Anonymity – Debating Communities and Networks IX

Dungeons & Dragons: From tabletop to desktop

Abstract

Tabletop role-playing games such as Dungeons & Dragons have made the shift in recent years from a purely offline gaming system to functioning online, albeit with minor adjustments to format. As a game system that relies upon the players investing themselves in a fictional world that they will flesh out with their own created identities aka player characters, this paper will aim to explore the relationship between the identity of the player and the player character. The performance and shifting of these identities will be a central focus as well as the unique problems that will need to be addressed when playing a game of Dungeons & Dragons.

Keywords:

Gaming, Tabletop, Role-Playing, Dungeons & Dragons, Identity, Performance

Identity within Dungeons & Dragons

This paper will discuss the importance and function of identity, specifically the creation and performance aspects, with regards to tabletop role-playing games in an online space. Dungeons & Dragons, as perhaps the most well-known of all role-playing games, will be used as a case study for discussion in this paper. Firstly, a brief introduction of Dungeons & Dragons will be given as well as an explanation of how it functions as a game and what the shift to a digital format has changed for the system. Secondly will be an exploration of the creation of identities within the game system followed by the performance of these identities, as well as how players differentiate between the player and the character. This paper will also briefly explore the relationship between the identities of the player and character. This will be followed by an exploration of why performative identities within this system differ from other online spaces and unique problems involving meta-gaming that relate to identity. Lastly a brief exploration of online role-playing games as communities will be discussed. This paper will aim to argue that identity creation is a core aspect of online role-playing games which enables the performance of a separate fictional identity in a socially accepted format.

History and taking the offline online

Dungeons & Dragons, much like other tabletop role-playing games, is essentially a group storytelling experience with structure and rules to guide it. This is done through a dungeon master guiding the group through the narrative of the adventure and reacting to the actions the players wish their characters to take. Gary Gygax, one of the creators of Dungeons & Dragons, described it as a “Group cooperative experience…There is no winning or losing, but rather the value is of imagining yourself as a character in whatever genre you’re involved in” (Schiesel, 2008). As Dungeons & Dragons has existed since the 1970s it was not initially created to be played online (WoTC, 2018). While Dungeons & Dragons is still primarily played offline its transition to online has allowed many new people to take up the hobby who were previously unable to play. When players begin a game, they create a character that they wish to play within the world, this is known as a player character. This differs from other online spaces, where creating an avatar is a common aspect, in that the player will be asked to flesh out this identity beyond the simple choice of a representative image and name. This greater depth to the identity allows the player more flexibility in the identity that they wish to create and can make them feel more involved in the game as aspects of their characters backstory can be injected in the adventure. Pearson (2009) states that “online, users can claim to be whoever they wish”. This statement applies directly to online role-playing games as they are a system that allows for extensive creative freedom. This player character can be given a backstory, personality or wants and needs separate to those of the player. The player would then perform this identity within the context of the game world, making choices from the perspective of the character that they have created.

An important characteristic of offline play is the ability to see the other players, which provides players the ability to visually identify the other players. Identifying other players with whom you are going to undertake a group storytelling experience is important to understanding and evaluating an interaction (Kollock & Smith, 1996). When playing in an online space players are often limited to text or voice chat as the primary form of communication which can remove a visual factor from play, namely the fact that the players may not be aware what everyone they are playing with look like. This can benefit some players by providing them a level of anonymity within play which could in turn provide an extra level of confidence. Offline players may be more hesitant to try and roleplay a certain type of character or accent for fear of embarrassment due to the other players being in the same room as them while online this fear can be lessened or removed completely.

Getting into character

As Dungeons & Dragons is a storytelling experience, a core aspect of the game is being able to understand and perform the identity that players have created within their characters. Creating a new identity to be performed is not a concept applied solely to role playing games. Performing as a created character within a role-playing game is essentially a form of acting, albeit with a heavier focus on improvisation. There is no script within a game of Dungeons and Dragons for the players to follow and so a large portion of the game must be created on the spot or as a reaction to whatever is happening, this allows for a form of fluid storytelling unique to tabletop role-playing games. As players grow more comfortable with their characters, whether through further play with that particular character or experience with the game, it becomes easier for them to perform that specific identity. Performative identities are discussed by Goffman, as cited in Pearson (2009), who discusses identity-as-performance from a theatre perspective with regards to a frontstage, which is the observable space when the character is in the spotlight, and the backstage where players are able to ‘step back’ from their performed identities and discuss the game as a meta level commentary. People use different methods to inform the other players whether they are speaking as a player or a player character. This can be done through the ‘frontstage’ implementations such as the use of accents or speech patterns or a ‘backstage approach’ by referring to the character in the third person such as saying, “my character would know this”.

As Dungeons and Dragons is a group experience there are potential difficulties that arise from players abusing the backstage approach to performative identity, hiding behind a common excuse of “That is what my character would do” whenever they do something that is considered ‘evil’ within the alignment structure of the game. There are countless threads that exist on the internet regarding players having difficulties with a player within their game who is hiding behind their characters identity as an excuse for their actions. RPG Stack Exchange is a website dedicated to solving problems with game systems and has a forum that allows users to ask questions of the greater role-playing community, within this forum there is a discussion about how to handle a difficult player whose character is killing innocent civilians while traveling in a group with the fantasy equivalent of an ex-police officer (Stack Exchange, 2018). The first player is quoted as saying “It’s how his character is played” while the second player is saying that as his character is good aligned, he now has enough reason to kill the offending character. This type of interaction can have ramifications across two identity levels, the first being the death of players characters which can end the game for one player. The second is the potential issue it could within the group of players as the killing of another players character could upset that player. This kind of cross level emotional identity issue may not be unique to Dungeons and Dragons but does differ from other online spaces where the user may not be occupying different identity-spaces.

Meta-gaming

Being able to differentiate between the identity that a player is performing, as a character, and the players’ actual identity can be an important aspect of the game as meta-gaming is often frowned upon by both players and the dungeon master running the game. Meta-gaming can be described as attempting to game the game, using knowledge that the player has but the character would not necessarily have within the context of the game (Huvila, 2013). To manage the problem of meta-gaming it is important for players to be able to separate their real-world identity from that of the character they are playing. There is always going to some element of meta-gaming when playing Dungeons & Dragons as it is impossible to completely separate the identity of the player and player character. This meta-knowledge can lead to a player making a suboptimal choice for their character, knowing it is not the best choice simply because that is what they imagine their character would do. That kind of choice would be classified as good role-playing and applauded by the other players at the virtual table. Making choices as both a player and a character can be described as actor stance, making decisions based solely upon the characters knowledge, and author stance, making a decision based upon the knowledge of the player (Edwards, 2001). Although it is important for players to be able to differentiate between their character and themselves, there is an inherent link between the two. As mentioned earlier when a player makes a suboptimal choice knowing that it is what the character would do it can be difficult for the player to make the choice as they are intrinsically linked to their character and the potential for the choice to put the character in physical danger can be an emotional choice. This sort of relationship can be linked to the fact that because the player has created this character they are “imaginatively connected to the character” (Whitlock, 2012). As discussed above meta-gaming is a problem involving identities that can be applied specifically to Dungeons and Dragons as well as other online role-playing games while not necessarily affecting other online communities even within the gaming community.

Big virtual table

Due to the social nature of games such as Dungeons and Dragons, communities have long been formed around it. The shift to online has increased the number of players drastically (Hall, 2015). Popular online Dungeons and Dragons series ‘Critical Role’, a game hosted and played by actors and voice actors has contributed to the rise in popularity so much that it crossed into the offline space by having a billboard in Los Angeles. Dungeons and Dragons is a game that has in the past and continues to transition between the online and offline space. There currently exists no one central location for people who wish to play Dungeons and Dragons but there are multiple options depending upon the style of play people wish for with the most popular being Fantasy Grounds and Roll20 (Hall, 2017). Online role-playing games could be said to create multiple smaller communities simply due to the format. A group of players is its own small community, that group would also be a part of the greater community of the game that they choose to play which is itself a part of the even larger community that is online role-playing games. Individuals may exist within each of these communities to the extent that they wish however there must be input in the initial community in order for the game to function. Due to the multiple layers of communities it becomes a necessity for players to portray multiple identities (Koivisto, 2003). Players who wish to participate in the greater community will be unable to use the identities they have created at the table due to the lack of knowledge the community has regarding individual game stories.

Conclusion

This paper aimed to explore the concept of identity, primarily its creation and performance, within the context of online role-playing games. A history of Dungeons and Dragons was given as well as the impact shifting to an online platform has had on both how the game is played and its player base. The importance of identity and the differing ways in which it can be performed was also discussed. Concepts of identity-as-performance and frontstage/backstage play were also introduced and explored. The problem of meta-gaming and how it affects identity driven systems such as role-playing games was explained and discussed. Lastly the community and social factors were explored with regards to the online space as opposed to the traditional format of offline play. While there have been discussions online regarding the importance of a ‘true’ identity and the value of anonymity, it could be said that certain platforms such as online role-playing games should be viewed outside of this argument as one of the core aspects of the game is to create a fictional identity (Van der Nagel & Frith, 2015). Through exploration and discussion of the various topics introduced this paper argued that identity creation is a core aspect of online role-playing games which enables the performance of a separate fictional identity in a socially accepted format.

References

Edwards, R. (2001). GNS and Other Matters of Role-Playing Theory. Retrieved from http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/

Hall, C. (2015). Dungeons & Dragons is booming online, but not in the way that you think. Retrieved from https://www.polygon.com/2015/8/20/9172559/dungeons-dragons-dnd -4th-edition-one-year-later-twitch-youtube

Hall, C. (2017). More people are playing D&D online than ever before. Retrieved from https://www.polygon.com/2017/7/20/16005982/dungeons-and-dragons-online-roll20-data

Huvila, I. (2013). Meta-Games in Information Work. Information Research: An International Electronic Journal, 18 (3). Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1044641.pdf

Koivisto, E. (2003). Supporting Communities in Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games by Game Design. Retrieved from http://www.digra.org/wp-content/uploads/digital-library/05150.48442.pdf

Kollock, P & Smith, M. (1996). Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community. Retrieved from http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html

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

RPG Stack Exchange. (2018). Best way to kill a problematic fellow players character. Retrieved from https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/68688/best-way-to-kill-a-problematic- fellow-player-character

Schiesel, S. (2008). Gary Gygax, Game Pioneer, Dies at 69. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/05/arts/05gygax.html

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

Whitlock, K. (2012). Traumatic Origins: Memory, Crisis, and Identity in Digital RPG’s. In Whitlock, K & Voorhees, A., G (Eds) Dungeons, Dragons and Digital Denizens: The Digital Role-Playing Game (1^st ed., pp. 135-152). New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing Group.

WoTC. (2018). History: Forty Years of Adventure. Retrieved from http://dnd.wizards.com/dungeons-and-dragons/what-dd/history/history-forty -years-adventure

LiveJournal’s use of anonymity and its place in online social networks

Rachel M.Winship

Curtin University

Abstract

This paper sheds light on blogging social network site (SNS) LiveJournal, which has been operating since 1999. It was one of the first popular mainstream blogging services which focused on replicating diary entries. While originally popularised in the United States, LiveJournal is now currently most popular throughout Russia. It does operate in other countries but for the purpose of this paper, the focus will be on Russia. The specific age group being referred to throughout this paper is youth/teens. I argue that LiveJournal’s mainstream success is due to the fact that its users have always had the option to be anonymous and operate under pseudonyms instead of real names. The absence of real names allows for online identity play through blog posts and interactions within the LiveJournal online community.

Introduction

Technology is woven tightly throughout our lives in the 21st century and has changed how we live them. As leading psychologist Sherry Turkle says “through technology, we create, navigate, and perform our emotional lives” (Turkle, 2011). “Some of the largest changes we are facing as a society are cultural, changes to our social world and the way we interact with one another” (Levitin, 2014, p.120). We now do a large percentage of interpersonal communication with people in our lives through online platforms. We create our identity now not only face to face with people but online in social networks as well. Figuring out our place of identity in these social networks allows experimentation (Pearson, 2009). Offline when creating identity you might hold back parts of yourself in case of face to face rejection. While online in social networks, you have the option in most cases of anonymity in creating a pseudonym. Social nework site platforms provide areas which are disembodied mediated and controllable, and through which alternate performances can be displayed to others (Pearson 2009). Freindster popularised the features that define social network sites – profiles, public testimoials or comments, and publicly articulated, traverable lists of friends. (boyd, 2007, p.4) On social network site (SNS) platforms the online performative space is a deliberately playful space (Pearson, 2009). “The fluidity and self-concious platforms of performance allow individuals and networks of users to play with aspects of their presentations of self, and the relationship of those online selves to others without inadvertently risking privacy” (Pearson, 2009). Communities are a social group of any size whose members reside in a specific locality, share government, and often have a common cultural and historical heritage (Dictionary.com, 2018). Online or vitual communities are a group of people who interact via internet Web sites, chat rooms, newsgroups, email, discussion boards, or forum (Dictionary.com, 2018). Online worlds provide rich grounds for experimentation with identity, and falsification is not uncommon; 25 percent of teen boys and 30 percent of teen girls say they have posted false information about themselves online, most commonly their age (Reed, 2014). LiveJournal is one social network platform that encourages anonymity in creating a pseudonyms. The SNS is an originally American and now Russian social networking service that allows users to keep a blog, journal or diary (LiveJournal, 2018). The option of anonymity on blog platform LiveJournal, can protect users security while enabling them to participate freely in the online social network (Nagel & Frith, 2015).

LiveJournal and the history of blogging

LiveJournal essentially looks and works much like other blogging sites, where the entry or posts made by the journal owner are arranged in chronological order (Raynes-Goldie, 2004). There is a link to leave and read comments for each post, where the user can read comments left (Raynes-Goldie, 2004). One of the appealing aspects which sets liveJournal apart from other blogging services is the users profile page. Every user has a journal, username and profile page (Raynes-Goldie, 2004). The profile page is where the user can input things like their interests, profile picture, contact information, etc (Raynes-Goldie, 2004). The profile picture does not have to be an exact photo of the person, which is one way they can choose anonymity. Another way they can choose to be anonymous is through their username. Unlike Facebook, whose terms and conditions require their users to use their real name, LiveJournal allows their users to choose their online identity. This is an appealing feature for people who may want more than one online identity in fear of things such as; security, judgement or scrutiny about their journal entries or interactions, from friends, family or people they know offline. By creating a profile, LiveJournal allows its users to link their blogs and identities together so that they can create and build reputations based on their journals as well as their comments and networks of friends (Raynes-Goldie, 2004). Services such as LiveJournal allow their users to specify who their “friends” are, and thus a social network is formed (MacKinnon & Warren, 2007).

LiveJournal was created in April 1999, by an American programmer named Brad Fitzpatrick. He created it as a way of keeping his friends up to date with his daily activities (LiveJournal, 2018). It reached immediate popularity and success which meant that it also became more than just one person could handle to operate (LiveJournal, 2018). There were other mainstream social networking sites around the first few years of LiveJournal’s service, like Friendster and then Myspace, but the premise of them was a little different to LiveJournal. With Friendster there was a heavier focus on meeting friends “on the premise that people were separated by six degrees” (CBS News). This was a feature that showed how you were connected to strangers and made meeting people less intimidating (CBS News). On Myspace, which is where many people from Friendster migrated to, they were known for customizable profiles, band pages and portraying who your top eight friends are. Whereas LiveJournal’s aim was and still is to blur the lines between blogging and social networking (LiveJournal, 2018). According to their own website LiveJournal is “home to a wide array of creative individuals looking to share common interests, meet new friends, and express themselves. LiveJournal encourages communal interaction and personal expression by offering a user-friendly interface and a deeply customizable journal” (LiveJournal, 2018).

Over the last two decades, the rapid adoption of social network sites had scholars begin to study their importance among teens and young adults (boyd, 2007, p.1). As boyd pointed out in an article, a large part of why many teens may use social networks is due to restrictions on access to public life that make it difficult for young people to be socialised into society at large (boyd, 2007, p.19). Restrictions on acess to public life may come from their parents or adults around them who believe that restrictions are necessary to prevent problematic behaviours (boyd, 2007, p.19). boyd argues that while social interaction can and does take place in private environments, the challenges of social interaction in public life is a part of what help youth grow (boyd, 2007, p.19). Boyd says “American society has a very peculiar relationship to teenagers – and children in general. They are simultaneously idealised and demonized; adults fear them but they also seek to protect them. On the one hand, there has been a rapid rise in curfew legislation to curb teen violence and loitering laws are used to bar teens from hanging out on street corners, parking lots, or other outdoor meeting places for fear of the trouble they might cause. On the other hand, parents are restricting their youth fom hanging out in public spaces for fear of predators, drug dealers, and gangs. Likewise, while adults spend countless hours socializing over alcohol, minors are not oonly restricted from drinking but also from socializing in many venues where alcohol is served” (boyd, 2007, p.19). With an ongoing culture of fear surrounding youth behaviour, the end result is youth having little access to public spaces (boyd, 2007, p.19). The following statement provides insight into boyd’s argument with an example from fifteen year old Traviesa; “My [guardian] is really strict so if I get to go anywhere, it’s a big miracle. So I talk to people on MySpace…I know she means well, I know she doesn’t want me to mess up. But sometimes you need to mess up to figure out that you’re doing it wrong. You need mistakes to know where you’re going. You need to figure things out for yourself” (boyd, 2007, p.19). A main motivation for users of online social networks is that it is a space which their parents or authoritative figures usually aren’t aware of. They are spaces where they can explore, socialize and express themselves exploring their identities.

Dear Diary: Community and LiveJournal

A diary is known to be a safe space for most, a place where a person can articulate their private thoughts and define their position in relation to others and the world at large (Dijck, 2004). Before people expressed their thoughts online, diary entires would probably only be read by another person if they had a close relationship. With the shift of sharing private interpersonal conversations, it is natural that a population of people online would want to share something deeper than what the testimonial and comment sections of Friendster and Myspace offered. For people who craved somewhere that they could share their thoughts, feelings, creativity and still function as their own version of a “community” (Lindemann, 2006). Although users may not use their real names and opt to use a pseudonym, the sentiments expressed through users comments on another users diary entry doesn’t make them any less valid. As Kurt Lindemann states “often, a communicatively artistic journal entry can make a reader feel personally connected to the author” (Lindemann, 2006, p.357). Before platforms like LiveJournal, communities involved in blogging were not likely to be very large or accessible to everyone because blogging required considerable technical skill and patience (Raynes-Goldie, 2004). Now with platforms like LiveJournal, blogging is easily accessible. LiveJournal is not restricted to blogging functions, but also integrates community tools in its functions, creating an online social network (Raynes-Goldie, 2004).

Identity and anonymity debate

There has been much debate between not only scholars but tech companies, who embrace what has been called the “real name” internet, versus those who embrace anonymity. Most of the debate about anonymity versus real names focuses on two related areas: trolling and safety (Van Der Nagel & Firth, 2015). Because the early internet sites relied almost solely on textual cues, there was little attempt to fix identity to one’s body (Van Der Nagel & Firth, 2015). Whereas LiveJournal exists in an internet era where many internet users are faced with the decision of how they want to portray themselves online. If they present their offline identity, including their real name and photo, they may not be able to fully express or engage with different identities for fears of “context collapse” that come with using “real names” (Van Der Nagel & Firth, 2015). Context collapse is when “social media technologies collapse multiple audiences into single contexts, making it difficult for people to use the same techniques online that they do to handle multiplicity in face-to-face conversation (Marwick & boyd, 2011). Another definition of context collapse is that broadly, it refers to how people, information, and norms from one context seep into the bounds of another (Davis & Jurgeson, 2014, p.477). Social psychologists argue that we come to know ourselves by seeing what we do and how others react to us, and that through interaction, we seek to maintain the identity meanings associated with each role (Davis & Jurgeson, 2014, p.478). Within Socia Media platforms, a persons diverse networks have the potential to converge into a single mass, requireing the user to have all of their identities engaging simultaneously with family, colleages, and drinking buddies, each of whom harbours different views of who the actor is, and different interactional and performative expectations. (Davis & Jurgeson, 2014, p. 478).

Scholars such as Bernie Hogan and danah boyd have argued that pseudonymity can protect users’ security while enabling them to participate freely online without the fears of “context collapse” which comes with using real names (Van Der Nagel & Firth, 2015). Hogan’s example explores the benefits of pseudonymity when he writes about a woman wanting to write ideologically on a blog but may not want her role as a supposedly objective Wikipedia editor to be damaged by her other, less neutral writings (Van Der Nagel & Firth, 2015). His argument is that someone can be both a liberal writer and a neutral editor who follows wikipedia’s rules; one aspect of the self is not more “authentic” than another (Van Der Nagel & Firth, 2015). Expanding on this idea, if a woman was to have dinner or go out with friends, her conversation or presentation of self might be very different to the one she portrays to her family the next day. People in day to day life present different versions of themselves which are bound to that situation or context. Perhaps the most powerful point in the decision to segment one’s online identity is that it becomes a safe and secure place to discuss complex and controversial issues (Van Der Nagel & Firth, 2015). For example Gay youths who cannot come out to their offline community may want to find people to talk to on blogging or social networking sites. Another example is teachers who may want a public-facing profile but also want privacy as they interact on other sites (Van Der Nagel & Firth, 2015). Government or other public service job employees may also want the privacy of interacting on other sites. Others may want to engage in niche communities on sites like Reddit without their Facebook friends knowing; and many people want to share political views without impacting their careers (Van Der Nagel & Firth, 2015). Danah boyd, is one of the most prominent academic critics of the argument that the “real name” internet makes online activity safer. On the contrary she believes that “real name policies aren’t empowering; they’re an authoritarian assertion of power over vulnerable people” (boyd, 2011). Boyd points out that there are many viable reasons to segment one’s identity online that have nothing to do with harassing people or acting uncivilly in the comments sections.

Trolling and doxing

Of course the flip side of all the good that comes with anonymity is the fact that there is room for trolling. Trolling is something which will not be going away anytime soon, and that has been around at least as long as people have been communicating on the internet (Van Der Nagel & Firth, 2015). Trolling is when people intentionally post content designed to incite an emotional reaction in its audience (Van Der Nagel & Firth, 2015). Trolling is generally a main point of contention for people who support the real name movement on the internet. People who support the real name movement claim that by doing so it is a proactive way to minimise trolls. However trolls still find ways to exist and be seen implying that attempting to force users to use real names still results in the unwanted trolls. Their aim is to be provocative and attempt to be shocking, agrue with users and engage in being verbally abusive. More advanced form of trolling has advanced to what is called doxing. This phenomenon involves groups of anonymous or pseudonymous users researching an individual and then publishing identifiable facts about that person. (Van Der Nagel & Firth, 2015) People claim this is for social good, exposing information about people involved in certain things someone else may not agree with. However people do this act for things that they decide is against a belief they hold.

Conclusion

As discussed in this paper, the option of anonymityon the blog platform LiveJournal, can protect users security while enabling them to participate freely in the online social network (Van Der Nagel & Frith, 2015). Although there is a current debate between the “real name” internet versus anonymity of internet users, through the use of anonymity on LiveJournal, people are able to protect their offline identities, while expressing themselves on the platform. A user is at risk for context collapse if they only use their real name when on SNS platforms. LiveJournal’s use of anonymity create’s a space where there is little risk of context collapse. Users of the LiveJournal service are able to be vulnerable and socially connected with each other while still protecting any sensitive information shared online. The users are also empowered by who they choose to share their information with, as they can make their journal entries private or share with users of their choosing.

References

Boyd, D. (2007). Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Learning Youth, Identity, and Digital Media Volume.Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.

Levitin J. D. (2014). The Organized mind: Thinking Straight in the Age of Information Overload. 2014

Davis, J., & Jurgenson, N. (2013). Context collapse: theorizing context collusions and collisions. Information, Communication & Society. 476-485. https://www-tandfonline-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/doi/pdf/10.1080/1369118X.2014.888458?needAccess=true

Diaz, C., Troncoso, C., & Serjantov, A. (2008, July). On the impact of social network profiling on anonymity. In International Symposium on Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium44-62. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Dijck, J. V. (2004). FCJ-012 Composing the Self: Of Diaries and Lifelogs. The Fibreculturejournal. Digital Media + Networks + Transdiciplinary Critique. Issue 3. University of Amsterdam. http://three.fibreculturejournal.org/fcj-012-composing-the-self-of-diaries-and-lifelogs/

Freitas, D. The Happiness Effect: How Social Media is Driving a Generation to appear

Greenall, R. (2012). LiveJournal: Russia’s unlikely internet giant. BBC News.

Hill, K. (2011). Digital Anthropologist. https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2011/0228/focus-danah-boyd-ethnographer-facebook-digital-anthropologist.html#30b4d2d77866

Johansson, E. (2014). Blogging in Russia: The blog platform LiveJournal as a professional tool for Russian journalists. Baltic Worlds, 7(2-3), 27-36.

Koltsova, O., & Koltcov, S. (2013). Mapping the public agenda with topic modeling: The case of the Russian livejournal. Policy & Internet, 5(2), 207-227.

Lindemann, K. (2005). Live (s) online: Narrative performance, presence, and community in LiveJournal.com.Text and Performance Quarterly, 25(4), 354-372.

LiveJournal FAQ: How did LiveJournal get started? Who runs it now?. Retrieved April 2018 https://www.livejournal.com/support/faq/4.html

MacKinnon, I., & Warren, R. H. (2007). Age and geographic inferences of the LiveJournal social network. In Statistical Network Analysis: Models, Issues, and New Directions(pp. 176-178). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Marwick, A. E & boyd, d. (2011). I Tweet Honestly, I Tweet Passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media Society.13. 114-133.

McLellan, K. V. (2006). “LiveJournal is a Conversation With the World”: An examination of the effects of interpersonal communication on personal blogging. Unpublished master thesis, University of Chicago.

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

Pearson, E. (2010). Making a good (virtual) first impression: The use of visuals in online impression management and creating identity performances. In What kind of information society? Governance, virtuality, surveillance, sustainability, resilience (pp. 118-130). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Sherry, T. (2011). Alone Together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. http://alonetogetherbook.com

Shmatikov, V. (2011). Anonymity is not privacy: technical perspective. Communications of the ACM,54(12), 132-132.

Then and now: a history of social networking sites. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/then-and-now-a-history-of-social-networking-sites/4/

Deceptive dating: how the online identities formed in Facebook dating communities benefit the individual user rather than the goals of the community.

Abstract

Online deception is rife, and despite the illusion of Facebook authentically representing offline users, this platform is susceptible to dishonesty through changeable user identity. Flaws are often hidden, allowing users to display idealised versions of themselves to sustain cultural appeal and/or social interaction. Despite the risks, online users continue to engage in Facebook dating, relying on ineffective group rules to protect against undesirables. This paper explores the stream of identity in communities and networks by focusing on Facebook’s appeal as an online dating community and the ways in which online identities are used to benefit individual users rather than the dating groups they join.

Keywords

Online identity, dating, Facebook, romance, deception, Catfish, SNS, social network, communities, Internet.

Introduction

It is not uncommon for singles to portray the best version of themselves when attracting a potential mate. Perhaps this pressure to impress is even more prevalent online, with users relying on morality and instincts to navigate the Internet dating world. This paper discusses how online identities formed in Facebook dating groups benefit individual users rather than these communities. To best explore this topic, it is essential to establish why Facebook is chosen as a platform for romantic connections, and then determine how online identity is malleable. By establishing these topics prior to critically analysing user and community goals, a foundation for discussion is created, and vital research in Internet dating and online identity are established. Online user benefits will then be discussed, with motivations divided into two categories; users who intend to establish a romantic connection offline, and those who do not intend to pursue relationships beyond the virtual platform. Once these user goals are established these motivations will then be compared to the goals of Facebook dating communities, demonstrating how ambitions can differ.

‘Facebook Official’: Dating Online

Facebook is a pioneer in social networking, offering its users global communication. The website is a convenient way of connecting with friends-of-friends, or an effective method of bonding with a community independent of one’s offline network. It is not surprising then that Facebook groups are dedicated to cultivating sexual and romantic desire, offering communities where users can network with other like-minded individuals. According to Arora (as cited in Toma, 2017, p. 425) there are four main reasons why Facebook is a leading community for online dating, particularly in low socioeconomic areas. These four motivations not only provide insight into Facebook’s online dating appeal, but also suggest how users can utilise the malleability of online identity for their personal gain. These four main reasons are as follows.

Firstly, Facebook is cheap and accessible (Toma, 2017). Facebook’s free personal use is appealing to a mass population, attracting low socioeconomic users globally. Unlike eHarmony, Match.com and RSVP, Facebook dating communities are free to join, enabling more accessibility to groups dedicated to single people.

Facebook can overcome cultural restrictions (Toma, 2017). In countries like India where marriages are often arranged, there can be cultural restrictions that hinder communication between singles. Facebook is used as a means of interacting with the opposite sex outside of religious or cultural boundaries. The website can also be used as a method of exploring areas of sexual interest before committing to lifestyle changes. For instance, LBGTIQ communities can be joined without influencing the user’s offline lifestyle. In this way, Facebook is a tool for socially restricted users when overcoming cultural boundaries, avoiding public scrutiny or maintaining privacy.

Facebook allows all socioeconomic classes, nationalities and cultures to connect as equals, on a global scale (Toma, 2017). The site encourages users from different geographic locations, socioeconomic backgrounds and cultures to communicate. In doing so, Facebook does not restrict the types of people that users may encounter. Unlike Match.com that relies on geographic location and mathematical equations to predict compatibility, Facebook does not limit who a user can contact. This accessibility allows users to meet with people of different (or higher) social classes, or interact with people they may not usually encounter.

Facebook reinforces norms of politeness when interacting with strangers (Toma, 2017). A large appeal of the Facebook platform is the potential to “friend” request strangers, and often being accepted as means of not committing “a social faux pas” (Toma, 2017, p. 425). By taking the chance to friend request an attractive user the likelihood of initiating a romantic relationship increases with more contact, despite the reason for a user initially accepting the friend request.

These four reasons support the thesis statement as they position Facebook as a popular source for online dating. These reasons also introduce Facebook’s vulnerabilities as an online dating platform, particularly regarding changeable user identities.

The Best of Me is the Worst of Me: The Changeable Online Identity

Online user identity is complex due to its changeability. The Internet self is fluid, with age, sex, disposition and appearance now a choice instead of permanent traits. The Internet veils user identity, with anonymity acting as a form of protection. Weaknesses, flaws and otherness can be concealed or suppressed at the user’s discretion (Zhao, Grasmuck & Martin, 2008). Facebook can also be used to create false identities, as shown in Joost and Schulman’s film Catfish (2011). Even though there is controversy surrounding whether the events documented in the film were true, the documentary still demonstrates how an individual could falsify numerous profiles using the Facebook site. Facebook offers the illusion of authenticity because of the website’s reputation for linking one’s offline social circle on an online platform. Facebook thus appears more credible than Internet chat rooms. The website’s appeal is that the authentic offline self can be readily linked to an idealised self, with artificial connectivity often being misinterpreted for social acting. For instance, a user may appear to have a vast network of Facebook friends, but may only interact with a select few. This creates the assumption that users are often more popular offline than they really are (Zhao, Grasmuck & Martin, 2008).

Arguably, online identities can be perceived as an illusion created by users projecting an idealised self through the omission of information, exaggeration of positive traits or through sheer dishonesty. Online dating users can be divided into two categories; these are namely, users who intend to pursue online dating as a genuine means of meeting a potential mate offline, or users who, for a number of reasons, intend on pursuing an online relationship without physically meeting potential suitors. Toma (2017, p. 427) hypothesised that users who had the intention of meeting potential dates offline tended to portray an online identity that was similar to who they were offline, although somewhat idealised. According to Schubert (2014) users demonstrated an online identity of the “hope-for possible selves” (p. 38), delivering to other users narratives and photographs that represented the best, more culturally desirable parts of them. Schubert’s (2014) study found that users tended to misrepresent how they looked, their age and their marital status more commonly than other traits.

This hypothesis is supported by a study conducted by Tooke and Camire (as cited in Guadagno, Okdie & Kruse, 2012), which found that male users were more deceitful online than their female counterparts. Men attempted to appear kinder, more self-assured and more capable than they were offline. Female users, however, were more deceitful about their appearance, sexuality and femininity. They often portrayed themselves as slimmer, prettier and more sexually adventurous than they were offline (Guadagno, et al., 2012). Women often changed their online identity to suit the preferences of the user they desired as a mate. With such deception prevalent in online identities of those users willing to physically meet with others, it is no surprise that users who were unwilling to date in person often relied on the greater use of deception to fulfill their personal needs (Schubert, 2014). Money scams, deceitful intentions and identity theft are rife in the online dating scene. With a staggering 72% of users convinced that online daters are deceitful, it is astounding that Facebook dating communities are still operational, let alone thriving (Schubert, 2014).

‘Sorry, Not Sorry’: The Benefits of Fluid User Identity when Facebook Dating

Thriving Facebook dating communities are rife with idealised online identities. Tooke and Camire (as cited in Guadagno et al., 2012) discovered that users often idealised their personality and attractiveness to appear more desirable, portraying themselves as more socially acceptable, appealing to cultural beauty standards and gender roles. Often these gender roles are ‘performed’, demonstrated through socially determined behaviour rather than being naturally inherited (Blencowe, 2013). Users of Facebook dating communities, however, can manipulate perceptions of cultural performativity by tailoring their online responses to suit the type of identity they wished to portray, with the option of hiding their biological sex, behaviours or sexuality. Facebook communities also allow the possibility for users to plan responses through text, rather than falling victim to awkward silences in conversation or the Freudian slip. Perhaps this method of communication enables online users to appear more charismatic than they are offline. Individuals can mask their flaws and shed their otherness, experiencing Facebook dating communities as someone culturally desired rather than being overlooked as socially undervalued. These users are aware of these deceptions, moulding their online identity with photograph filters, strategic text and even fabricating untrue information.

These fluid online identities allow users to transcend their social status and experience life as the social elite. For example, a female user could create a Facebook profile using the photographs of an attractive male, limiting use of emotive language and reinforcing cultural norms of masculinity through a voiced love of cars and sports. This user could potentially experience online dating from a male perspective, forming connections with other females for their own personal gain. Online bullying, fraud and ‘Catfishing’ are all rife in Facebook communities, with access to user Facebook profiles acting as a means of learning about potential targets. This reinforces Arora’s study that suggested that some users entertain online connections in fear of committing a “social faux pas”, especially if that user is somehow linked to their social network or claims to reside in their area (as cited in Toma, 2017, p. 425).

Perhaps Facebook dating communities are appealing to users because, aside from interacting with potential love interests, it aids in building a user’s self confidence, allowing for their best or imagined selves to be showcased to the world. It appears that there are little consequences for enhancing or falsifying one’s identity when compared to the reward of adoration and affection received from others. Even users who are in committed relationships can portray that they are single to other potential daters, and even though they may be acting immoral, they may not experience the same guilt as physically cheating on their spouse.

If, like Schubert (2014) suggests, Internet daters thought 72% of users were dishonest with their online identity then why not only interact with users who shared a high disclosure of information about themselves and their lives?

Schubert (2014) found that a low self-disclosure in online dating created the deception of a user being unattainable and therefore more desirable. Other online daters were often more drawn to those low-disclosure users despite an increased chance that a profile with limited information could be misleading. Jameson (1991) could explain this experimentation with risk, through his concept of the “waning of affect” (p. 53). Jameson hypothesised that western culture is bombarded by stimuli, and as a result most are desensitised, constantly searching for emotional and physical stimulation. Perhaps online deception is a means of catering to such a need for stimulation, with the fluidity of online identities providing emotional spikes in both the deceiver and those who are deceived. Rosen, Cheever, Cummings and Felt (2008) contribute to this notion, claiming that those who are deceived by fake online profiles add to their own deception through “Hyperpersonal Perspective”, when “users make overattributions about their online partner” (p. 2129), assigning personal traits they admired, rather than qualities the partner actually had. The relationship between the deceiver and the deceived thus suggests the complexity of human nature and the strong influence of the cultures to which one belongs. These strong cultural influences are reflective in the unique sets of rules followed by individual Facebook dating communities.

Following the Rules: How Fluid Online Identities Benefit Individual Users But Rarely Benefit Facebook Dating Communities

Each individual Facebook dating group has their own unique set of rules. These rules will be used to help establish some general goals of Facebook dating communities and how they advise users to behave in order for that community to reach these goals.

For instance, the Facebook dating community ‘Perth Singles’ attempts to maintain the honesty, safety and privacy of its online members and its group rules reflect these goals. The group’s rules clearly state that users must not advertise goods or services, that members must currently be living as a single person in Western Australia and that users cannot bully each other or post offensive content within the group (Perth Singles, 2016). A fluid online identity, however, could be a threat to this community, rebelling against these community goals without administrators being aware of the deception.

An online identity created within the ‘Perth Singles’ Facebook dating community would benefit the individual user because of its fluidity, but jeopardises the authenticity and goals of the Facebook group itself. Deceptive users would gain access to a vulnerable community protected by a series of ineffective rules created by administrators. For instance, scammers could pose as lonely singles in an attempt to covertly act in fraudulent behaviour, essentially using false profiles as an advertisement to make money. Either changing one’s profile settings, or making them private can easily break the rules relating to geographic location and relationship status. Posting offensive content can be done so through private messaging within the group. Perhaps victimised users could be fearful or embarrassed to report a breach to administrators as it could jeopardise their own idealised online identity within the group. And lastly, bullying can occur through constant access to fake accounts, causing psychological harm to those who discover the deception of a fellow dater’s profile.

Even dating communities that appear more specialised like ‘Perth WA Fitness Singles’ share similar goals, adding that positivity and a fitness lifestyle need to be part of the online identity of each member (Perth WA Fitness Singles, n.d.). Rules such as these encourage identity deception and despite a superficial appearance that these goals are being met, it merely encourages potential members to disguise negative and gluttonous behaviours as a means of interacting with singles who seem to be more culturally desirable because of their physique. Despite the appearance of these rules being maintained within a Facebook dating community, the fluidity of online identity seems to benefit the individual user and not the groups to which they belong. Perhaps further research can be conducted to see if more rules in an online community either deter or encourage deceptive users.

Conclusion

Deception is rife online. Facebook’s dating communities are affected by dishonest user identities. The website’s vast accessibility, global scale, free access and appearance of equality make the platform appealing to both genuine and deceptive Internet daters. Weaknesses and flaws can be concealed in many ways; through photo filters, omission of information and strategic editing. Despite knowing the risks of deception, online daters still choose to engage with Facebook communities, relying on ineffective group rules to weed out undesirables. Internet daters seem willing to suspend their belief of an authentic online reality, a reality of waning affect. Deceptions in online dating appear to engage users by appealing to a human need for excitement, lust and passion, rather than prioritising honesty and integrity in their courtships.

References

Blencowe, C. (2013). Performativity. In M. Evans & C. J. Williams (eds.) Gender: The Key Concepts (pp. 162-169). Abingdon: Routledge.

Guadagno, R., Okdie, B. & Kruse, S. (2012). Dating deception: Gender, online dating, and exaggerated self-presentation. Computers in human behavior, 28, 642-647. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.010

Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. London & New York: Verso.

Joost, H. (Producer), & Schulman, A. (Director). (2011). Catfish [Motion Picture]. United States: Universal.

Perth Singles. (2016). In Facebook [Group page]. Retrieved April 1, 2018, from https://www.facebook.com/groups/perthsingles/

Perth WA Fitness Singles (n.d.). In Facebook [Group page]. Retrieved April 1, 2018, from https://www.facebook.com/groups/197658607383711/?ref=br_rs

Rosen, L., Cheever, N., Cummings, C. & Felt, J. (2008) The impact of emotionality and self-disclosure on online dating versus traditional dating. Computers in human behavior, 24, 2124-2157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.10.003

Schubert, K. (2014) Internet dating and “doing gender”: An analysis of women’s experiences dating online. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved April 1, 2018, from http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0046620/00001

Toma, C. L. (2017). Developing online deception literacy while looking for love. Media, Culture and Society, 39 (3), 423-428. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0163443716681660

Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S. & Martin, J. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in human behavior, 24, 1816-1836. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.012

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

Identity, Pseudonymity, and Social Media Networks

Abstract

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

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

Identity, Pseudonymity, and Social Media Networks

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

Context Collapse

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

Free Speech, Democracy and Political Dissent

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

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

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

Teenagers and Identity Play

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

Freedom of Non-Religious Expression

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

Freedom of Religious Expression

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

Conclusion

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Van der Nagel, E., & Frith, J. (2015). Anonymity, pseudonymity, and the agency of online identity: Examining the social practices of r/Gonewild. First Monday, 20(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v20i3.5615

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

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