Month: May 2018

Celebrities Online Self-Disclosure of Information Reinforces the Parasocial Relationship.

Posted on 04/05/2018 By Joanne Liew

Abstract

This paper explores the parasocial, or one-sided, relationships between celebrities their and fans through social networking sites (SNS), using Lady Gaga as an example. These relationships occur due to the self-disclosure of information on the platforms. Also, this article uses Twitter and Instagram and different celebrities as examples to analyse how self-disclosure of information helps to reinforce the parasocial relationships between the celebrities and fans. Moreover, it refers to Katz (2014), who suggests that community is the individual who gathers in a space in order to receive their needs through sharing the same interest. Within the community, there are weak ties which help to connect the people with the strong ties. Followed by analysing the concept of online “friends” which associated with the idea of weak ties.

Keywords: Parasocial relationship, Community, Weak ties, Online “friends”

 

In the age of the Internet, social media has become dominant in our everyday lives. With growing accessibility to the Internet, social media plays an important role in providing people networking services, entertainment or online communication support. Social media is more important to celebrities as they mainly use social media sites to interact and communicate with their fans. Moreover, online engagement with fans assists the appearance of parasocial relationships. As Adam and Sizemore (2013, p.14) suggested that parasocial relationships are one-sided relationships which people usually feel strong friendships with the people who they have never met before, especially the celebrities who have an extensive fan base. Hence, celebrities such as Selena Gomez, currently one of the Instagram’s most popular users, actively uses social media sites to interact with her fans and build relationships often occur the parasocial relationships. According to Marwick and Boyd, social media has changed the relationship between the celebrity and fans as there is an expectation of continuous interaction (as cited in Click, Lee, and Holladay, 2013, p.366). In fact, in order to adapt this engagement, celebrities mostly decided to disclose their personal information online. Thus, the main argument for this essay will be celebrity’s online self-disclosure of information reinforces the parasocial relationships between the fans through the use of social media. This essay will examine how celebrity’s online disclosure of information results on the parasocial relationships, followed by the analysis of how social media forms as a whole in constructing a community, as well as examine the weak ties and ‘friends’ within the community.

 

Background of Social Media with the Celebrities

Social media networking sites are an online space which people could create a self-descriptive profile as well as building a personal connection through making friends with others (Donath and Boyd, 2004, p.2). Social media networking sites such as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter are the social media for those users who seek for friends, and entertainment. Although social media is facilitating the connection between the people, it is used extensively by celebrities. As it could say, social media has broadened the capacity in helping the celebrities to reach out to their fans in an easier way. Instead of promoting their works in person, they could now utilize the social media to promote their latest works or manage their appearance to the public without any limitation. To gain a higher popularity, celebrities tend to update their status through posting their personal information including photo and video on the social media. Having said that, Selena Gomez, who currently has the most followers on Instagram actively uses social media to interact with fans. As same as the other celebrities, Gomez chooses Instagram as a tool to reveals her personality and personal information such as daily life and relationship to the public. As Selena Gomez has already gained a high popularity, her self-presentation on Instagram will be reviewed by the millions of followers. As it could say, Selena Gomez reveals her relationship status through uploading the video of her boyfriend and the selfie of them on the Instagram (Jessica, 2017). Besides, Gomez even unfollowed her ex-boyfriend on the social media platform. The personal information that Selena Gomez has disclosed helps her to gain a higher popularity, as she provides the information which the fans would like to receive. Self-disclosure of personal information attracts the fans to explore more about the celebrity. Moreover, due to self-disclosure of information, a new phenomenon which known as the parasocial relationship has occurred between the celebrities and fans.

 

Parasocial Relationship

Parasocial relationship refers to an imaginary relationship or imaginary friendship which an “ideal self-image” that the fans wish to discover (Caughey, as cited in Click, Lee, and Holladay, 2013, p.362). Within the parasocial relationship, the celebrity is expected to play different characteristics such as friend and leader which could provide their fans mentally support, heal their physical wound, or confidence. Thus, fans mainly describe the imaginary relationship with the actual figures such as ‘mother’ and ‘friend’. In other words, a parasocial relationship is conducted by one person who has an illusive face-to-face relationship with the media character. This phenomenon mostly happens between the celebrities and fans. As it could say, social media provides an additional opportunity for the fans to interact and engage with the celebrity. Through the online engagement, fans are able to get closer to the celebrity as they could now access the latest update from the celebrity within a process. Furthermore, Fraser and William (2002) found that “fans drive to develop relationships with celebrities is ‘based on the need to enhance self-esteem through identification with certain values’” (as cited in Click, Lee, and Holladay, 2013, p.364). People with low self-esteem will commonly seek for the celebrity who is similar to their ideal selves. The parasocial relationship offers the people an opportunity to experience enhancing self-esteem and feel closer to their actual selves. To describes that, the parasocial relationship provides the fans they do not receive in the real relationship as well as an additional opportunity to feel close to the celebrities. For instance, Lady Gaga uses social the media platform to build a community and play different roles within the parasocial relationships.

 

Lady Gaga Self-disclosure of Information on Twitter Reinforces the Parasocial Relationship

Twitter is one of the social media platforms that help to tighten the distances between the celebrities and fans. Hence, a majority of celebrities choose to use social media to enlarge their fan base. One of the examples is Lady Gaga uses Twitter to share her personal information and daily life with her fans in order to maintain and strengthen the fan-celebrity relationship. Also, Lady Gaga tends to reply to her fan’s post by providing different pieces of advice and encouragement. This interaction makes the fans feel more intimate with Lady Gaga as she uses the strategy of self-disclosure to attract more followers to participate in her personal life (Click, Lee, and Holladay, 2013, p.375-376). As it could say, social media enables the fans to participate in the celebrity’s daily life through comments and likes on their posts. The fans tend to comments and likes on the celebrity’s post although it is not much possible to get the response from the celebrity (Ding and Qiu, 2017, p.159). However, fans could still experience the feeling of getting closer to the celebrity within the one-sided interaction.

 

Additionally, the lines between the “real” and “imaginary” relationship have blurred as Lady Gaga utilizes Twitter to self-disclose her personal information reinforces the parasocial relationship (Click, Lee, and Holladay, 2013, p.367). Lady Gaga uses social media to communicate rather than promoting her music online. Therefore, fans feel like they really know her as they know her daily schedule. Self-disclosure of information assists the fans to know more about Lady Gaga’s daily routine; Fans feel to be a part of Lady Gaga’s life as they consider they know everything about her. Yet, everything within the parasocial relationship is based on the imaginary. As Jeremy and Jimmy (2009) argued that “although online relationships and conversations between the celebrities and fans remain mediated, fans increasingly experience them as real and authentic, reinforcing their feelings of truly ‘knowing’ celebrities” (as cited in Click, Lee, and Holladay, 2013, p.366). Social media allows the fans to communicate with the celebrity and construct a close bond. Therefore, fans believe that they are having a same online space with the celebrities and they truly “know” about them. However, a parasocial relationship is one-way interaction and it is based on the imaginary. Due to the long-term of one-sided interaction, it introduces the concept of parasocial relationship. Social media helps to transform an “imaginary” relationship into a more “real” relationship, thus, fans would feel more “realistic” in the parasocial relationship. On the one hand, social media helps to form a community between the fans and celebrity.

 

Community

Based on the different interests, fans could have followed different celebrities on the social media. Regarding the followers, the different groups of people build up an online community. As it could say, Morgan (1942) suggested that community is individuals who share the same interests, habits, or custom gather in a group in order to meet their needs (as cited in Katz et al., 2004, p.330). The people who share the same interest mostly follow the similar genre of celebrities on the social media. Using Lady Gaga as a case study, within the community, her fans are named as “Little Monsters” and Lady Gaga plays the role of “Mother Monster” in giving support, confidence, and counseling to the fans. In the online community, Lady Gaga deepens the fan identification by using the name of “little monster” to encourage the fans not to be afraid and avoid being judgmental (Click, Lee, and Holladay, 2013, p.369). According to Click et al., (2013, p.370), they suggested that through involving in the community, Lady Gaga gives the fans a positive point in finding the strength through associated with the other monsters. Moreover, social media connects the members from across the world, who have never met each other in the “real” world into a virtual community (Vitak, 2008, p.40-41). Although the members of the community do not know each other, they gather in an online space to build relationships and exchange the information. Furthermore, community boosts the fans to heal either their physical or mental wound and strengthen the confidence through placing Lady Gaga into the family role, such as “the mother of the community”. Taking the role of the mother figure, Lady Gaga provides the “little monster” a place to strengthen themselves through building up a community.

 

Weak Ties and ‘Friends’ Online

Weak ties refer to the members of the network who are able to reach the information through the pathways with the connection of the bridges (Granovetter, 1973, as cited in Vitak, 2008, p.19). As it could say, there are many weak ties within a community which helps to link the members together and form strong ties. The people within the community exist the weak ties as the people might not know each other but they share the same interest. As Wellman (1992) stated that weak ties consider providing the informational resources rather than supporting. Thus, it is more important than strong ties (as cited in Carroll, Kavanaugh, Reese, and Rosson, p.120). Having said that, weak ties would likely do more damage to the network as weak ties are the main bridges that supporting the strong ties. Strong ties will be collapsed once the weak ties are being removed. Moreover, Vitak (2008) stated that “weak ties connect an individual to people with whom he has little in common and would likely not be able to connect with through strong ties, such as high-status individual” (p.19). The people might not know each other’s in real life but they could be “friends” online. In addition to this, Vitak (2008) suggested that “offline acquaintances consist of weak ties, those people with whom one may consider as friend, but do not reside within one’s inner circle of friends” (p.78). Social networking sites allow the acquaintances to update their daily life through online profiles, following use the simple form of interaction to maintain the connections such as likes and comments. Through the use of social media, everyone is able to become “friends” by pressing the button of “add” or “follow”; The weak ties could also be removed when they choose to “unfriend” and “unfollow”.

 

Conclusion

The way celebrities disclose their personal information online reinforces the development of a parasocial relationship between the celebrity and fans. Also, through using the social media platforms such as Instagram and Twitter to share a celebrity’s daily life and personal information helps to develop an engagement with the fans. The lines between the “real” and “imaginary” relationship have blurred as the fans could now access the information of a celebrity in anytime. Thus, the relationship between the celebrity and fans are more realistic. Yet, a parasocial relationship is based on one-way interaction and it is what the fans wish to explore. Moreover, social media helps to form a virtual community as the followers within the community share the same interest and receive the similar information at the same time. The concept of weak social ties appears between the people which they do not know each other but share the same idea. Also, social media provides an opportunity for everyone to become online “friends”, whereas this is considered as weak ties and it could be removed in anytime. Overall, the social media is facilitating the development of the parasocial relationship and virtual community.

References

Adam, A., & Sizemore, B. (2013). Parasocial romance: A social

exchangeperspective. Interpersona, 7(1), 12-25. Retrieved from

https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1682033479?accountid=10382

 

Carroll, J. M., Kavanaugh, A. L., Reese, D. D., & Rosson, M. B. (2005). Weak ties in

networked communities. Information Society, 21(2), 119-131.

https://doi-org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.1080/01972240590925320

 

Click, M., Lee, H., and Holladay, H. (2013). Making Monsters: Lady Gaga, Fan

Identification, and Social Media. Popular Music and Society, [online] 36(3), pp.360-

379. Retrieved from:

https://doi.org/10.1080/03007766.2013.798546.

 

Donath, J. and Boyd, D. (2004). Public Displays of Connection. BT Technology

Journal, [online] 22(4), pp.71-82. Retrieved from

http://smg.media.mit.edu/papers/Donath/socialnetdisplay.draft.pdf.

 

Ding, Y., & Qiu, L. (2017). The impact of celebrity-following activities on

endorsement effectiveness on microblogging platforms. Nankai Business Review

International, 8(2), 158-173. Retrieved from

https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1906347978?

accountid=10382

 

Jessica, K. (2017). When it comes to documenting her love life on Instagram,

Selena Gomez is all of us. Retrieved from

When It Comes To Documenting Her Love Life On Instagram, Selena Gomez Is All Of Us

 

Katz, J., Rice, R., Acord, S., Dasgupta, K. and David, K. (2004). Chapter 9: Personal

Mediated Communication and the Concept of Community in Theory and Practice.

Communication Yearbook, [online] 28(1), pp.315-371.Retrieved from:

http://www.comm.ucsb.edu/faculty/rrice/A80KatzRiceAcordDasguptaDavid2004.p

d.

 

Vitak, J. (2008). Facebook “Friends”: How Online Identities Impact Offline

Relationships. Graduation Theses and Dissertations – Communication, Culture, and

Technology. (2008, April). Retrieved from

https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/551561

 


The work by Joanne Liew is under the license of

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

PDF Download

Identity, Pseudonymity, and Social Media Networks

Abstract

This paper explores the topic of identity in communities and social networks, specifically, how pseudonyms are used by social media users to control what is revealed about their identity (and to whom), for political dissent, to explore identity, and for freedom of expression. Examining published research by Hogan (2013), Marwick and boyd (2011), Papacharissi (2009), Smyth (2012, Lee and Liu (2016), Baym (2011), Christopherson (2007), Farrall 2012), Schäfer (2016), and Wielander (2009), this paper argues that the individual and societal benefits of pseudonymity far outweigh any harm. While there is evidence that pseudonyms and anonymity might lead to bad behaviour, the evidence also suggests that pseudonymity allows social media users to avoid context collapse, facilitates free speech, democracy and political dissent, affords teenagers the ability to experiment with their identity, and facilitates freedom of religious expression as well as freedom of non-religious expression.

Keywords: online identity, anonymity, pseudonymity, privacy, social media, social networks, online community, context collapse, political dissent, identity play, non-religious expression, religious expression.

Identity, Pseudonymity, and Social Media Networks

The purpose of this paper is to explore the topic of identity in communities and social networks, specifically, how pseudonyms are used by social media users to control what is revealed about their identity (and to whom), for political dissent, to explore identity, and for freedom of expression. Facebook users are told not to sign up for accounts with pseudonyms, but are required to sign up with their real names, that is, “the name they go by in everyday life” (Facebook, n.d.). Mark Zuckerberg believes that using a pseudonym to represent your identity is misleading and deceitful, saying, “having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity” (as cited in Van der Nagel & Frith, 2015, para. 7). On the other hand, Christopher Poole, founder of 4chan, believes “Zuckerberg’s totally wrong on anonymity being total cowardice. Anonymity is authenticity. It allows you to share in a completely unvarnished, raw way” (as cited in Hogan, 2013, p. 292). Hogan defines anonymity as “a state implying the absence of personally identifying qualities” (Hogan, 2013, p. 293),whereas pseudonyms “are a practice, which is often meant to facilitate nonidentifiable content” (2013, p. 292). The two are very closely linked, with pseudonyms being used to represent a particular type of identity, or to obscure identity entirely, facilitating anonymity. Many people agree with Zuckerberg, in that anonymity prevents accountability, enabling people to behave badly on the internet (Christopherson, 2007; Van der Nagel & Frith, 2015). However, this ignores the many advantages that pseudonymity affords both individuals and society as a whole. In this paper, I argue that pseudonymity in social networks protects privacy and empowers freedom of expression. Firstly, I will discuss pseudonymity with regards to context collapse. Secondly, I will discuss how pseudonymity facilitates free speech, democracy and political dissent. Thirdly, I will examine how pseudonymity affords teenagers the ability to experiment with their identity. Finally, I will discuss how pseudonymity facilitates freedom of religious expression as well as freedom of non-religious expression.

Context Collapse

Pseudonymity allows social network users to avoid “context collapse” (Hogan, 2013, p. 300; Marwick & boyd, 2011). People’s lives are made up of different parts, which involves different activities, and participation with different types of communities, and the way we behave and present our identities varies according to the context (Hogan, 2013; Marwick & boyd, 2011). We present ourselves differently to our friends, families, and work colleagues, and there are details of our lives which we may feel comfortable in sharing with one group, but not with another. It may be especially important to keep our personal life separate from our professional life, especially if there is a fear that details of our personal life may impact our professional reputation, even if it is doing something some people might perceive as being harmless. Similarly, Papacharissi describes the internet as a place where the barriers between public and private have been removed, or where there is a “confluence of private and public boundaries” (2009, p. 206). This has resulted in the need for individuals to “adjust their behavior so as to make it appropriate for a variety of different situations and audiences” (p. 207). For many, this can be difficult to achieve, and as noted by Marwick and boyd, some people attempt this through self-censorship (2011, p. 125). Although Papacharissi notes that some people create online boundaries by using privacy settings to control who has access to information on their social media sites, for many people, this may not go far enough. As Poole states, despite social media networks like Facebook enabling you to separate your audience into groups or lists, “the core problem is not the audience, it’s your context within that audience. It’s not who you share with, it’s who you share as” (Poole, 2011, 0:49). This, as he explains, is because our identities are “multifaceted […] like diamonds” (2011, 1:20). In other words, even though we still have just one identity, we present ourselves, and express ourselves differently in different contexts, and in order to maintain that degree of separation, people sometimes need to use pseudonyms when engaging with others on social networks.

Free Speech, Democracy and Political Dissent

Furthermore, pseudonymity also protects free speech, democracy and political dissent. Whistleblowers and activists may fear that criticising governments, politicians or corporations will lead to reprisals. Silencing protestors and whistleblowers means that corrupt or bad behaviour will continue, without any accountability, and with no hope for democratic reform. As Joichi Ito said in the New York Times,

The real risk to the world is if information technology pivots to a completely authentic identity for everyone. […] In the U.S., maybe you don’t mind. If every kid in Syria, every time they used the Internet, their identity was visible, they would be dead (as cited in Sengupta, 2011, para. 14).

The Arab Spring demonstrates how social media can be used to organise political protest and “for the promotion of free speech” (Smyth, 2012, p. 928). Protesters can use the Internet, mobile phones and social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter to quickly communicate with many people at one time, facilitating the dispersal of information as well as facilitating the organisation and mobilisation of protests (Smyth, 2012). But as Ito suggests, social media can also be used for surveillance and “to identify and punish dissents” (Smyth, 2012, p. 929). Equally important is Lee and Liu’s argument that the use of pseudonymity and anonymity is as important in a democracy as it is “in a repressive authoritarian society” (2016, p. 19). Even in places such as America and Canada where free speech is enshrined in law, pseudonymity and anonymity protects free speech and democracy by allowing people to express their views or criticise governments or politicians without fearing punishment.  Hogan exemplifies this with a case in Canada, where the mayor of Aurora, Phyllis Morris, lost her election campaign because of anonymous critical comments on a blog. She tried, unsuccessfully, to sue the commenters and the website, but the anonymity of the commenters was protected by law. However, as Hogan states, if they had been forced to reveal their identities, they may not have felt as comfortable about giving their “pointed, but legitimate, criticisms” (Hogan, 2013, p. 290). In light of this, it is inadequate to say that anonymity is not necessary in a democracy, because democracies can easily become authoritarian when individuals lose the protective cloak of anonymity which enables them to hold their government to account.  Pseudonymity, particularly when attached to anonymity, affords whistleblowers and dissenters a level of protection, which leads to a freer society.

Teenagers and Identity Play

Equally important, pseudonymity affords teenagers the ability experiment with their identity. This is what Baym calls “identity play” (2011, p. 387). Using the internet to explore or play with their own identity can benefit teenagers’ personal development (Christopherson, 2007, p. 3042). Pseudonyms release teenagers from any pre-conceived impressions or expectations their peers may have of them, giving them a clean slate to express themselves any way they like. Christopherson reports that one teenager claimed that pseudonymity meant he could talk to whomever “he wanted to talk to without negative social consequences… [and] people on the internet tended to be more expressive about thoughts and feelings than in FtF [face-to-face] communications” (p. 3042). Someone previously known as being introverted might be more expressive and communicative on online social networks such as discussion boards or chat rooms because they do not feel pigeonholed by their previous social reputation, allowing them to break free from any previous baggage and explore a new identity. Christopherson also noted that gaining confidence over the internet can also lead to greater confidence in offline, face-to-face environments (p. 3042). It appears that identity play is even more important for Chinese teenagers. A poll conducted in 2007 showed that Chinese teenagers “showed a 2 to 1 greater interest in anonymity” (Farrall, 2012, p. 435) compared with American youths. Additionally, twice as many Chinese youth admitted to experimenting with how they present themselves online, adopting “a completely different persona in some of their online interactions, compared with only 17 percent of Americans” (p. 435). This suggests that teenagers feel an enormous pressure to fit in and conform to a social group, which may be driven in part by “a need for a sense of belonging” (Wellman & Gulia, 1999, p. 14; Riding & Gefen, 2004). Pseudonymity means that teenagers can experiment with their identity in a socially supportive online community while maintaining their privacy and avoiding negative social consequences in their offline environment. Fear of negative social consequences can deter teenagers from expressing their individuality and exploring their identity. Pseudonymity thus allows teenagers to play with their identity and discover themselves, building confidence and leading to greater personal development.

Freedom of Non-Religious Expression

There is also evidence of pseudonymity facilitates freedom of non-religious expression. Schäfer (2016) writes of a case in Indonesia, where Alexander An was imprisoned for promoting atheism and attacking Islam on his Facebook page. Schäfer notes that in Indonesia, “where religiosity is the norm” (p. 253), and where there is “growing intolerance […] for expressing non-religious views” (p. 254), a growing number of atheists are using the internet and social networking sites to communicate and build a community of support. In most cases, they use pseudonyms on Facebook and Twitter to disguise their identity while still allowing them to be visible as a group. Schäfer points out that although it is possible for state authorities to trace the offline identities of social media users, it is really the general public who call for atheists to be held accountable. Since the average person does not have the technical means to trace the identities of the atheist internet writers, pseudonymity means that atheists can express their views without fearing a backlash. An chose to use his real name on his Facebook page, and was only arrested after members of the public tracked him down (Schäfer, 2016). These members of the public exemplify the physical local community who have created “an imagined community of sentiment, based on its opposition to others” (Katz, Rice, Acord, Dasgupta, & David, 2004, p. 336), with the “others” being the atheists. However, it is also clear that even the anti-atheistic community is mediated by technology, and that the atheistic and anti-atheistic communities are both physical and virtual “hybrids” (Katz et al., 2004, p. 337). Schäfer (2016) confirms this by noting that online discussions and meetings can carry over offline, even between the two. While using his real name was An’s choice, if everyone were forced to use their real name, there would be a significant decline in the number of people in Indonesia willing to express their anti-religious views online. So even if a real name is required to become a registered Internet user, the ability to use a pseudonym online protects people from harm, and enables the freedom of non-religious expression. This is also true for religious minorities in societies where non-religion (or a different religion) is the norm.

Freedom of Religious Expression

On the other hand, pseudonymity facilitates freedom of religious expression. China is an example of a “tightly controlling state” (Schäfer, 2016, p. 259), where the government has become increasingly wary of the growth of Christianity. Since 2013, Christian churches in China have been forced to remove their crosses, and some buildings have been demolished altogether (Goldman, 2018). More recently, Christians have been forced “to remove images of Jesus and replace them with pictures of Communist Party Chairman Xi Jinping” (Maza, 2017, para. 1). This type of anti-Christian government behaviour has driven many to join underground “house Churches” (Wielander, 2009, p. 166). Just as the internet and social media networks are used by Indonesian atheists to build a visible online community profile, Chinese Christian online publications such as Aiyan have been used to build a Christian community identity in China (Wielander, 2009). Wielander notes that most authors who contribute articles to Aijan avoid identification by using pseudonyms such as Christian names instead of their real name (2009). The online edition of Aijan also publishes readers’ comments, or “reaction to articles […]  therefore, while not having the immediate nature of a chat room, there clearly does exist a certain amount of exchange and interaction online between members of the community (Wielander, 2009, p. 170). This demonstrates how Chinese Christians can use blogs or other social media networks for communication and mutual support, but pseudonymous activity seems to have become increasingly stifled by China’s more recent changes to the real name internet policy. In the past, “real name registration was […] ‘encouraged’ rather than mandatory” (Farrall, 2012, p. 434). However, in 2011, Beijing became the first Chinese city to require micro-blogging service providers to “have their users register using their real names and personal information” (Li, 2012, para. 1).Whereas atheistic Indonesians are less concerned about real name registration because they are more fearful of offending fellow citizens rather than their government, the significant decline in “politically sensitive microblog posts” (Lee & Liu, 2016, p. 21) in China since 2011 demonstrates that citizens fear being punished by their government. This will impact Chinese Christians who are no longer able to use pseudonyms to protect their identity. Pseudonyms allow persecuted religious minorities in authoritarian societies the ability to gather in an online community of support and express their religious beliefs.

Conclusion

In summary, pseudonymity in online social networks protects the identity of users and facilitates freedom of expression. While some believe that accountability can only be enforced when people use real identities online, and that anonymity facilitates bad behaviour (Van der Nagel & Frith, 2015), Lee and Liu emphasize that, even when people use pseudonyms, their identity is still traceable (2016, p. 5). This means that anonymous social media users are still ultimately responsible for bad or illegal behaviour, but it also means that authoritarian societies can trace dissenters. However, even in these societies, pseudonymity still provides some level of protection. The evidence suggest that pseudonymity allows social media users to avoid context collapse, facilitates free speech, democracy and political dissent, affords teenagers the ability to experiment with their identity, and facilitates freedom of religious expression as well as freedom of non-religious expression. These advantages benefit not only individuals who are using pseudonyms but society as a whole through the promotion of a freer society.

 

References

Baym, N., K. (2011). Social networks 2.0. In The handbook of internet studies (pp. 384–405). Wiley. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/doi/pdf/10.1002/9781444314861.ch18

Christopherson, K. M. (2007). The positive and negative implications of anonymity in internet social interactions: “On the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog”. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(6), 3038–3056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2006.09.001

Facebook. (n.d.). What names are allowed on Facebook? Retrieved March 27, 2018, from https://www.facebook.com/help/112146705538576/

Farrall, K. (2012). Online collectivism, individualism and anonymity in East Asia. Surveillance & Society, 9(4), 424–440. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1314689548/abstract/C3A6319B862D4E33PQ/6

Goldman, R. (2018, January 13). Chinese police dynamite Christian megachurch. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from https://www.smh.com.au/world/chinese-police-dynamite-christian-megachurch-20180113-h0hujr.html

Hogan, B. (2013). Pseudonyms and the rise of the real‐name Web. In A companion to new media dynamics (pp. 290–307). Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/doi/10.1002/9781118321607.ch18

Katz, J. E., Rice, R. E., Acord, S., Dasgupta, K., & David, K. (2004). Personal mediated communication and the concept of community in theory and practice. In P. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication and community: Communication yearbook 28 (pp. 315–371). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Retrieved from http://www.comm.ucsb.edu/faculty/rrice/A80KatzRiceAcordDasguptaDavid2004.pdf

Lee, J.-A., & Liu, C.-Y. (2016). Real-name registration rules and the fading digital anonymity in China. Washington International Law Journal, 25(1), 1–34. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1862879515/citation/64452EB0023C429BPQ/9

Li, S. (2012, February 2). Is real-name registration necessary for micro-blogs? Beijing Review. Retrieved from http://www.bjreview.com.cn/forum/txt/2012-01/30/content_422194.htm

Marwick, A. E., & boyd, d. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810365313

Maza, C. (2017, November 14). Christians in China must replace Jesus with pictures of Xi Jinping or lose social services. Newsweek. Retrieved from http://www.newsweek.com/china-christians-jesus-x-jinping-social-services-welfare-711090

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

Poole, C. (2011). “High order bit” talk. Web 2.0 Conference, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3Zs74IH0mc

Ridings, C. M., & Gefen, D. (2004). Virtual attraction: Why people hang out online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(1), 00–00. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2004.tb00229.x

Schäfer, S. (2016). Forming “forbidden” identities online: Atheism in Indonesia. Austrian Journal of South – East Asian Studies; Vienna, 9(2), 253–267. http://dx.doi.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.14764/10.ASEAS-2016.2-5

Sengupta, S. (2011, November 14). Rushdie wins Facebook fight over identity. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/technology/hiding-or-using-your-name-online-and-who-decides.html

Smyth, S. M. (2012). The new social media paradox: A symbol of self-determination or a boon for big brother? International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 6(1), 924–950.

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). http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v20i3.5615

Wellman, B., & Gulia, M. (1999). Net surfers don’t ride alone: Virtual community as community. Retrieved February 28, 2018, from http://groups.chass.utoronto.ca/netlab/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Net-Surfers-Dont-Ride-Alone-Virtual-Community-as-Community.pdf

Wielander, G. (2009). Protestant and online: The case of Aiyan. The China Quarterly, 197, 165–182. http://dx.doi.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.1017/S0305741009000095

© 2018 Sandra Endresz. All Rights Reserved.

YouTube, YouConnect, YouStay: The Motivation of User to Contribute to the Online Content

by Ally Chua

Student, Curtin University

Abstract

This paper will discuss YouTube as a Web2.0 application that allows communities to form through communication and motivates the community members to stay in the space to enrich the online contents. The elements of the Web 2.0 like user-generated-content, collective consumption, accessibility, free culture make the user to consume it that benefits themselves, others and the media industries. The feeling that provides by the community cause the members (user) make the contribution to maintain the relationship by interacting.

 

Keywords: Web 2.0, community, user-generated-content, YouTube, Social Network Site, relationship

 

 

YouTube, YouConnect, YouStay.

The Motivation of User to Contribute to the Online Content

 

Web 2.0, as a relatively new technology, gives the online user a new way of consuming information and experiencing communities. Consuming information not only by receiving passively but actively which a two-way communication is formed. “Web 2.0 is a technology shifting the Web to turn it into a participatory platform, in which people not only consume content (via downloading) but also contribute and produce new content (via uploading)” (Darwish & Lakhtaria 2011, p.204). Web 2.0 tools, such as social networking and social media sites, folksonomies, video sharing sites and mashup application that facilitate community by letting them express their feeling and using the subject to get responses from people. Thus, more online contents are generated and enriched by community members. The use of peer-to-peer file sharing lets the users access the file easily. Web 2.0 allows the user to add value to online content or product by enabling the user to make creative media products using existing products, provide feedback and share with other. Through the value-adding process, users are coming together and forming communities. The contents they contribute online seem to benefit the industries company by providing free labour. What makes them willing to do that are that they seek to be recognized, want to be known or understood by other and the feeling of belonging to a group. YouTube as a Web 2.0 application site lets the virtual or social network community members find supportiveness and belonging feeling from other members with no physical interaction is needed. “Community describes relations that provide a sense of belonging, not a group in physical proximity” (Katz et al., 2004). The new technologies motivate and encourage the practicing community in online space by offers convenient. Without the limitations of space and time, users can access music anytime and anywhere they want. This elasticity of content consuming and interacting with one another to maintain the relationship in online space lead to globalization. The more people or member of that community to support, agree or providing feedback from anywhere, the stronger the sense of belonging occurs in a person and that weak cooperation between one another create a bond between the members. This paper argues that social media software like YouTube, use the effective strategy tools that facilitate communities to attract and keep the community members to stay in that space.

 

What is community ?

Community can be defined as when communication occurs among a group of people that share a common interest.  Public is a collection of people that shared a common interest but without knowing each other (Boyd, 2007). Cooperation and communication between users and consumers formed the online communities. Community is a social system which interaction and involvement socially determine the type of the community (Katz, Rice, Acord, Dasgupta, & David, 2004). We place people or ourselves into groups according to the person’s characteristic. The identity of a person can be shown through the shaping and showing of what their interest is. “Knowing the identity of those with whom you communicate is essential for understanding and evaluating an interaction” (Donath 1999, p.29). Online Community formed when similar identity people come together form a discussion about a common interest topic. For example, YouTube Users use searching tool to search a topic or issue to get information, and they express their opinion through like, comment or share. They are showing or shaping their identity by putting a certain word in the search box so that they will meet the content and people that related to them and being connected and become the member of the community. Community members’ way of accessing information influenced by environment, media products and ‘mental construct’ (Katz et al., 2004). “People gain a sense of who they are in part imaging by how others, both live and mediated, view them” (Katz et al. 2004, 317).

 

 

Web 2.0

Web 2.0 is a platform that provides conveniences, opportunities by allowing participation of the user in content production. “The roles of producer and consumer are being blurred further within the new media landscape” (Jenkins, 2008). Creative products like music or video mashup, remix, comments and reaction video being made by the consumer based on existing products which create a new and different product that enrich the original products. Hence, consumer becomes the producer who produces a new product yet it is not really ‘new’ show the blurring line between producer and consumer. Web 2.0 enables users to provide their opinions about other users’ work and offer the user an interactive experience that formed the feeling of “that’s part of their work” and their thinking is being cared. “They welcomed a wide variety of browsing technologies and imagined users not only as readers but also as writers” (Darwish & Lakhtaria 2011, p. 204). Web 2.0 as a product of the participatory culture that encourages “emphasize users’ story preference to share knowledge and culture in communities” (van Dijck 2009, p. 45). The opportunity that web 2.0 provides the user to become producer make them more likely to consume the products. In sum, Web 2.0 facilitate online communities and enhance active social interaction by letting users easy to access the information and letting community members meet others who shared interests connect one another.

 

YouTube

Youtube is a social network site which using the technology of Web 2.0. Creative work like remix also being encouraged by YouTube with its easy operating system. “This phenomenon has gained strong momentum together with YouTube’s positioning as the leading website for all kinds of user-generated videos” (Wikstrom, 2010). Their consuming become contributing. By just streaming the video, user helps the producer to increase the “views”. Their comment allows the producer to know what their audience’s’ opinion and he can choose to make changes to improve their following products. These are how prosumer or co-creator happen to be. Since the network public is formed on YouTube, mainstream media company use YouTube as an advertising tool since it can reach to the broad public. “The users who google data, upload or watch videos on YouTube, upload or browse personal images on Flickr, or accumulate friends with whom they exchange content or communicate online on social networking platforms like MySpace or Facebook, constitute an audience commodity that is sold to advertisers” (Fuchs 2010, p.768). When a user sees the others’ comment on a video, they either agree or disagree with it, and the user might reply the user. This is when the communication form between users that have a common interest (the video) and form community. “Many began participating because of the available social voyeurism and the opportunity to craft a personal representation in an increasingly popular online community” (Boyd, 2007). Besides, the more the comment is the video, the more the popular it is. People will curious about what make the comments and they will go and watch. YouTube also allows community members to access the content they want at any place and anytime. Web 2.0 tools change this dynamic, making interaction on the web possible, collaboration easier, information sharing the norm, and the creation of web content by groups of people a reality (Darwish & Lakhtaria, 2011). There are different communities form on YouTube, some of the communities are more active and some have less connection which based on how active the members are. Some members engage passively and some passively involve themselves in enriching online content. This also affected by the type of information, issue or topic are the communities discuss. Communities forming can cause the long-term connection between community members and make the members keep coming back so they are up to date with the latest information. In order to make the community active and lively, members need to put effort to create new or improving products to make discussion opportunity, provide feedbacks of the group activity and support one another to create a link between one another.

 

 

Self-organization that form collective consumption.

In Web 2.0, users can create their own rules to consume online content and set rules for others to consume their products. What they want from or restrict their audiences. Audiences can likewise choose if they want to consume after knowing the rules of consuming certain products. “The essence of the community is one of networked individualism, in which we all choose our own communities, rather than be fitted with others into them involuntarily” (Katz et al. 2004, 332). They will see if the group or the product is ‘them’. Once they become part of the group, they will start to contribute by communicating with one another. “By belonging to these groups, consumers seek to be recognized (Chaney, 2012 p.44)”. ‘Competition’ happening when communication occurs, among the peoples, everyone seeks to be unique and agreeing with and when they received a certain amount of responses, they are being known. This causes them to make effort to contribute to the online content. YouTuber always seek for more ‘view’, more ‘like’ and more ‘subscribers’. This not only financially benefits them but also make them satisfied that their works are being appreciated. The tagging function which is one of the Web 2.0 features. This function allows distributors to set who they want their audiences or public to be. A very large number of potential consumer can be attracted to enrich the video with granularity effect by tagging their video with related words and upload it on YouTube since it increases the exposure of the video to more audiences. By allowing us to have a collective experience with people who are both like and unlike us, public life validates the reality that we are experiencing (Boyd, 2007). The ‘network public’ environment created by the Web 2.0 make people concerned about how others might think how they are. This makes them spend more time or effort to shape the style they want other people to know about them. The reaction video to other video products especially singers’ music videos. The sense of belonging to a group drag people to continue to contribute to the online content.

 

 

Communication as an opportunity of publication (co-operation, making friend, knowledge-exchange).

New technologies are tools that allow people to use a new way to perform familiar activities possibly with more effectively (Bakardjieva, 2011).  Publishing becomes easier with the easy operating tools. What makes people to publish or distribute content online is that the desire they want to be known and look for the bosom friend who has “same taste”. They want to feel they are being connected. Instead of selling the products itself, the producer is selling the feeling or meaning of the product. What they will be paid for their work is the feeling such as appreciation and recognition. They earn from people’s like (support), comment (feedback and inspiration) and share (promote). What the consumer seek is also the feeling, the feeling of being agreed with, being listened to, connected with, feeling good for helping people and seek to be understood. When a people share a video from YouTube, their intention of doing that will be want to let the network public know their opinion of that video or let people know more about who they are by instead of really want to help to “promote” the video itself. The ‘network public’ environment created by the Web 2.0 make people concerned about how others might think how they are. This makes them spend more time or effort to shape the style they want other people to know about them. However, the distributors do not really care what’s the consumer intention is as long as the consumer’s action can add value to their products. Creative work like the remix, reaction video to the video are also encouraged by the distributor. This is because the original product itself might not be that attractive to some people, reproducing it to a different style increase the possibility of more people to like the song. “Configurability presents people with the tools to turn their interest into expression” (Sinnreich, 2010). Through the video publishing and communication occurring, the sense of belonging appears to both consumer and producer. This communication also is to maintain relationships among the community.

 

 

Enjoying entertainment conveniently (accessibility).

Consumer and producer (the community members) can access to, publish or contribute to the content easily with no time and space limit. Mediated technology brings and bridges communities practice to another space which free from people, locations and times boundaries and enables the members to promote the connection in the new space (Katz et al., 2004). YouTube as the third place for the user to communicate whenever they want. Users can come to and leave YouTube whenever they want. “Because virtual worlds are perpetually accessible and played in real time, participants are free to log on and off as they see fit” (Steinkuehler & Williams, 2006). The accessibility also lead to Globalization, a Malaysian consumer can access and watch an Australian YouTuber by access to the internet and search it on YouTube. Web 2.0 publishing becomes easier cause more and more producers from different countries publish their work to let people around them to consume and understand each other that create the links between them without physical interaction. “With the decline of the nation-state in global importance, due to the general cultural globalization supported by the Internet and communication technologies, the citizen of the nation-state has furthered this individuation and become a person, who joins with others in virtual communities” (Katz et al. 2004, 335).

 

 

Free culture.

Everyone likes free things. YouTube allows users to watch for free, publish for free, support for free and advertise or promote one’s products for free. YouTube as a Music or Video Streaming Site cause the decrease in CD sales. However, it increases the recognition of the music and artist that increase the revenue of the artist and media industry. “Our results indicate that new music consumption channels such as online streaming positively affect copyrights owners” (Aguiar and Martens 2013, p. 17). Distributor especially mainstream music industry should not see this free culture as a threat but an opportunity to make their products to be well known by increasing the exposure of the product. The emergence of the Web 2.0 shows that the need to change the way people consume products.

 

 

Marketing and self-promoting tool.

The use of web 2.0 in YouTube provides a platform that links the users together to form a strong bond between people and new ways of practicing communities that benefit both the producer and consumer. First, the effectiveness benefits the producer as it reaches very broad audiences that without the structural boundaries. Furthermore, it allows the producer to know audience’s thought and analyze their needs through feedback or comment so they can modify or make a different version to fulfil consumer’s need. “Therefore, it is likely that Web 2.0 was created to function as marketing strategy” (Fuchs 2010, p.767). The ability to share to other social network site benefits both producer and consumer. YouTube also allows mainstream media industries to look for the potential artist. At the same time, the user by uploading their work on to YouTube it might lead to a chance to be employed by a company. This shows that the virtual online space as the “third place” that might bring user to have real-world job opportunity (second place). “Second place is marked by financial obligation and rules that structure who is expected to be where and for how long; third place is marked by relative freedom of movement” (Steinkuehler & Williams, 2006).

 

 

Conclusion

Web 2.0 helps create a different way of communication in online communities like YouTube. Online communities formed through communication and the way of practicing communities have been differing from how it happens in real life. Online community members meet and interact with each other online without space and time limit. The topics and activities that connect the communities decide how interesting or active the communities are. The communities that create the sense of belonging, relativeness and supportive cause the members to come back for it. Furthermore, community members’ opinion is important to enrich the online contents and this Satisfied both the users’ and industries’ need. The emergence of user-generated-content is that a new public sphere emerges, in which all citizens can freely express their opinion (Fuchs, 2010). In Web 2.0 Users seem to have more control on distribution than before but the software industries still having the main control. People’s contribution is being sold to the advertising company and even they know that being is being targeted at, they will continue to do it because the sense of belonging with the convenience that internet especially social media sites provide seems more attractive and important to them. On the other hand, by being targeted at, they found they are being understood more and more services and products that can fulfil their need are being produced. Besides, the convenience and easy operating system of Web 2.0 social network application like YouTube encourage the user to keep contributing and communicating in the space. YouTube as the third place allows users to come and connect with their network public and leave when they want. All these characteristics of Web 2.0 or YouTube motivate the user to contribute to the online contents so that they can be benefited from it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

 

Aguiar, L. & Martens, B. (2013). Digital Music Consumption on the Internet: Evidence from Clickstream Data. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies Digital Economy. Working Paper 2013(04). Retrieved from http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC79605.pdf

 

Bakardjieva, M. (2011). The Internet in Everyday Life: Exploring the Tenets and Contributions of Diverse Approaches. In M. Consalvo and C. Ess (Eds). The Handbook of Internet Studies (page numbers?). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

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.

http://www.danah.org/papers/WhyYouthHeart.pdf

 

Chaney, D. (2012). The Music Industry in the Digital Age: Consumer Participation in Value Creation. International Journal of Arts Management, 15(1), 42-52.

 

Darwish, A., & Lakhtaria, K. I. (2011). The impact of the new Web 2.0 technologies in communication, development, and revolutions of societies. Journal of Advances in Information Technology, 2(4), 204–216.

doi:10.4304/jait.2.4.204-216

 

Donath, J. (1999). Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community. In P. Kollock, & M. A. Smith (Eds.), Communities in Cyberspace. 29-59. New York: Routledge.

http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html

 

Fuchs, C. (2010). Social Software and Web 2.0: Their Sociological Foundations and Implications. In S. Murugesan (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Web 2.0, 3.0, and X.0: Technologies, Business, and Social Applications (pp. 764-789). New York, NY: Information Science Reference.

 

Jenkins, H. (2008). The Moral Economy of Web 2.0 (Part Two). Retrieved from

http://henryjenkins.org/2008/03/the_moral_economy_of_web_20_pa_1.html

 

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

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

 

 

Sinnreich, A. (2010). Mashed Up: Music, Technology, and the Rise of Configurable Culture. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press

 

Steinkuehler, C. & Williams, D. (2006). Where Everybody Knows Your (Screen) Name: Online Games as “Third Places”. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 11(4), 885-909,

doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00300

 

van Dijck, J. (2009). Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content. Media, Culture & Society, 31(1), 41-58.

doi: 10.1177/0163443708098245

 

Wikstrom, P. (2010). Social and Creative Music Fan. In Music Industry : Music In    The Cloud (pp. 147-169).  Retrieved from https://link.library.curtin.edu.au/ereserve/DC60267084/0?display=1

 

Download PDF

Creative Commons License

This work by Ally Chua is licensed under a

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

 

 

Living Longer Online: Seniors, Online Communities and Web 2.0

Living Longer Online. Seniors, Online Communities and Web 2.0 McNally Ciara

Abstract

This paper explores published articles that have researched the effects of senior citizens participating on Web 2.0 and joining online communities. The paper refers to public participation on Web 2.0 platforms, namely the obstacles and the health benefits associated with senior citizens joining online communities. The articles referenced in this paper show evidence of extended mortality rates among those who utilise online platforms for communication later in life, helping to combat loneliness and social ailments (Holt-Lunstad, Smith, & Layton, 2010). Monbiot (2018) discusses a town in the UK, which claims that participation in communities is curing its senior town residence from ailments, subsequently lowering the town’s hospital admissions. Others back the findings in this article with numerous case studies recording positive results from seniors aged 55 and over participating in online communities. Medical case studies show a connection between social behaviour and feelings with inflammation and illnesses, thus linking social communication to physical wellbeing (Eisenberger, Moieni, Inagaki, Muscatell, & Irwin, 2017). This paper investigates the importance of community connection in adult life, highlighting that the usability and diversity associated with Web 2.0 platforms and social network sites ‘SNS’ (boyd & Ellison, 2007) encourage online participation. This paper acknowledges “The Digital divide” (Peacock & Künemund, 2007) and “Technophobia” (Hogan, 2009) as barriers which senior citizens come up against when attempting to utilise the internet and Web 2.0 platforms. This paper argues that senior citizens can overcome Technophobia and actively participate in online communities to encourage greater mental health and wellbeing, therefore influencing positive social connections regardless of physical ability, age or locations.

Living Longer Online: The Benefits of Joining Online Communities.

Traditional communities can be defined as groups of participants, from a similar demographic or geographic location physically meeting to contribute to a common interest or goal, also known as a Common good (Katz James E, Rice Ronald e, Acord Sophia, Dasgupta Kiki, & David, 2004). Online communities have developed with the same principles as traditional communities that relied on a common geographical location and a physical presence for connection (Katz James E et al., 2004). However, thanks to advances in digitization and convergence (Jenkins, 2004), community connection is now accessible via the internet and Web 2.0 platforms, which broaden community reach by diminishing the need for co-location of members.

Web 2.0 is a term used to describe an evolved version of the World Wide Web for companies that had survived the dot com crash, the term originated by Tim O’Reilly in a 2005 conference (Allen, 2009). Web 2.0 is an efficient and collaborative platform made for “human connection” (Fuchs, 2010, p. 764), allowing participants to contribute and participate from multiple geographical locations. The term Web 2.0 relates to the World Wide Web becoming a faster, more efficient, and adaptable version of itself (Allen, 2009). Web 2.0 is a platform that enables us the capability to present one’s self through online connections, participation and collaboration.

Social Network Sites or SNS’s are platforms with multiple technological affordances used for connection and participation on Web 2.0 (boyd & Ellison, 2007). Social network sites attract people to interact through shared interests, common friends or to follow blog posts on particular topics (Blood, 2000). Utilising SNS’s such as Facebook has been seen to strengthen existing family ties and friendships, combat loneliness and complement existing arrangements such as phone calls, particularly valid in the case of senior citizens (Cornejo, Tentori, & Favela, 2013). Lai and Turban (2008) explain that one of the largest differences between the traditional World Wide Web and Web 2.0 is that its content is user generated with a large emphasis on social network sites, encouraging greater collaboration and participation from internet users.

Social media platforms can be utilised for communication as a Web 2.0 tool, and accessed at little cost with almost full user control for sharing posts, pictures, videos and experiences. Social Network Sites may comprise of thousands sometimes millions of members, or in the case of Facebook have over 2 billion active users (Statista, 2018). Within these social network sites online communities and groups can form. These groups are niece to a specific topic, interest or common attribute, and links users such as senior citizens (Facebook, 2018) together in a sub-topic on a large social networking site (Lai & Turban, 2008). The expanding reach available for online communities increases their member numbers and further solidifies their common purpose.

When a traditional community becomes disconnected, contact between individuals and the community is lost due to physical dispersal (Katz James E et al., 2004). Utilizing the advances of the internet and the participatory nature of Web 2.0 (Jenkins, 2004), online community members can reconnect, expand and retain their connections regardless of the members geographical locations or physical abilities. Virtual communities are “communities without the physical limitations” (Katz James E et al., 2004, p. 326), broadening the sense of belonging and connection individuals feel within an online community. Utilising these Web 2.0 elements allows a sense of community to flourish for online participants.

Discussion

Communities and Web 2.0 have evolved in our everyday lives, providing numerous modes of communication and community participation available for all age groups. An article published by The Guardian (Monbiot, 2018), has associated community groups with a cure for illness and isolation. The article states that when senior citizens become active members in communities emergency hospital admissions fall dramatically. The article reports that social contact for senior citizens should be “on prescription” (Monbiot, 2018). The link between body inflammation and social connections has been described in a case study by Eisenberger et al. (2017), which found that the human immune system is in fact a regulator of social behaviour, and that social environments influence the human immune system. When we are sick, we are sensitive to social situations and communication, knowing when social engagement is required from certain individuals to help us feel better. This study explains that for humans as social animals, having online connections and relationships may help influence our recovery in times of sickness and help to improve mortality rates, “Social disconnection severely compromises survival” (Eisenberger et al., 2017, p. 243). This links the importance of participation in online communities with mental and physical wellbeing (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010).

Online communities along with SNS’s allow participation and communication online, influencing characteristics of community through participation. A “sense of community” (Gruzd, Wellman, & Takheteyev, 2011, p. 1313) can be obtained through participants using Web 2.0 platforms for organizing to meet others, hold discussions in online forums and create events thus, retaining the traditional sense of community while expanding social circles, relationships and sharing a common cause. Creating “Civic communities” online encourages members to address public issues collectively, as opposed to individually which utilises the power in numbers (Borgida et al., 2002).

National seniors Australia Facebook page claims a “Collective voice of over 200,000 members, National Seniors is the largest, independent organisation lobbying government and business at all levels to get a better deal for the over 50s” (Facebook, 2018). Online communities such as this are proving to be valuable community platforms with its members lobbying for a “Common good” (Katz James E et al., 2004), which in this case is for positive change for a demographic of Australians aged 50 and over. Multiple contributions to a shared goal or topic have been recognized to produce a richer quality of work as opposed to the quality of work produced by individual contribution, heightening the need for numerous members and contributors within online communities (Arazay Ofer, Morgan Wayne, & Raymond, 2006). The further the reach gained by online communities increases their quality of work and further advertises their common goal along with increasing the number of community members.

Concerns have been raised in relation to the use of online communication platforms for developing youths, with research showing its growing use is a cause for social issues such as aggression, substance abuse, academic difficulties and disordered eating (Strasburger, Jordan, & Donnerstein, 2010). Effects from the use of online communication are not always positive, with the internet and Web 2.0 affordances often used as platforms for cyber bullying and aggression (Melissa & Park, 2010). This raises concerns for professionals regarding the impact technology is having on the developing brain. However, the impact that the same communication and social engagement is having for those aged 55 and over, or those who have fully developed as adults finds that communicating online has beneficial effects on their health and wellbeing, contributing to “successful ageing” (Nimrod, 2011, p. 227).

People are increasingly using SNS’s to stay in contact and share important aspects of their life with family and friends, older adults will miss opportunities to keep updated with friends and family members who now spend a large amount of time using these platforms (Cornejo et al., 2013). The ability to utilise Web 2.0 tools such a blogs, wikis, messaging, video calling and online forums are moreover, encouraging senior citizens to overcome “technophobia” , a fear of technology (Hogan, 2009) and to retain high levels of social engagement and relationships with family members and friends online. Data from over 308,849 individuals was gathered and measured over seven and a half years, the results found that people who maintain strong social relationships had a 50% greater likelihood of survival compared to those lacking sufficient social relationships (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010). This indicates that online community ties and relationship creation and retention can influence the health outcomes of adults (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010, p. 14).

The Digital age gap or “Digital divide” (Nimrod, 2010) is caused by younger generations adopting digital and technological developments quicker than older generations, this can occur for a number of cultural and technological reasons. Studies done on decisions for older people to remain offline found results to be based on private access possibilities, motivational indifference and deficient knowledge (Peacock & Künemund, 2007). Remaining offline at a time when digital technology and online participation is advancing (Jenkins, 2004), and billions of users are choosing to participate through online platforms means that senior citizens who remain offline will be “disadvantaged from a socio-ecological point of view” (Peacock & Künemund, 2007). Nimrod (2010) discusses how online communities for senior citizens offer emotional support, increasing communication, companionship and an opportunity for growth and retaining friendships, these online communities also offer an opportunity to have fun and create new friendships (Nimrod, 2011). It is important that that senior citizens still feel like active members of society, this may be threatened by retirement or ill health, however contributing to online forums and SNS’s leads to companionship and discussions on a broad number of subjects from death to politics, serving a sense of connectedness for those who participate (Nimrod, 2010).

A study on technophobia conducted on senior citizens and undergraduate students in Ireland found significant levels of technophobia and computer anxiety in older citizens namely women, as opposed to younger undergraduate students, the case study was measured on computer anxiety and attitudes towards technology (Hogan, 2009). Computer anxiety results in computer avoidance, and has been linked with the ageing population, as older adults become less mobile, continual aspects of daily life are becoming increasingly reliant on information technology and It is therfore becoming more important for senior citizens to learn how to utilise online technologies (Hogan, 2009). Social isolation and decreased face-to-face interaction are worrying trends among the ageing population (Borgida et al., 2002) using the internet and Web 2.0 platforms may be considered a strategy for combating this. According to studies (Borgida et al., 2002; Cornejo et al., 2013; Hogan, 2009; Nimrod, 2010; Peacock & Künemund, 2007) for senior citizens to advance from technophobia and eliminate a Digital divide new methods of internet communication participation must be introduced to encourage this demographic to participate and communicate online.

Conclusions and Future studies

In conclusion, technological advances and developments in the Internet and Web 2.0 have made for a relatively seamless, useful and efficient World Wide Web, its platforms etched in our everyday lives to enable online communication, productivity and usability of numerous platforms (Allen, 2009). For younger generations growing up using digital technology these platforms have a sense of ease of use, with many people now choosing to retain social connections and share important elements of their lives on SNS’s (boyd & Ellison, 2007). Senior citizens aged 55 plus are a generation who did not grow up proficiently educated in using these technologies (Hogan, 2009). This among other cultural factors has resulted in a Digital divide between younger and older generations (Peacock & Künemund, 2007). The case studies used in this paper strongly suggest that utilizing online communities is increasing mortality rates, combatting ailments and tackling loneliness in senior citizens (Eisenberger et al., 2017; Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010; Monbiot, 2018). The mentioned health benefits for senior citizens joining online communities such as companionship, social engagement, increased mortality and positive mental wellbeing outweigh the difficulties and obstacles initiated by the Digital divide, such as computer anxiety and technophobia. Much of the research findings suggest that highlighting and advertising these benefits while putting sufficient programs in place to promote internet communication and participation will educate the ageing population on how to better utilise the internet and Web 2.0 (Borgida et al., 2002; Hogan, 2009; Peacock & Künemund, 2007). Introducing sufficent technoligical educational programs will ensure that senior citizens do not become socially disadvantaged, thus increasing connectivity and participation rates of this demographic and influencing a better quality of life for senior citizens through community participation and the use of Web 2.0. This will also encourge topics for future study in this area.

Creative Commons License

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

 

 

References

Allen, M. (2009). Tim O’Reilly and Web 2.0: The Economics of Memetic Liberty

and control Communication, Politics & Culture, 42(2), 6-23.

Arazay Ofer, Morgan Wayne, & Raymond, P. (2006). Wisdom of the Crowds: Decentralized Knowledge Construction in Wikipedia. 16th Annual Workshop on Information Technologies & Systems (WITS) Paper.

Blood, R. (2000). Weblogs: a History and a perspective. Rebecca’s pocket. Retrieved from http://www.rebeccablood.net/essays/weblog_history.html

Borgida, E., Sullivan, J. L., Oxendine, A., Jackson, M. S., Riedel, E., & Gangl, A. (2002). Civic Culture Meets the Digital Divide: The Role of Community Electronic Networks. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 125-141. doi:doi:10.1111/1540-4560.00252

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

Cornejo, R., Tentori, M., & Favela, J. (2013). Enriching in-person encounters through social media: A study on family connectedness for the elderly. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 71(9), 889-899. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2013.04.001

Eisenberger, N. I., Moieni, M., Inagaki, T. K., Muscatell, K. A., & Irwin, M. R. (2017). In Sickness and in Health: The Co-Regulation of Inflammation and Social Behavior. Neuropsychopharmacology, 42(1), 242-253. doi:10.1038/npp.2016.141

Facebook. (2018). National Seniors Australia Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/nationalseniors/

Fuchs, C. (2010). Social software and web 2.0: their sociological foundations and implications. . Handbook of research on web 2.0, 3.0, and X.0: technologies, business, and social applications, II, 764-789.

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

Hogan, M. (2009). Age Differences in Technophobia: An Irish Study. In W. Wojtkowski, G. Wojtkowski, M. Lang, K. Conboy, & C. Barry (Eds.), Information Systems Development: Challenges in Practice, Theory, and Education Volume 1 (pp. 117-130). Boston, MA: Springer US.

Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010). Social Relationships and Mortality Risk: A Meta-analytic Review. PLOS Medicine, 7(7), e1000316. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316

Jenkins, H. (2004). The Cultural Logic of media convergence. Of Cultural studies, 7(1), 33-43. doi:10.1177/1367877904040603

Katz James E, Rice Ronald e, Acord Sophia, Dasgupta Kiki, & David, K. (2004). Personal Mediated Communication and the Concept of Community in Theory and Practice. Communication and Community: Communication Yearbook 28, 28, 315-371.

Allen, M. (2009). Tim O’Reilly and Web 2.0: The Economics of Memetic Liberty and control Communication, Politics & Culture, 42(2), 6-23.

Arazay Ofer, Morgan Wayne, & Raymond, P. (2006). Wisdom of the Crowds: Decentralized Knowledge Construction in Wikipedia. 16th Annual Workshop on Information Technologies & Systems (WITS) Paper.

Blood, R. (2000). Weblogs: a History and a perspective. Rebecca’s pocket. Retrieved from http://www.rebeccablood.net/essays/weblog_history.html

Borgida, E., Sullivan, J. L., Oxendine, A., Jackson, M. S., Riedel, E., & Gangl, A. (2002). Civic Culture Meets the Digital Divide: The Role of Community Electronic Networks. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 125-141. doi:doi:10.1111/1540-4560.00252

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

Cornejo, R., Tentori, M., & Favela, J. (2013). Enriching in-person encounters through social media: A study on family connectedness for the elderly. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 71(9), 889-899. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2013.04.001

Eisenberger, N. I., Moieni, M., Inagaki, T. K., Muscatell, K. A., & Irwin, M. R. (2017). In Sickness and in Health: The Co-Regulation of Inflammation and Social Behavior. Neuropsychopharmacology, 42(1), 242-253. doi:10.1038/npp.2016.141

Facebook. (2018). National Seniors Australia Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/nationalseniors/

Fuchs, C. (2010). Social software and web 2.0: their sociological foundations and implications. . Handbook of research on web 2.0, 3.0, and X.0: technologies, business, and social applications, II, 764-789.

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

Hogan, M. (2009). Age Differences in Technophobia: An Irish Study. In W. Wojtkowski, G. Wojtkowski, M. Lang, K. Conboy, & C. Barry (Eds.), Information Systems Development: Challenges in Practice, Theory, and Education Volume 1 (pp. 117-130). Boston, MA: Springer US.

Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010). Social Relationships and Mortality Risk: A Meta-analytic Review. PLOS Medicine, 7(7), e1000316. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316

Jenkins, H. (2004). The Cultural Logic of media convergence. Of Cultural studies, 7(1), 33-43. doi:10.1177/1367877904040603

Katz James E, Rice Ronald e, Acord Sophia, Dasgupta Kiki, & David, K. (2004). Personal Mediated Communication and the Concept of Community in Theory and Practice. Communication and Community: Communication Yearbook 28, 28, 315-371.

Lai, L. S. L., & Turban, E. (2008). Groups Formation and Operations in the Web 2.0 Environment and Social Networks. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17(5), 387-402. doi:10.1007/s10726-008-9113-2

Melissa, P.-Z., & Park, M. J. (2010). To Tweet, or Not to Tweet: Gender Differences and Potential Positive and Negative Health Outcomes of Adolescents’ Social Internet Use. American Journal of Men’s Health, 4(1), 77-85. doi:10.1177/1557988309360819

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

Nimrod, G. (2010). Seniors’ Online Communities: A Quantitative Content Analysis. The Gerontologist, 50(3), 382-392. doi:10.1093/geront/gnp141

Nimrod, G. (2011). The Fun Culture in Seniors’ Online Communities. The Gerontologist, 51(2), 226-237. doi:10.1093/geront/gnq084

Peacock, S. E., & Künemund, H. (2007). Senior citizens and Internet technology. European Journal of Ageing, 4(4), 191-200. doi:10.1007/s10433-007-0067-z

Statista. (2018).   Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/

Strasburger, V. C., Jordan, A. B., & Donnerstein, E. (2010). Health Effects of Media on Children and Adolescents. Pediatrics, 125(4), 756.