Mengyan, 2017; boyd & Ellison, 2007). Building on this ingrained use of the platform within its user community, Facebook has created an online engagement approach that allows businesses intrusive access to consumers through data collection and user segmentation.

I begin this paper by discussing the way businesses are included on the social networking platform. Then I examine the consumer engagement opportunities Facebook offers business and how these compare to offline alternatives. Finally, I look at the risk associated with the collection of user-data to provide those consumer engagement opportunities, namely the recent Cambridge Analytica scandal.

For the purpose of this paper, online engagement is defined as the encouragement of consumers to interact with a business or organisation over the internet. Engagement with a business on Facebook is positively linked to business reputation and public perception (Djikmans, Kerkhof & Beukeboom, 2015).

Literature Review
While social media and online platforms are relatively new concepts, scholars have quickly begun to analyse the effects of these communication tools on users as well as the implications for business. Ramsaran-Fowdar and Fowdar (2013) see Facebook as marketing tool far superior to those based offline and this sentiment is echoed by Threatt (2009).  As mentioned in my introduction, both Alhabash and Mengyan (2017) and boyd and Ellison (2207) have discussed in their work the daily use of Facebook by its community and this is a major component in the success of consumer engagement through the platform. It is widely accepted among authors that social media platforms, particularly Facebook, are exceptional tools for business and credit this new era of transformative communication with the creation of niche markets that are able to be so effectively targeted (Ramsaran-Fowdar & Fowdar, 2013; Wellman & Guilia, 1997).

This area becomes all the more interesting with the recent Cambridge Analytica scandal and the effects this will have across social media platforms moving forward. This has been an investigation picked up by media outlets world-wide such as The Guardian, Sydney Morning Herald, New York Times and Washington Post, and examines the privacy of the information users share on Facebook and the security of this data when collected by the platform and third-party applications.

Through the work of these authors and the support of many others I argue my thesis; that Facebook has created an online engagement approach that allows businesses intrusive access to consumers through data collection and user segmentation.

Discussion
Conceived in February 2004, Facebook originally focused on creating personal relationship (Thompson, 2008). It wasn’t until November 2007 that the platform made a move into the provision of paid engagement opportunities for organisations (Threatt, 2009 & Bellis, 2018). As more of the worlds population join in the online social networking craze, communication using these platforms is now widely accepted and often one of the first places consumers will try and seek out information, on both people and businesses (Ramsaran-Fowdar & Fowdar, 2013). This has significantly altered the way businesses treat the online environment with niche roles created within many organisations to take advantage of the unprecedented access to platform users that Facebook provides. The following discussion outlines how Facebook allows a business to become part of a user’s online network through advertising that segments and targets specific audiences based on user data. I begin by looking at how businesses are included on the social networking platform.


Inclusion of businesses on Facebook
Facebook is hinged upon friendship and trust (Ramsaran-Fowdar & Fowdar, 2013) and the platform utilises this in the marketing options it provides businesses. The most basic form of business inclusion on Facebook is a Facebook Page that serves as a business’s main hub on the platform (refer Appendix B). The page allows consumers to find out more about a business without leaving the application, providing standard detail such as opening hours, website information and general business information quickly and easily. Much like the personal counterpart, a business page has a timeline and posts appear in followers Newsfeeds where they receive updates from the business and see upcoming events.

Posts from a business page are effective in a large part due to the way Facebook presents them on a user’s Newsfeed, almost identically to which it presents posts of a friend (refer Appendix A), the layouts match each other and the font, media display and sizing are all the same allowing a business to seamlessly integrate into a user’s networking experience. By presenting business posts in this way, Facebook allows organisations to become part of a user’s online community, placing them alongside posts that organically make it onto a personal Newsfeed.

A further element available to businesses on Facebook is the option to set up a Facebook group that can be linked back to the business page. This smaller network really plays into the community aspect of the online environment and can be focused on a particular topic and named accordingly. These groups are often used to create a network specific to an organisation that can provide support for consumers and build a trusting relationship with each member which can then be utilised to sell a product or service the business has available in the future (Ramsaran-Fowdar & Fowdar, 2013).

Facebook’s online environment also allows superior customer support opportunities for businesses and this can have a positive impact on how a consumer feels about an organisation and influence purchasing decisions. To further this, businesses now often engage well-known social media influencers associated with a target audience to post about an organisation to their own Facebook communities as a way to further build corporate reputation and positive brand associations through word-of-mouth (Dijkmans, Kerkhof & Beukeboom, 2015).

In addition to the above examples, Facebook allows pages to advertise directly to personal accounts. This is so effective because of the self-presentative nature of social media (Papacharissi, 2009) and the sense of belonging and social support that encourage this human need to fit in (Wellman & Guilia, 1997). Users are often on the platform multiple times each day further developing their online image and businesses are provided with access to these users through advertising that intrudes on the Facebook experience. These advertisements do not only feature on a user Newsfeed but can also appear in the complementary Facebook Messenger application (refer Appendix C), placed within the list of message conversations. Facebook pages can also instigate a Messenger bot that automatically opens with pre-programmed questions when a potential consumer visits their business page and a page can include applications that allow consumers to take actions i.e. book a table or purchase a product, directly through the platform without ever needing to leave (refer Appendix D), the Book Now button at the top of a restaurant business page allows users to make a lunch or dinner reservation in seconds. Further information on the data collection that enables these paid engagement techniques continues in the next section of this discussion.

Data collection and the paid consumer engagement opportunities Facebook provides
“Facebook data can be compared to a crystal ball to understand customers,” Ramsaran-Fowdar & Fowdar, 2013.

Facebook is a free online networking service and as with most free services it employs paid advertising as a source of revenue. To provide this service Facebook collects data from users of the online platform by monitoring the Facebook pages a user follows, the links a user clicks and interests of a user’s friends also active on the platform. This, in addition to the demographic information a user provides when signing up to Facebook, allows businesses an intrusive engagement opportunity with potential consumers, enabling them to directly engage with segmented and targeted audiences most relevant to organisational goals businesses (Acar & Polonsky, 2007; Papacharissi, 2009).

Facebook allows businesses to conduct paid advertising campaigns to personal users of the platform using this collected data, with options for audience segmentation based on their location, age, gender, the languages they speak, right down to their specific interests and other pages they ‘Like’. In just a few simple clicks for a business, Facebook compiles estimated reach numbers and suggested campaign budgets and timelines to meet selected segmentation criteria. This kind of targeting and the ease of which it is available is extremely high value to a business, able to serve an advertisement direct to consumer, who based on demographics and interests, is a most likely candidate to engage with the organisation. Because Facebook is an online platform, a consumer can respond to an advertisement immediately and a business can see conversion results just as quickly in the analytics reporting that Facebook provides.

More traditional, offline media does not provide this kind of segmentation as easily and cost-effectively as Facebook. An advertisement post on the platform can be created and delivered to a specific audience in a matter of minutes, with no booking deadline requirements or premium costs associated with newspaper articles or radio campaigns. Through these more sophisticated Facebook engagement tools businesses are able to connect with many more potential consumers with far more frequency than traditional marketing techniques such as phone calls, emails or face-to-face meetings (Donath & boyd, 2004).

While this is a big win for businesses, Facebook users themselves have very little control over what advertisements they see and the number of times an advertisement is presented to them and here in lies the intrusive nature of Facebook as an engagement tool. As mentioned earlier in this paper, Facebook use is habitual and the repeated displaying of advertisements on particular days and times targeting specific audience segments lets businesses into user’s daily lives as many times as they wish to pay for. The presentation of these advertisements, in the same format as a post from a friend or page post that has not been paid for (minus a small sponsored tag) enables businesses to insert themselves seamlessly onto a user’s account and this has proven to be an exceptionally effective marketing technique.

Facebook and data collection however have called into question the privacy measures and security systems the platform has in place, most recently through the Cambridge Analytica scandal – a privacy breach impacting an estimated 87 million Facebook users.


The Cambridge Analytica scandal
Facebook and its practice to collect data and allow third party online applications to collect this data also has come under heavy fire in recent weeks after it was revealed one such application, Kogan, allegedly breached its agreement with the online platform and released data it collected from Facebook users about themselves and their friends to Cambridge Analytica, a company known for its work in political campaigning. It is alleged this data was used to influence potential voters in the recent US election, a claim which has been denied by the company (Bloomberg, 2018). Extremely serious in nature, this breach has seen Facebook Founder, Mark Zuckerberg face a US Senate Hearing regarding the platforms data collection practices and security. At this hearing, Mr, Zuckerberg did hint that a paid subscription to a Facebook service that did not allow paid advertising may be implemented in the future (Brandom, 2018). This paid service would allow users an online space that only delivered the content a user wanted to engage with, removing the business advertising campaigns that intrude on a user’s current Facebook experience. As an initial result of the scandal, Facebook shares dropped almost 18% in the ten days after the story broke and the platform has removed a search capability allowing users to find others based on a phone number of email address (Bloomberg, 2018). Facebook has also promised to make it easier for users to adjust their privacy settings on the platform.


Limitations of These Studies
In my own experiences working as a Communications Officer deciding on where best to spend limited marketing funds I have often received comment from more traditional marketing sales teams around the legitimacy of the advertising reach and engagement results Facebook provides to businesses. Their concern being that Facebook provides its own data rather than sourcing evaluations from a third party. I would suggest more study could be done in this area around the advertising matrix of Facebook to quell these kinds of concerns. Being that Facebook controls this data and the privacy issues surrounding the releases of this, even more so in light of the recent Cambridge Analytica scandal, conducting such research is likely to be difficult.


Conclusion
Facebook has created an online engagement approach that allows businesses intrusive access to consumers through data collection and user segmentation, leaving its offline, tired counterparts in the dust as the social media phenomenon continues to spread. In today’s saturated online market, a business with no social media presence, particularly Facebook, can often be deemed as not credible and difficult to find information on. Facebook provides businesses both simple and more complex ways to engage with consumers and the combination of these tools far outweighs the value of more traditional, offline avenues of marketing like phone calls, print advertising and even face-to-face engagement techniques, saving a business time and money. It may be an effective way to build business reputation and increase sales but users are becoming increasingly aware of the intrusive role these advertisements are playing in their day-to-day use of the platform. Unable to choose how often they are exposed to advertisements and have little say in how often a particular advertisement is presented to them it is of little surprise that there has been support for Mr. Zuckerberg’s elusion to an ad-free version of the social media platform. It is now more important than ever that businesses are thoughtful in the way they utilise the engagement opportunities afforded by Facebook to businesses and have a social media strategy in place that takes into account potential user concern is imperative in order to ensure this online engagement technique, which is heavily utilised these days, remains successful. Further study on the effects these paid engagement opportunities have on users should be undertaken as they become more prevalent on this platform, with the principle of the results likely able to be transferred to other social media platforms as well.

 

 

References

Acar, A. S. & Polonsky, M. (2007). Online social networks and insights into marketing communications. Journal of Internet Commerce, 6(4), 55-72. doi: 10.1080/15332860802086227.

Arnaboldi. V, Conti. M, Passarella. A & Dunbar, R. (2017). Online Social Networks and
information diffusion: The role of ego networks. Online Social Networks and Media, 44-55.
doi: 10.1016/j.osnem.2017.04.001

Alhabash. S, Mengyan. M. (2017). A Tale of Four Platforms: Motivations and Users of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat Among College Students? Social Media + Society 1-13. doi: 10.1177/2056305117691544

Bellis, M. (2018, March, 27). The History of Facebook and how it was Invented. Thoughtco. Retreieved from http://thoughtco.com/who-invented-facebook-1991791

Bloomberg (2018, April, 10). Facebook Cambridge Analytica Scandal: 10 Questions Answered. Fortune. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2018/04/10/facebook-cambridge-analytica-what-happened

boyd, d. & Ellison, N (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x

Dijkmans, C. Kerkhof, P. & Beukeboom, C. (2015). A state to engage: Social media use and corporate reputation. Tourism Management, (47), 58-67. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2014.09.005

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

Papacharissi, Z. (2009). The virtual geographies of social networks: a comparative analysis of Facebook, LinkedIn and ASmallWorld. New Media & Society, 11(1&2), 199-220. doi: 10.1177/1461444808099577

Ramsaram-Fowdar, R. & Fowdar, S. (2013). The Implications of Facebook Marketing for Organisations. Contemporary Management Research, 9(1), 73-84. doi:10.7903/cmr.9710

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

Threatt, R. S. (2009). Facebook and the Ideal Social Market Place: A Study of The Marketing Benefits of Social Media Practices. Masters Thesis, University of Southern California, U.S.A. Retrieved from: http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/p15799coll127/id/171962

 

Appendices

Appendix A – Display of friend post and business page post in Newsfeed

Friend:                                                             Business page:

                        

Images sourced from personal Facebook Newsfeed on April 1, 2018.

Appendix B – Facebook business page example

Image sourced from www.facebook.com/ McDonaldsAU/?brand_redir=50245567013 on April 1, 2018.

Appendix C – Business advert in Facebook Messenger Application


Image sourced from personal Facebook account on April 1, 2018.

Appendix D – Book now button on business page

Image sourced from www.facebook.com/fioritadeli/ on April 1, 2018.

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

Emotional Norms in Online Communities

Emotional Norms in Online Communities

By Abbey Healey

 

HealeyA Conference Paper PDF

 

Abstract

This paper reviews online communities how they negatively affect our ability as humans to be ever truly be alone, with reference to traditional offline communities. Online communities have been a great addition to technology, increasing productivity and adding an element of ease into our lives, however have made being alone in the ‘real world’ a difficult task for some. Web 2.0 has created a constant need for connection and has given ‘real-life’ a lonesome feeling that leaves people begging for a sense of control within their social lives. This paper explores the feelings experienced when communicating online and the impact they have on daily life and traditional communities.

 

 

Keywords:Online Community, Collective Self-Esteem, Invisible Dimension, Web 2.0

 

 

 

Online communities in Web 2.0 negatively impact our ability as humans to experience moments of independence when navigating the online world. These communities, while having many positives such as accounting for marginalised groups and making everyday life easier, are the same communities that are responsible for things such as loneliness and ignorance of professional opinion as well as a decrease in the set of life skills one would otherwise develop if not following in the footsteps of everyone else in the world. An online community can be defined as “passion-centric” (Porter, 2015, p161) groups of individuals with similar interests or situations that form a basis for means of communication. Today’s individual’s use online communities in a search for approval and recognition from others as well as to find  a niche within communities that makes them feel part of a group. Web 2.0 technologies are responsible for connecting people and allowing communities to be portable within daily life. With reference to work by other scholars, this paper argues that online communities should be held responsible for a decrease in one’s ability to be independent in every-day life as well as noting we are never truly alone when it comes to Web 2.0. Through social hierarchies and power in online communities the influence they have on our lives and decision-making processes is phenomenal. Sherry Turkle’s 2012 TED talk about the lonesome feeling we get as a result of constant connectivity in online communities will be largely referenced  to back up my argument and ideas formed about belonging in communities and works by other scholars will back up her ideas as well as help to form the rest of my argument.

 

Belonging in Online Communities

There is an online community that suits every individual’s needs and interests, from fashion and sporting communities to buy-and-sell and relocation communities – the internet houses every niche audience imaginable that it almost seems impossible for users to ever be truly alone. Turkle (2012) notes “being alone feels like a problem that needs to be solved” hence why so many people are reaching for their devices.  Online communities make people feel like they are a part of something bigger than just an individual sitting alone at home, holding Web 2.0 technologies responsible for creating such a “psychologically powerful” world, that is always available to help us feel a form of connection (Turkle, 2012). In moments of lonesomeness, it is not uncommon for individuals to crave a connection in an online community, where as a body they are alone but their minds are occupied as part of a constant communication happening elsewhere. This has significantly changed everyday life, because now we exist in the ‘real’ world, and because of mobile technology, in “an invisible dimension over everyday life” (Thompson, 2008) at the same time. Traditional communities have changed as a direct result of this. Traditional communities are different from online communities in that the communication is not constant and is not as controlled.  People would choose when to communicate with others and almost all of the time needed to physically be in the same room for this to occur. Online communities boast non geographical connections at any time but seem to fill a void in everyday life where participation is based upon wanting to feel something rather than participating because a feeling is already being experienced (Turkle, 2012).

 

Where before, alone time out of communities was a hindrance and a bore, it has now become a luxury that people crave to have.  However, humans have always needed a community and a sense of belonging but we have evolved into having a need to belong all of the time, leaving people in online communities wondering why should they be alone when they do not have to be, even if your physical bodies are nowhere near each other. Gangadharbatla(2008) explains this “need to belong” as a motivational way of gaining social recognition and that it also stems from 3 qualities that come from being a part of an online community; inclusion, affection and control. This type of person is what we call an “altruist individual”, they are “motivated by collective action, community belonging and knowledge sharing” (Aguiton and Cardon, 2007, p53). Gangadharbatla(2008) discusses a concept called “collective self-esteem”, which is defined as the worth someone places on themselves based upon the communities they are a part of. This relates directly to my argument that individuals no longer know how to be on their own, and how to perceive others as individuals. Online communities make it so much easier to place labels and values on people, based solely on what their interests are and who they associate with. Whilst I agree, online communities have helped marginalised groups become a part of society, they still separate groups of people creating an ‘us and them’ atmosphere on the web. Solving tasks as part of a group is something we all know makes life a lot easier, but I argue that while this increases individual productivity it decreases an individual’s belief that they can complete a task alone as they are always going to be looking for social recognition in the “invisible dimension” (Thompson, 2008) that gives them a chance of boosting their “collective self-esteem” (Gangadharbatla, 2008).

 

 

Power and Status in Online Communities

While the idea of community boasts equality amongst participants, social hierarchies exist and online communities fall nothing short of a typical social hierarchy as well as a heightened ability to upgrade once social status. Social hierarchies and status seeking is not something unfamiliar as far as communities go, there always seems to be a leader unspoken or elected, in traditional communities. However online with exposed admins and hierarchal titles, such as how often you participate in online discussions within the community, status seeking seems to be the main motivation within online communities.  Aguiton and Cardon (2007) suggest that the more active a user is within an online community (i.e. the more power they have), the more important their goals are within the community. Admins and highly ranked members of online communities are looked up to by newcomers and lower ranked community members, with usernames often recognised amongst the bunch.

 

Like with offline communities it gives a sense of power to those higher rated within online social groups and creates a desire in the minds of lower ranked participants, to be socially accepted within the community. “Status seeking is a social passion that drives participants to invest time and effort in giving the gift of their experience to others without direct benefit to themselves. This social passion is a reliable source of continuing participation, making it more likely that virtual communities will survive and grow.” (Lampel and Bhalla, 2007). Status seeking  and power are the main motivators for individuals to invest so much time into creating another identity for themselves, for the reason that behind a computer or mobile screen, you can create the perception of being whoever you want to be.  Aguiton and Cardon (2007) also state that “people build their identity through the continuous search for recognition in the eyes of others”. This again draws attention to the idea that individuals have become wrapped up in the Web 2.0 world where the technology is available to construct yourself to feel powerful, giving them another reason to not experience time alone away from communities, as they have a social status to build. Status within the community, self-building and set leaders are amongst the “rules and norms [that are] are created by users themselves” (Aguiton and Cardon, 2007, p56) and are responsible for a pattern that shows lower ranked community members adapting their beliefs and values to follow the highly ranked members, in order to become more socially accepted in yet another community they are a part of. The constant need for recognition, approval and power in virtual communities are another reason individuals are no longer capable of being independent, with the ability to upgrade one’s social status 24-hours a day, it is obvious why some individuals feel the need to be constantly participating in online discussions and playing an active role in online communities that never sleep.

 

 

Influence from Online Communities

In spite of the fact that many participants in online communities have never met each other, they have an undeniable ability to influence each other’s opinions instead of individuals being able to create an opinion for themselves. This has skyrocketed things like word of mouth or buzz marketing and online collaboration. For corporations, these are great money making tools but for individuals, can seem like while the friendships and bonds formed online may seem real, there always is in fact an outside motivation to the relationship. Aguiton and Cardon (2007, p55), convey that “publishing individual activities is the first step towards potential collaboration with others”, this is for the reason that it sparks familiarity in similar interests. The word similar in this sentence hold significant importance, as no two opinions are the same. Even without online word of mouth marketing and promotion, individuals still hold lots of power to influence opinion of people they would not have otherwise met in a traditional way. An example I would like to point out is how naivety is affected in online communities when it comes to professional opinion versus community opinion with reference to the saying “do not believe everything you read on the internet”.

 

Behind a computer screen it is impossible to know whether the professional giving you advice at the other end is actually who they say they are. Web 2.0 gives users the opportunity to conceal their identity within communities, whereas traditional communities are largely face to face. In online communities there is an element of trust with the forged bonds that are created with again, people you may have never met. This trust stems from the sense of belonging you feel within the community. The loneliness experienced by people in online communities, though constantly communicating, is part of the reason they trust others they meet online so easily. It is almost as if they are consumed by online communities and have nowhere else to turn. “The process of social influence leads people to adopt behaviours exhibited by those they interact with” (Crandall et al, 2018). The impact of an influence in behaviour experienced by people because of individuals they have never met is staggering. Where before traditional communities were quite reserved in opinions seeing as you could place a face to shocking comments that were made, the online world now gives users the opportunity to say what they really think, introducing strong influences from many directions. Independent voices seem to be a thing of the past, as now our opinions are made up of those of others. There seems to be no such thing as an original opinion, just merely samples of the opinions of others that we witness in online communities. The influence created in situations like these goes unnoticed and forges bonds between people online for sharing the ‘same’ opinion. Excuses for forming bonds such as this one are a direct influence from the lonely feeling people get when they feel they do not share common beliefs as part of a community.

 

Conclusion

With web 2.0 technology so integrated as a part of everyday life, it is hard not to constantly be involved with an online community that requires little effort to participate in. On one hand it keeps us engaged with others but on the other means we never get time to make meaning on our own without outside influence and support. The lonely feeling we get when we are not connected with other holds responsibility for our involvement in an “invisible dimension” (Thompson, 2008). Needing to belong and a need for power as well as naivety when it comes to being influenced all play a role in the way we unknowingly need to be a part of online communities. These factors all have one thing in common, that is they all involve other people. Independence as we know it, has changed significantly due to virtual communities, creating a hardship when it comes to being alone in ‘real life’. Online no matter what you do, there are always other people there, making it seemingly impossible to ever be alone in virtual space and making it so we do not ever want to be away from our online communities.

 

 

 

References

 

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

 

Crandall, D., Cosley, D., Huttenlocher, D., Kleinberg, J., & Suri, S. (2018). Feedback Effects

between Similarity and Social Influence in Online Communities (p. 160). Retrieved from https://www.cs.bgu.ac.il/~snean151/wiki.files/6-FeedbackEffectsbetweenSimilarityandSocialInfluence.pdf

 

Gangadharbatla, H. (2008). Facebook Me: Collective Self-Esteem, Need to Belong,and

Internet Self-Efficacy as Predictors of the iGeneration’s Attitudes toward Social Networking Sites. Journal Of Interactive Advertising, 8(2), 4-5.

 

Lampel, J., & Bhalla, A. (2007). The Role of Status Seeking in Online Communities: Giving the

Gift of Experience. Journal Of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2), 434-455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00332.x

 

Porter, C. E. (2015). Virtual communities and social networks. In L. Cantoni and J. A.

Danowski, (eds). Communication and Technology. Berlin: De Gruyter. pp. 161 – 179

 

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

 

Turkle, S. (2012). Connected, but alone? [Video]. Retrieved from

 

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

HealeyA Conference Paper PDF

Gaming Communities changing the way we interact

Gaming Communities PDF

Madison Matta

 

Abstract

Gaming communities have radically changed the way people interact with one another and its instant nature, allows people to interact and also escape in a way they could never do offline. Although online gaming has been questioned over whether it’s a legitimate community, we see that it has many similar attributes of a physical community and also many advantages, such as no geographical boundaries. Gaming communities can be seen as a ‘third place’ in which people interact in a way that they are unable to in their first place (home) and second place (work). All these concepts will then be explored in the Massively multiplayer online game World of Warcraft, a game which has substantial communities within the game and uses other mediums. It will also explore how gaming capital can directly translate to social capital and what it means to have ‘gaming capital’.

 

Gaming Communities changing the way we interact

Gaming communities have radically changed the way people interact online and its instant nature for people globally allows people to interact and ‘escape’ in a way they could never do offline. There have been many arguments against the legitimacy of gaming communities and whether they should be classified as ‘real communities’. Critics of online communities write that “life on the net can never be meaningful or complete because it will lead people away from the full range of in person contact. Or, conceding half the debate, they worry that people will get so engulfed in a simulacrum virtual reality, that they will lose contact with “real life’ (Wellman & Gulia,1997). This paper will argue that gaming communities are genuine communities which allow gamers to engage with each other in ways that offline communities never could, creating an ‘escape’ for those who struggle with being a part of offline communities.

 

Gaming as a community

For a long time, there was questions over the legitimacy of online communities and their realness from scholars, “while all this razzle-dazzle connects us electronically, it disconnects us from each other, having us “interfacing” more with computers and TV screens than looking in the face of our fellow human beings’ (Fox, 1995, p. 12). This is simply untrue, and just like in a real life community we see different types of virtual communities are emerging and at the forefront of these is the gaming community. There are many elements that make up a gaming community, A community is a group of people who come together to share similarities and interests. Preece defines online communities as “people who interact socially as they strive to satisfy their own needs to perform special roles. They also have a shared purpose, an interest or need, information exchange, or service that provides a reason for community. A community has policies, rituals, protocols and laws that guide people’s interactions. Computer systems support and mediate the online communities.” (Preece, 2000). All of these elements Preece associates with online communities, particularly the shared purpose and interest, are integral parts of the gaming community. People who are part of online gaming communities all have the shared interest of the game and the games proved a reason for community. These are all factors that make up the vast world that is the gaming community.

 

How gaming communities differ from offline communities

The major differences of gaming communities when compared to offline communities are what makes them such a popular alternative for people who struggle fitting into physical communities For example, being able to interact with someone from the other side of the world in a game, or being able to switch off and stop interaction whenever they want and being able to find people with shared interests because you have so much more reach. Within each game there is a community of people with at least one common interest, the game itself, and the community is only limited by a person’s access to that game. With no physical space needed to form the community gamers socialise with each other through the medium of the game, many games encouraging communication from players and teamwork to succeed. With no real restrictions on members of the gaming community they “attempt to break through some of the boundaries of race, gender, ethnicity, and geographic location established in physical communities” (Gross, Katz and Rice, 2003). Gaming communities are absent of any real institutional authority and emerge from technology, compared to offline communities which will often have institutional authority and have physical borders and exclude people gaming has a voluntary participation by its members (Katz et al., 2004).  This voluntary participation from members and no physical borders are the main reasons the gaming community allows people to interact in a way they could never do in a physical community. People from all different parts of the world, from all walks of life, are brought together in way they never could before, and use these new formed relationships to engage with the game by playing, chatting and connecting with other platforms created by the game.

 

Gaming as ‘Third Place’

‘Third Place’ refers to the social surrounding which is different to your two usual surroundings, those usually being home (first place) and work (second place). Ray Oldenburg’s book ‘The Great Good place’ talks about the theory of Third Place stating that “individuals may belong to several formal organizations but if they have a third place it is apt to make them feel more a part of the community than those other memberships” (Oldenburg, 1999). The gaming community provides a ‘Third Place’ for its members and allows interactions with it fellow members in a way that communities at home and work cannot. In the reading ‘Online games as ‘third places’’ they explore gaming as the ‘third place’ in Massively multiplayer online video games (MMO). They explore how “By providing spaces for social interaction and relationships beyond the workplace and home, MMOs have the capacity to function as one form of a new “third place” for informal sociability much like the pubs, coffee shops, and other hangouts of old.” (Steinkuehler and Williams, 2006). All of Oldenburg (1999) criteria of the third place are met by online games, such as a neutral ground, communication, easy access and a home away from home. Although there are arguments against a game being a ‘place’ it is a space where people can come together to interact and a form a community and that’s why gaming is an example of a ‘third place’ for so many people around the world.

 

World of Warcraft

If we now look specifically at the game World of Warcraft (WoW) and how it changed the way people interact and allows people to interact in a way they could never do offline. ‘World of Warcraft (WoW) is one of the most popular massively multiplayer games (MMOs) to date, with more than 6 million subscribers worldwide’ (Ducheneaut Yee, Nickell & Moore, 2006), players can play against the environment or they can play against one another, players can also choose to role-play. The journal article ‘the social life of guilds in World of Warcraft’ explored the social dynamics of the game and its players. There studies discovered that “players were found to use the game to extend real-life relationships, meet new people, form relationships of varying strength, and also use others merely as a backdrop. The key moderator of these outcomes appears to be the game’s mechanic, which encourages some kinds of interactions while discouraging others.” (Williams et al., 2006). This shows that MMO such as WoW are so popular not just because of the gameplay but because of the relationships they can facilitate through the games mechanics. When people of shared interest are coming together to discuss create and play, they are fulfilling the elements scholars define to be what is needed for a community. Which further proves how games are radically changing the way people interact. When studying the relationships within the guilds, they found that they meant far more then the functional purposes they posses in the game (Williams et al., 2006). The studies found that “In nearly every social guild that lasted more than a month, members and leaders were aware of the need for a certain level of maturity, responsibility, and player welfare. This level of what can only be described as caring is remarkable given that the game is centred ostensibly around functional, not psychological or social goals. It is clear that social guilds go well past the game’s goals in creating and maintaining communities.” (Williams et al., 2006). All their findings found the MMO of WoW to be a game where the games format encouraged interaction and successfully developed relationships and attributes of a community.  Concluding that “WoW is in fact a vibrant third place, populated with a range of social experiences ranging from ephemeral impersonal groups to sustained and deep relationships that extend offline.” (Williams et al., 2006).

 

Online gaming and Social Capital

 Social capital is a form of cultural capital where social networks and groups are central to your influence. Social capital, is an integral part of analysing relationships and personal interactions and can be seen in gaming communities like World of Warcraft. The gaming mechanics for MMO affects how important it is for the players to co-operate and compete with others and how useful it is to form different kinds of sub-communities with people of greater ability establishing a higher social capital in the gaming communities. This bridging of social capital into the online gaming communities can be have positive affects on an individuals overall social capital. The journal article “Gaming Social Capital: Exploring Civic Value in Multiplayer Video Games” looks at gaming social capital and “Theorizes that gamers who develop ties and work together with a community of fellow gamers build gaming social capital, one’s sense of belonging to and participating in a gaming community which can be leveraged for individual benefit or collective good. In other words, the concept of social capital recognizes that there is some value inherent in one’s connections to other community members” (Molyneux, Vasudevan & Gil de Zúñiga, 2015) This further proves the value of being in a gaming community and why online gaming is a ‘third place’ for people to interact and react to others, with the study finding that “multiplayer video games are indeed associated with forming social ties within a community of gaming peers, a concept we call gaming social capital. This concept is distinct from but theoretically and empirically related to broader face-to-face social capital. Results suggest that gamers who develop gaming social capital are likely to develop face-to-face ties with others in their real-world community. Thus we observe a spill over effect from gaming social capital to social capital in the real world.” (Molyneux, Vasudevan & Gil de Zúñiga, 2015) This development of face-to-face ties and a spill over of social capital in the physical world shows how influential the interactions which take place online in video games can be.

 

Online Gaming communities have radically changed the way people can interact with one another and allows people to network in a way they could never do offline. Although there are arguments against the value of virtual communities and its ‘razzle dazzle’ from scholars such as Fox, its been proven that the attributes of a virtual gaming community have many advantages over physical communities, such as successfully breaking down boundaries of race, gender, ethnicity, and geographic location established in physical communities” (Gross, Katz and Rice, 2003). Gaming is a ‘third place’ for many people and it allows people to interact in a way that there first place (home) and second place (work) don’t allow. The MMO game World of Warcraft is an example of a third place and the interactions that take place. The way these gaming communities grow as a ‘third place’ then begins to establish an order of social capital within its members.

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

 

References

Ducheneaut, N., Yee, N., Nickell, E., & Moore, R. (2006). Building an MMO With Mass Appeal. Games And Culture, 1(4), 281-317. doi: 10.1177/1555412006292613

Fox, Robert. 1995. “Newstrack.”communications of the ACM 38 (8): 11-12.

Gross, M., Katz, J., & Rice, R. (2003). Social Consequences of Internet Use: Access, Involvement, and Interaction. Contemporary Sociology, 32(6), 691.

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.

Molyneux, L., Vasudevan, K., & Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2015). Gaming Social Capital: Exploring Civic Value in Multiplayer Video Games. Journal Of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(4), 381-399.

 Oldenburg, R. (1999). The great good place: Cafés, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons, and other hangouts at the heart of a community. New York: Marlowe: Cambridge, MA : Da Capo Press.

Preece, J. (2000). Online Communities: Designing Usability, Supporting Sociability. 100(9), pp.459-460.

Steinkuehler, C. & Williams, D. (2006). Where Everybody Knows Your (Screen) Name: Online Games as “Third Places”. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 11(4), article  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00300.x/full

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

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(4), 338-361.