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

Who is getting more sex? A comparison of generations dating online.

Abstract

This conference paper discusses the impact web 2.0 has on older adults 65 years and older Online dating platforms have created communities and a space for single individuals to find potential partners. After online dating became an accepted norm it encouraged users to utilize the platform to meet new people from all over the world. It has had an increasingly positive effect for single adults 65 years and older. As social circles shrink it becomes harder for older adults to meet new people therefore resulting in them turning to social media and online dating sites (Alterovitz & Mendelsohn, 2011). Web 2.0 has encouraged older people to go online to find relationships. Online dating sites allow older adults to find what they want in a relationship, which is commonly a low-arousal companionship however do hold sexual attraction highly (Menkin, Robles, Wiley and Gonzaga 2015). There are different sites that cater to different wants, needs and ages groups for example tinder is commonly used by younger adults whereas sites like eHarmony and Plenty of fish are used by older adults.

Keywords: web 2.0, online communities, online dating, perceptions, older adults, generational differences.

Web 2.0 and the acceptance of online dating

Web 2.0 is most commonly known as the ‘upgrade’ from web 1.0 (O’Reilly, 2005). Web 2.0 is commonly associated with the concept of ‘user-generated content’ (O’Reilly, 2005). User-generated content is content created by users and published online. Users of the web are no longer just reading web content but creating and participating through commenting, reacting and through own opinion blogs (O’Reilly, 2005). Web 2.0 has evolved into a participatory community where users are creating and collaborating to generate content and engagement (Karpf, 2009). Web 2.0 introduced many new and improved features and opportunities such as google AdSense, Flickr, Bit torrent, Napster, blogging, Wikipedia, tagging, online dating and many more (O’Reilly, 2005). Marwick (2013) discusses how the online community allows you to connect and communicate to other users with similar interests, who you may not have met outside of the online environment.

Web 2.0 has bought many changes to today society and how we connect, communicate. One of the major changes was to the idea of dating (Thottam, 2018). The sophistication of the internet has drastically changed the dating game over the last 10 years (Godfrey, 2011). Godfrey (2011) states that the days when a guy could simply ask a girl out on a date face-to-face or through a simple phone call are long gone. Godfrey (2011) reinforces this point by suggesting that there are now ‘unlimited options for dating and numerous tools to gain access to one’s potential soulmate’. People take time to change and adapt, especially older generations who have been so used to a certain way of doing things for so long (Thottam, 2018). When the first modern newspaper was invented, people included ads to discreetly connect and communicate with new people in hopes of finding ‘love or sex’ (Thottam, 2018). With the introduction of the internet, connecting everyone together these personal ads became digital and internet dating services were created (Thottam, 2018).

Online dating can go back to 1965 when two Harvard students used a questionnaire and an IBM 1401 to match students based on their similarities, this is considering as the beginning of match making services (Thottam, 2018). 1995, before online dating sites launched the World Wide web was available to the public to explore and meet new people (Thottam, 2018). 2000’s was an exciting time in regards to the dating atmosphere. 2000 the now popular dating site eHarmony launched, users would require to fill out a questionnaire and match with other users (Thottam, 2018). 2003 video chat channel skype was introduced making long distant relationships and meeting new people online easier, it reduced the worry about user identities through the use of live video chats (Thottam, 2018). Facebook was launched in 2004, which is not however a dating site but did majorly impact how we connect and date using the internet (Thottam, 2018). Users can now instant message and display relationships online through Facebook. 2007 bought the smart phone giving people the opportunity to communicate on the go 24/7 (Thottam, 2018). Online dating sites have since then grown to include gay dating websites and sites for those looking for different types of relationships. For example, tinder is commonly known as the ‘hook up’ app whereas sites like eHarmony are thought of a more serious commitment site.

Web 2.0 and online communities

The growth of web 2.0 signifies the change in use of internet for relational purposes (Aguiton, C., & Cardon, D. 2007). Participatory culture online encourages users who share similar interests to come together and engage in a community. Aguiton and Cardon (2007) suggest that ‘web development always contains the community ideal’. It is said that ‘common sociability and a set of roles and defined exchanges modalities gives individuals the feeling that they are part of the community and share a common vision. Web 2.0 introduced users to many different communities, the biggest being known as the blogosphere. This community is full of those who write journal like content about their interests and express opinions, allowing other users to follow, comment and co-create (Dumova & Fiordo,2012). Other online communities include social media communities, online dating communities, the wiki community and many more.

Web 2.0 has become a safe space for users to come online and be who they want to be and find those who share similar interests. Considering most people are online from many points of the world it’s a great way to find and connect with people. The online dating community has become increasing popular way to date and meet new people. Users look to online dating sites and communities like e harmony for many different reasons but mainly to find potential partners and to meet new people. Online dating communities have eased the dating process of finding new people, dating sites allow those who identify as gay or lesbian to find potential partners and also who are the same age (Clemen, atkin, Krishnan, 2015). It is now not uncommon to find someone online (Chappetta & Barth, 2016). The online dating community brings together those with similar interests and same goals allowing users to connect and communicate with like-minded people.

There are many different online dating sites which cater to different users and their different needs. Younger generations usually go for sites like tinder or grinder and look for casual relationships. Whereas middle aged adults commonly look to eHarmony.com. match.com and many more, these sites match members according to similarities shared between the two (Chappetta, & Barth, 2016). Sites that match members by their similarities allow the couples to know their personalities and interests before meeting (Chappetta, & Barth, 2016). Older adults commonly use eHarmony.com or plenty of fish (POF.com) as their online dating platform as it is more popular within an age group of adults 65+. Online dating is used by a small, but growing section of the aging population, this is evident with the numerous advertisements for ‘50-plus dating sites’ such as OurTime.com and SeniorPeopleMeet.com (McWilliams & Barrett, 2014). Match.com (2010) finds that adults 50-plus are the fastest growing segment of users and are an ‘increasing segment of the single population’ (Cooney & Dunne, 2001, as cited in McWilliams & Barrett, 2014). Online dating sites have become the most common way for adults over 50 to meet their marital partners (Gonzaga, 2010 as cited in McWilliams & Barrett, 2014).

Online Dating and Older Generations

According to Chappetta, & Barth (2016), an online dating profile is generally a “public website that other users of the online dating website can access and find information about that user”. The type of information that these profiles consists includes age, gender, location, ethnicity, height and body type, education, career and many more (Chappetta, & Barth, 2016). Online dating profiles allow users to present themselves the way they want to drawing on ‘past, present and future selves’ to create desired image (Ellison, Hancock, Toma, 2012). Identity expression is influenced by the perception of the audience, and the online dating community expects certain information to be shared (Marwick, 2013). Online dating sites are good for those “seeking companionship, sexual partners, romance, freedom from commitment and ease of meeting new people” and the reason for using online dating services will vary with each individual and with different age groups (Clemens, Atkin, Krishnan, 2015).

Menkin, Robles, Wiley and Gonzaga (2015) have found that overall users value ‘interpersonal communication more than sex’. Older users rated sexual attraction as slightly less important than younger users did, however they still highly valued the goal (Menkin, Robles, Wiley and Gonzaga 2015). A survey showed that singles aged 40-69 believe that sexual fulfillment was an important goal for many dating older adults (Menkin, Robles, Wiley and Gonzaga 2015). Menkin, Robles, Wiley and Gonzaga (2015) state that because older adults prefer low-arousal (e.g., calm) rather than a high-arousal positive emotions older adults tend to have greater preference for companionship relative to sexual attraction.

Different age groups have different perceptions and experiences towards online dating. Age is a common variable to consider when looking into the pursuit of online romances (Stephure, Boon, MacKinnon, & Deveau, 2009). Younger individuals will find that using online dating sites as a norm and an extension of their online usage (Stephure, Boon, MacKinnon, & Deveau, 2009). However, with a greater number of older individuals becoming single, motivations to seek new partners’ increases, encouraging them to go online (Stephure, Boon, MacKinnon, & Deveau, 2009). Little attention and study goes into single dating older adults due to the idea of them ‘lacking interest in intimate, particularly sexual relationships’ however many older adults enjoy dating and desire companionship (McWilliams & Barrett, 2014).

Stereotypes of older adults aged 65+ as ‘socially withdrawn or asexual’ ignore that fact that social norms are constantly changing and ‘shifting cohort demographics, it is increasingly common for ‘single older adults to be involved in dating and romantic relationships’ (Alterovitz & Mendelsohn, 2011). Opportunities to develop close relationships often reduce as social networks shrink because of ‘retirement, relocation and the death of friends and loved ones’ (Alterovitz & Mendelsohn, 2011). Due to this increased social isolation older adults are increasingly turning to social media and online dating sites to enhance their social networks. Many unmarried older adults are seen to actively participate and enjoy online dating and desire companionship (McWilliams, Barrett, 2014).

Online Versus Offline Dating

Online dating has affected the way people date and find potential partners. Online dating is fundamentally different to offline date and it can promote better romantic outcomes than conventional offline dating. Intimacy is developed at a faster rate online through online dating sites and communicating online than in a face-to-face setting (Chappetta, & Barth, 2016). The online setting allows users to find out interests and values quicker than in a face-to-face setting which is helpful for many users especially aging adults who may want to skip the slow ‘getting to know you’ period which many young and new relationships go through. many older adults, 65 and older are commonly widows and widowers are interested in dating turn to computers to enhance their chance of meeting someone (Alterovitz & Mendelsohn, 2011). Stephure, Boon, MacKinnon, & Deveau (2009) state that due to the dating challenges older adults face, internet and online dating site users increase with age.

Online awareness within older adults can be said to be a reaction to social isolation (Thompson, 2008). Social media platforms allow users to constantly update their status and their day-to-day routines for their followers of friends to see (O’Reilly, Milstein, 2011). This results in a feeling of being in touch and a ‘lightweight but meaningful connection’ commonly known as ‘ambient intimacy’ (O’Reilly, Milstein, 2011). Ambient intimacy becomes a way to ‘feel less alone’ and as a part of a community. This is very important for the older generation to feel connected and a part of a community.

Conclusion

Online dating has fostered a dating community within the older generation involving single adults 65 years and older. It provides the aging adults a space to find and connect with new people and gives them a chance they wouldn’t usually get in reality. This virtual space works to make the users feel accepted and safe as everyone using this platform is on there for the same reason. Older generations use different online dating sites than younger generations, this allows them to not feel judged by the younger users but also to refine their search for love to those similar to their age and who are at the same point in life. Older generations are often perceived as lacking in love life and online dating helps fight this stereotype. Online dating has ultimately stepped up the dating game and has encouraged communities to form and users to come together. Older generations are able to use online dating sites to enhance their social circle and meet potential partners. Studies show that users value interpersonal communication rather than sex however sexual attraction and satisfaction is still an important goal (Menkin, Robles, Wiley and Gonzaga 2015). Web 2.0 has influenced single older adults to join online dating sites as single adults are increasingly wanting to be involved in dating and romantic relationship (Alterovitz & Mendelsohn, 2011).

References:

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

Alterovitz, S. S. R., & Mendelsohn, G. A. (2011). Partner preferences across the life span: Online dating by older adults.

Chappetta, K. C., & Barth, J. M. (2016). How gender role stereotypes affect attraction in an online dating scenario. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 738-746. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.006

Clemens, C., Atkin, D., & Krishnan, A. (2015). The influence of biological and personality traits on gratifications obtained through online dating websites. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 120-129. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.058

Dumova, T. and Fiordo, R. (eds.), (2012). Blogging in the global society: Cultural, political and geographical aspects, Hershey: IGI Global (available via library database) http://www.igi-global.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/gateway/book/49568

Ellison, N. B., Hancock, J. T., & Toma, C. L. (2012). Profile as promise: A framework for conceptualizing veracity in online dating self-presentations. New Media & Society, 14(1), 45-62. doi:10.1177/1461444811410395

Godfrey, R. (2011, Jun 23). Dating in the 21st century. Canadian Jewish NewsRetrieved from https://search-proquestcom.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/879079097?accountid=10382

Karpf, D. (2009). Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage, by Axel Bruns: New York: Peter Lang, 2008, 405 pages (Vol. 6, pp. 81-83): Taylor & Francis Group.

Marwick, A. E. (2013) Online Identity, in A Companion to New Media Dynamics (eds J. Hartley, J. Burgess and A. Bruns), Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK. doi: 10.1002/9781118321607.ch23

McWilliams, S., & Barrett, A. E. (2014). Online Dating in Middle and Later Life:Gendered Expectations and Experiences. Journal of Family Issues, 35(3), 411-436. doi:10.1177/0192513×12468437

Menkin, J. A., Robles, T. F., Wiley, J. F., & Gonzaga, G. C. (2015). Online Dating Across the Life Span: Users’ Relationship Goals. Psychology and Aging. doi:10.1037/a0039722

O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. Retrieved from http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html?page=1

O’Reilly, T., & Milstein, S. (2011). The twitter book. ” O’Reilly Media, Inc.”.

Stephure, R. J., Boon, S. D., MacKinnon, S. L., & Deveau, V. L. (2009). Internet Initiated Relationships: Associations between Age and Involvement in Online Dating. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(3), 658-681. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01457.x

Thottam, I. (2018). The history of online dating retrieved from https://www.eharmony.com/history-of-online-dating/

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

Communities Embracing and Adapting to the Web 2.0 through Facebook

Abstract

This paper investigates the adaptation of communities to the Web 2.0, and how it has become a major characteristic to the construction of online relationships, involving the social media site Facebook. Virtual communities are explored and linked to the current digital era and how social virtual communities are using the Facebook platform in everyday life to publish content, taking part in user connection through their activity. Beverungen, Böhm, and Land (2015, p. 479) believes that user connection focuses on the ‘audience’, now ‘users’, as online communities who publish content to Facebook for users to read and use. This content may be productive or unproductive, however, Facebook is one of the leading reasons for social relationships and virtual communities and the shift from physical to virtual. Virtual communities now have the ability to connect to users they may not know personally, resulting in new relationships and interlinked personal communities (Gruzd, Wellman & Takhteyev, 2011, p. 1). This paper analyses how online user activity on Facebook has been a factor that assisted the evolution and adaptation of offline communities to online communities.

Keywords: Facebook, communities, representations, connection, interaction, users, adaptation

The role of communities embracing and adapting to the Web 2.0 through Facebook

Since the release of the social networking site Facebook, users have been given the opportunity to generate and publish their own content to their profiles ‘free-of-charge’. This impressive site has now reached an incredibly high number of users, attaining 2.2 billion active users by 2017, with numbers still rising (Constine, 2017). Facebook is not the only form of interaction for virtual communities, with popular discussion websites such as Reddit (2005) and other Internet forums also forming virtual communities where users can interact. These sites have become the most popular way to communicate in the twenty-first century, providing various options including blog-type techniques, photos and videos. Not only do they allow users to publish content but they also provide them with websites where they can listen to music, read news and play. It has become a procedure for people to sustain connections to others, communicate themselves and construct new relationships. Similar to physical communities, this shift has allowed people to also become part of virtual communities, motivating users to the adaptation of communities on the Web 2.0. With the growing development of Facebook, it has significantly impacted lives by becoming a daily activity for entertainment and cultural purposes (Jin, 2015). The site has become an environment for self-expression and participation amongst various age groups. User activity has become a major factor in the process of communicating online through Facebook, allowing these online communities to share stories, opinions and anything that takes their interest. The social networking site has not only allowed people to communicate with users’ friends or family, but has enabled them to engage with other users that they may not know personally. This has not only expanded the number of users to communicate with, but has granted the ability to form online communities with people from all over the world. User connection is the transfer from physical connection and interaction into the online world of the Web 2.0, connecting a set of people and creating a sense of community (Gruzd et al., 2011). The adaptation of groups within the social networking site Facebook has formed a sense of community in this digital era, through users participating in online discussions and debates.

The Welcoming of User Connection

User connection is similar to the traditional meaning of connecting and creating a community – A set of people with strong interaction and connection, creating a sense of unity (Gruzd et al., 2011). Communication on Facebook can be compared to being similar to offline interaction, as information is posted and stored on personal profiles, including relationships statuses, hobbies and even debatable topics which can all be discussed in offline communities. Facebook has assisted in the creation of communities that produce their own content. User activity was created as a defining process for users who create and publish their own work online, attracting other users to read and connect with the publisher or other readers. Not only does online activity give users’ a purpose for interaction, it also serves others with new social connections and assisting with maintaining existing relationships (Gruzd et al., 2011). With the transition from audiences to online users, there has become a mass broadcast of information to social networking sites such as Facebook (Thompson, 2008).

User connection focuses on connecting and responding to others, as well as keeping up to date with new information or news that can create conversation between users or communities, similar to that of a friend group. This is the reasoning behind the concepts ‘following’ and ‘adding’. This concept focuses on the users or information that is chosen to be accessed by the account holder, placed onto a ‘News Feed’ on social media sites such as Instagram, Facebook and Twitter. Zuckerberg stated that a ‘news feed’ is “a stream of everything that’s going on in their lives.” referring to content that is being posted in an up-to-date timeline (Thompson, 2008). This feature on Facebook enables user connection to occur, with people responding or commenting on posts that they feel are relatable. This engagement is a state of mind of users that are committed, passionate and dedicated to connecting online within virtual communities about various topics and situations (Porter, 2015). Emotions of users stimulate actions, which initiate participation in the community, such as the comment section on published content that allow users to debate and discuss specific topics relating to news, games, videos etc. This connection via different hobbies and interests on Facebook groups and pages has constructed a sense of community through virtual interaction.

Sense of Community in the Digital Era

The Web 2.0 relies on online users to generate the content, creating an approach that can define the labour that is associated with the formation of Web 2.0 content (Jin, 2015). The creation of collaborative content is one of the main aspects of the Web 2.0, including multiple media posts on Facebook and the interaction between others online that it may initiate. Facebook has enabled users to connect and converse through text, photos and videos on their profiles, providing engagement and motivating interaction with other users within the community. The Internet has opened this new economic form where user-generated content has become part of the primary attributes. Facebook has assisted in the movement of communication from purely offline to online at any time of the day. Not only has it permitted users to create an online version of their identity, users’ can create pages and groups through their accounts depending on their interests. Any user is able to request to be part of the group of be invited, creating communities with various people from around the world. Multiple social media identities are quite common, however, Facebook makes it difficult to make multiple profiles as different email addresses and information are needed to create a new account. Instagram and Tumblr allow users to create numerous accounts, even by using the same log in details. These social media sites embrace the use of multiple accounts, with Instagram allowing a user to have up to 5 pages (Instagram, 2018). Social networking sites give users the ability to follow specific accounts on a certain account and make posts that are separate to their other profiles. Social media users can be a part of multiple communities depending on the account that they are logged in to, and can communicate from multiple profiles. Facebook has limited this access as a user can be added to multiple groups and pages at one time.

For example, users may take interest in other communities focusing on cooking, exercise, fashion or even religious communities, interacting with others who have similar interests. This sense of place drives the audience to feel as if they belong to a community, also giving them a reason to generate their online identity. Social communities are a location for users’ to receive support or socialize with others through user activity, resulting in communication, similar to what people would do in offline situations. These virtual communities perform in sensible arrangements for society, as they support amalgamation and belonging. New societal communities are developed as a united establishment that influences the value of responsibility and oversteps the power of politics and wealth, functioning as groups that have the power to influence. Users that are taking part in this influential establishment have various character and disposition, representing themselves through various personal interests within communities.

Representations of the Internet User

Internet users that are involved in virtual communities are typically portrayed in ways that reflect their personal interests and the communities they are part of. It is common for users to represent a certain style of virtual identity, usually labeled within various categories. Users have embraced the opportunity that Facebook has given them, granting them the possibility to meet their individual goals of sharing their personal disclosures in a public forum (Aguiton & Cardon, 2007). A users status and influence can define a virtual community, as activity and influential entities inspire other community members (Porter, 2015). Internet users can represent themselves in different forms through social media networks, using this form of identity to attract other users through their posts and discussions online.

Facebook has enabled users to interact with others, although, this may only be a one-way action. Users are able to follow profiles, but this does not necessarily mean the account has to follow back (Gruzd et al., 2011). Due to this process, users behind public or personal pages have been able to form communities with millions of users who may follow their page just for their content without following back. These page creators or celebrities have the capability to communicate with millions of users online, and has assisted with the creation of smaller communities within the page that may result in a perception of a real community. There are a few different types of virtual community members, as users have a different approach to online engagement and the limits of their public discussions. One user may take the personal interest approach, using Facebook to search for information, buy and sell goods and promote their capabilities to gain a certain status and maximization of recognition (Aguiton & Cardon, 2007). Another type of user focuses on their belonging within the virtual community, stimulated by distributing knowledge, collective concern and volunteering, ensuring they take part in mutual activities (Aguiton & Cardon, 2007). As there is an array of different virtual communities, there are many representations of users on social media platforms such as Facebook. Virtual community members find value in communities that seek to construct relationships through interaction and helping others, and the gratification that results from these notions. Some members also join virtual communities for the enjoyment of control in participation, having access to data, and having a sense of belonging and bond to a community (Porter, 2015). Depending on how active, significant and consistent a user is their aims can be seen as adjustable and defined by their involvement. Self-identity of members is also another factor within virtual communities, as users aim to attain a responsive and comprehensive connection to please their experience within a Facebook community (Porter, 2015). This self-awareness has transferred from physical communities to the Web 2.0, allowing users to adapt to their portrayal of themselves online.

Communities adapting to Web 2.0

Social communities are persistently changing, integrating and redefining groups that have transferred from physical communities. Cultural marginalisations and controlled progress have shifted from physical to digital communities, placing this change in a notable point in cultural conventions. Facebook contains social attributes that create expression by users through personal content, forming communities on in the virtual world. As Facebook now has millions of active users, it is difficult to determine limits and features of the social service and the spread of information through multiple communities that have formed within the network. Facebook is a clear guide to the relational virtual domain on the Web 2.0 that has been adapted by physical communities in their own environments. This digital exchange through virtual communities from ‘face-to-face’ interaction has become a voluntary progress and coordinative collaboration.

Social media platforms were the beginning of the transformation of communities, giving people a network where they can connect and engage with friends or family without having to speak to them in person. Mark Zuckerberg, a Harvard University student, created Facebook in 2004 to connect to his friends on campus (Thompson, 2008). The network has now become one of the biggest social media platforms for users to interact with one another, and create groups and communities through connection and collaboration. Facebook has integrated peoples businesses, hobbies and interests through its many features, providing users with various options to communicate and socialize. It has given business owners the opportunity to use this platform as a way to maintain and create relationships, as well as allow workers and companies to promote their brand and preserve an online existence (Beverungen et al., 2015). Thompson (2008) used an example of a student who created a group, which declared her love for Coldplay and her wish to participate in Greenpeace, sparking many other users to join the group with her. This group provided a sense of community within the users who had joined, granting them with an environment that takes their interest. These users may not know each other outside of the social media network, but it compares to a physical community discussing these interests in a real environment. Communities have begun adapting to the Web 2.0 and the features it provides in order to build a sense of community online.

Conclusions and Future Study

With the growing confirmation of interaction on social media sites, communities have been able to expand and adapt to the virtual world on the Web 2.0. The shift has assisted in the construction of online relationships, resulting in virtual communities and their significance to online communication. Research into the success rates of virtual communities must take place in order to study how different Internet users are finding their virtual communities and how they compare to the physical.

Facebook has provided features to assist in the growth of virtual communities and users connecting through their strong interaction, creating a sense of unity within these groups of people. As virtual identities can represent multiple versions of a person, it has permitted people to engage with specific groups and pages that take their interest, comparable to the way physical communities interact. These social media websites have opened a virtual society where user-generated content has become a major attribute to social relationships through the Web 2.0. Communities have adapted to online engagement as features online have made the process effortless to find information that captures users and inspires them to take part in user connection.

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

Beverungen, A., Böhm, S., & Land, C. (2015). Free Labour, Social Media, Management: Challenging Marxist Organisation Studies. Organisation Studies, 36(4), 473-489

Constine, J. (2017, June 28). Facebook now has 2 billion monthly users… and responsibility. Tech Crunch. Retrieved from https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/27/facebook-2-billion-users/

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

Instagram. (2018). Add and Switch Between Multiple Accounts. Retrieved from https://help.instagram.com/1682672155283228

Jin, D. Y. (2015). Critical analysis of user commodities as free labour in social networking sites: A case study of Cyworld. Routledge, 29(6), 938-950 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10304312.2015.664115

Porter, C. E. (2015). Virtual communities and social networks. In L. Cantoni and J. Danowski, (eds). Communication and Technology. Berlin: De Gruyter. 161 – 179

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

Communities Adapting to the Web 2.0 Through Facebook (PDF)

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

Location’s Place in a Web 2.0 World

_{_{Featured image: Morrison, T. (2018, March 14). Incredible moment on social media — East coast schools are walking out, calling on Congress to act on gun violence. @Snapchat’s @SnapMap feature visualising this movement in the most amazing way… [Tweet]. Retrieved from:

https://twitter.com/THETonyMorrison/status/973937933353934849}}

Abstract

Spatial metaphors were initially drawn upon to help users navigate and understand a new online world with the conception of the Internet. This urbanisation of the digital space has continued to persevere throughout the rapid rise of Web 2.0, with the geotagging of online content, defined by Fendi et al., (2014) as “the process of adding geographical identification metadata”, becoming the new way in which users could integrate their understanding of location to visualise, classify and represent their experience online. Checking-in to a location on Facebook, pinning a location to a photograph posted on Instagram, applying a geofilter on Snapchat, etc. have now become normalised online behaviour to supplement content posted online. These various location-based affordances of Web 2.0 social networking platforms have helped to create this physical spatial substitute and in doing so, supporting the formation of group identities and practices of online communities. This paper specifically looks at Snap Map, Facebook Marketplace and augmented reality gaming app, Pokémon GO and how their integration of location have helped facilitate the way in which users experience a Web 2.0 online world, as well as the implications of sharing this information online.

Keywords

Online communities, Snapchat, Facebook, Pokémon GO, geotagging, location, participatory culture.

Introduction

The conception of the Internet introduced new uses of language and terminology to help users navigate and understand this new online world. One such way was to draw upon spatial metaphors in order to conceptualise their experience. Users navigated this cyberspace as web surfers of an information “superhighway”, creating traffic as they visited various “home” pages at web “addresses”. Aroya (2014) posits that these spatial metaphors became useful instruments to help foster a deeper understanding of this digital realm, with mapping seen as a convenient way in which to visualise, classify and represent this digital landscape. This urbanisation of the digital space has persevered throughout the rapid rise of Web 2.0, which allowed the user to take on a more active role in the production of online content. In particular, the geotagging of online content, defined by Fendi et al., (2014) as “the process of adding geographical identification metadata”, was utilised to integrate location online. As of 2016, data from the Pew Research Center has found that nine out of ten smartphone owners have now enabled location services on their personal devices, up from 74% in 2013 (Anderson, 2016). Once enabled, social networking applications are granted access to a user’s geographic location and able to use this data to generate a folksonomy of content. Upgrades to latest versions of social networking platforms have shifted towards placing more importance on geotagging to help facilitate the way in which social media users experience the online world. They have also helped to foster a sense of community within an interactive Web 2.0 world, by supplementing physical space on social networking platforms, allowing users to create more meaningful content by utilising these location-based features. This may include checking-in on Facebook, adding a location to a photograph on Instagram, or even using a geofilter on Snapchat. Geotagging and other location-based affordances of Web 2.0 social networking platforms create a physical spatial substitute, supporting the formation of group identities and practices of online communities.

This paper will initially look at the proliferation of Web 2.0 online communities, as well as the advent of the smartphone and integration of location-based services and how this has led to a shift in user behaviour towards location-based social networking. I then look at the examples of SnapMap on Snapchat, Facebook Marketplace and Pokémon GO, and how they have integrated geotagging and other location-based affordances to foster a sense of belonging and nurture interaction within these online communities.

Web 2.0 Online Communities

Similar in manner to Baudelaire’s concept of the flâneur (Baudelaire, 2010), user behaviour on the internet originated with individuals surfing various web pages to access and consume information in a sense as mostly a detached observer. This “cyberflâneur” as depicted by Goldate (1998) was initially theorised as a figure who was able to browse various online offerings without the need to contribute or interact. However, Web 2.0 was born out of a need for users to have increasingly autonomous and dynamic online experiences, and with this, a prevalence of communities began to surface and proliferate. Just as Benedict Anderson (1983) in Imagined Communities argued that print capitalism and an increase in access to resources written in the vernacular allowed imagined communities to form and feel a sense of belonging, so too were the formation of online communities on various Web 2.0 social networking platforms. The convergence of technology and asynchronous platforms that facilitate communication have allowed users a more interactive and meaningful online experience. They are now able to easily share content and broadcast their interests/ideas/musings, subsequently interacting and facilitating discussion with like-minded individuals.

Significantly, Aguiton and Cardon (2007) determined that individuals built their self-identity through the ‘continuous search for recognition in the eyes of others,’ and online communities (in place of Anderson’s imagined communities) were the platforms with which to facilitate this emergence of common discourses. Constant upgrades are made to social networking platforms, moving towards a more seamless integration of the online and offline world, with developments often reflective of user behaviour and trends. One such upgrade has been the shift towards incorporating location-based affordances that nurture interaction within online communities.

The Advent of the Smartphone & Location-Based Social Networking

The proliferation of personal devices, particularly the advent of the smartphone, was the catalyst towards a new form of location-based social networking. In early 2013, Facebook made an adjustment to its Application Programming Interface (API), which provided users with the option to enable location-sharing across third party applications (Wilken, 2014). This simplified the way users were able to include their location into a social media update or interaction, and soon, this became the norm in their online behaviour. Another Facebook upgrade in the early 2010s was the ability to incorporate hashtags, or personal tagging, which too became normalised social media behaviour and allowed users to tag, and thus categorise, their content. Users were also able to incorporate geotagging, which Kapko (2014) argues was a way to make mundane longitudes and latitudes meaningful when placed in context with various social media interactions. This convergence of location-based sharing and content tagging normalised user behaviour of creating content that incorporated location as a representation of physical space.

Online communities were also better able to integrate this location-based behaviour in their interactions with others. When users are geographically distanced, the real-time sharing of user location allows online communities to strengthen their sense of rapport as individuals are unified through their provision of their location. The online representation of their physical place in the offline world is a pivotal and personal component of user identity that other members of the community may identify with through their understanding of that physical place. Gruzd (2011) endorses this, in that users need to imagine that they – or others – belong to a community, and this includes the provision of that physical spatial substitute, through the sharing of their location. As with Anderson’s imagined communities, so too can online communities utilising social networking platforms forge a sense of belonging through their commonalities.

The Importance of Location on Snapchat

A social networking platform that is heavily reliant on integrating this location-based online behaviour is Snapchat. Launched in 2011, the social networking platform is comparatively different to alternative social networking platforms. Social networking sites (SNS) have been typically defined by Elison and Boyd (2007) as web-based services that allow individuals to create a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system. Snapchat differs in that it is a smartphone-based application where users are able to share content (privately, or publicly via their stories) in place of a profile, and is only accessible to viewers for a limited time period. Users are unable to leave a long-term record of the content they have generated or a digital footprint, characteristic of other SNS’. Additionally, Kapko (2016) has found that Snapchat elevates the importance of location-based social networking and places it at the forefront of the user experience on the platform. The locations where interactions take place increasingly become an integral part of the social media dialogue (Bernabo-Moreno et al., 2018). This is particularly pertinent for Snapchat, where content is shared sporadically and spontaneously, therefore the inclusion of location supplements that content. Bernabo-Moreno et al. (2018) also believe that geotagging used in this context places further significance and emotional impact on an event, based on the social media user-generated content attached to a location.

Furthermore, an upgrade to Snapchat in 2017 introduced Snap Map, a new feature which allowed users to share their location (and subsequent content) in real-time on a world map available for those that had this feature enabled to view, intending to assist users and facilitate engagement in the offline world. On March 14 2018, Snap Map went viral due to the merging of its functionality with online community engagement when the map was used as a way for high school students to protest school shootings, uniting as a community through the provision of their location online. By marking their place on the Snap Map, they were displaying their stance on opposing gun violence (See Figure 1 and Figure 2). The location-based geotagging as an online representation of their physical location on Snapchat thus provided this online community with a way to form a strong sense of unity and belonging.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Online Communities & Facebook Marketplace

The introduction of the Facebook Marketplace is another example of a Web 2.0 platform that has utilised location-based social networking as a way to facilitate local community engagement. Introduced in 2016, the feature is a hub for users to sell, trade and barter in the same sense as they would in a traditional marketplace in the offline world. Anyone with a Facebook account is able to list various items online, similar in a sense to classified advertisements, and these are listed for other users based on their proximity to the seller. If a user has shared their location and is within close proximity to the seller, their item is likely to be listed higher and individuals can then facilitate a conversation to discuss the transaction further, or exchange an item for a fee. This type of private trading initially began within various Facebook groups, with local communities who were already connected with one another able to facilitate these forms of exchanges (Ku, 2016). By incorporating the figurative traditional marketplace with Facebook’s location-based functionality, this feature may also be interpreted as an extension of offline local communities, as represented online. As with the Snap Map feature on Snapchat, it may also be regarded as first and foremost a proponent that helps to leverage the facilitation of real-time engagement. Kellerman (2016) argues that the only communication medium that rivals the ‘topological flexibility of computer networks’ is place itself, placing precedence on interaction within the real world. Yet these forms of socio-spatial online formations allow verified users to safely interact with others online, before facilitating offline engagement, and continue to strengthen their sense of community. Therefore, it remains pivotal for such developments and upgrades to social networking platforms to continue to prioritise the offline world.

Pokémon GO & the Implications of Location Sharing

Despite the benefits location-based social networking platforms have provided for the formation and sense of belonging within online communities, it is important to consider the implications that may occur as a result of sharing this personal information. There have been privacy concerns raised due to users openly sharing their location and the normality that has been placed on this form of interaction. One such example of this is when the augmented reality game Pokémon GO, was launched in 2016. Pokémon GO incorporates geospatial mapping as part of the gameplay and relies heavily on players sharing their location to progress in the game and proceed throughout the different stages. Players of the game were able to participate in Community Days, where they were able to meet with other players within their local community, as determined by their location-enabled devices, to play a ‘bonus game,’ and for a limited time period, partake in an entirely new experience of the game. The rapid success of the game meant that multitudes of players were knowingly trespassing into private property and causing nuisance in order to progress in the game, with disregard for those that owned or maintained the property (Shum, 2017). As Arora (2014) argues, users exercise cognitive mapping strategies to navigate their virtual environment in the same manner in which they approach real spaces. Although these location-based affordances allow users to integrate the offline and online world, they are not a form of permission to trespass or interfere with private property, just as sharing location on another social networking platform does not provide permission for users to trespass into that offline location. It is this boundary between the two worlds that needs to be closely examined even more so as our personal devices continually upgrade to include new functionality that integrates our location in the offline world with our interactions and behaviours online.

Conclusion

As Web 2.0 social networking platforms continue to develop, we will continually witness advancements in the integration of location-based functionality. As Arora (2017) argues, space has become even more important in reconfiguring and expanding our notions of social practice, both online and offline. No longer will the cyberflâneur web surfer simply be riding the online virtual waves, but will instead be actively seeking out dynamic and interactive rich-content in their experience and interaction online. As geotagging and location-based affordances continue to take their pivotal place in the Web 2.0 online experience, meaningful location functionality should be considered so as to help foster the sense of belonging that takes place within online communities. Users must also remain conscious of their behaviour online as they share their current location using their personal devices and consider the implications doing so may have in terms of privacy and data-sharing. Arora (2014) deems the digital realm as intimate, yet distant. The physical spatial substitute that location-based services provide will continue to allow users to feel a sense of belonging and support the formation of group identities. It will also allow them to continue to have meaningful interactions within their online communities. Web 2.0 will continue to prioritise the autonomous online experience of users and thus feel they are able to share content, including the provision of location via these location-based services. Future imaginings of how this will continue to shift are endless, particularly as technology moves towards the proliferation of wearable devices, as well as facial and fingerprint recognition on our smartphones. Location continues to have an important part in the way we experience the ever-changing technological landscape; as Wilken (2014) surmises, ‘life happens in real time and so should sharing’.

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

Alter, C. (2018, March 14). Student walkouts are basically the only events showing up on Snapchat Map right now #nationalschoolwalkoutday [Tweet]. Retrieved from:
https://twitter.com/CharlotteAlter/status/973974952994013184

Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined Communities. Reflection on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.

Anderson, M. (2016, January 29). More Americans using smartphones for getting directions, streaming TV. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/01/29/us-smartphone-use/

Arora, P. (2014). Metaphor as Method: Conceptualizing the Internet through Spatial Metaphors. In The Leisure Commons, A Spatial History of Web 2.0. London: Routledge. (pp. 33-51). Retrieved from:
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/curtin/reader.action?docID=1721046&ppg=33&query=

Baudelaire, C. (2010). The Painter of Modern Life. London: Penguin Books.

Bernabé-Moreno, J, Tejeda-Lorente, A. Porcel, C. Fujita, H. Herrera-Viedma, E. (2018). Quantifying the emotional impact of events on locations with social media. Knowledge-Based Systems, 146, 44-57.
https://doi-org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.1016/j.knosys.2018.01.029

Elison, N.B and Boyd, D. (2013). Sociality through Social Network Sites. In W.H Dutton (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Internet Studies (pp. 151-172). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fendi, K., Adam, S., Kokkas, N. and Smith, M. (2014). An Approach to Produce a GIS Database for Road Surface Monitoring. APCBEE Procedia, 9, 235-240.

Goldate, S. (1998, May 19). The Cyberflâneur – Space and Places on the Internet. Ceramics Today. Retrieved from:
http://www.ceramicstoday.com/articles/051998.htm

Gruzd, A. Wellman, B. and Takhteyev, Y. (2011). Imagining Twitter as an Imagined Community. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(10), 1294 – 1318. Retrieved from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002764211409378

Kapko, M. (2016, April 28). How Snapchat paves the way for future of location marketing. CIO. Retrieved from: https://www.cio.com/article/3062600/marketing/how-snapchat-paves-the-way-for-future-of-location-marketing.html

Kellerman, A. (2016). The Internet as Space. In Geographic Interpretations of the Internet (pp. 21-33). Retrieved from:
https://link-springer-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/book/10.1007%2F978-3-319-33804-0

Ku, M. (2016, October 3). Introducing Marketplace: Buy and Sell With Your Local Community. Facebook Newsroom. Retrieved from:
https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2016/10/introducing-marketplace-buy-and-sell-with-your-local-community/

Morrison, T. (2018, March 14). Incredible moment on social media — East coast schools are walking out, calling on Congress to act on gun violence. @Snapchat’s @SnapMap feature visualising this movement in the most amazing way… [Tweet]. Retrieved from:
https://twitter.com/THETonyMorrison/status/973937933353934849

Shum, A., Tranter, K. (2017). Seeing, Moving, Catching, Accumulating: Pokémon GO and the Legal Subject. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law. 30(3), 477-493. Retrieved from:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11196-017-9519-8

Wilken, R. (2014). Places nearby: Facebook as a location-based social media platform. New Media & Society. 16(7), 1087-1103. Retrieved from:
http://journals.sagepub.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/doi/abs/10.1177/1461444814543997

Download Conference Paper as PDF

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

Dachshunds and Web 2.0: The successful coexistence of online and offline communities.

Abstract

This paper discusses the relationship between communities and Web 2.0. Characteristics of both online and offline communities are discussed as well as how these characteristics are limiting or enhancing. The academic resources in this conference paper support the discussion of online communities as broadly supportive (Wellman and Gulia, 1997), weak ties that are created through an online community (Thompson, 2008), and social media platforms being ubiquitous (Porter, 2015, p.161). The example used is a Facebook group called Long Dogs WA. This is a specialised group for owners of dachshunds and has both online and offline elements. This example has aided in the discussing and supporting the main argument that online and offline communities strengthen one another when working together.

Keywords:

Online, offline, communities, Web 2.0, weak ties.

Introduction

The rise of Web 2.0 as a participatory and communicative platform has created a space for users to collaborate online and stimulated the formation of online communities. As social media and virtual platforms have become a prominent aspect of everyone’s life (Porter, 2015, p.161), so too have online communities. The traditional sense of community of being village-like and in-person is no longer sufficient to describe the ever-changing world of Web 2.0. Physical communities are often bound to limitations such as geographical location, race, age and gender, while virtual communities encourage the breaking of these limitations and allow people of all demographics to communicate online (Katz, Rice, Acord, Dasgupta and David, 2004, p. 326). Online communities differ from those offline as they are formed as a result of a shared interest, rather than a physical connection and provide members with “companionship, emotional support, services and a sense of belonging,” (Wellman and Gulia, 1997). This paper will discuss how online and offline communities influence each other, if they pose limitations on one another or allow for growth, and ultimately how they successfully coexist. Although this paper will explore a counter-argument, it will present the conclusion that online and offline communities strengthen one another. The example to be used is a Facebook group that I am a member of called Long Dogs WA (2018); this is a specialised group for dachshund owners that possesses both online and offline aspects. This example along with an in-depth discussion of how Web 2.0 has influenced communities will put forward the argument that the combination of both online and offline communities strengthen one another.

Discussion

Relationships are very rarely maintained solely with face-to-face communication, which is where Web 2.0 communities play a major role in our lives. Although it is difficult to define community due to the various forms, for the purposes of this discussion it will be defined as a group of members that share a common interest and interact with each other as they “actively refine the domain of their shared interests,” (Porter, 2015, p. 162). The elements of an online community include members who possess a shared interest, the voluntary and varied extent of participation of members (Aguiton and Carson, 2007), and an online platform where these communications take place. However, offline communities are based around physicality and people being together, and the defining characteristic is face-to-face communication. Offline communities are more structured as they have regular meetings and someone who facilitates these meetings, meaning that their communication is arranged and directed. Due to the voluntary participation in online platforms, the discussion is fluid, unstructured and can consist of people from different geographical regions, leading to the idea from Wellman and Gulia (1997) that online communities are often broadly supportive. Everyone’s personal community is different, and whether that consists of family, friends, colleagues, or acquaintances, it is very unlikely that these people will all know each other, which is why we join online communities (Wellman and Gulia, 1997). I argue that we cannot classify online communities as solely broadly supportive or narrowly specialised, as most communities are one or the other, if not a combination of both. Wellman and Gulia (1997) state,

“If the Net were solely a means of information exchange, then virtual communities played out over the Net would mostly contain only narrowly, specialized relationships,”

however, as information is only part of the reason for online communities, they can also be described as broadly supportive as “emotional therapy itself is explicitly provided through the Net, “ (Wellman and Gulia, 1997). Online communities create an opportunity to connect with others, which may not be possible for a community that was constructed offline. In the case of Long Dogs WA, it was my narrowly specialised interest that lead me to become a member of a broadly supportive group. For example, if I were to post on my personal Facebook profile asking a question about the dachshund breed, it is unlikely I would get a helpful response if any at all. However, if I were to post on the Long Dogs WA Facebook group which has over 3,000 dachshund owners and enthusiasts, I am more than likely to get a response from someone who has experienced first hand what I am asking about or who has helpful information. Online communities are a space for support, advice, comforts, or discussions, which is the exact reason I am a member of Long Dogs WA.

The Long Dogs WA community has characteristics of both online and offline communities that work together to strengthen one another. The Long Dogs WA community possesses characteristics of an offline community such as face-to-face interaction, a facilitator and arranged meetings, as they meet for walks once a month, hold fundraising events, and often members will meet in small groups for play-dates with their dachshunds. However, an online community breaks all these barriers that define an offline community. An online community can “create and preserve ties among people who are physically separate,” (Katz et al, 2004, p. 326). Online communities allow one to create an online persona, express themselves in a way they may not usually in person, and communicate with people from all over the world. Members of the Long Dogs WA Facebook group often post photos in the group of their dachshunds, ask questions about behaviour, ask to meet for play-dates to socialize their dogs, advice on medical issues, and sometimes even for support when they are going through a difficult time with their pets. All of these online interactions create a network within the community and strengthen Wellman and Gulia’s (1997) ideas surrounding broadly supportive online communities.

There are geographical limitations to the online group, which I have discussed as a characteristic of an offline community, however, this limitation is set in place due to the offline community meet ups. For example, to be a member you must live in Perth, as that is where all the events and meet-ups are held. Although the online community would thrive with members from all over Australia contributing, it would be difficult to conduct offline interactions with such a large group and geographically diverse members. Although this Facebook group possesses characteristics of both the offline and online communities, it is evident that the combination of virtual and face-to-face interactions strengthen one another by increasing connections. It is likely that an offline Long Dogs community existed before the online element, which contradicts my initial argument, but the prominence of Web 2.0 as a communication tool has lead the group to transition into a very active online community.

I argue that the offline community could not be possible without the online community as this is where all of the offline activities are organised. Most of the online conversation is constructed around the offline community, so although the online community would still be possible without the offline element, I argue that it would be a less-active community. All of the offline activities are organised via the Facebook group, and to be part of the online community, you must first do something offline – be an owner of a dachshund. I would never have known about, and joined, the online community if the offline presence did not exist. I first found out about this online community while talking to someone as I was walking my dachshund, this person encouraged me to join and spoke about the benefits of the group. The Long Dogs WA group has both online and offline communities that both contribute to the successfulness of the group.

For some, the willingness of people to communicate online outweighs the willingness of face-to-face communication. Many people prefer to be members of online communities rather than offline communities as they have more options in the way of how they communicate (Gulia and Wellman, 1997). One of the appeals of online communities is that relationships and communications do not have to be instantaneous. The virtual element allows users to take time constructing a response, delay conversations, or choose to not participate in conversation at all. Being a member without contributing anything is described by Nonnecke, Andrews and Preece (2006) as ‘lurking’. Lurking allows one to have an insight into other peoples’ lives without having direct contact. Although one can join a common purpose online community, such as Long Dogs WA, simply being part of a social networking site allows you to be a member of an online community (Thompson, 2008). Many of the people that associate with one another online, whether that is a friendship or mutual follow, are considered to be weak ties. Weak ties are those one would not consider a close friend but an acquaintance, yet are associated on social media. Thompson (2008) estimates that only 20 people on her social media sites are what she considers close friends or family, and the rest are acquaintances that she has acquired over a few years, which she considers to be her weak ties. For example, members of Long Dogs WA whom I do not know in my offline-life but have contact with them through this online community. Having weak ties in your online community can greatly benefit your offline community and life. For example, “If you’re looking for a job and ask your friends, they won’t be much help; they’re too similar to you, and thus probably won’t have any leads that you don’t already have yourself. Remote acquaintances will be much more useful because they’re farther afield, yet still socially intimate enough to want to help you out,” (Thompson, 2008). Having a number of weak ties, who you do not have to be directly in contact with, can also better help one understand their own community surrounding them. As a result of being part of the Long Dogs online community I have met people that are willing to pet-sit my dachshund, Charli, and as dachshunds can have specific needs and issues it is important to me to have someone look after Charli who has previous experience with dachshunds and knows the breed well. Creating weak ties through Long Dogs has allowed me to feel comfortable leaving Charli with another member if I go away, and is an example of the offline relationships that can be built through online communities, strengthening the initial argument.

Conclusion

Online and offline communities coexist together as they have different strengths and properties that attract members. Offline communities are commonly formed due to geographical location, but are often limited by age, race and gender, whereas online communities are free from these limitations and formed on the basis of a mutual interest. Due to this, online communities are not narrowly specialised, as that would rely on solely an exchange of information, they are broadly supportive. In the discussion of Long Dogs WA, a narrowly specialised interest lead me to be a part of a broadly supportive community, which provides me with support, advice, comfort and discussions. The elements of online and offline communities work together to strengthen one another and provide different levels of engagement to suit all members. Some offline communities would not thrive without the online element, for example the Long Dogs WA community. The online community allows for conversation and organisation around the offline society, yet still provides all the aspects of an online community, “companionship, emotional support, services and a sense of belonging,” (Gulia and Wellman, 1997). The flexibility of online communities encourages users to maintain weak ties within their online society. Weak ties are useful to our offline lives as they give us access to people that we may not normally communicate with face-to-face. Offline communities would often not be successful without an online element for communication purposes. The discussion in this paper has provided an argument that examines the ways that offline communities are strengthened by Web 2.0 and online communities. Web 2.0 is such a prominent aspect of almost everyone’s life that voluntary participation in online communities has become a necessity to strengthen offline relationships.

References

Aguiton, C., & Cardon, D., 2007. The Strength of Weak Cooperation: An Attempt to Understand the Meaning of Web 2.0. Communication & Strategies. 65(1). 51-65. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1009070

Katz, J., Rice, R., Acord, S., Dasgupta, K., & David, K. 2004. Personal Mediated Communication and the concept of Community in Theory and Practice. Annals of the International Communication Association, 28(1), 315-371. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23808985.2004.11679039

Long Dogs WA. [ca. 2018]. Facebook group. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/groups/77155173945/

Nonnecke, B., Andrews, D., & Preece, J., 2006. Non-public and public online community participation: Needs, attitudes and behaviour. Electronic Commerce Research, 6(1), 7-20. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10660-006-5985-x

Porter, E., 2015. Virtual Communities and Social Networks. In L. Cantoni & J. A. Danowski (Eds). Communication and Technology. 161-179. 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

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

Wellman, B., & Gulia, M., 1997. Net Surfers Don’t Ride Alone: Virtual Communities as Communities. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.28.4435&rep=rep1&type=pdf

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Welcome to the Communities and Web 2.0 stream

This stream focuses on contemporary issues and specifically the way the communities and social networks have embraced and adapted to Web 2.0.