Month: May 2018

Over-sharing in an online environment and its relationship to building communities and networks of virtue friends

<a href="https://www.freestock.com/free-photos/happy-group-friends-gossiping-cell-phone-101409499">Image used under license from Freestock.com</a>

Abstract

With the expansion of social media platforms and the increase in user numbers, people are sharing personal information on an unprecedented scale. Consequently, the term “over-sharing” has been used to describe the online habits of many social media users. This conference paper draws on academic research to argue that social media users have developed online communities and social networks built on “virtue friends”, creating an environment where over-sharing is simply a normal and characteristic behaviour pattern of those seeking to maintain and build strong connections.

Introduction

Social media platforms today have given people the ability to craft their own identity, expand their social networks and feel as though they are part of a real but online community – all of which are intrinsically linked in contributing to a person’s online behaviour. As online connections turn into virtue friendships, over-sharing has become an expected and normal pattern of behaviour.

This paper will seek to define virtue friendship and explain why this level of friendship can be achieved in an online environment. It will also seek to explain why people look to build social networks and be part of online communities, including to illustrate what over-sharing is and investigate what motivates people to do it. This paper will combine all of these to demonstrate that over-sharing is nothing new, but rather a pattern of behaviour that has always been there between virtue friends. However, it is a behaviour that has seen greater visibility with the expansion of social media platforms.

Virtue friendship

Social media has generated much debate on whether the connections people form on platforms such as Facebook can be defined as virtue friendships, the highest level of friendship that can be reached according to Greek philosopher Aristotle. In his teaching, Aristotle believed that this kind of friendship was “based on mutual admiration of our friend’s character and sharing of the same values” and “based on mutual concern of each person for the other for his own sake” (Kaliarnta, 2016, p.66).

Aristotle’s view is consistent with more contemporary research on identity, networks and community as evident in Zizi Papacharissi’s book titled A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites, which was a collection of academic research papers on social media platforms. It concluded:

“Social network sites carry the expectations of sociability, meaningful connection to others, conviviality, perhaps even empathy and support…there can be no question that “community”, with all its affective and historical complications, will continue to frame popular understanding of MySpace and Facebook” (Papacharissi, 2011, p.106).

Through these descriptions one can draw the conclusion that people seek to build and maintain virtue friendships in both the offline and online environments. However, many researchers still believe that this level of friendship is unattainable online.

In 2012, a group of researchers published in the journal Ethics and Information Technology three key reasons as to why virtue friendship could not be achieved online. The authors expressed concern that people would only present a certain aspect of their character online, rather than reveal their complete self, which prevented the ability to build close connections. The same researchers also believed that people would be unable to pick up on subtle behaviour patterns that people exhibit when having one-on-one physical interactions in an offline environment ‑ something that would arguably allow people to gain more of an insight into another person’s character. Additionally, there was a belief that social media was changing the way people interact with one another. Specifically, that people were satisfied with having very brief connections online, rather than developing the traditional type of friendship that one would expect to achieve in an offline environment (Kaliarnta, 2016).

In contrast to the argument that virtue friendship cannot be achieved online—and in support of the thesis of this paper—researchers argue that social media platforms do the exact opposite by expanding the avenues by which people can learn about others through their online communities and social networks without having to engage in direct communication. A person’s behaviour—in terms of what they say and do—can be observed on multiple social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn, and assists in building a more accurate picture of that person’s character (Kaliarnta, 2016). To illustrate this in more detail, a person may want to portray themselves in a particular light on Facebook. However, this presentation will be undermined by their own actions on other social media platforms, therefore allowing for a more accurate assessment by others. In other words, a person’s digital footprint tells a story—no matter how fragmented the information is—about where they work, what they say, what they do, what music they like, where they go for holidays, what their political affiliations are, with whom they socialise, and whether or not they are in a relationship (Power of positivity, n.d.). All this and more can be determined by observing the online activities of others without the need for any one-on-one interaction in an offline environment. This personal information, which is available from multiple social media platforms, demonstrates that virtue friendship can be achieved, or perceived to be achieved online, through the ability to determine another person’s character through their digital footprint. This was the very character Aristotle said was important to building virtue friendships. Interestingly, research has shown that an estimated 70 per cent of Facebook users have people they already know offline as Facebook friends (Kaliarnta, 2016, p76). These findings support the argument that social media platforms are being used by people to develop the connections they have offline and online and turn them into virtue friendships.

Over-sharing

The concept of over-sharing is not new at all. In the 1988 book ‘Handbook of personal relationships: theory, research, and interventions’ it was stated that “disclosure of inner feelings and experiences to another person fosters liking, caring, and trust, thereby facilitating the deepening of close relationships” (Duck 1988, p. 372). This assessment illustrated that even before social media existed, virtue friendships were built on over-sharing and that it was the normal character behaviour for people seeking to build virtue friendships and find a sense of “belonging”. Stefano Tardini and Lorenzo Cantoni’s 2018 research paper defined belonging as being part of a community (Tardini & Cantoni, 2018, p.373).

Since the introduction of social media platforms, over-sharing has become more pronounced and has received a significant amount of negative publicity. In Oversharing: A Critical Discourse Analysis, it defined over-sharing as:

“a new word for an old habit made astonishingly easy by modern technology. It is yet another product of digital advances that allow people to record and transmit their lives—in words, videos, and graphics—to anyone with internet access” (Hoffmann, 2009, p.2).

This definition is consistent with other research that concluded over-sharing was:

“to divulge more of their inner feelings, opinions and sexuality than they would in person, or even over the phone. Text messaging, Facebooking, tweeting, camming, blogging, online dating…are vehicles of this oversharing, which blurs the boundary between public and private life” (Agger 2015).

Though these definitions are contemporary and are well founded, they are simplistic and do not acknowledge other research that has identified numerous phycological factors as to why people over-share on social media.

Over-sharing, belonging and community

The 2011 review Why do people use Facebook? brought together several studies that looked at the psychology behind what motivated people to use that particular social media platform. The review found that 1) a need to belong and 2) a need for self-presentation were the two key factors driving people to use Facebook (Nadkarni & Hofmann, 2011, p.245). This view is consistent with American psychologist Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, which identified five key areas as to what drives a person’s motivation in life. These were physiological, safety, social or sense of belonging, esteem and self-actualization needs. Maslow’s held that:

“people act to satisfy the lower needs before satisfying their higher needs. A starving man for example, first devotes his energy to finding food. If the basic need is satisfied, he can spend more time on his safety needs, such as eating the right foods and breathing good air. When he feels safe, he can take the time to deepen his social affiliations and friendships. Still later, he can develop pursuits that will meet his need for self-esteem and the esteem of others. Once this is satisfied, he is free to actualize his potential in other ways. As each lower level need is satisfied, it ceases to be a motivator and a higher need starts defining the person’s motivational orientation” (Andreasen & Kotler, 2008).

In 2012, belonging was also defined as “the experience of being valued, needed, or important with respect to other people, groups, or environments, and the experience of fitting in or being congruent with other people, groups, or environments through shared or complementary characteristic” (Zhaoa, Lua, Wang, Chauc, Zhang, 2012, p.4), which is also consistent with Tardini and Cantoni’s definition of community. These definitions support this paper’s argument that social media users developed social networks and online communities built on virtue friends.

The review by Nadkarni and Hofmann uncovered that social media had also been an excellent tool for those who struggled to make connections offline. One of the studies highlighted in the review identified that “people with low or high levels of neuroticism were inclined to share more basic information” (Nadkarni & Hofmann, 2011, p.245).

The journal Are Close Friends the Enemy? Online Social Networks, Self-Esteem, and Self-Control published by Keith Wilcox and Andrew Stephen in 2012 conducted research into social networks, self-esteem and self-control. This study complimented and extended on the research by Nadkarni and Hofmann. The research concluded that people seeking “strong ties” online experienced an increase in self-esteem and confidence the more they browsed online, resulting in a reduction of self-control (Wilcox & Stephen, 2012). This research did not focus specifically on over-sharing but looked more broadly at the implications of a person having reduced self-control. While Nadkarni and Hofmann’s research demonstrated that some people over-share because social media platforms give them the confidence to express themselves and build connections through those platforms, in Wilcox and Stephen’s study it appears that over-sharing could be a behaviour exhibited when a person experiences an increase in self-esteem and confidence that leads to a lack of inhibitory self-control when seeking to build strong connections. These findings support this paper’s thesis that over-sharing is simply a normal characteristic behaviour that one would expect to see on social media platforms. The combination of building a social network and online community of virtue friends, having greater self-confidence, a desire to belong, and a reduction of self-control have created an environment of over-sharing.

The research so far reviewed in this paper has confirmed that it is a combination of variables that have contributed to an environment of over-sharing, with the search for belonging a common thread that connects all of them together. Several studies have introduced the concept of “social capital” to explain the connections people make and the behaviours they exhibit online today. It has been defined as:

“the core idea of social capital theory is that networks have value…social contacts affect the productivity of individuals and groups…Human capital refers to connections among individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them” (Bartkus & Davis, 2009, p.18).

In 2007, the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication published the findings from a comprehensive study that examined the relationship between Facebook and social capital. The findings in this study again supported the results in other research identified in this paper that concluded that building strong connections had a direct relationship with self-esteem. Additionally, the journal paper supported Nadkarni and Hofmann’s conclusion that online networks were helping those who would otherwise struggle to build strong connections or find a voice, as well as encourage more self-disclosure (Ellison, Steinfield & Lampe, 2007, p.1146 & 1147). This reference to greater self-disclosure can be interpreted as over-sharing. Regardless of whether you accept this interpretation or not, the finds support the argument of this paper that over-sharing online is expected behaviour between virtue friends. It also highlights that virtue friendship can be achieved in an online environment.

Conclusion

From research identified in this paper, it is evident that social media platforms have enabled people to grow their social networks widely with apparent aim of cultivating virtue friendships, the extent of which may at times seem limitless. The ability to determine a person’s character through the sharing of personal information on multiple social media platforms has been recognised as the conduit to achieve this. Through their quest for belonging, users have identified with a community and it has given those who lack confidence the means to share their stories with a wider audience. Even though over-sharing has been seen by some to be about depicting a false representation of one’s self, research has demonstrated that for others it has been about getting oneself known by actively connecting to a wide social network which over-sharing facilitates. Over-sharing is now seen as the norm if one is seeking to build strong connections in both offline and online environments, and a way of reaching-out to the world. A person’s desire to belong and build strong connections is clearly evident by the growth in the number of people joining social media platforms.

References

Agger, B. (2012) Oversharing: Presentations of Self in the Internet Age. Summary retrieved from https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781136448270

Andreasen, A., Kotler, P. (2008). Strategic Marketing for Nonprofit Organizations. New Jersey, United States of America: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Bartkus, V., Davis, J. (2009). Social Capital: Reaching Out, Reaching In. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.  Retrieved from http://link.library.curtin.edu.au/p?pid=CUR_ALMA51115531750001951

Bernstein, E. (2013). Thank You for Not Sharing –  What Triggers People to Reveal Too Much; Avoiding the Post-Conversation Cringe. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323826804578466831263674230

Duck, S (1988). Handbook of personal relationship: theory, research, and interventions. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Retrieved from http://depts.washington.edu/uwcssc/sites/default/files/Reis%20%26%20Shaver,%201988.pdf

Ellison, E., Steinfield, C., Lampe, C. (2007). The Benefits of Facebook “Friends:” Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Site. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x

Kaliarnta, S. (2016) Using Aristotle’s theory of friendship to classify online friendships: a critical counterview. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10676-016-9384-2.pdf

Nadkarni A., Hofmann, S. (2011). Why Do People Use Facebook? Review. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.007

Papacharissi, Z. (2011). A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/curtin/detail.action?docID=574608#

Power of positivity (n.d.) What Do Your Social Media Updates Reveal About Your Personality? Retrieved from https://www.powerofpositivity.com/social-media-updates-personality/

Tardini, S., Cantoni, L. (2018) A Semiotic Approach to Online Communities: Belonging, Interest and Identity in Websites’ and Videogames’ Communities. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266218884_A_SEMIOTIC_APPROACH_TO_ONLINE_COMMUNITIES_BELONGING_INTEREST_AND_IDENTITY_IN_WEBSITES%27_AND_VIDEOGAMES%27_COMMUNITIES

Wilcox, K., Stephen, A. (2012) Are Close Friends the Enemy? Online Social Networks, Self-Esteem, and Self-Control. Journal of Consumer Research. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1086/668794

Zhaoa, L., Lua. Y., Wang, B., Chauc, P., Zhang, L. (2012). Cultivating the sense of belonging and motivating user participation in virtual communities: A social capital perspective. International Journal of Information Management. Retrieved from https://doi-org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2012.02.006

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

Image used under license from Freestock.com

Beauty Influencers and Their Changing Identities

Abstract

This paper explores how within the beauty community, specifically looking at the YouTube and Instagram community of influencers that have amassed millions of followers, beauty influencers are shaped by the community as they make changes to their identities based on the platforms they are on. The platforms explored are Instagram and Twitter, discussing the infrastructure and community each platform has and the power they have. Examples of beauty influencers and their scandals are used to illustrate this point. The community and individuals who participate in the community are discussed briefly, in terms of what role they play and what power they have individually and collectively. Overall, Instagram is found to lean towards community and Twitter towards infrastructure to influence change within identity in beauty influencers.

Keywords: identity, Twitter, Instagram, social media, beauty influencers, power, beauty blogging

Introduction

The beauty industry has benefited from the fast paced and ever growing community it has attracted online. The dynamics the community present many questions as to how they continue to work and grow. In this paper, I aim to look at identity in communities and networks and will focus on the online beauty community, specifically looking at the YouTube and Instagram community of influencers that have amassed millions of followers, and I argue that beauty influencers are shaped by the community as they make changes to their identities based on the platforms they are on. The theme of power will be explored as it is a concept that ties into all aspects of this paper. First, I will compare both platforms of Instagram and Twitter, discussing their differences and similarities. Next I will examine each platform individually starting with Instagram and the relationships between individuals and influencers and how this relation shapes an influencer’s identity. Finally, I will explore Twitter and its infrastructure and, community and how it can impact how an influencer creates their identity. For the purposes of this paper, I will only discuss influencers who have a relatively large following, English and Western sector of the beauty community. This will help narrow the paper and explore influencers who do alter their identity at a larger scale.

Definitions

Key concepts such as community and identity must be defined to create a framework for this essay. According to Sanders (as cited in E Rice et al., 2004, p. 4), community is made up of four elements, which include “a place to live, a spatial unit, a way of life, and social system”. E Rice et al. (2004) further states that virtual communities though may not fit into past definitions of communities which were made more for physical communities, still are communities as they are based on different ideas compared to physical communities. They are more focused on the individual conveying their identity as true as possible without general regard to social rules in physical communities. Virtual communities are based on “shared social practices and interests”, and physical based on “shared social and physical boundaries” (E Rice et al., 2004). A more recent definition by Preece (as cited in Cavanagh, 2009, p. 2) states a community’s characteristics include “shared goals, common interests, shared activities and governance, mutual satisfaction of needs, co-operation, enjoyment, pleasure and location as common understandings of community”. This definition of community can be used to define and lay out characteristics of the beauty community. The beauty community of influencers all have a shared interest in beauty, with a focus on cosmetics and they all have a mutual understanding and passion for it. They share social boundaries in the form of grouping together influencers who have the same style of makeup or content and the social practices are very similar across influencers, sharing their makeup or lifestyle surrounding the topic of beauty. Instagram’s algorithm pushes this further by recommending similar beauty accounts to a user based on who they follow, as they post similar content. This showcases that the beauty community has characteristics of a typical community and it is not a new concept of a community. Twitter showcases this as well by the hashtags displaying several users posting makeup looks or tweets relating to beauty, showing their participation and shared interests. Dyrberg (1997) defines identity as the final product of identification, one that happens due to the existence of complex power relations. Such a definition is relevant to beauty influencers that make a brand out of their name, their identity is formed through power relations and what they do.

Instagram and Twitter

Both Twitter and Instagram have its differences and similarities in the way the community and platform encourage for aspects of identities. Both Instagram and Twitter have a like function which usually means that the viewer is showing their approval of the post (Anagnostopoulos, Parganas, Chadwick, & Fenton, 2018). The way one responds to post however, are different, as on Instagram, the comment stays within the post, while on Twitter, a new tweet is made but is attached to the original tweet (Highfield & Leaver, 2014). This difference can cause an influencer to alter their identity differently, as on Instagram, comments may have little effect due to the grouping of all the comments. Whereas on Twitter, each individual reply is a tweet on its own, creating a more sense of self for the individual as beyond their username, their display name and profile photo are shown, which might have a greater effect on how the influencer takes feedback from their posts and decides to alter from it. It might also affect the way a commenter makes their comment and what kind of message they decide to leave. Those on Instagram are only identified by their username in the comments but on Twitter, more of their identity is shown. The way comments are made on both platforms and how they can affect alterations in identity can be seen through the example of Samantha Ravndahl, who posted a photo of her in Japan and including in the description her experience and what lessons she has learnt through the trip (Ravndahl, 2018). Immediately, her post received negative comments, calling her privileged and uncultured. Ravndahl turned the comments off on that post and has never since posted anything on her Instagram of similar content. She also posted the same photo and caption to Twitter and received some negative comments but also received drastically different, positive comments. This shows that bad comments in her Instagram post gave little care in leaving a negative comment, whereas on Twitter, those who left comments realised and understood the content Ravndahl was posting. This example shows the differences between the two platforms and displays the different aspects of them. Conversely, influencer James Charles receives many positive comments on both platforms but projects drastically different identities on both platforms, with Twitter, he creates an identity of being relatable and tweets about everyday things, however with Instagram, he focuses more on makeup, fashion, and lifestyle, thus creating a professional version of himself. Both influencers show even on different platforms, communities can be similar or drastically different and how an influencer may want to alter their identity differently across platforms.

Instagram

The beauty community on Instagram are often mocked by influencers on other platforms, from their wavy brows to breast insert blending sponges, one may look at them and not understand how they work. The community can be broken up into four dominant users; brand accounts, influencer accounts, update accounts and, individual accounts. This paper will focus mainly on influencer and individual accounts, looking at the relationships and community formed around influencer accounts. Individual accounts can be viewed as the everyday participant on an influencer’s Instagram posts. These accounts may view their interactions on posts having little to no impact, however Granovetter (1973) argues that their interactions is tied to bigger aspects of social structure and that they have little to no control of this. Such interactions can also be viewed as weak ties, which are relationships people have that hold lesser value than strong ties which are ties that have a relationship that holds a strong bond. The interactions consist of commenting or liking an account or post and, viewing these posts, and the way they do this affects the community they form by influencing the social cues. This in turn impacts the influencer users who take the feedback they receive from the individual users to alter their posts/account and in turn they tweak their identity to fit the community.

Since Instagram is limited to photos, videos and a text description, this impacts how an influencer can build and present their identity. Highfield and Leaver (2014) point out that compared to other platforms, Instagram encourages “standardised bits of information”, instead of giving an extensive story. This is due to the limitations of the platform, one is only allowed to post media and text is only an option in captions and though one can share text via images, it still is a media format. This is also brought over to Instagram stories where stories are limited by time. This forces influencer to share a snippet of what they want to. Such standardised information is reflective of influencer accounts, with majority of their posts being photos at an event, a restaurant, the beach and, so on. This limit influencers on what and how much they can share about their identity. Thus, each post is important in helping to build and alter their identity, with help from comments and feedbacks from their followers, the individual users. This creates a feedback loop, allowing influencers to create and enhance any aspects of the presented identity that received approval to grow more. Thus, this shows how influencers are influenced by individual accounts and how they are shaped by the community and don’t shape themselves, they might create an identity initially, however are eventually shaped by the community. Such can occur through comments as help represent the community and are part of the influencer’s identity as they take on their suggestions and whenever you visit their page, the comments reflect aspects of the influencer, again showing that individual users shape influencers. This relationship works as individual users get content that they desire and the influencer gets more likes, comments and, views on their posts, thus increasing their influence on people. This reveals that identity of influencers are in the hands of their followers and the community. Due to the strong ties influencers and individual accounts have, in which individual accounts help to provide influencers the power they have, they almost force influencers to change their identity or fear losing their power. This is displayed by beauty influencer James Charles who has had his identity damaged by a racism scandal, which will be discussed later in detail, tries to the best of his ability to prevent another racist scandal to his name appear again in fear of losing his reputation (Charles, 2018). It must also be noted that influencer accounts can become individual accounts on other’s Instagram pages. This allows influencers to experience a similar role to individual accounts, but will never fully experience it as their power and influence will translate in their interactions as their fans will back them up.

Twitter

Twitter in the beauty sphere is perceived to be a smaller platform compared to Instagram, but serves a purpose for some influencers. Like the analysis done on Instagram, I will only look at influencer accounts and individual users. Twitter has a different dynamic compared to Instagram, due to the limitations of the platform, where each tweet is limited to 240 characters. Veletsianos (2012) observes that the social networks within Twitter is a result of user’s connections with one another. Twitter not only separates each tweet from another, making each unique and a post of their own, but also structures each tweet consistently, having aspects such as date and time, username, text, and if added, links, photos, videos, hashtags and, mentions (Highfield & Leaver, 2014). This consistency leads to the platform easily being used for conversation and collaboration (Gruzd, Wellman, & Takhteyev, 2011). An influencer typically has several thousand followers and interacts with their fans. Interactions include, likes, replies, follows and, retweeting/quote tweeting. Such interactions can be easily seen on the influencer’s and individual’s page. Interactions and posts are quick and fast paced, this simulates the everyday life more in comparison to other social media platforms. The community works and is active as those who participate use Twitter to keep in touch with people, in this case to learn more about an influencer’s life (Gruzd et al., 2011). Influencers can receive tweets and comments about a tweet they posted from individuals, either positive, negative or neutral. Due to more direct, public and accessible conversations, Twitter becomes a more social platform, actively displaying strong connections influencers may have.

The nature of Twitter may cause influencers to alter their identities in terms of the relationships they show publicly. This is especially relevant as in the beauty influencer industry, the friendships one makes are also business relationships, so they might want to boost each other’s following count by faking the strength of the relationship. The community here plays a part as they can be happy to see the close relationship and encourage is by following the other influencer, thus leading to both influencers gaining more power through influence. This displays the power community has on identities of influencers, if they enjoy the identity they showcase, they encourage it and follow them. A way the platform shapes influencers is the nature of the platform. It restricts influencers with the character limit and the fast-paced tweets. Information is spread quickly (Milstein, Lorica, Magoulas, Hochmuth, & Chowdhury, 2009) and can cause influencers to rethink their tweets or count on the fact that Twitter moves quickly and tweet controversial things, as it is a platform of instantaneous posting. This can be seen through the example of James Charles, who got himself into trouble by posting a racist and ignorant tweet, joking about Ebola and Africa. Charles was quickly reprimanded by many and called out for being ignorant and racist and soon after, he apologised (Tea, 2017). Charles was blind to how fast information can spread and how it doesn’t just pass and was reminded of this through his ignorant and racist tweet. After such an event, Charles is no longer seen to be joking about race or Ebola and he has yet to post a tweet without much thought. This shows the power and immense influence of the community and how they can collectively create power in numbers and use it against people who are ignorant and racist. It showcases the way a community and dynamic of a platform can cause an influencer to tweak parts of their identity to fit the platform and its user’s demands.

Conclusion

Overall, both Twitter and Instagram’s community and platform play a part in how an influencer constructs and changes their identity. After exploring both platforms and discussing their similarities and differences, both platforms either lean towards community or platforms in how they influence change. Twitter leans towards the way the platform is constructed and Instagram leaning more on the community. However, both platforms use both platform and community to influence the change. Beauty influencers gain more out of changing their identity power and influence. A little was discussed about the community and the relationship they hold with influencers and the power they have in numbers and individually.

References

Anagnostopoulos, C., Parganas, P., Chadwick, S., & Fenton, A. (2018). Branding in pictures: using Instagram as a brand management tool in professional team sport organisations. European Sport Management Quarterly, 1-26. doi:10.1080/16184742.2017.1410202

Cavanagh, A. (2009). From Culture to Connection: Internet Community Studies. Sociology Compass, 3(1), 1-15. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00186.x

Charles, J. (Director, Producer) (2018, March 30). SHANE DAWSON AND RYLAND DO MY MAKEUP [YouTube video]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/CeCgsmTjHjk

Dyrberg, T. B. (1997). The circular structure of power: politics, identity, community: Verso.

E Rice, R., Katz, J., Acord, S., Dasgupta, K., David, K., Dasgupta, S., & David. (2004). Personal Mediated Communication and the Concept of Community in Theory and Practice (Vol. 28).

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380. doi:10.1086/225469

Gruzd, A., Wellman, B., & Takhteyev, Y. (2011). Imagining Twitter as an Imagined Community. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(10), 1294-1318. doi:10.1177/0002764211409378

Highfield, T., & Leaver, T. (2014). A methodology for mapping Instagram hashtags. First Monday, 20(3). doi:10.5210/fm.v20i1.5563

Milstein, S., Lorica, B., Magoulas, R., Hochmuth, G., & Chowdhury, A. (2009). Twitter and the Micro-Messaging Revolution : Communication, Connections, and Immediacy–140 Characters at a Time. Sebastopol, UNITED STATES: O’Reilly Media.

Ravndahl, S. [SsssamanthaaMUA]. (2018, January 4). Feeling pretty blessed and grateful [Tweet]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/SsssamanthaaMUA/status/948739378238578688

Tea, H. F. T. (Producer, Editor) (2017, February 16). JAMES CHARLES: IGNORANT COVER BOY? [YouTube video]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/9dTbq5pdYC4

Veletsianos, G. (2012). Higher education scholars’ participation and practices on Twitter. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(4), 336-349. doi:doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00449.x

 

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

Identifying Generational Differences in the Formation of Identity in Online Communities and Networks

Abstract:

This paper is to examine the generational differences in the formation of identity in online communities and networks. A focus on Erik Erikson’s theory of identity formation and Erving Goffman’s theory on the presentation of self is used to understand the emerging influences on identity formation. The generational differences are explored through looking at ideas of forming identities before we are born following through to digital footprints. The theme that online networks and communities can have both a positive and negative effect on identity is explored. The paper uses implications of new technology as a way to highlight the argument that identity formation has become more complex than it previously has been. In the article adolescents are referred to this can be assumed for the purpose of this paper children aged 10-19. Older generations for the purpose of this paper is referring to those who did not grow up in a fully digital world (30+).

Keywords: generation differences, online identity, identity formation, presentation of self, social networks, online communities

 

Identifying Generational Differences in the Formation of

Identity in Online Communities and Networks

The appearance of generational differences in the formation of identity online is becoming apparent because online spaces are more accessible from a young age. The rapid shift in modern technology and online spaces can be held accountable for this. Online communities and networks as a whole can be a positive experience opening minds and educating opinions. There is also a dark side to networks and communities where people can be bullied anonymously and unrealistic body images portrayed can have detrimental effects on young children/teenagers as they go through the important stages of identity formation. Where immediate surrounding were once the only aspect shaping our identities this is no longer the case in an online world. In relation to this, this paper will explore how forming our identities before we are even born and the exposure to online spaces from a younger age impacts on identity formation compared to older generations. Anonymity online and the rapid shift in new technologies will be used to outline the difference in generational experiences of forming identity. Our digital footprints follow us well past the point we leave our online identities, knowledge of digital footprints have strong impacts on ones presentation of self.

 

Defining Networks and Communities

A community in the general sense is a group of individuals who have a common center to participate in discussion and activities (Coyle, 1941). Communities can be large or small and take many forms such as forums, pages, groups, blogs and chatrooms on or offline.  Similarly, to communities, a network (most commonly associated with social networks) can be defined as the linking of groups and individuals online (“What is a Network,” 2016). Networks and communities work together to create spaces for like-minded individuals. Within these spaces expression of individual identity is encouraged and almost always positively welcomed, however, some online spaces can lead to identity confusion.

 

Discussion

With the advancement of new online platforms for networks and communities the idea of online identities and presentation of self has become more complex. Our youth is an important time to discover ourselves as we begin to decide what we identify with. Our identity refers to ones core values, beliefs and background with many aspects of life having both positive and negative effects on this (Kasinath, 2013). During adolescence, and in the current climate of online culture, it can be difficult to distinguish right from wrong and how you define yourself. With so many outside influence, adolescents can easily be swayed in their opinions, causing them to conform to social pressures from a young age. This continuous pressure during the adolescent stage can lead to identity confusion (Kasinath, 2013). Kasinath (2013) states that when we are in infancy we form a sense of self but as we grow into adolescence we seek to answer the question of who we are. A psychological theory formed by Erik Erikson about the formation of identity follows eight stages of crisis to be resolved by the individual (Kasinath, 2013). It can be argued that older generations were able to overcome these stages more successfully as they were not strongly influenced by negative outside factors and the influence of social media. This is not to say that today’s adolescent generation is worse off than older generations, just that there are visible differences between how their identities are formed. People often use social media to document the highlights of their life, leaving a digital footprint in the process. Leaver and Highfield (2018) explore the way in which people share information about others who cannot speak for themselves and how this information creates a digital footprint. With the rise of technology platforms such as Instagram have rapidly gained popularity and visible networks and communities are visible on Instagram through followers, following and hashtags. It has become a rite of passage for many expecting mothers to post a photo of their ultrasound images to social media using distinctive hashtags where the image can appear in a collective space of similar images (Leaver & Highfield, 2018). Little do many parents know the information they are sharing about their child can hold some very specific and personal identifying factors and this is likely to follow them into the future staying with their online identity forever. Information such as this helps social networking sites who data mine to make predictions and assumptions about their future audiences before the user has even known themselves (Leaver & Highfield, 2018). This initiation of an identity before children are even born is something emerging in social culture now, with the first generation to grow up fully digital now entering adolescence the depiction can be made between generation identity gaps.

In the years 1994-1995 online networks and web-based communities, in the form of notice boards and forums, began to appear but were still foreign to most (Lake, 2009). During the early years on the web, when online networks and online communities began to form, individual presentation of the self online consisted of multiple avatars and identifying handles not directly linked to their offline presentation of self (Leaver & Highfield, 2018). However, this is very different to what we see today, Leaver and Highfield (2018) stating the shift towards presentation of an ‘authentic self’ as the realname web. This shift between generations can be explained by the ages technology is introduced to us when the older generations began using social networks and online communities they had already formed an identity offline and to have an online identity felt like it needed to be privatised and different to their offline presentation of self. Adolescents now have formed their online and offline identities simultaneously which has resulted in a more authentic and real presentation of self online. If we look more deeply into the theory of presentation of self by Erving Goffman, the idea is explored that we present different versions of ourselves in different situations (Kuznekoff, 2012). The appeal of multiple presentations of self is that you can use different presentations to seek benefits (Urick, 2014). The idea that our identity is a performance and our online identities are an extension of ourselves reflects in the way that social media and being a part of an online community has taken over the way we think. Often adolescence will think about their decisions not based on who they will see in person but who will see their online posts from the event. Older generations built relationships based on face-to-face communication where technology has pushed for a shift toward online communication. This means our online presentation of self feels more important than ever and can have some serious implications. As with any performance such as an actor or actress the audience has free will to interpret the meaning (Kuznekoff, 2012). Thus meaning that rather than just freely being yourself the thought is often playing on your mind of what others think of you, this constant pressure adolescents are facing can lead to anxiety, depression and body image issues. Cyberbullying is also a major impact that has been on the rise in more recent years as social media and online communities become a prevalent part of teenager’s lives. In a study by Van Der Nagel and Frith (2015) it was stated that anonymity is useful in allowing exploration of identity without fear of judgment, however, it does open the doors for cyberbullying. Cyberbullying is the act of sending online messages, comments, photos or posts in order to offend or hurt someone’s feelings (Kuznekoff, 2012). With constant access to the online space when bullying in the playground was once escapable it is now much harder to do so when it follows you home.  This can largely impact on the way people form their identity as they see this as part of themselves when they can be much more that what the bully is reducing them to. However, online communities can provide a safe haven for like-minded individuals to escape from reality and thus help them further develop their identities in this sense. Anonymity has often been seen in a negative light due to bullying but it has been found to be an important feature in navigating identity exploration in an online world (Van Der Nagel & Frith, 2015). This suggests that one generational difference in forming identity is that it has become a more complex process of exploration and navigating the online space to form a strong identity compared to what may seem a straight forward path for generations who did not grow up online.

As discussed our online presentation of self is often an extension of our offline identity and in the era of realname web the link between online and offline is synonymous. This means anything online linked to your name creates a digital trace which stays with you forever, even after you pass (Leaver & Highfield, 2018).  What makes up your digital footprint can be seen to make up part of your identity and lead people to make assumptions about you based on what a simple search of your name presents. It can be assumed a generation who has grown up digital will have a larger digital footprint than their elders and there are implications that this can have on present life and legacy. When anyone can link your name to an online identity through a simple google search, it is safe to assume potential employees have easy access to much of your online presentation of self. Depending on the circumstances this can be either a negative or a positive implication of a digital footprint. The pressure younger generations have to keep their digital footprint clean can often be a burden on identity formation as it hinders them expressing their true selves. In Bennett’s study (as cited in Kuznekoff, 2012) it was found that 90% of employers use social networking sites to determine potential employees and 70% had rejected a potential employee due to their social media. This leads to the idea of privacy being an issue for young children who don’t understand the concept of how data spreads and remains online forever (Kuznekoff, 2012). Young children enter private details into online networks and communities having no idea where this information might end up in the future, making them vulnerable to online attack (Gray & Christiansen, 2010). Similarly, to how data mining can use ultrasound images to predict future users, adolescents information can be data mined from networking sites and online communities allowing targeted advertising and suggested friends to be directed straight towards you (Kuznekoff, 2012). These suggested friends may be complete strangers and for a young child on social media this presents many threats. As we age identity can be in constant movement and having documentation of each small and embarrassing part of your identity is not often thought of until a reminder of your twelve-year-old self is brought back onto your Facebook timeline. As we change our identity it is not unusual to no longer identify with specific things and when these things are attatched to your name online it can be hard to escape these labels. Older generations are able to grow and move forward without this reminder of their past, while it is not to say this is positive or negative we can conclude that the experience of a digital footprint is vastly different between generations. Once we pass and our online presentation of self lives on creating a timeline from beginning to end of our online lives we no longer have control or say over what stays and goes, or maybe it is hard to say that we ever did have control.

 

Conclusions

This paper has explored the rapid shift in modern technologies that has allowed children to explore online communities and networks earlier than ever before. This has impacted on the way adolescents form their identities in an online world compared to older generations who were not exposed to online networks and communities until later in life. The road to forming identity has become seemingly longer and more complex with the addition of online networks and communities. This is not to say it is harder for younger generations to form their identities but the experiences between generations is vastly different. Outside influences, such as bullying, could once be escaped but the shift toward and online presence has made these influences more prevalent. However, there are negative influences on identity within networks and communities, there can also be strong positive influences in communities that help people find inspiration that guides identity development and open minds to new ideas. The role that this has on forming identity online can be seen in a physical presentation of self on and offline. Digital footprints are an important aspect in the appearance of generational differences. Younger generations are faced with their young identity following them through their lives even if they no longer identify with this presentation of self. This digital footprint has been proven to impact on individuals search for a job where potential employees make judgments based off this. Younger generations exploration of identity online can take many forms, most of which, are logged and will always be an accessible part of them. Our identities are no longer shaped by our immediate surroundings but by a variety of influences within these online networks and communities.

 

References

Coyle, D. C. (1941). What Is a Community? The American Journal of Nursing, 41(11), 1290-1290.

Gray, D. M., & Christiansen, L. (2010). A call to action: The privacy dangers adolescents   face through use of facebook.com. Journal of Information Privacy & Security, 6(2), 17-32. doi: 10.1080/15536548.2010.10855886

Kasinath, H. M. (2013). Adolescence: Search for an identity. I-Manager’s Journal on Educational Psychology, 7(1), 1-6. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-           com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1476284556?accountid=10382

Kuznekoff, J. H. (2012). The online presentation of self: Re-examining goffman’s   presentation of self across contemporary CMC contexts. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/ docview/1034564908?accountid=10382

Lake, M. (2009, July 5). Timeline: the evolution of online communities. Computer World. Retrieved from https://www.computerworld.com/

Leaver, T., & Highfield, T. (2018). Visualising the ends of identity: pre- birth and post- death on Instagram. Information, Communication & Society, 21(1), 30-45. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2016.1259343

What is a Network? (2016, Jun 29). Progressive Digital Media Technology News   Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview   /1800380713?accountid=10382

Urick, M. J. (2014). The Presentation of Self: Dramaturgical Theory and Generations in Organizations. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 12(4), 398-412. doi: 10.1080/15350770.2014.961829

Van Der Nagel, E., & 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

PDF download: Hannah Bluett NETS2002 Conference Paper

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

Social Software Facilitates Virtual Communities

Abstract: Social Software such as social networking sites (SNS), have become very useful in recent years, helping its users to derive value from these platforms due to their features that encourage virtual community formation and strengthening. To explore factors that encourage community formation and strengthening on SNSs, this essay highlights features of popular SNSs; Facebook, Snapchat, and Tumblr. This essay collected evidence from various scholarly platforms and the SNSs themselves in order to prove this assertion. From this, it is proven that Facebook provides value to Aboriginal Australian’s by encouraging social interaction through its identity confirming affordances, secondly, Facebooks and Tumblr’s features afford its users value by encouraging collaborative communication, lastly, Snapchat provides value to its young users and how Facebook has provided value to its grieving users, through encouraging efficient and intimate exchange of information that matters to users personally. The findings in-fact support this assertion with little to no refutation.

 

According to Porter (2015), a community is defined as a group of individuals or an organization that can interact in virtual and/or offline space, with the members interactions being able to be mediated through any networked technology. Porter further states that a community is an entity that places value on giving “members the ability to participate in key decision-making processes, encouraging members to collaborate with other members in value-creating activities and convincing members to make contributions that matter to them personally” (Porter, 2015, p.169). Community building in the virtual world is encouraged by social software which is defined as “a set of tools that enable group-forming networks to emerge quickly” (Fuchs, 2010, p.775) as this software “facilitates social interaction, collaboration and information exchange” (Fuchs, 2010, p.777). Furthermore, Social software includes “software which supports, extends, or derives added value from, human social behaviour – message-boards, musical taste-sharing, photo-sharing, instant messaging, mailing lists, social networking” (Fuchs, 2010, p.773). With this, social networking sites (SNSs) such as Facebook, Tumblr and Snapchat are inherently social software as they “(1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system.” (Ellison, 2007, p.211) Thus providing its users with value by encouraging community formation and strengthening. Therefore, it can be confidently asserted that social software, such as SNSs, have provided value to its users by encouraging virtual community-formation and strengthening through their various affordances. This assertion will be illustrated firstly through assessing how the SNS Facebook has provided value to Aboriginal Australian’s by encouraging social interaction through its identity confirming affordances, building community, secondly, through discussing how the features of the SNSs Facebook and Tumblr have afforded its users value by encouraging collaborative communication, also building community, and lastly, how the SNS Snapchat has provided value to its young users and how Facebook has provided value to its grieving users, through encouraging efficient and intimate exchange of information that matter to users personally, strengthening their “stabilized” community.

SNSs have encouraged social interaction due to the features of these platforms, which facilitate virtual community building between individuals that share commonalities, thus providing value to its users. SNSs facilitate virtual community as they are public spheres where members identity is confirmed by social interaction and where the decision-making processes are communal. A perfect example of an SNS that does so is Facebook as its user base was “over 800 million in March 2012” (Forman, Kern & Gil-Egui, 2012, p.1) and is still growing. Therefore, this platform provides fertile conditions for virtual community building. According to Atkinson (2010), Aboriginal culture in Australia has diminished due to their community being depleted through centuries of abuse, dehumanization, and separation resulting from European colonization. However, a silver lining to this tragic treatment is that their power to revive their largely diminished community has been somewhat restored as “Facebook provides possibilities for extending community, for establishing connectedness and cultural belonging, through networking aspects of pre-contact culture, language, the sharing of practiced rituals, information about kin or mobs that may have been lost, photographs, stories and so on.” (Lumby, 2010, p.69) Facebook users who have affiliations to the Aboriginal culture can use the platform to find and join online communities in the form of “pages” or “groups” that have relations to their culture and that host offline events. “Pages” are public spaces that can be “liked” to join and “share” or “post” information in the space. “Groups” are private spaces with one or a few admins and thus require users to “request” or be “invited” by the host/s of the group to “post” or “share” information in the space.

Therefore, constructing their online identity is often required to be integrated into these spaces as “the performance of Indigeneity is necessary for the subject position to be taken seriously, and for recognition to occur in a meaningful way.” (Lumby, 2010, p.71) A popular way for users to do so is by utilizing Facebook’s identity personalization features that allow users to make highly customized “profile pages”. Some users with an Aboriginal background thus actively customize their personal “profile pages” to indicate this heritage by having photos on display of the Aboriginal flag and/or other Indigenous symbols. Another way for Facebook users to ensure their identity is confirmed is to “friend” other people that they can identify as possessing a desired identity that is part of a specific community, this “requires validation by as many as possible.” (Lumby, 2010, p.71) Facebook’s networking affordances also work to connect potential similar users by “recommending” friendships that have “mutual friends” to the user, so, therefore “because Facebook works to increase ‘friends’ exponentially, a user can ‘collect’ a number of potential verifiers.” (Lumby, 2010, p.71) Furthermore, Facebook not only allows “a recomposition of space” (Lumby, 2010, p.73) for the disbanded Aboriginal community, but provides a place where members can “instate their own hierarchies of Indigenous identity which can be re-deployed “on the outside” if (and only if) they perform credibly in the Facebook sphere of activity.” (Lumby, 2010, p.73) Here, key decision-making processes are left up to the members of the community, instilling power back into their culture through social interaction and identity confirmation encouraged by Facebook’s sizeable user base, collaborative culture and technological affordances. Thus, adhering back to Porter’s (2015) definitions of community, it is clear that SNSs such as Facebook have facilitated community building among Aboriginals in Australia, thus providing them with value.

Community formation is a collaborative endeavor that creates value for those individuals involved. For young people especially, SNSs such as Facebook and Tumblr often act as catalysts in this process. Hodkinson (2015) states that these types of SNSs have become the most popular spaces in which teens can efficiently congregate with large groups of their peers. However, merely congregating in these spaces is not enough to ensure community building, and thus value being derived. This is because as understood above, community formation is aided through identity construction to form virtual boundaries. However, young people often try to remain social with as many people as possible which means young SNS users “are suited to communication with a wider number of superficial acquaintances, or ‘weak ties’.” (Hodkinson, 2015, p.7) For young Facebook users, then, its primary interface, or the “news feed”, “acts as the primary conduit for communication.” (Hodkinson, 2015, p.8) This is because it enables “individuals to communicate simultaneously with numerous peers” (Hodkinson, 2015, p.8), a driving reason behind them using this social software. While these weak ties were found to be a driving force for young people when they start using social software, it has been found that it is common for users’ “friends-lists tend [to] gradually stabilize as people move through adolescence, coming to form a relatively predictable and consistent part of individuals’ communicative spheres.” (Hodkinson, 2015, p.16-17) Collaboration is encouraged by the features of this SNS during this stabilization process due to “the properties of social media, creating boundaries around these online spaces is far more difficult.” (Hodkinson, 2015, p.10) Therefore, users must collaborate through “interpersonal relationship management to negotiate who shares what about them, who does what with their information, and how their reputations are treated.” (Hodkinson, 2015, p.19) This to ensure that the virtual space is a personalized community where members can create and derive value comfortably. Value is derived from the ability that Facebook affords its users to make a “group chat”. This feature allows users to make a private communication interface where up to “150 people,” (“How many people can I message at once on Facebook? | Facebook Help Centre | Facebook”, 2018) can be invited to “chat”. Here, members can derive value through; organizing group activities/ projects, depicting how they want to be viewed on Facebook or just general chatting with their closest “friends”. This is quite similar to the SNS Tumblr, another platform popular with young people as “Tumblr blogs, although often publicly accessible, are (…) frequently regarded by users as ‘safe spaces of self-expression’ whereby interaction is oriented to relatively discrete and limited sets of trusted followers.” (Hodkinson, 2015, p.24) Tumblr affords its users the ability to create an account under a pseudonym and post/ share images/ gifs they like. This gives them the option to disclose their private creative space to whomever they like, forming a mutual trust between the users, providing value to their creativity. Thus, it can be seen that Facebook and Tumblr’s affordances have given young people the ability to collaboratively build communities through “the informal encoding of communication so that meaning is discernible only by a limited group” (Hodkinson, 2015, p.18) so that value can be created and derived between members.

Virtual communities of SNS users have continued to derive value from SNSs that affords its users efficient and intimate exchange of information that matter to them personally, thus strengthening their stabilized community. This has been particularly facilitated by “the rapid growth of newer platforms explicitly oriented to intimate conversation with smaller groups of friends.” (Hodkinson, 2015, p.23-24) A good example of a newer SNS that does so is Snapchat where “interactions tend to involve groups of friends considerably smaller than most Facebook friends-lists and that, together with the ephemerality of content on which the platform centers, this leads such conversations to have a particularly intimate feel.” (Hodkinson, 2015, p.24) This platform allows its users to send photos with words attached to a single or multiple people in their social circle, a malleable means to send intimate information. According to “Snapchat Support” (2018), the platform allows a maximum of 31 users in a “group chat”, delegating a more intimate “group chat” than Facebook affords. This feature enables Snapchat users to derive considerable value from the platform as their group chat will likely only comprise of immediate members of their stabilized community, thus strengthening their stabilized community.

As previously mentioned, “groups” on Facebook are private places where members need to “request” or be “invited” to join. These “groups” can be used to express grief within a stabilized virtual community in the wake of a member of their offline or virtual community passing away. This type of intimate information exchange usually entailing stories, memories, photographs and/or details of various death-related rituals like funerals or wakes can be shared privately in a “group”. This aids in the community strengthening process because “death builds community, as mourning and the associated cultural rituals provide order, acceptance, and a space for mutual support to those who are grieving.” (Forman, Kern & Gil-Egui, 2012, p.1) Not only can people derive value from engaging and posting information about the loss of a community member, but they can also derive value from this multi-purpose process as “expressions of grief aid the process of mourning, as they show, to the deceased and to others, the importance of the life that is gone.” (Forman, Kern & Gil-Egui, 2012, p.1) Therefore it can be seen that Snapchat and Facebook provide features that adequately encourage efficient and intimate exchange of information that matter to users personally, therefore providing value to its users and strengthening their stabilized community.

It has been substantially proven that social software, such as the SNSs mentioned, have facilitated the strengthening and building of virtual communities’. This has been illustrated by discussing how the Indigenous population in Australia have been afforded the ability by the SNS Facebook to confirm their identity through personalizing their Facebook profile pages with indigenous symbols in order to be accepted by groups/ pages and to socially interact and participate in key decision-making processes with those who are also indigenous to Australia efficiently, thus providing them with value. The thesis was further reinforced as it was proven that the SNSs Facebook and Tumblr encourage collaboration between young people to build their communities, deriving value from this process as their online social interactions will be more rewarding. Subsequently, discussing how Snapchat and Facebook have strengthened virtual communities by encouraging users to exchange intimate information that matter to them personally between their stabilized community, providing them with value. Therefore, it can be confidently asserted that social software has facilitated virtual communities as it has promoted online network-formation through its various affordances which in-turn has provided value to its users.

href=<“STIRLING-18358030-A1“>Download PDF

References:

Atkinson, J. (2010). Trauma trails, recreating song lines. North Melbourne, Vic.: Spinifex Press.

Boyd, D., & Ellison, N. (2007). Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 13(1), 211. doi: 10.1109/emr.2010.5559139

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

Forman, A., Kern, R., & Gil-Egui, G. (2012). Death and mourning as sources of community participation in online social networks: R.I.P. pages in Facebook. First Monday, 17(9), 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v0i0.3935

Fuchs, C. (2010). Social Software and Web 2.0: Their Sociological Foundations and Implications. In S. Murugesan, Handbook of Research on Web 2.0, 3.0, and X.0: Technologies, Business, and Social Applications (pp. 764-789). Hershey: IGI Global. Retrieved from http://fuchs.uti.at/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Web2.pdf

Hodkinson, P. (2016). Bedrooms and beyond: Youth, identity and privacy on social network sites. New Media & Society, 19(2), 1-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444815605454

How many people can I message at once on Facebook? | Facebook Help Centre | Facebook. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/help/131313586947248

Lumby, B. (2010). Cyber-Indigeneity: Urban Indigenous Identity on Facebook. The Australian Journal Of Indigenous Education, 39(S1), 68-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1375/s1326011100001150

Porter, C. (2015). Virtual communities and social networks. In L. Cantoni & J. Danowski, Communication and Technology (1st ed., pp. 161-179). Berlin: De Gruyter. Retrieved from https://books.google.com.au/books?id=AhxpCgAAQBAJ&lpg=PA161&ots=bZIat75i-L&dq=online%20virtual%20communities%202015&lr&pg=PA161#v=onepage&q&f=false

Snapchat Support. (2018). Retrieved from https://support.snapchat.com/en-US/article/group-chat

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

Can Networked Participation Deliver Political Transformation? An Indigenous Australian Activist Context

Abstract

Enthusiasm for the politically transformative potential of networked participation is echoed throughout Internet studies. In many accounts, participation in digital networks is configured as a central democratising force: if networked platforms afford an opportunity for the previously voiceless to speak, the flattening of old hierarchies, it goes, must follow. However, critics are increasingly questioning this logic as social and political inequalities persist both on- and offline. This criticism is particularly pertinent when considering the chronic inequalities that exist between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians. Discourse around online Indigenous activism has emphasised ‘creative resistance through daily practices’, however, I argue that an overemphasis on networked participation obscures a number of myths and inconsistencies around digital network theory, and potentially draws scholarly attention away from the role of power in networks; its existence and operation throughout and within both on- and off-line activist networks.

Keywords: activism, digital networks, Indigenous Australians, participation, politics

Carmen Reilly, Curtin University (2018).

Download .pdf [181KB].

Introduction

Indigenous peoples from around the world have long utilised, appropriated and modified digital networks for a wide range of purposes (Dyson, 2011), including cultural resilience and preservation (Molyneaux et al, 2014; Bidwell, Radoll & Turner, 2007), maintaining cultural identity (Lumby, 2010), education (Townsend, 2014), and activism (Petray, 2011; Soriano, 2011; Carlson & Frazer, 2017). A strong focus of scholarship has been on Indigenous peoples’ digital practices, particularly the compatibility of traditional ontologies and ways of knowing, which favour storytelling, visual representation and networking, with the affordances of Web 2.0 platforms (Molyneaux et al, 2014, p. 277; Townsend, 2014, p. 4). Discourse around Indigenous activism has emphasised ‘creative resistance through daily practices’ (Soriano, 2011, p. 4), for example, social networking to sustain community resilience (Molyneaux et al, 2014), (micro)blogging injustices and dissenting views (Dreher, McCallum & Waller, 2016), and disseminating memes to create an anti-colonial politics (Carlson & Frazer, 2017). In these accounts, participation in digital networks is configured as a central democratising force: if networked platforms afford an opportunity for the previously voiceless to speak, the flattening of old hierarchies, it goes, must follow. Enthusiasm for the politically transformative potential of networked participation is echoed throughout Internet studies, however critics (Couldry, 2015; Dreher, McCallum & Waller, 2016; Nakumara & Chow-White, 2013) are increasingly questioning its logic as social and political inequalities persist both on- and offline. In this essay I first provide a review of scholarship in the area of Australian Aboriginal activism and digital network use. I then draw on the work of Couldry (2015), which highlights the myths and inconsistencies around digital networks, and Bozzo and Franceschet’s (2016) theory of power in networks, to argue that locating systems of power that operate within and across on- and off-line activist networks may enable further studies of digital network use by Australian Aboriginal activists and allies to better determine how to leverage these networks (and communities) to effect greater political change.

Australian Aboriginal activism and digital network use

In scholarly accounts, it is recognised that while known social, economic and geographical factors continue to contribute to notable lacks in internet communication technology (ICT) access and expertise among Aboriginal people, there is no shortage of political activity among those who use social networks (Petray, 2011; Dreher, McCallum & Waller, 2016; Carlson & Frazer, 2017). As Dreher, McCallum & Waller (2016) observe, there are myriad dissenting Australian Aboriginal voices online (p. 31-32). Activists like Gary Foley and Celeste Liddle actively blog and Tweet their frustrations with mainstream politics and respond to injustices, while Facebook groups like Black Fella Revolution create and share political memes and commentate on current affairs (Carlson & Frazer, 2017; Black Fella Revolution, 2014). Aboriginal people make up roughly only 2.5 per cent of the Australian population (Petray, 2011, p. 926), yet the demographic reportedly uses social media at rates up to 20 per cent times higher than mainstream Australia (Carlson & Frazer, 2015, p. 215). Furthermore, many Aboriginal users of Facebook report ‘liking’ and following Aboriginal-affiliated causes and political pages as an important part of authenticating their Aboriginal identity online (Lumby, 2010, p. 71). Among the connected Indigenous population, the conditions for political participation described by Schlozman, Verba and Brady (2010) are present, namely access, skill-level, motivation and exposure to issues (p. 487). And yet, to borrow Couldry’s (2015) observation, the causal link, or lack thereof, between the extent that networked participation of Indigenous users can be said to influence or feed into wider political discourses to effect change, remains unclear.

In her study on the use of digital technology by an Aboriginal activist group based in Townsville, Queensland, Petray (2011) recognises the clear operational benefits of utilising email, blogs and social networking to coordinate activities and mobilise political action. However, Petray concludes the use of ‘push-button’ activism such as online petitions and Facebook posts do not illicit enough engagement to sustain a movement. She calls for activists to devise clearer targets, goals and instructions to their followers in order to achieve effective political action (p. 936). The study’s faintly technological-determinist criticism is thus aimed at the functions of social networking technology for failing to inspire engagement, and responsibility laid on activists to ‘get around’ the potential traps of social network sites. Like many scholars, Petray recognises and grapples with the difficulties of sustaining an online social movement enough to extend its reach ‘offline’. Descriptions of digital participation may not be enough to render an understanding of the factors that result in political outcomes, however Dreher, McCallum and Waller (2016) may offer an inroad.

In their work, Dreher, McCallum and Waller put the onus of action not on activists and users, but on those in established positions of power to ‘listen’. They conclude that “the proliferation of diverse and dissenting Indigenous voices online does not necessarily ensure that those voices will be attended to or engaged with by decision-makers” (Dreher, McCallum & Waller, 2016, p. 33). According to them, political change fails not because of a platform’s inability to motivate users to act, nor the activist’s or everyday user’s type or level of participation, but the mainstream media and government’s failure to respond to views that are in a minority or otherwise unaligned or anathema to mainstream agendas and narratives. The mediatisation of politics is identified as one potential muffler on the ears of political elites. The authors are concerned with how the convergence of political and media interests impedes the capacity of policy-makers “to engage with grassroots or alternative media” (p. 27). The authors conclude the article calling for further investigation into the diversity of Indigenous voices, the types of views that mainstream media favour, and what might facilitate political listening (p. 35). The limit of the investigation again is that it stops at participation as the primary signifier of a healthy democracy; this time the participation of politicians, media players and prominent Indigenous figures in meaningful dialogue with diverse Indigenous voices.

Both studies point towards the impotence of networked participation but fall short of critiquing the “general logic of ‘horizontal’  networking” itself (Couldry, 2016, p. 614). Petray imagines the virtual space as separate to mainstream media and outside the control of the powerful elite – perhaps envisioning Habermas’s hypothetical ‘public sphere’ whereby inherently subjective, private individuals come together to form a necessarily rational and humane public free from government and corporate interests (Katz, Rice, Acord, Dasgupta & David, 2004, p. 319) – but surmises that these spaces are unable to challenge established politics because the platform encourages ‘armchair activism’, not ‘real’ action (McLellan, 2010 cited in Petray, 2011, p. 935). Here Habermas’s democratic public sphere fails as individuals are proven irrational or disengaged and separating virtual networks from mainstream media or state institutions is muddied. Our understandings of user practice must change, or we must refocus on locating power both within and outside networks. Dreher, McCallum & Waller’s article asks important questions about the need for political listening and surfacing diverse voices, but these discussions again beg the issue of power imbalances within networks – both ‘real’ and digital. Why are some voices listened to and not others, or to put it in Couldry’s (2015) terms, “what actions regularly get connected to what other actions, and what actions just as regularly do not get connected up in this way” (p. 615)? Next I will look at Couldry (2015) and Bozzo and Franceschet’s (2016) work to infer that a deeper understanding of how networks configure and reproduce power may go some way in pinpointing these imbalances.

Demythologising digital networks

Couldry (2015) surmises that the democratising digital network is as much a myth as the state-and-mass-media-generated ‘imagined community’ or nation state (Anderson, 1983, p. 6). Mass media has been for decades positioned as a centralised ‘collectivity’ that tells us ‘what is going on’ in the world; acting as the ‘voice’ of a nation, thus solidifying particular narratives above others over time (Couldry, 2016, p. 614). As social networks like Facebook and Twitter are increasingly seen as the places where events ‘happen’, the myth of ‘us’ has been relocated onto digital networks. In Anderson’s terms, the collective ‘us’ online has been endowed with all the attributes of an ideal community, i.e. Habermas’s public sphere in which all citizens can speak free from the constraints of authority and cut through to what is ‘really’ happening (Katz et al, 2014, p. 319). Harlow (2012) deemed that during the 2009 Guatemalan social movement, Facebook participation “helped generate debate and create a sense of community and collective identity, furthering the likelihood of users participating offline” (p. 14). However Harlow’s data shows that links to mainstream media articles were the most frequent type of post at 35 per cent, with alternative news articles comprising only 15 per cent (p. 13). Additionally, the second-highest purpose of comments was to ‘convey information’ (p. 12). It remains unclear how much of the movement’s ‘collective identity’ was shaped by mainstream information and narrative. Here we see mainstream media potentially playing a prominent role in a movement that has been critically assessed as networked and user-driven.¹ While social networks are undeniably important in mobilising political action quickly and efficiently, the danger of the egalitarian network myth is that it may obscure the intrusion of mediatised commercial and state interests in digital social space, as well as draw attention away from issues of sustaining and resourcing movements in the long-term (Couldry, 2015). I argue that issues of whether activist communities can access resources due to power imbalances in digital networks (who is ‘heard’ or given attention) and funding restrictions imposed by governments and institutions should be given more weight in scholarly case studies than participatory behaviour alone.  

Everyday users of social networks indeed now have a voice, but so do to long-established state and media institutions, who use the very same networks. These institutions have always been been networked, and have only intensified their networks in the digital age (Couldry, 2015, p. 611). The networks themselves are owned by private entities with commercial interests in the data of their users (Couldry, 2015, p. 609; Hathaway, 2014, p. 306). Furthermore, “governments are increasingly requesting and can even compel private sector assistance in conducting voice or data surveillance”, meaning governments are actively seeking pathways to access the rich data sources of social networks (Hathaway, 2014, p. 310). While on one hand we must recognise that “the very interconnectedness of people can be denied [by states] and freedom of communication and political freedoms are clearly linked” (Hathaway, 2014, p. 309), the link becomes less clear when supposed freedom of communication does not equate to full political freedom i.e. the ability to participate effectively in political debate and be heard, which has been a common experience of Aboriginal activists in Australia (Dreher, McCallum & Waller, 2016). Further to this, evidence points to long-term social patterns becoming digitally networked, such as the ‘platformed racism’ experienced by ordinary Aboriginal people online after crowds booed Indigenous Australian Football League player Adam Goodes during a match (Matamoros-Fernández, 2017). We cannot assume that freedoms of communication and participation automatically result in social and political equality.

Instead of imagining social networks as domains that automatically elevate the most persuasive or entrepreneurial voices – a prevailing concept with neoliberal undertones – Couldry unsensationally reads networks as “the outcome of local struggles over resources in particular historical contexts” (p. 614).² This shifts the approach to networks from one focused on the network as symbolic route to democracy (the only trick being to get the type and/or level of participation right), to one focused on power and resource allocation situated in time. For accounts of networked Aboriginal Australian activism, the emphasis may then change to questions of how resources – time, money and energy – flow through and are sustained in these networks, how they respond to ‘short-term external events’ and what capacity they have for ‘long-term adaptive responses’ (Bennet and Segerberg, 2013, p. 9, quoted in Couldry, 2015, p. 619). Couldry suggests sustained resourcing, not simply a free horizontal networked space, is required for a political environment in which conflict and conflict resolution are both accommodated, yet sustained resourcing implies organisational/institutional structures, which further challenges the myth of the ideal network sitting ‘outside’ structures (p. 614). Perhaps an avenue for future studies of digital Aboriginal activism could be to locate how and why activist groups are, or are not, financially and socially resourced, and put pressure back on policy-makers and other powerful elites to close disparities.

Bozzo and Franceschet’s (2016) account of how power works in networks states that an actor is more powerful if its connections do not have many of their own connections or options. Conversely, a well-connected actor linked to many other well-connected actors is not as powerful. In Bozzo and Franceschet’s view, options equal power. What political options do Indigenous Australians have? The few prominent Indigenous political players are more likely to echo mainstream party politics more than dissenting opinions (Dreher, McCallum & Waller, 2016). This suggests the government remains disproportionally powerful because Indigenous people, due to complex factors, continue to have fewer options and alternatives for political representation – and indeed for education, health treatment, employment and access to integral technologies such the Internet – than mainstream populations, who can pick and choose from a much wider range of representatives and life trajectories. Although there are arguably many options for voicing Indigenous opinions via digital networks, I would also ask to whom these voices are connected? The prevalence of social media ‘bubbles’ whereby online communities with similar interests become insular may be relevant here.

We can take as a mini case-study the recent incident involving the mainstream Australian morning television program Sunrise. Sunrise conducted a discussion panel on adoption rates of Aboriginal children. None of the panelists were Indigenous; indeed all were from white-Anglo backgrounds. The segment relayed a number of false facts and one panelist even suggested reinstating the policy which resulted in the Stolen Generation. The segment provoked widespread condemnation on social media and from other mainstream media outlets for its racist overtones, and protesters gathered outside the program’s studio, which the broadcaster blanked out (Latham, 2018). As such, an issue that would be far from new to activists, the removal of Aboriginal children from homes to enter the foster care system, is brought into the national spotlight due to the blunders of a mainstream program. The program’s power to reach a wide audience provoked a wide response, while by the same token its power enabled it to control and contain the protest by rendering the relatively small group of on-ground protesters invisible. The response to this incident involving a mainstream media player could be said to differ from other related activist action because it was ‘listened’ to – the powerful connections of the program begetting a powerful response.

Conclusion

I have presented an alternative, though admittedly ‘negative argument’ to the discourse on participation within digital networks (Couldry, 2015, p. 621). Couldry’s concept of the digital network as a myth of ‘collectivity’ highlights the need to look beyond the assumption that ‘us’/’we’ online are autonomous and ‘free’ to speak and be heard on an equal footing online – this myth potentially benefits those already in power, as networked action, though its impact remains unclear, is still imbued with transformative powers. For minority communities such as Aboriginal Australia, the Web’s unique networking capabilities to coordinate activities and mobilise political action are all the more important as the struggle for Indigenous recognition, self-determination and equality continues to have its voices silenced. However, I argue that Internet studies must encompass not just user practices and participatory behaviours but the mediatisation of and influence of commercial and state interests on networks, where resources are allocated and sustained, and macro or long-term structural forces at work. At this point in history, almost any object, group or actor has a networked web presence, so research efforts must extend beyond the idea that platforms automatically enable democracy.

Notes

  1. Another example where mainstream media’s contribution to a ‘Facebook-led’ movement has been underplayed is the 2015 Guatemalan protests. Attendees to the protest soared when a mainstream media outlet shared the Facebook event page, however the movement is attributed to nine ordinary Facebook users (Rogers, 2015).
  2. While researching this essay, I found similarities between Couldry’s (2016) unsensationalist concept of networks and Latour’s (2005) actor-network theory whereby he discourages determinist/structuralist thinking by prescribing the network scholar five areas of concern: groups, actions, objects, facts and discourse. The links need to be fleshed out but it seems both attempt to ‘see through’ digital network myths, which have tended to stand in for the ‘social’ i.e. there has been a lack of theoretical leg-work bridging digital networks and social change; scholars have simply inserted ‘network’ where they have envisioned transformation. As Couldry puts it, “we do not yet know what ‘a successful transition to [a different politics] looks like’  ([Juris,] 2013, p. 214): put more bluntly, accounts of digital networks … have not provided such answers” (2016, p. 619). Latour’s instructions may be another way to if not sketch out a ‘successful transition’ then produce research that gives sober consideration to all physical and nonphysical actors at play in digital networks.

References

Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso.

Bidwell, N.J., Radoll, P., & Turner, J. (2007). Redisplacement by design. Interactions. March-April. 12-14. doi:10.1145/1229863.1229878  

Black Fella Revolution (2014). Facebook group. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/ourcountryourchoice/

Bozzo, E., & Franceschet, M. (2016). A theory on power in networks. Communications of the ACM, 59(11). 75-83. 1510.08332

Carlson, B., & Frazer, R. (2015). “It’s like going to a cemetery and lighting a candle”: Aboriginal Australians, sorry business and social media. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 11(3). 211-224.

Carlson, B., & Frazer, R. (2017). Indigenous memes and the invention of a people. Social Media + Society. October-December. 1-12. doi:10.1177/2056305117738993

Couldry, N. (2015). The myth of ‘us’: digital networks, political change and the production of collectivity. Information, Communication & Society, 18(6). 608-626. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2014.979216

Dreher, T., McCallum, K., & Waller, L. (2016) Indigenous voices and mediatized policy-making in the digital age, Information, Communication & Society, 19(1). 23-39. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2015.1093534

Du, J.T. (2017). Research on Indigenous People and the Role of Information and Communications Technology in Development: A Review of the Literature. Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association, 66(4). 344-363. doi:10.1080/24750158.2017.1397857

Dyson, L. (2011). Indigenous people on the Internet. The Handbook of Internet Studies. M. Consalvo & C. Ess (Eds.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Harlow, S. (2012). Social media and social movements: Facebook and an online Guatemalan justice movement that moved offline. New Media & Society, 14(2). 225-243. doi:10.1177/1461444811410408

Hathaway, M.E. (2014). Connected choices: How the Internet is challenging sovereign decisions. American Foreign Policy Interests, 36(5). 300-313. doi:10.1080/10803920.2014.969178

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. 315-371.

Latham, T. (Producer). (2018, 19 March). Episode 7. Media Watch [Television broadcast]. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4819017.htm

Lumby, B. L. (2010) Cyber-Indigeneity: Urban Indigenous identity on Facebook. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 39, 68-75. doi:10.1375/S1326011100001150

Matamoros-Fernández, A. (2017). Platformed racism: the mediation and circulation of an Australian race-based controversy on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. Information, Communication & Society, 20(6). 930–946. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2017.1293130

Molyneaux, H., O’Donnell, S., Kakekaspan, C., Walmark, B., Budka, P., & Gibson, K. (2012). Community resilience and social media: Remote and rural first nations communities, social isolation and cultural preservation. Paper for the 2012 International Rural Network Forum, Whyalla and Upper Spencer Gulf, Australia, 24-28 September. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1543471774?accountid=10382

Nakamura, L., & Chow-White, P. A. (2012). Introduction – Race and digital technology: Code, the color line, and the information society. Race After the Internet. Nakamura and P. A Chow-Whites (Eds.). New York: Routledge. 1-19. Retrieved from https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Race_After_the_Internet.html?id=hGfJQgAACAAJ

Petray, T. L. (2011). Protest 2.0: online interactions and Aboriginal activists. Media Culture & Society, 33(6), 923-940. doi:10.1177/0163443711411009

Rogers, T. (2015). How 9 strangers used Facebook to launch Guatemala’s biggest protest movement in 50 years. Splinter News. 14 June. Retrieved from https://splinternews.com/how-9-strangers-used-facebook-to-launch-guatemalas-bigg-1793848431

Soriano, C.R. (2011). The arts of indigenous online dissent: Negotiating technology, indigeneity, and activism in the Cordillera. Telematics and Informatics. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2011.04.004

Townsend, P. B. (2014). Mob-Learning – Digital communities for remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Territory students. Journal of Economic and Social Policy, 17(2). 1-23. Retrieved from http://epubs.scu.edu.au/jesp/vol17/iss2/2

New habits with the utilization of social media networks

New habits with the utilization of social media networks

 

Abstract: The cultural voyeurism has been normalized by the proliferation of Social Media Networks especially in the younger generation. This behavior has increased with the creation of “Story” and “Live” on several social media platforms. Besides voyeurism, terms like exhibitionism and narcissism has been also generalized. In their everyday life, people post photos, videos and share content. It becomes a real need for Internet users to show their life on social media. The aim of this conference paper is to understand why it is now important for people to share their life online, to know about other people’s life and why the new features like “story” and “live” are so successful.

 

Since ever, humans appreciate to share their life’s experiences with their close relations like family and friends. Whenever they wanted to spread their stories or views on a subject, the word of mouth, newspapers, radios and TV’s were the main streams. Since twenty years new medias like social networks have appeared and the way people communicate and share content have changed. A certain form of voyeurism has taken place in the lifestyle behavior of people. Already with the TV, this culture of voyeurism has grown with the apparition of TV reality shows. These kinds of programs satisfied the voyeurism’s “needs” of people who look at TV (Baruh, 2007). In reality shows, you can see people with their natural behavior and true personality. All their doings and activities are filmed 24h/24h on a certain period of time. Viewers appreciate this because they can identify themselves with candidates in the show (Andrejevic, 2003; Jones, 2003; Mathijs, 2004 quoted in Baruh, 2007). This type of program is based on a sort of realism. It emphasizes on the “see and feel” that a viewer can experience (Deacon et al. cited in Gee, 2015). It raises the curiosity of people to know more about the participants. This voyeurism culture has been popularized with TV reality shows and it has redefined the legal aspect concerning the right to intimacy (Gee, 2015). This culture has been entertained with particular features on social medias. For instance, Snapchat was the first social media platform to propose the “story” feature. It means that the user can post some photos or videos about his activities and his everyday life on his profil. People can film their life like a TV reality show. The contents will be available during 24h and viewers cannot like or comment the post. The advantage on Snapchat for students is that they can post anything they wish and it doesn’t need to be beautiful or interesting because it will disappear after 24H.

 

People use Instagram mainly to post their best photos, this creates a pressure on themselves as they are not sure that their posts will be appreciated (Seetharaman, 2016). The new devise on Snapchat and now also on Instagram (story) remove a certain pressure on them about what others can think on their posts (Seetharaman, 2017). Instagram has also allowed its 500 million users to post stories. The objective is to seduce users and encourage them to post more and more often. It permits users to post contents that are less striking compared if they were posting the same on their Instagram’s profile (Seetharaman, 2016). Mr. Systrom stated in the article of Deepa Seetharaman in 2016 that if a user posts one content per week on Instagram, the aim on story is to encourage them to post between 5 and 10 contents a day. Facebook has noted that by improving the rapidity of the avaibility of the camera like on Snapchat, it will boost the frequency and quantity of posts. In July 2017 Facebook has created the live streaming. Mark Zukerberg affirms that the principal way of sharing will be by camera (Seetharaman, 2017). All theses improvement are conducted by the new needs of users, in particular the younger generation. A report from Pew Research Center shows that 90% of the 18-29 years old use social medias (Perrin, 2015 cited in Yuchen, 2016). Social medias’ statistics reports that 95% of college students use Facebook and 73% use Instagram (Yuchen, 2016).Young people are more and more impatient. They were born in a period where the technology is well established and all is rapidly available. If someone is looking for information, they will surf on Google; if they want to order a pizza, they will go on Ubereat or if they want to do a bank transfer they will use the application of their bank. These services allow people to gain time and social medias also need to adapt themselves so that their products meet the users’ the practical demands. Social medias users do not always want to interact online with their friends. Viewing the update of the social media of their friends allow them to be abreast of their activities. Nowadays a new behavior is born. It is very frequent that the first thing people do when they wake up is to check their social media and it is often also the last thing which they do before going to sleep (Moreno & Tabita, 2015).

 

Smartphones have become a utility tool. One always has his smartphone at reach during the day. Carlos, 31 years old said that he often posts something during his free time and shares any interesting post he come across. The objective is to share “live” any interesting picture or video (Moreno & Tabita, 2015). Social Media users publish content because they want to share their personal experience. They can share photos from where they are and reveal their personal feelings (Moreno & Tabita, 2015). Features on social medias platforms are a way to exhibit the users splendid life (Maentymaeki & AKMNajmul, 2016). It can develop a narcissism behavior from the publisher (Mehdizadeh, 2010; Panek et al., 2013; Ryan & Xenos, 2011 cited in Maentymaeki & AKMNajmul, 2016). For the user it is a way to be accepted and recognized on the social network (Maentymaeki & AKMNajmul, 2016). For instance when people travel they need to take photos, share them and communicate with their friends and family. The social media devices have modified the backpacking activity. The phenomenon is so important that a new term is born, it is calls “flashpacking”. It means that travellers take all their time by taking pictures and videos in the objective to post them on their profile (Molz, 2013). This can be interpreted as if it is more important to post something instead of enjoying the moment. With features like stories on Snapchat and Instagram they can post it on the spot. This is possible due to improvements of Internet connections around the world and the easiness of access to connectivity (Molz, 2013). These innovations allow people to be updated with their family/friends’ life without entertaining conversations between them. It can be associated with the term of voyeurism (Mäntymäki & Islam, 2014 cited in Maentymaeki & AKMNajmul, 2016). Moreover the term of social surveillance can be used too (Lampe, Ellison, & Steinfield, 2006; Marwick, 2012; Tokunaga, 2011 cited in Maentymaeki & AKMNajmul, 2016). Besides this, some authors have pointed out that voyeurism and exhibitionism are linked (Calvert, 2009 cited in Maentymaeki & AKMNajmul, 2016). Exhibitionisms enjoy that their followers are looking at them, on their online platforms. Social media users accept that they can be considered like voyeurism people because they look at people without having a conversation. Narcissism derives from exhibitionism (Ames et al., 2006; Brunell, Staats, Barden, & Hupp, 2011; Carpenter, 2012 cited in Maentymaeki & AKMNajmul, 2016). The aim of these people is to exhibit themselves by constructing their perfect self-image. Their objective is to proclaim their excellence and to look for adoration from others in order to boost their self-esteem (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001 cited in Maentymaeki & AKMNajmul, 2016).

 

Following friends, bloggers and famous people on social media platforms are now very anchored in our habits (Molz, 2013). This normalization to watch peoples’ lives has promote a kind of voyeurism habits. The success of Facebook and TV reality show demonstrate that people are attentive to others lives (Longo, 2015). Despite this, social media users are more and more keen in posting contents on their profiles. It can be explained by the fact that when a user posts something, which his followers will like or comment, it will boost his dopamine level. It is called the “awarding effects”. This phenomenon can boost an important level of satisfaction and it creates a sort of addiction to social media (Yuchen, 2016). This satisfaction influences the self-esteem of the user. He can assume himself like notable, efficient and successful (Ertuerk, 2016). The “need” to post content on social media can traduce a need to be approved and identified by others. It has been noted that when a student didn’t have enough likes on his Instagram post, he will delete the content (Seetharaman, 2016). Promoting themselves on social networks sites interests people and it can also generate a tendency to narcissism. This kind of people utilizes social medias’ platforms to show them in a better way than in reality (Buffardi & Campbell, 2008; Mehdizadeh, 2010 cited in Yuchen, 2016). Some researches show that allocated time on social networks like Facebook influences people to focus more on themselves and at the same time raises their level of narcissism (Twenge, 2013). Some studies have shown that depending of how many likes and comments people have under their posts, it can affect on how they distinguish their own self. A person who amplifies his potential and value can be characterized as a narcissistic person. However their self-esteem is poor. They wait for likes and favorable comments on themself and obviously they don’t accept critics. They are very attentive about their own profile by renewing it very often and share a lot of their activities especially selfies (Ertuerk, 2016). “Selfie” come from “self” and Oxford University defines this action by people who shares his/her own photographs with the world on social media networks. Researchers point out that 35% people take selfies to remind a joyful moment, 34% to remember a cool activity, 14% when the hair of the person is good looking and 13% when the person feel self-assured (DifficuLty, 2014 cited in Ertuerk, 2016).

To conclude, it becomes a habit to post our life on social networks especially for the younger generation. The creation of “stories” and “live” has fostered this practice in their everyday life. When users travel, see an interesting thing and go to parties for instance they will post some photos and video on their “stories” and “live” to show what they are doing. This kind of post is relaxed for users because viewers cannot like the content. It has increased the voyeurism effect among users. Besides this the habits to post content on their profile is still very successful and this tends to increase the narcissisms trait of users. On social media people want to show them in their best level to boost their self-esteem. Taking selfies has become a kind of international sport. To find a place in society, people think that they need to show them in a certain way. On social networks they deal with reality by editing photos and take it in a certain angle to beautify the reality. When users publish content on their profile they will pay attention to details because they want to have a lot of likes and positive comments to boost their self-esteem.

 REFERENCES LIST:

Baruh, L. (2007). The guilty pleasure of watching like Big Brother: Privacy attitudes, voyeurism and reality programs. Retrieved from
https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/304821753?accountid=10382

 

Ertuerk, Y. (2016). Analysis of the relationship between self-esteem and levels of narcissism through selfies of Instagram users. AJIT-E. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1884130524?accountid=10382

 

Gee, C. (2015). Reality-Based Television Versus the Civil Right to Privacy: A Battle of Access. Journal Of Film And Video, pp. 79-93. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1723842709?accountid=10382

 

Longo, A. (2015). Beyond Ethics: Voyeurism in Contemporary Photography. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1689380622?accountid=10382

 

Maentymaeki, M., & AKMNajmul, I. (2016). The Janus face of Facebook: Positive and negative sides of social networking site use. Computers In Human Behavior, pp. 14-26. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.078

 

Molz, J. G. (2013). The social affordances of flashpacking: Exploring the mobility nexus of travel and communication. Mobilities, DOI: 10.1080/17450101.2013.848605

 

Moreno, B., & Tabita, A. (2015). Anytime-anywhere? Mobile Communicative Practices and the Management of Relationships in Everyday Life. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1798862343?accountid=10382

 

Seetharaman, D. (2017). Facebook Looms Over Snap IPO — As Snapchat parent prepares for offering, larger rival is borrowing some of its moves. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1865125195?accountid=10382

 

Seetharaman, D. (2016). Instagram Takes Aim at SnapChat, Unveils Similar Photo-Share Feature — WSJ. Dow Jones Institutional News. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/2010069500?accountid=10382

 

 

Twenge, J. (2013). Does Online Social Media Lead to Social Connection or Social Disconnection. Journal Of College And Character. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1703449385?accountid=10382

 

Yuchen, L. (2016). From Social Media Uses and Gratifications to Social Media Addiction: A Study of the Abuse of Social Media Among College Students. Retrieved from
https://search-proquest com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1806943761?accountid=10382

 

 

 

 

Millennials raising their voices on important global issues through social network sites (SNS).

Abstract

Social networking sites (SNS) within the past decade has revolutionised the world we live in. This conference paper highlights the most recent findings on the positive aspects of Social Networking Sites and how social networking has generated a positive impact on equal opportunities and social justice within Western culture. Online movements have encouraged users to raise their voice regarding various forms of injustice and inequality by using SNS as a tool to project and discuss issues, debates and current affairs. Online communities have rallied on social networking sites, often influenced by the interests of those in their online social media networks. SNS have played a large role in the promotion, acknowledgement and awareness on serious global issues in our society such as #MeToo (sexual harassment awareness), #DoItForDolly (bullying and youth suicide awareness), #HeForShe (gender equality) and #BlackLivesMatter (racial inequality).

 

KEYWORDS: Social networks, social networking sites, SNS, Web 2.0, social media, political participation, activism, social movements, participatory culture, engagement.

 

Introduction

Old media is considered a one-way stream. A message is announced to the public with very minimal participation and feedback, meaning that having a conversation or debate on social, environmental or political issues is near impossible. New media, Web 2.0 and social networking allow two-way communication through the facilitation of comments, likes, shares and replies with the overall aim to engage an audience on a personal level. This results in giving users a voice and provides a sense of agency, or to simplify, a sense of control (Haggard, 2012, p.3). Social networking sites break down cultural, social and hierarchical boundaries by offering a platform to communicate to other users in real time, spanning across the globe (Kuiper, 2017). As a result, online social networks have sparked debate, not only from within the media and technology industry, but also in academia (Ngai, Tao, & Moon, 2015, p. 33). There appears to be a substantial split when approaching the pros and cons of social networking sites. Half the studies argue the negative consequences and effects of SNS, whist the other half emphasize the positive impact that SNS has on users. Skeptics argue that social networking is the predominant reason why users become alienated from society. However, in this paper, I will argue that by correctly utilising social networks sites, users have to opportunity to communicate their personal perceptions, opinions and ideas in a variety of subject areas to a number of people, resulting in the ability and opportunity to raise their own voice and opinions to a wider audience. Firstly, I will discuss how social networking has encouraged users to speak up on social injustice and voice their opinions on issues of their concern. Secondly, I will provide examples of successful online movements that support my argument of reducing social injustice. Thirdly, I will be exploring how social networking sites have been used as a tool to promote racial and gender equality, with examples that support my argument such as the #BlackLivesMatter movement and the #HeForShe movement.

 

The rise of social networks within the last decade has made a significant impact on social relations. According to Gerbaudo (2012) “Facebook is used to form groups, covert and overt—in order to establish those strong but flexible connections”. To further simplify, the common goal of social network sites is to let users to find, meet, and contact each other more easily. Over the years it has become much more then this and the way in which users are organized into social networks differs. LinkedIn and Facebook utilise existing communities for example business connections, students and alumni in order to create a foundation surrounding their site. Nevertheless, there are other sites that are directly associated around activism. Examples include Change.org and Net Neutrality, which empower users to generate communities around concerns such as global warming, water pollution and starvation in third world countries, just to name a few examples. The overall aim of these networks is to connect users to organisations, making overall social networks more useful (Aguayo, 2011). Facebook is considered the most popular social networking site, with 15,000,000 active members in Australia, per month (Cowling, 2018). However, it is important to understand that there is nothing exceptionally activist about popular SNS’s, but more how they are utilised as a tool to promote and spread awareness on issues and topics of concern. Activists have been passionate about adopting social networking sites as a tool in order to discuss and share global activism.

 

Social Networking has created a whole new way for users to communicate. SNS’s such as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram have served the generation of the Millennials well. These social networking platforms have allowed users to voice their opinions on any issue, big or small. Following on from this comes shares, comments and likes, creating an online platform for community, participation and engagement. Due to Twitter having the ‘retweet’ button and Facebook having the ‘share’ button, users posts can easily reach other users globally within a matter of seconds. Having social networking platforms to share your knowledge and viewpoints with others around you is so valuable. In today’s society, there is a growing number of users discussing political and social issues, which allows them to critically analyse the world around them, ask questions, share ideas and learn more about the world in which they live.

 

Movement Campaigns – Fighting against Injustice through SNS

Dr. Vaast is a professor at McGill University’s Faculty of Management (Information Systems) and has extensive experience social media. Dr. Vaast has previously worked along side a research team to further understand social media use on the Twitter platform following BP’s oil spill in 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico. The purpose of the research was to develop a well-defined understanding of, firstly who was discussing the oil spill and secondly how those online users caused a stir up, resulting in a larger social movement. Dr. Vaast (2018) acknowledged that “This was intriguing to [her] because, at the time, Twitter seemed mostly used as a way to react to more mundane, sports or celebrity-related matters”. By conducting this study, researchers established that SNS’s have the ability to create an emotional response that inspires users to work together toward tackling global issues (Hansen, 2018). Nearly 8 years on from the oil spill, SNS’s have revolutionised social change — from bringing awareness, thoughts and prayers to terrorism, the instant rise of the #MeToo movement and, more recently, the #DoItForDolly anti bullying awareness movement. Below are online movements that have provided users with an opportunity to raise their voice regarding various forms of injustice by using SNS’s as a platform to project issues, debates and current affairs.

  1. Anti terrorism movements: #PrayForParis / #JeSuisCharlie and #WeAreNotAfraid

Almost 3 years ago in 2015, Paris was involved in two major terrorist attacks. The first hashtag #JeSuisCharlie was spread across SNS of Twitter and was named one of the most popular hashtags in Twitter history with over 5 million uses referencing the hashtag (Goldman, 2015). The second incident was a coordinated attack by suicide bombers and gunmen in November 2015. Again, social networking users showed their support, with the hashtag #PrayForParis. The hashtag was used over 7 million times and on Facebook, profile pictures featured the French flag and Eiffel Tower peace symbol (Top 5 social activism campaigns, 2015). These online movements regarding terrorism also work as a deterrent for future attacks. The most recent global movement hashtag was #WeAreNotAfraid which followed after online users expressed defiance after the terrorist attack in Westminster killing 5 people inclusive of the attacker, sharing messages of solidarity on social media (Hunt, 2017). This demonstrate the influence and power of Twitter in particular, showing that with the tool of SNS’s, communities and users across the world can come together in order to drive awareness and promote the devastation of terrorism and crisis.

2: Sexual Assault and Harassment #MeToo

This recent movement began on social media after one of Harvey Weinstein’s most vocal critics wrote, “If all the women who have been sexually harassed or assaulted wrote ‘Me too’ as a status, we might give people a sense of the magnitude of the problem” (Sayej, 2017). This movement began because of the exposure of countless allegations against Harvey Weinstein, Hollywood producer for sexual assault. Not long after, millions of women (and some men) from different industries (not just the film industry) began to share their personal stories all over the world via social media with the hashtag #MeToo. This included public figures and celebrities such as Olympic gymnast McKayla Maroney and musician Bjork, empowering women to speak out against sexual harassment (Khomarni, 2017). Bollywood’s leading actor, Deepika Padukone says that it is important for celebrities and public figures to use their reach, power and influence to encourage change within a society. “I think it is extremely important for those who are in positions of influence or power to bring about social change. It is extremely important for them to speak up about whatever issue it might be” (Padukone, 2018). Sexual harassment has always been a blatant and disturbing reality however, this movement had such a dramatic impact that it was transferable globally. France used #balancetonporc and “rat on your dirty old man” which was used over 500,000 in this same period, whilst India used #abusefreeindia discuss and bring awareness to sexual abuse. This online movement has provided victims with an opportunity to raise their voice regarding sexual assault and the hashtag #metoo has established a convincing message: to stop sexual assault, spread awareness and empower women. The entire point of the #MeToo movement was firstly to acknowledge the scale of sexual assault and harassment – which it did, and in ways that possibly no one expected. Secondly, the encourage victims to speak up about their allegations against abusers. Thirdly, to break the stigma of sexual assault – now discussions are more open than ever before, which can teach people about the problem in unprecedented ways.

3: Anti Bullying and Youth Suicide Movement #DoItForDolly #StopBullyingNow

This anti-bullying and awareness movement was presented by The Project TV and aired on the 15th of March 2018, the day before the National day against Bullying and Violence. The segment is available to view on Ten Play: https://tenplay.com.au/channel-ten/the-project/top-stories-march-2018/speak-even-if-your-voice-shakes.

Convergence is understood as the “flow of media across multiple platforms” (Jenkins, 2009). Through convergence technology, SNS’s such as YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and Instagram shared this movement. In January of this year, Northern Territory 14-year-old girl, Amy ‘Dolly’ Everett ended her own life due to relentless online bullying. This movement aims to raise awareness through an online movement incorporating the hash tags #StopBullyingNow and #DoItForDolly. The movement included some of the most well known social media influences, musicians and actors. Wally Aleed states in the video “I am not the right person to talk to young Australian’s, they do not want another out of touch guy on the TV telling them what’s up, it is for that reason that I have decided to give up my chair to the people that should be in it, the most influential people in the world” (The Project, 2018). The days leading up to Dolly’s death, she left a breathtakingly heartbreaking and powerful message behind “Speak, even if your voice shakes”.

Research has found that the minority of students that report bullying to teachers or councillors when they are bullied, but when they do speak up, 30% of the time the bullying stops and a further 40% of the time, the bullying is reduced (The Project, 2018). The answer to ending bullying is that simple. Speaking about it saves lives. So, speak, even if your voice shakes.

As mentioned previously, through convergence technology, the video was shared across multiple social media platforms such as YouTube, Twitter, Instagram and Facebook, resulting in a viral video to raise awareness that reached million’s in real time. As a result, this online movement was utilised with the tool of SNS’s in order to bring awareness to the severity of bullying that could potentially save lives. This movement has demonstrated a clear and positive message – that there should be zero tolerance towards bullying, and by changing behaviours, could result in a life saved now or in the future.

 

Equal Opportunities – Fighting against Inequality through SNS

Over the decades, progress has been made in terms of equal opportunities both online and in reality. Within the past decade, Social Networking Sites have had an impact on the promotion and awareness of global issues involving inequality. Between the month of January 2014 and the month of January 2015, discussions of issues surrounding women’s equality increased by a whooping 60% on the Twitter platform. SNS’s such as Twitter is a place for everyone to be able to come together and discuss issues on equality, for example the wage gap (Howard, 2015).

1: #BlackLivesMatter

There is no doubt that the impact of SNS’s has effectively and efficiently raised awareness on social justice, social issues and political issues. The Black Lives Matter civil rights movement was created by three tech-savvy activists who successfully brought awareness and headlines to the violence against African-Americans. The movement was centralised around the trial of George Zimmerman who shot dead a 17-year-old African-American boy, by the name of Trayvon Martin (Day, 2015). The movement followed on since, and noticeably higher use of the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter was used following on various social networks following on from violent events that happened to African-American’s. The #BlackLivesMatter movement has proven to be one of the most successful activist movements reaching a substantial number of users and subsequently created awareness and action against injustice within the African-American community.

2: #HeForShe

HeForShe is an online movement for gender equality. The movement encourages “action right now to create a gender equal world” (HeForShe, 2018). As previously discussed, Deepika Padukone (2018) says “I think it is extremely important for those who are in positions of influence or power to bring about social change. It is extremely important for them to speak up about whatever issue it might be” which rationalises why world-recognised actor and activist Emma Watson was chosen as ambassador for this movement. The movement began with Emma Watson’s speech from United Nations (September 22, 2014) which can be viewed on the SNS of YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkjW9PZBRfk. In Watson’s speech, she encourages men to be the “He for She” meaning men who encourage equal rights for both women and men. Watson also clearly noted the common misconception that feminism is equal to misandry. The movement was widely spread converging from SNS YouTube to SNS Twitter, Instagram and Facebook. This demonstrates that SNS played a large role in the promotion, acknowledgement and awareness of gender inequality and the gender gap.

Conclusion

It has been made evident that social networking sites have revolutionised the world we live in, specifically for Millennials. This conference paper has highlighted the most recent findings on the positive aspects of social networking sites and how this has increased awareness and change regarding equal opportunities and social justice. As discussed, online movements through SNS’s have provided users with an opportunity to speak up regarding social injustice on issues that users feel passionate about. Online communities have rallied on SNSs, often influenced by the interests of those in their online social media networks. What has been made noticeably clear was that SNS’s have the ability to create an emotional response that inspires users to work together towards tackling global issues (Hansen, 2018). Online movements such as #BlackLivesMatter #HeForShe #MeToo and #DoItForDolly have proven to be some of the most successful activist movements reaching a substantial number of users creating awareness and action against injustice and inequality. Last but not least, I would like to thank you for taking the time to participate, engage and read my conference paper. I encourage you to comment any feedback and constructive criticism you have. I look forward to reading your comments and speaking with you in the near future.

Word Count: 2491

References

Aguayo, A. (2011). Encyclopedia of Social Movement Media: New Media Activism. Sage Publications, 1(2) 363-365. Retrieved from http://sk.sagepub.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/reference/download/socialmovement/n159.pdf

 

Anderson, S. (n.d). How to build companies, cultures and communities of purpose [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.wefirstbranding.com/social-media/twitter-and-truth-social-media-for-social-movements/

 

Benefits of Internet and social media. (n.d). Retrieved from https://schools.au.reachout.com/articles/benefits-of-internet-and-social-media
Conley, Dalton (2013). You May Ask Yourself (3rd ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

 

Cowling, D. (2018, February 1). Social Media Statistics Australia: January 2018. Social Media News. Retrieved from https://www.socialmedianews.com.au/social-media-statistics-australia-january-2018/

 

Day, E. (2015, July 19). #BlackLivesMatter: the birth of a new civil rights movement. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/19/blacklivesmatter-birth-civil-rights-movement

 

Demby, G. (2016, March 2). Coming Through 41 Million Tweets To Show How #BlackLivesMatter Exploded. National Public Radio. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2016/03/02/468704888/combing-through-41-million-tweets-to-show-how-blacklivesmatter-exploded

 

Dijkmans, C. Kerkhof, P. and Beukeboom, C. (2015). A stage to engage: Social media use and corporate reputation. Tourism Management, 47, 58 – 67. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman2014.09.005

 

Goldman, D. (2015, January 9). #JeSuisCharlie becomes one of most popular hashtags in Twitter’s history. CNN. Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/09/technology/social/jesuischarlie-hashtag-twitter/index.html

 

Gerbaudo, P. (2012). Tweets and the streets: social media and contemporary activism. London, UK: Pluto

 

Haggard, P. (2012). Sense of Agency: What is a sense of agency? Science Direct, 22(10) 390-392. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/science/article/pii/S0960982212001911

 

Hansen, D. (2018, March 20). What it takes to create a social media movement. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/careers/business-education/what-it-takes-to-create-a-social-media-movement/article38295693/

 

He for She: Our Mission. (2018). Retrieved from http://www.heforshe.org/en/our-mission

 

Howard, L. (2015, August 26). 6 Twitter Hashtags to browse in honour of equality day. Bustle. Retrieved from https://www.bustle.com/articles/106486-6-twitter-hashtags-to-browse-in-honor-of-womens-equality-day

 

Jenkins, H. (2008) [2006]. Convergence Culture (updated edition). New York: New York University Press.

 

Khomami, N. (2017, October 21). #MeToo: How a hashtag became a rallying cry against sexual harassment. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/20/women-worldwide-use-hashtag-metoo-against-sexual-harassment

 

Kuiper, J. (2017, November 30). Social Media: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly [Blog post]. https://www.hastac.org/blogs/jkuiper/2017/11/30/social-media-good-bad-ugly

 

Morrison, K. (2015, December 28). 2015’s Top 5 social activism campaigns: #BlackLivesMatter, #LoveWins and more. Ad Week. Retrieved from http://www.adweek.com/digital/2015s-top-5-social-activism-campaigns-blacklivesmatter-lovewins-more/

 

Ngai, E, Tao, S., & Moon, K. (2015). Social media research: Theories, constructs, and conceptual frameworks. International Journal of Information Management, 35(1), 33-44. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026840121400098X#!

 

Padukone, D. (2018, March 24). Important for celebrities to speak up, bring change. Hindustan Times. Retrieved from https://www.hindustantimes.com/bollywood/important-for-celebrities-to-speak-up-bring-change-deepika-padukone/story-GBQTysnr07c8YcnzUAnWVO.html

 

Papacharissi, Z. (2009) The virtual geographies of social networks: a comparative analysis of Facebook, LinkedIn and ASmallWorld. New Media and Society, 11(1&2), 199-220. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/doi/abs/10.1177/1461444808099577

 

Sapienza, M. (2016, November 14). Why it’s important to voice your opinion on social media. Retrieved from https://www.theodysseyonline.com/important-voice-your-opinion-social-media

 

Sayej, N. (2017, December 1). Alyssa Milano on the #MeToo movement: ‘We’re not going to stand for it any more’. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/dec/01/alyssa-milano-mee-too-sexual-harassment-abuse

 

Terror attack Londoners declare #wearenotafraid. (2017, March 23). Fraser Coast Chronicle. Retrieved from https://www.frasercoastchronicle.com.au/news/terror-attack-londoners-declare-wearenotafraid/3158116/

 

 

Gaming Communities in and beyond Game Worlds

Gaming Communities in and beyond Game Worlds (Click for PDF)

Zachary Riordan

Curtin University: Bentley

Correspondence: Zachary.Riordan@student.curtin.edu.au

Abstract

This paper discusses many of the most important aspects of community in gaming, within and beyond the game world. This includes: how communities form in online games and how activities centred around gaming facilitate online communities. The paper argues that games, and online subsidiary activities centred around them, provide social benefits to participants that compliment off-line social interaction by promoting the growth of communities both within and beyond the game world. More specifically, this paper analyses and explores: game worlds, “third place”, flow, hallucination of the real, text-based messaging, Voice over Internet Protocol, playing with friends, social media content creation, and “modding”; and relates these aspects to social benefits including: bridging and bonding social capital, agency, social proximity, familiarity, and weak and strong ties.

Keywords: community, gaming, social capital, weak and strong ties.

Gaming Communities in and beyond Game Worlds

The social benefits of game play and communities created within games have been extensively researched (Trepte, Reinecke, and Juechems, 2012). In the context of 2018, communities not only thrive within games themselves but also the secondary activities surrounding the games. This paper argues that: games, and online subsidiary activities centred around them, provide social benefits to participants that compliment off-line social interaction by promoting the growth of communities both within and beyond the game world. This paper will firstly discuss how communities form within game worlds and the types of communities created. Then it will explore how these, and new, communities form and prosper via subsidiary online activities that centre around games. These subsidiary activities include, but are not limited to, social media content creation and modifying games. Throughout the paper I will also analyse the social benefits that players and participants attain because of the communities they become a part of.

In-Game Communities and Immersive Game Worlds

Online gaming has developed over multiple decades, with video games dating back over 45 years (Leaver, 2018). The realism, expansiveness and detail in video games has, obviously, increased extensively over this time. This, and the number of participants is likely to continue to increase in future years (Leaver, 2018; Kim, Lee, Thomas, and Dombrowski, 2009). Far from the likes of static games such as “Pong”, these games are detailed enough for players to express themselves within the game (Leaver, 2018). Furthermore, because of technologies such as the World Wide Web, players can interact with not only the game world but other players. This interaction, as well as communication, forms the basis for online communities to develop and grow (Steinkuehler, and Williams, 2006). As detailed below, player interaction occurs within games and using other platforms such as social media.

Many games have enough detail that immersive worlds are created, where players are, at-least for the most part, solely focused on what is happening in the game. Frostling-Henningsson (2009), describes this state of being as “flow”. Sufficiently detailed games can take multiple forms and include multiple genres of games. However, game genres such as Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPGs) are the most profound examples of online game worlds. These games can be described as “Third places”, which are “crucial… for civic interaction” (Williams, Ducheneaut, Zhang, Yee, and Nickell, 2006; Oldenburg, 1997). This is because of the extensiveness of the game and the actions available to the player (Williams and Ducheneaut, et. al., 2006). There are many roles a player can play, hence role-playing game, and no one player can be a master of everything. Therefore, to prosper in these “worlds” (Frostling-Henningsson, 2009) players should not only communicate but also cooperate with each other (Williams and Ducheneaut, et. al., 2006). This cooperation leads to communities forming within the game. Katz, Rice, Acord, Dasgupta, and David (2004) describe this type of community as a “pseudo-community”. This does not mean that the community is not real, but rather the community is based in a virtual world and has a group focus. The community type “Social Network” could also apply for some players or groups who exhibit individual centred attributes (Katz, et al., 2004). Furthermore, common goals and ongoing communication lead to partnerships, friendships and strong ties developing in the game (Williams and Ducheneaut, et. al., 2006; Domahidi, Festl, and Quandt, 2014).

One well researched game is popular MMORPG “World of Warcraft”, which at its peak had twenty million monthly paid players (Leaver, 2018). This game’s popularity can largely be attributed to the communities around and in the game that were developed because of the immersive, detailed, and continuing world centred around engaging gameplay (Williams and Ducheneaut, et. al., 2006). Game mechanics, such as an in-depth virtual economy and levelling system, lead to a “hallucination of the real” (Frostling-Henningsson, 2009) where new personas, personalities and lifestyles are created and/or expressed.

The state of “flow” and the “hallucination of the real” are both ways of describing the level of immersion games facilitate. This does not only occur in MMORPGs but also First-Person Shooters (FPSs). In these games, players are looking through the eyes of a soldier that they control. Online gameplay is centred around fighting against, and with, other players. Candy (2012) describes his level of extreme focus on trying to keep himself but more importantly, his teammates alive. With games such as “Counter Strike: Global Offensive” (CS: GO) a team of players work together to fight against another team. Much like a virtually violent sport (Williams and Ducheneaut, et. al., 2006). Candy (2012) states that the level of cooperation and fast paced nature of the games lead to strong friendships being formed. This can be described as bonding social capital which develops into strong ties (Steinkuehler, and Williams, 2006). These players turn their team into a community, one of which, the members are very close. Even so much so that once virtual friendships expand past their initial “third place” into the offline world (Candy, 2012).

As stated above, being able to communicate is obviously a key driver in forming social bonds and communities. There are many ways in which games facilitate and promote communication between players. The simplest way many games facilitate online communication, is through in-game chat. This allows players to communicate using text-based messages. However, this is crude by 2018’s standards. The time taken to create a message causes a delay between when the producer wants to communicate the message and when the viewer receives it. The, relatively, long time that the message takes to create, means that this form of communication is less often used in fast paced games and/or is often limited to use for greetings when gameplay is slower. This limits the ability for players to acquire bonding social capital or develop strong ties through using in-game, text-based messaging alone. In saying this, the messenger’s in-game name is associated with the message, meaning social proximately, familiarity, and bridging social capital is created using in-game chat (Trepte, Reinecke, and Juechems, 2012).

In many online FPSs, like “CS: GO”, Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) is a feature that allows players to speak to other players while in the game. VoIP within the game can facilitate the communication between players who are not friends. In the case of “CS: GO”, in-game VoIP is commonly used when matchmaking with-out friends. This means the players who become part of your team are not players that you personally know. VoIP allows these new teammates to strategize, give “call outs”, or simply communicate in real time. Strategizing or simply giving good call outs result in social capital and a sense of agency for the communicator and would not be possible with-out the use of Voice over Internet Protocol (Candy, 2012). Real time communication also promotes a sense of “flow”, develops the game into a “third place”, and encourages players to form communities (Frostling-Henningsson, 2009; Williams and Ducheneaut, et. al., 2006; Candy, 2012).

Games have also used other ways of connecting players with each other. A standard feature in any online game in 2018, the ability to create a list of friends and easily join each other’s games, should not be overlooked as the most important aspect of facilitating social gameplay. The widespread inclusion is likely due to social reasons being the main cause of gameplay (Frostling-Henningsson, 2009; Domahidi, Festl, and Quandt, 2014) and the exclusion of this feature, and therefore social gameplay, would be essentially unacceptable for many gamers.

In some cases, game features connect existing players with their friends whom may not play the game. Social games, or games based on social networking platforms, have used this technique for many years (Di Loreto, and Gouaich, 2010). More games, and games of different genres, are starting to utilize this technique. A recent example (2017/2018) is “Fortnite” (Bedford, 2018). When a player is not in a game of “Fortnite” they are firstly prompted to invite other friends that are online. However, players are also prompted to link their game account to Facebook. This is a clear example of “Fortnite” utilising in-game features, and other digital networking technologies, to extend the gaming community for the specific player and to increase the size of “Fortnite’s” community. This results in bonding social capital being created between existing friends who were Facebook friends but can now easily game together and strengthen their bond.

Communities in Subsidiary Activities Centred Around Gaming

Being part of a gaming community can offer much more than just playing a game. As detailed above, very strong sub-communities can form within a game itself. However, arguably to benefit most from the community around a specific game, the player should participate in multiple aspects of the community. This includes many subsidiary activities that centre around a game but are beyond gameplay. The biggest activity, in terms of active participants, is being involved in social media based on the game. The social media coverage of games is very large and complex (Minguez, 2014). The communities formed on social media platforms are not necessarily the same as the ones formed within games, but any content created by, from, or about a game is still centred around that game and connects to the game itself. Social media coverage of a game and any communities that form because of this are extensions of the game and the communities it promotes.

The media created based on games is essentially infinite and impossible to analyse in its entirety. Due to the shear amount of content, social media content about games, or a specific game, should be broken down into three groups: non-professional user-generated content, professional user-generated content, and industry generated content. Furthermore, where there is a group of participants that can share commonalities, there is a community (MacQueen, et al., 2001). This means that the members of each of these groups can be classified as a community. For example, a group of social media marketers working for a company would be considered a community.

Communities also interact with each other on social media. For example, industry members often promote professional content-creators’ work. This shares some of the industry’s agency with the content creator as a gift for creating content on their game. Specifically, “Fortnite” representatives often use their institutional authority to share and promote video content made by aspiring content creators (Fortnite, 2018). Industry members also “like” or “favourite” non-professional user-generated content. This gives the player social capital and agency in several sub-communities such as their friends or other players. Both actions, and others not mentioned, create mutual benefits and provide motivation for all parties.

Another important subsidiary activity based on gaming, is “modding” or modifying games. “Mods” or modifications to a game are quite commonplace in certain single player games such as “Fallout” (Bailey, 2018). Communities around “mods” or certain “modders” (modifiers) are also quite extensive. Because of the advancement in hardware and software used to create “mods” and the large number of people interest in games, many “mods” have been made. However, the ability to create useful, or even professional, “mods” is highly respected in the gaming community. This has meant “modders”, especially the best ones, receive a large amount of agency and social capital within their sub-community, and even the gaming community in general.

“Mods” can range in size from very small, to whole new games created in a different game engine (Bailey, 2018). The small “mods” can be made by one person, however, the largest “mods” are made by a team. This team requires large amounts of cooperation and collective problem solving. Furthermore, a team of “modders” can spend many years creating a “mod” without guaranteed financial compensation. Because of this, and the passion required to undertake such a task, the group can form a strong community based on gaming. Social capital is created within the community and received from beyond the “modding” community as detailed above. Furthermore, the feeling of belonging and accomplishment, and the friendships developed are just some of the social benefits that occur because of this subsidiary activity of gaming (Koivisto, 2003).

Conclusion

The communities formed within and beyond games can provide large social benefits to the participants. This includes but is not limited to, bridging and bonding social capital, agency, and social proximity and familiarity. All, or some, of these benefits combine and allow participants of gaming communities to create and develop friendships and belong to their community(s). This can occur within the game world or outside of it, through online subsidiary activities. However, both are centred around gaming and the communities that occur because of it.

The concept of communities, even within a gaming stream, is very large. Moreover, gaming as a stream is very broad and complex. This has meant this paper cannot, and has not, explored all aspects of community within gaming. More specifically, aspects including: e-sports, cosplay, gaming events, gaming lounges, and more, have not been discussed. Also, greater depth in the aspects discussed could occur if the focus of the paper was narrower. However, this paper has discussed many of the most important aspects of community in gaming, including: game worlds, “third place”, flow, hallucination of the real, text-based messaging, VoIP, playing with friends, social media content creation, and “modding”.

References

Bailey, D. (2018, January 3). This mod brings all of Fallout: New Vegas into the Fallout 4 engine. PC Games N. Retrieved from https://www.pcgamesn.com/fallout-4/fallout-4-new-vegas-mod

Bedford, J. (2018, February 2). Fortnite: Battle Royale – How to link friends on Facebook. Metabomb. Retrieved from https://www.metabomb.net/fortnite-battle-royale/gameplay-guides/fortnite-battle-royale-how-to-link-friends-on-facebook

Candy, G. (2012). In video games we trust: High-speed sociality in the 21st century. Fast Capitalism, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.uta.edu/huma/agger/fastcapitalism/9_1/candy9_1.html

Di Loreto, I. & Gouaich, A. (2010). Social Casual Games Success is not so Casual. Research Report, University of Montplellier – CNRS. Retrieved from http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/48/69/34/PDF/FunAndGames2010-03-22.pdf

Domahidi, E. Festl, R. and Quandt, T. (2014). To dwell among gamers: Investigating the relationship between social online game use and gaming-related friendships. Computers in Human Behaviour, 35. 107 – 115. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260947110_To_dwell_among_gamers_Investigating_the_relationship_between_social_online_game_use_and_gaming-related_friendships

Fortnite. (2018, March 31). Laugh along with @TSM_Hamlinz as he pilots his way to a win [Tweet]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/FortniteGame/status/980095979608268800

Frostling-Henningsson, M. (2009). First-Person Shooter Games as a Way of Connecting to people: “Brothers in Blood” Cyberpsychology & Behaviour 12(5). Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=9bb6b4f6-443f-4f88-ab26-15331092aa85%40sessionmgr102&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=44564372&db=bth

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). Retrieved from http://www.comm.ucsb.edu/faculty/rrice/A80KatzRiceAcordDasguptaDavid2004.pdf

Kim, J., Lee, E. Thomas, T. & Dombrowski, C.  (2009). Storytelling in new media: The case of alternate reality games, 2001-2009. First Monday, 4(6). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2484/2199

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

Leaver, T. (2018). Web Media: Gaming Media Convergence [iLecture]. Retrieved from https://lms.curtin.edu.au/webapps/blackboard/content/contentWrapper.jsp?course_id=_80670_1&displayName=iLectures&href=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Fblti%2FlaunchPlacement%3Fblti_placement_id%3D_40_1%26course_id%3D_80670_1%26mode%3Dview%26wrapped%3Dtrue

MacQueen, K. M., McLellan, E., Metzger, D. S., Kegeles, S., Strauss, R. P., Scotti, R., Blanchard, L., and Trotter, R. T. (2001). What Is Community? An Evidence-Based Definition for Participatory Public Health. American Journal of Public Health, 91(12), 1929–1938. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1446907

Minguez, K. (2014, November 7). The Merging of Social Media and Gaming. Social Media Today. Retrieved from https://www.socialmediatoday.com/content/merging-social-media-and-gaming

Oldenburg, Ray (1997). The great good place: cafés, coffee shops, community centres, beauty parlours, general stores, bars, hangouts, and how they get you through the day. Retrieved from http://illinois-online.org/krassa/ps410/Readings/Third%20Places/Oldenburg-Vanishing%20third%20places%201997.pdf

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

Trepte, S. Reinecke, L. and Juechems, K. (2012). The social side of gaming: How playing online computer games creates online and offline social support. Computers in Human Behaviour, 28. 832 – 839. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233489327_The_social_side_of_gaming_How_playing_online_computer_games_creates_online_and_offline_social_support

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. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/doi/abs/10.1177/1555412006292616

 

Forming Friendships Through Online Fashion Communities

Abstract

Those with impeccable taste and a wardrobe to match are reaping the rewards with an abundance of clothing rental platforms and communities surfacing online. Similar to other peer-to-peer clothing rental platforms like ClosetDrop, Rent the Runway or Curtsy app, Clothes for Rent Perth is a Facebook group that has been created to form a community around clothing items or accoutrements for rent, assisting others search for the perfect outfit. This paper analyses the role of trust in Web 2.0 communities, particularly online fashion communities, integrating the concepts of social network theory and social capital. The paper proceeds as follows. The first section introduces the concept of social capital and trust. Then, an attempt at defining communities and virtual communities is presented and the theory of the blackboard model of mediated community is adopted. Subsequently, the argument that trust, as an element of social capital, is integral to the success of online fashion communities like Clothes for Rent Peth is entrenched in the discussion of Web 2.0, social networking sites (SNS) and communities. The adequacy and relevance of sources from the literature on the identified concepts are presented throughout the paper.

 

Keywords: online fashion communities, Web 2.0, social networks, social capital, trust

 

 

Forming Friendships Through Online Fashion Communities

Founded by sole admin/moderator Madeline Taylor – co-owner of ClosetDrop, another peer-to-peer clothing rental platform – Clothes for Rent Perth is a Facebook community that allows for greater accessibility to fashion in a cost-effective manner. Although the concept of renting clothes is not new, peer-to-peer service models have disrupted the industry as items are exchanged directly from loaners to renters, removing the need for physical retailers. As such, Clothes for Rent Perth has no brick-and-mortar stores and exclusively operates online. With more than 6,500 members to date, Clothes for Rent Perth has established a niche audience among young women in Perth, Western Australia. The thriving sharing economy enables Australians to make a profit from their existing investments, and Madeline is merging fashion technology and the sharing economy to distinguish her businesses in the competitive market. Clothing rental platforms have become extremely popular on a global scale and while alternate Clothes for Rent Facebook groups exist based on geographical location, for the purpose of this paper Clothes for Rent Perth will be the focus. The success of clothing rental platforms and communities is attributed to the nature of Web 2.0 (collaborative and community-oriented) and its tools such as SNSs like Facebook. With reference to Clothes for Rent Perth, this paper explores trust as an element of social capital, arguing the necessity of such for online fashion communities to flourish.

 

Social Capital and Trust in Online Social Networking Sites

Social capital has a prominent place in the literature of a variety of disciplines including but not limited to economics, sociology and political science (see Engbers, Thompson & Slaper, 2017, pp. 537, 538). Social capital can be viewed as “An umbrella theory that brings together such concepts of social networks, trust, social exchange, social resources, embeddedness, and social support” (Grabner-Kräuter, 2009, p. 510). Grabner-Kräuter (2009) states, “Despite the conceptual confusion surrounding social capital, most researchers agree that social capital refers to investment in personal relationships or social structure that facilitates the achievement of individual or collective goals” (Glanville & Bienstock, as cited in Grabner-Kräuter, 2009, p. 510). Most of Engbers et al. (2017) recent scholarship traces the contested origin of social capital to Coleman’s (1988) treatise on Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital (p. 538). Coleman (1988) states that:

 

“Social capital is defined by its function. It is not a single entity but a variety of different entities, with two elements in common: they all consist of some aspect of social structures, and they facilitate certain actions of actors – whether persons or corporate actors – within the structure” (Coleman, 1988, p. 98).

 

Although Coleman’s work is said to have established social capital, the conceptual understanding and the diverse quantification of the concept flourished with the publication of Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone in 2000 (Engbers et al., 2017, p. 538). Grabner-Kräuter (2009) states, “Putnam’s definition represents a synthesis of the network and trust views of social capital: ‘the core idea of social capital is that social networks have a value… social contacts affect the productivity of individuals and groups’” (Putnam, as cited in Grabner-Kräuter, 2009, p. 510). One of the key categories explored in relation to social capital is trust. Best stated by Wellman et al., SNS members “Tend to trust strangers, much as people gave rides to hitchhikers in the flowerchild days of the 1960s” (as cited in Grabner-Kräuter, 2009, p. 511).

For communities like Clothes for Rent Perth to operate effectively, a great deal of trust is required on the behalf of members. With Madeline as owner, Clothes for Rent Perth functions similarly to ClosetDrop. Therefore, as stated on ClosetDrop (2018), it is at the discretion of members to make contact, negotiate prices, pick-up and return options. So, what happens if an accident occurs and red wine is spilt on a favourite white dress, or a pair of jeans are returned with a split? The moral philosopher Annette Baier presented a valuable starting point in defining trust, suggesting “We trust when we are vulnerable to harm from other yet believe these others would not harm us even though they could” (Friedman, Kahn & Howe, 2000, p. 34). Members of clothing rental platforms are vulnerable, however, being a location-based service, many Clothes for Rent Perth members have ties (predominantly weak) or “friends” within the group which reassures trust. Furthermore, the members of Clothes for Rent Perth are dependent on each other for desired outcomes, thus as active members become familiar over time and share positive experiences, the level of trust is heightened within the community.

 

Communities in an Offline and Online Context

There is no singular definition of community. Traditionally, communities referred to a group of people occupying a shared location and although this is historically accurate, for many, locality is no longer a key definer of fellowship. While people are born into allocated communities, nowadays communities can also be initiated or selected by individuals themselves due to the ease and accessibility of such enabled by the Internet and Web 2.0. The term community is also used to describe “The condition of sharing or having certain attitudes and/ or interests in common with others” (“community | Definition of community in English by Oxford Dictionaries”, n.d.).  In both instances, communities are framed as valuable, positive entities that offer an experience of ‘togetherness’ and sense of ‘belonging’. As stated by Forman, Kern and Gil-Egui (2012) “Communities are constantly shifting, merging, and redefining themselves”.

What once was an offline activity that required very little association with others, renting clothes has been introduced online and services like Clothes for Rent Perth encourage communication, connection and collaboration with others to achieve collective goals – shifting, redefining and merging the renting community. Discussions of the online environment often involve communities. Leal, Hor-Meyell and de Paula Pessôa (2014) define virtual communities as “Social aggregations on the Internet…where individuals conduct public discourse for a period of time and with a certain degree of involvement” (p. 883). Mirroring contemporary offline communities, they are “Constructed around a common interest, experience, or task that members have, and guided by both explicit and implicit codes of conduct” (Hagel & Armstrong, as cited in Leal, Hor-Meyll & de Paula Pessôa, 2014, p. 883). These individuals form networks that “Provide friendship, information, belongingness and social resources to each other” (Wang et al., as cited in Leal, Hor-Meyll & de Paula Pessôa, 2014, p. 883). The Clothes for Rent Perth community provides these elements through the renting process. While many members have associations or friends within the group, the opportunity remains to establish new relations with others by providing information and social resources. Additionally, these elements are linked to social capital.

As aforementioned, communities can be developed upon common interests, many of which are related to purchases (Leal, Hor-Meyll & de Paula Pessôa, 2014, p. 882). Aguiton and Cardon (2007) discuss the blackboard model of mediated community based on Michel Gensollen’s (2003, 2006) research. Gensollen underlined that “Virtual communities have a blackboard structure when they are organized to share experience between consumers” (Aguiton & Cardon, 2007, p. 53). A blackboard structure is indicated for Clothes for Rent Perth as the community functions on the premise of positive experiences both with loaners and their “products”. Members of the Clothes for Rent Perth community can only develop an instrumental intimacy between them and are connected by very weak ties as they purely interact for the purpose of exchanges (outfits for money and vice versa) (Aguiton and Cardon, 2007, p. 53). True for Clothes for Rent Perth, “The organisation of exchanges doesn’t require strong involvement of the whole community, but a cluster of very active participants can lead the community in producing a lot of external effects” (Aguiton & Cardon, 2007, p. 56).

 

Web 2.0 and Communities

Intended to distinguish activities from traditional static and passive Web pages, the popular term Web 2.0 denotes a modernised version of the Web. As stated by Grabner-Kräuter (2009), “The essential difference between Web 2.0 and the traditional Web is that content is user-generated, and there is considerably more collaboration amongst Internet users” (p. 505). The definition of Web 2.0 has been subject to much refinement over the years. Tim O’Reilly is credited with the seminal work on Web 2.0 and is said to offer the most comprehensive definition of this phenomenon, stressing network effects that arise from vast user participation and collective intelligence as significant features of Web 2.0 (Fuchs, 2010, p. 775; O’Reilly, 2005). While a literature review by Fuchs (2010) determines that several authors have developed similar concepts of Web 2.0 as a platform for cooperation (p. 776), Fuchs (2010) discussion of the concept as focused on the notions of online communication, community-formation, and collaboration (p. 766) is more applicable to this paper.

Fuchs (2010) outlines three evolutionary levels of Internet development, defining “Web 1.0 as a tool for human communication, Web 2.0 as a medium for human communication, and Web 3.0 as networked digital technologies that support human cooperation” (p. 767). This demonstrates that the highly interactive technologies of Web 2.0 and beyond have shifted the platform from a systems-oriented model to a user-focus model. Furthermore, Fuchs (2010) suggests that “What is today designated as “Web 2.0” functions both as ideology and realm of commodification” (p. 767) – particularly applicable to Clothes for Rent Perth. “Web 2.0 functions as ideology in a threefold sense: as marketing ideology, as neoliberal ideology, and as political ideology. A second aspect…is that it also has an economic function that is supported by the ideological components” (Fuchs, 2010, p. 768). Communities like Clothes for Rent Perth “Constitute an audience commodity that is then sold to advertisers” (Fuchs, 2010, p. 768). Such is derived from users being content producers (user-generated content), whereby members can upload or browse media, or accrue friends with whom they exchange content or communicate online on SNSs like Facebook. Facebook is a friendship-oriented network – the SNS emphasises staying in touch with and/or reconnecting with people (Grabner-Kräuter, 2009, p. 507). As one of the most popular SNSs with more than 2.13 billion monthly active users for the fourth quarter of 2017 (Facebook, 2018), Facebook transcends barriers to bring users together.

 

Social Networks and Communities

Web 2.0 application, online SNSs or virtual communities, have enabled potential for “Rich, online human-to-human interaction unprecedented in the history of Internet communication” (Grabner-Kräuter, 2009, p. 505). Fuchs (2010) states that “The usage of community-functions provided by social networking platforms has been rising during the past few years” (p. 771). SNSs utilise mobile and web-based technologies to establish highly interactive platforms that support users to:

 

“(1) construct a public or semi-public profile… (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system” (boyd & Ellison, 2008, p. 211).

 

This definition implies that users are linked in some respect, regardless of the strength of social ties (Lange, as cited in Grabner-Kräuter, 2009, p. 507). boyd and Ellison (2008) state “While SNSs have implemented a wide variety of technical features, their backbone consists of visible profiles that display an articulated list of friends who are also users of the system” (p. 211). “Much of Web 2.0 is based upon – or actually built upon – increased personal information flows online” (Zimmer, as cited in Grabner-Kräuter, 2009, p. 505). Upon joining an SNS, users are asked to fill in the required information to generate a profile for themselves. Evidence from many SNSs indicate that millions of users do not hesitate to share personal information or content online, despite the risks related to privacy or security issues on SNSs (Grabner-Kräuter, 2009, p. 506).  In fact, “Users actually tend to trust other community members with expertise, identity, personal information, and even money lending. Users also tend to trust providers of social network sites to keep their information and photos private” (Lai & Turban, as cited in Grabner-Kräuter, 2009, p. 506). Therefore, “Social networking obviously takes place within a (largely unwarranted) context of trust” (Grabner-Kräuter, 2009, p. 506). Consequently, questions arise regarding why social networking users are so trusting.

The public display of profiles and connections is a crucial component of SNSs as this information can determine membership to a virtual community. Clothes for Rent Perth is discoverable but closed (private) community to the general public. Membership requires a user request to join and approval by the admin, Madeline. Assumedly, Madeline views the requesting user’s profile to determine whether membership is reasonable based on factors like profile picture, age, and geographical location. Most SNSs also provide a mechanism for users to leave comments or messages both publicly, on another’s profile (depending on personal user settings), and privately in direct messages (Boyd & Ellison, 2008, p. 213). Profiles enable discovery of others in the system with whom they have a relationship – acquaintances, friends, and followers (Boyd & Ellison, 2008, p. 213). “The term “friends” can be misleading as the connection does not necessarily mean friendship in the everyday vernacular sense, and the reasons people connect are varied” (Boyd, as cited in Boyd & Ellison, 2008, p. 213).

Network ties like friendships formed in communities are closely related to social capital theory, “Adopting a social network approach to the analysis of trust involves the assumption that individual actors are embedded within a network of relationships” (Jones, as cited in Grabner-Kräuter, 2009, p. 511). Granovetter (1992) describes embeddedness as “The influence of the network on its members’ behaviour,” and suggests that “Being embedded in cohesive networks accelerates the creation of trust. The cohesiveness of the network structure, where a specific relationship is embedded, facilitates the circulation of information about parties’ reputation and the socialization of common behaviour” (Grabner-Kräuter, 2009, p. 511). Therefore, the behaviour of community members is determined by the prevalent characteristics of its network (Grabner-Kräuter, 2009, p. 511). This explains the role of trust in the Clothes for Rent community, if all members behave ethically, a person behaving opportunistically will feel guilty in doing so (Ganzaroli, as cited in Grabner-Kräuter, 2009, p. 511)

As detailed, the affordances of SNSs provide a rich environment where social capital can be developed and refined (Burke, Kraut & Marlow, as cited in Lee, 2017, p. 1069).

 

Conclusion

 

“The relationship amongst the concepts of social networks, social capital and trust is far from conclusive” (Grabner-Kräuter, 2009, p. 510), and this paper contributes to an ongoing dialogue regarding these concepts. It is an attempt at a conceptual understanding of the role of trust in Web 2.0 communities, particularly online fashion communities, and the relevance of trust and social capital in SNSs. This paper argues that trust, as an element of social capital, is necessary for online fashion communities to succeed. With reference to peer-to-peer clothing rental platform Clothes for Rent Perth, this paper determined that trust and social capital results from the affordances of SNSs like the construction of profiles and more importantly, “friending” or relations with others, which are only possible due to the nature of Web 2.0 – a platform for communication, community-formation and collaboration.

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), 51-65. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1009070

Boyd, d., & Ellison, N. (2008). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x

ClosetDrop. (2018). ClosetDrop: Rent Your Wardrobe. [online] Available at: https://au.closetdrop.com/ [Accessed 2 Apr. 2018].

Coleman, J. (1988). Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95-120. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2780243

Engbers, T., Thompson, M., & Slaper, T. (2017). Theory and Measurement in Social Capital Research. Social Indicators Research, 132(2), 537-558. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1299-0

Facebook. (2018). Facebook Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2017 Results. Retrieved from https://investor.fb.com/investor-news/press-release-details/2018/Facebook-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-and-Full-Year-2017-Results/default.aspx

Forman, A., Kern, R., & Gil-Egui, G. (2012). Death and mourning as sources of community participation in online social networks: R.I.P. pages in Facebook. First Monday, 0. http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v0i0.3935

Friedman, B., Khan, P., & Howe, D. (2000). Trust online. Communications of The ACM, 43(12), 34-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/355112.355120

Fuchs, C. (2010). Social Software and Web 2.0. Handbook of Research On Web 2.0, 3.0, And X.0: Technologies, Business, And Social Applications, 763-789. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60566-384-5.ch044

Grabner-Kräuter, S. (2009). Web 2.0 Social Networks: The Role of Trust. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(4), 505-522. doi: 10.1007/s10551-010-0603-1

Leal, G., Hor-Meyll, L., & de Paula Pessôa, L. (2014). Influence of virtual communities in purchasing decisions: The participants’ perspective. Journal of Business Research, 67(5), 882-890. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.07.007

Carter_18854567_A1FinalConferencePaper1

Building and Playing with Online Personas Through Social Networking Sites (SNS)

by Elli Coppard

                                                         Abstract

This paper explores the concept of online identity and its formation across popular Social Networking Sites (SNS). With the aid of several academic texts, the concepts and ideas concerning online identity will be addressed and developed further. Concepts that will be addressed include the likes of identity construction, anonymity, the World Wide Web, and women’s identities online. The construction of one’s identity takes on many differing forms including selfies, blogging, and usernames. Through the exploration of academia, the methods at which the manufacturing of an identity impacts a person’s live will be brought to light. Furthermore, the impact these types of self-expression are having on technology and communication in today’s social context.

Keywords: Social Networking Sites, Identity, Anonymity, Self-expression, Selfies, Online Communities, Internet, Technology, Communication

The construction of online identity is a relatively novel concept that has been at the forefront of academic writing within the field for the last decade. The ability to present a constructed representation of oneself online allows for users to portray an idealized version of themselves. Furthermore, the inclusivity of popularized Social Networking Sites (SNS), formerly seen through Myspace and now exercised through the likes of Facebook and Instagram, have provided users to successfully facilitate interactions between friends, strangers, and colleagues previously unheard of.

Through understanding and addressing key concepts within the various scholarly texts, the acceptance and opportunities resulting from these online constructions is transparent across all articles. The purpose of this paper is to analyze how SNS, most notably Facebook and Instagram along with progressions in the World Wide Web have enabled users to construct their identities online and communicate effectively with fellow users in a collected, unified, and accepting medium.

                                                 Scholarly Review
In Donath’s (1999) text which addresses how identity is established in an online community, the idea of deception comes into play. Identity can be exhibited through the means of an account name or basic ID, as well as through voice and language. (Donath, 1999). Similarly, identity can be achieved through the means of gaming and role playing, as discussed in Turkle’s (1997) text. Both texts emphasize the ease acquired from constructing your own

identity online. Turkle explains, “the degree to which [you] bring the game into [your] real life is [your] choice.” (Turkle, 1997, p. 162). Likewise, Donath explains how online forums have enabled people to construct their identity accordingly and ultimately explains how these constructions “are more subtle identity manipulations, similar to the adjustments in self-presentation we make in many real world situations.” (Donath, 1999). Donath and Turkle have outlined the ease and affordances that come from constructing an identity online. The level of involvement in the process is down to the user themselves, and the representation of their identity can be as overt as desired.

Before SNS were a platform for self-presentation and identity sculpting, sites such as Myspace and SimLife were the catalysts for self-exploration and construction. Prior to online identities being dispersed amongst accounts, Turkle (1997) looked at how identity can be constructed through Multi-User Domains. This was the beginning of users being able to access multiple domains online. Given the result of this progression it can be said that a “distributed self undermines many traditional notions of identity.” (Turkle, 1997, p. 74). As well as this, boyd (2007) suggests that identity can now be seen as a social process, one that is fluid and contingent on the situation. (p. 14). It can be said that social context bares relevance on how identity can be constructed and how your chosen SNS can affect the means at which you manufacture yourself online. Instagram encourages a more pictorial approach, whereas Facebook a mixture of pictorial and written expression. Therefore, your identity reflects the demands of the given platform of which it is operating within. Conclusively, this advancement has changed how users perceived themselves online. Progressing forward towards today’s context and popular SNS such as Facebook and Instagram have enabled users to “write themselves and their community into being.” (boyd, 2007, p. 2). Once more, the construction of one’s identity online is made easier through the advancements in technology, which has enabled users to not only actively participate in the construction of their online identities, but to present that construction across as many social platforms as they choose.

With increasing availability surrounding how to construct an online identity across popular SNS, the concept of anonymity is raised and its relevance within the oversaturated online world. Frith and Van Der Nagel (2015) illustrate the importance of anonymity in an online space where it is usually a free-for-all to be noticed. The text explores users need for anonymity and pseudonymity online, as they state, “real names can make people feel less safe and can inhibit behavior they engage in online.” (Frith & Van Der Nagel, 2015). The concept of the real identity is central to understanding this text. The attitudes and behaviours users engage in, usually within online chat rooms or forums, is reflexive of a user’s personality. The option to remain anonymous or operate under a pseudonym enables users to feel safe (Frith & Van Der Nagel, 2015). This text reinforces the idea that different identity practices are shaped by specific contexts of use. It also highlights the significance of pseudonymous and anonymous identities on popular SNS as it has allowed users to further explore themselves by allowing certain practices to commence, which otherwise could be deemed inappropriate or unacceptable.

Anonymity can present a sense of security for an online user. The virtual domains the internet provides for users holds no prejudices. The physical domain of the internet however has long been recognized in a simple bedroom analogy referenced within Hodkinson’s (2015) text. Firstly, there is said to be a strong link between the complexities and privacy of both a young person’s bedroom and that of their online identity. (Hodkinson, 2015). Hodkinson identifies this relationship as he explores the spatial analogy of a teenage bedroom as a means to conceptualise the intimacies of one’s identity online. (Hodkinson, 2015). Especially concerning the early online platforms such as Myspace and LiveJournal, the bedroom analogy was accurate in addressing the similarities as teenagers showcase their identities within the confines of their bedroom. Similarly, this construction of identity is transferred to an online medium through SNS. (Hodkinson, 2015). The bedroom analogy has transferred to other scholarly pieces such as Paecheter’s (2013) text which highlights that “online communication takes place within a ‘glass bedroom’: a place in which intimate conversation and exchanges occur…” (Paechter, 2013, p. 114). Within contemporary convergence, SNS are allowing those outside the bedroom to engage or not with what is going on inside (Paechter, C. 2013, p. 114). Ultimately, young people online are continual constructing their identities through the platforms disposable to them. Traditionally, these ties were seen as intimate and private as one’s sleeping quarters. Contemporarily, users are still constructing themselves online, but with a slightly more liberating acceptance of who is in their space.

Through the construction of an online identity, there comes into play a performative aspect to the process. Pearson (2009) highlights the importance performance plays within SNS. Similar to the bedroom analogy previously discussed, Pearson explains how SNS can be seen as performative spaces which create a kind of ‘accessible privacy’. A user can choose to open the door to a private or intimate aspect of their constructed identity (Pearson, E. 2009). The concept of play within SNS is once again referenced within Turkle’s (1997) text sharing that, “the possibilities the medium offers for projecting both conscious and unconscious aspects of the self encourages users to engage in such play.” (Turkle, 1997, p. 163). The freedom provided by such online platforms allows for users to construct their identity within their own limitations or freedoms. Online domains such as Reddit allows for anonymity to be readily exercised online, allowing users to engage in free thought and open communication with others. Furthermore, operating under complete or partial anonymity allows users to engage in positive interactions with other users whom share similar likes and attitudes. This is some ways users can uphold their chosen identity through the means of performance. Pearson explains, “online performance allows individuals to play with aspects of their presentations of self, and the relationship of those online selves to others without directly risking privacy.” (Pearson, E. 2009). The opportunity to operate under a chosen identity provides freedom for users to present themselves as they so wish. Users are able to communicate and interact with other users at their discretion and without fear of judgement or other ramifications. Correspondently, Frith and Van Der Nagel’s research stated that through SNS, the presentation of self was more fluid because people were freer to switch identities on a whim and construct a new identity through text. (Frith & Van Der Nagel, 2015) In essence, every online user is performing to some degree. Pearson has cast light on the ways in which users operate and uphold their identities online through performative behaviours. He finalizes with the notion that, “the audience and the performer are disembodied and electronically re-embodied through signs they choose to represent themselves.” (Pearson, 2009). Thus, the opportunities provided by SNS such as Facebook and Instagram have enabled users to construct their identities completely dependent on how much or how little they wish to display online.

The disparities between gender is an angle many scholars have written about as of late, especially concerning how women construct their identities online. Jimenez et al.’s (2015) text focuses on a 2014 study examining children aged 11-16 in three European countries with how they develop and present their online identities and their interactions with peers. (Jimenez, et al. 2015). The study revealed both genders placed importance on taking selfies and photos in the representation of their online identity. Regarding female adolescents, the study found a higher emphasis on sexualized imagery in the construction of their identities. Though when interviewed, it was found that “girls, instead, discuss the liberating, empowering feeling associated with selecting and controlling their online appearance.” (Jimenez, et al. 2015). In addition, Hawisher’s (2000) text explains how women view their identities online as an empowering concept. (Hawisher, 2000, p. 546). Analysing women’s involvement in how they choose to construct their identities showcases the differences and priorities amongst the genders. Hawisher’s (2000) text reflects on how women represent themselves visually on the web. Women typically choose to sexualize themselves in photos more so than men through the opportunities provided to them through popular SNS, most notably Instagram. This is another way SNS has enabled users to construct identities in ways previously unheard of. Instagram has provided opportunities for women to pictorially portray themselves and their online personas in a way which garners attention, followers, and financial rewards too. Women are now being represented through online advertising in ways that seem familiar but with visual immediacy of the web, it has forever changed the viewing experience like never before (Hawisher, 2000, p. 549).

It is clear that through technological developments to the World Wide Web and the emergence of platforms such as Instagram, the distribution of identity is increasingly apparent. With that in mind, Paechter’s (2013) text argues in favour for the inclusivity of social networking and the idea that identities are now collaboratively constructed (Paechter, 2013, p. 111). This text leads on from the notion that young adolescents mainly construct their identities pictorially, with the use of front facing cameras and the rise of the selfie. A selfie is cardinal to how you wish to construct your identity as it provides a means to visually present yourself online. The emergence of the selfies provides adolescents with the opportunity to manipulate and distort images of themselves to comply with their chosen online identity. These opportunities can be seen as a direct result of new technologies, making the manipulation of identity easier. These technologies have arisen from a perceived need and will continue to adapt by the users themselves to suit their purposes (Paechter, 2013, p. 112).

Through this, it can be understood that the process of constructing one’s online identity is a continual process for both men and women. A process which adapts in accordance to the technological developments in today’s virtual world. Particular concepts, however, such as sexuality and empowerment resonate more with women than men. Jimenez, et al.’s text prioritizes what it means for young adolescence to perceive their desired image online. Both Paechter and Hawisher’s texts elicit the ideas of technological immediacy and the continual changing landscape of the digital world, and the access it provides for uses to construct and distribute their online identities.

With the birth of Web 2.0 and the selection of popularized SNS, constructing one’s identity online has never been more accessible and fundamental to one’s development. Jimenez et al.’s (2015) text confirms the importance of online involvement stating, “constructing an autonomous identity is a fundamental task for adolescents and pre-adolescents.” Within the digital world, participation online tends to follow both cultural and linguistic lines (boyd, D. 2007, p. 5) , meaning the digital language and behaviours of users will continue to evolve as our culture responds to the continual progression in technology. As Turkle (1997) points out, “we are now a part of a culture of simulation.” (p. 78). In essence, our attitudes towards online identity has now become embedded in our daily lives and functioning’s as young people. It is known that users have benefitted greatly through performing in mediated spaces, such as those found in Web 2.0 and other SNS as explained in Pearson’s (2009) text. Furthermore, Hawisher (2000) explains “the web with its graphical interface makes possible … to represent one of our many selves more graphically to the rest of the online world.” (p. 546). Moreover, the media of all stripes have enabled the development of mediated publics, for which users can convene and construct themselves as they desire online. (boyd, D. 2007, p. 8). Platforms such as Instagram and Facebook provide opportunities for users to put out an identity which is fully mediated, constructed and maintained in accordance to the individuals own desires and intentions.

                                                       Conclusion
Through the analysis and understanding of the academic writings regarding online identity, the concepts of construction of one’s identity, anonymity, gender disparities, and the motivation to engage online have been addressed and understood. Constructing an online persona has never been more accessible and pertinent to a young person’s growth and
understanding of themselves as well as their interactions with others, both online and offline. The progression in popular SNS allows for users to engage with others across multiple platforms, as well as interact with others with the safety and security provided to them by anonymity. To understand how online identity is influencing users, conducting further research on this topic is recommend as it will provide stronger insight into the key concepts discussed throughout this paper.

                                                          References
boyd, D. (2007). Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked
Publics in Teenage Social Life. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), MacArthur        Foundation Series on  Digital Learning Youth, Identity, and Digital Media Volume. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. Retrieved from http://www.danah.org/paper/WhyYouthHeart.pdf

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.
Retrieved from    http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeceoption.html

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

Turkle, S. (1997). Constructions and Reconstructions of Self in Virtual Reality. In S. Kiesler (Ed.), Culture of the Internet. Hilldale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Retrieved from
http://www.mit.edu/~sturkle/pdfsforstwebpage/ST_Construc%20and%20reconstruc%20of%20self.pdf

Turkle, S. (1997). Multiple Subjectivity and Virtual Community at the End of the Freudian Century. Sociology Inquiry, 67(1). Retrieved from
http://www.mit.edu/~sturkle/pdfsforstwebpage/ST_Multiple%20Subjectivity.pdf

Frith, J., and Van Der Nagel, E. (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

Hodkinson, P. (2015). Bedrooms and beyond: Youth, identity and privacy on social network sites. New Media and Society. doi:10.1177/1461444815454

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

Hawisher, G.E. (2000). Constructing Our Identity through Online Images. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43(6), pp. 544-552. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40016832

Paechter, C. (2013). Young women online: collaboratively constructing identities. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 21(1), pp. 111-127, doi:10.1080/14681366.2012.748684

 2018 Elli Coppard. All rights reserved.