Tag: Communities

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 (1st 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

 

The reason behind why people play games and form communities in the online game MapleStory.

The Mass Multiplayer Online Game MapleStory Uses Rewards to Motivate Players to Collaborate and Form Communities. 

Abstract
The reason behind why people play games and form communities in the online game MapleStory. Positive rewards are used by the game designers to motivate desirable behaviour and negative stimulus are used to reduces undesirable behaviours. MapleStory uses positive reward systems to incentives collaboration and the formation of communities.

Keywords
Behaviour, online gaming, MapleStory, communities, collaboration, reward systems, motivation, rules, game designs, play, development, MMOG

The purpose of this essay is to explore why people play games and how the Mass Multiplayer Online Game (MMOG’s) MapleStory motivates desirable behaviours, such as collaboration and forming communities. In this paper, I argue that rewards are used motivate desirable behaviours  The following essay will begin by introducing why people engage in play. Then explore the essential motivational drivers behind collaboration and communities in MapleStory.

The reason behind why people engage play is due to the significance of free play for the human brain development according to Dr Panksepp and Dr David Van Nuys, who discovered the play circuit in mammals by examining neurobiological behaviours in rats, which strongly suggests the areas intralaminar nuclei and thalamus make up part of the play circuit. Their research begins by explaining how the human brain contains seven primary emotional processing systems, shared by mammals, which helps anticipate and respond to situations. [r/o] These shared areas are responsible for driving play, especially in children. Dr Panksepp and Dr David Van Nuys describe the importance of free play, as it is essential for the development of neural connections which have a critical role in regulating emotions planning and solving problems and helps to navigate complex social interactions. Panksepp findings suggest out of 1200 genes one-third were significantly changed by a half-hour of play (Panksepp, 1998). The significance of this is it proves play is not a social construction and the importance of play for the human development is an essential requirement. Without understanding the importance and its necessity of play to the human development, it is difficult to understand why so many people engage in games.

What constitutes a game is that it is governed by a set of rules. The Oxford dictionary defines games as “A form of competitive activity or sport played according to rules” (Oxford, n.d.). Thus the primary dividing point between play and games are rules. Once rules are applied to play, a game appears. For instance, a ball with actively engaging participants becomes a match of tennis, basketball etc. Hands can form the game of rock, paper and scissors.

Jesper Juul’s (2010) research paper “The game, the player, the world: Looking for a heart of gameness” explains how games provide a new context for action and meaning, and without a set of rules, participants could not win at chess or make checkmate, however within the rules, there are various options to play (Juul, 2010). In Roger Cailloise’s (2001,1961) paper “Man, Play and Games” noted that the process of play has a beginning middle and end. He suggests when one decides to play a game, it means they are prepared to play within the rules and be governed by them. He used the example of a boxing match to illustrate how it is a part of the restrictiveness which makes the game playable and the goal is not only winning but to enjoy the obstacles set up by the rules (Caillois, 2001,1961). Rules are the essential aspect which makes up a game. The rules provide a context which restricts all player similarly and rewards the players who play well within the rules. Due to the similarity each player experience throughout the game, rules provide a sense of common goal and interest this common interest fosters a sense of community. The Oxford dictionary defines Community as “The condition of sharing or having certain attitudes and interests in common”(Oxford, nd). 

Furthermore, Games and play both require voluntary participation, but games also require active acceptance of the rules. Liebe (2016) uses an illustration of a magical circle to explain games and suggests the space within the magic circle is where the game occurs and the formation of a magic circle is dependent on the players’ participation (Liebe, 2016). The ungoverned space outside the circle may be everything else outside of the game but within the game by engaging the player is voluntary making an agreement to play by the rules. For example, playing the mass multiplayer online game Maple Story automatically requires the player to actively accept the rules by the action of participating. This Therefore suggests the game cannot force the individual to participate in the game or play by its rules, but once the individual has engaged in playing, the rules will govern the player’s actions. 

By examining Maple Story’s rules the game indicates its complexity and sophistication. In simple games such as noughts and crosses the rules can be easily described however as Maple Story is an established MMOG, players are submerged in a highly regulated space where most users would not know or need to know all the rules. The players only need to follow the game and it will show the players the rules once it is necessary. It is difficult for players to do otherwise as the game does not allow for the player to do so (action rage is limited to the design of the game). Thus the game can be seen as a guide and the player as tourists learning what they can and cannot do as they progress through the game(Caillois, 2001,1961). The gamer only knows how to play within the rules because within rules are in a sense the only action rage. Whatever is possible within a game has already been predetermined before the game has begun. This restrictive and confined space leads the player where the game wants the player to progress to, allowing the game designer to pre-determine results, set up obstacles and manipulate/motivate behaviour. Behaviour such as building communities and collaboration is desirable to any MMOG as it is thought to keep players gaming for social factors, such as online friends and help the game build relationship ties between its players and strengthen the player’s relationship with the game (Brox, 2011).  

The method Maple Story uses to promote these desirable behaviours is through a reward system. The gammers are rewarded when performing tasks the game deems desirable. In Maple Story these reward systems are can be seen when gamers are rewarded more when gaming together than alone.  MapleStory is also designed to be played by collaborating this is shown in group quests, which are quests that rewards significantly more than personal quests (rewards in the game are in the form of experience, equipment, weapons, and other things with monetary value) Group quest can only be accessed after a group is forms. 

Characters in maple story have different abilities depending on their job occupation, the strength of these abilities depend on the level of the character. This is important because when in the midst of solving a complex problem; such as solving a maze and hunting monsters, different skills are required. It becomes compulsory to find other players with those skills to form a team with to accomplish group quests. Collaboration within MapleStory’ becomes compulsory at certain points of the game because the game is designed so no character has all of the skills required to solve certain problems. By having these communal restrictions, motivations and rewards for working collaboratively and forming communities, the players are more likely to act in a manner which allows them to achieve the most from the game. By gaming in a manner to maximise rewards and minimise the risks the player will move forward within the game faster. The game is carefully calibrated to keep players on the edge of exploration and requires gamers to use problem-solving skills. MapleStory puts enthuses on learning to cooperate with other gamers this is thought to be good for creating communal ties which bond the player to each other and even deeper into the game. The obstacles set up within the game are complex to solve and require multiplayer collaboration to solve.  Its the constant stimulus from different reward systems that encourage certain characteristics of player behaviour such as forming guilds. 

A clear indication of the game developers desire to see communities within the game flourish is the infrastructure of the guild systems. Guild’s are a design within MapleStory which allows for hundreds of people to belong to one single guild. Guild system within MapleStory is seen as small communities within the big maple community.. They are thought to provide a sense of belonging and status within the group. Facilitating communication tools are designed to enhance the efficiency and speed of communication, functions such as one to one chat, one to many are accessible within the guild. This allows gamers to easily post notifications and ask for help. Some of the benefits of belonging/joining a guild is newbies (new players) can receive consultation from more experienced players. They often receive equipment and training from experienced players. Maple Story is designed to allow experienced players to train inexperienced players and give them experience (experience is the essential requirement to level up within the game and can be collected when monsters are defeated). This design which allows the experienced player to train inexperienced player is a clear indication of the game developers desire to see gamers collaborating. 

By using Abraham Maslow’s “A Theory of Human Motivation” (1943) explains some of the motivations for the individual’s active participation in collaboration. The following is a brief outline of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. The first level and most basic is the physiological need for food, water and clothing. This is shown in MapleStory when newbies join communities such as guilds to receive benefits such as equipment, weapons and basic training. Maslow’s Second level safety needs such as a housing, savings. This is shown in the game as the game provides better monetary rewards for players when they accomplish group quests in comparison to individual quests. The third level affection needs such as family and friends are shown in MapleStory though online friendship/relationships, these are players who meet through the game and form a meaningful relationship. The fourth level self-esteem needs such as recognition and social status are shown through MapleStory when players commit a lot of time to achieve status in positions such as a Guild leader, a high-level player or use limited edition clothing/armour to express their status. The Fifth level self-actualisation needs such as goals and exploring interests. This level of need is shown in the game when players move from casual gaming to a competitive gaming state. Maslow theory suggests human behaviours is usually motivated by one or more of the following five levels of needs, by using Maslow’s Hierarchy of need with examples from Maples story, it shows how MapleStory motivates certain behaviours (Maslow, 1943).

Melis and Tomasello (2013) research paper “Chimpanzees’ (Pan troglodytes) strategic helping in a collaborative task” demonstrates how the correct motivation does not only drive humans to collaborate but also mammals. The author’s findings suggest animal cooperation is more motivational than cognitive. The research was conducted by giving Chimpanzee roles and tools which were not interchangeable by measuring the willingness to transfer a tool to see levels of collaboration to reach reward (food). Their findings demonstrated most subjects worked collaboratively and not only coordinated different roles but also understood which actions their partner needs to perform (Melis & Tomasello, 2013). In other words, Reward systems and motivations can incentivise great levels of participation. MapleStory was able to use the method of rewarding desirable behaviour with positivity stimulus and undesired behaviour with negative stimulus to craft an active collaborative environment which benefits the participants. Some of the negative stimulus used within MapleStory is when gamers attempt to tackle certain monsters without collaborating with other they die within the game. Death within the game has signification connotations, it reduces the players hard earned experience. This is a sign of the heavy hand the Maple Story game designer have regarding collaboration. This also shows how much they desire collaboration within the game. The traits Maple Story deems most desirable are thought to be collaboration, participation, communal efforts and daily active play. 

In conclusion, the free Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game MapleStory has created an alternative world with meaning, social connections, community, monetary value and social status.
Why people play is due to the biological necessity of play, games provide a governed space to play within. When individuals actively engage by playing the online game MapleStory they are surrendering to its rules and participating within the parameters of the game’s design. The design of MapleStory encourages collaboration and the formation of communities. This is shown by group quests and guild’s. MapleStory uses reward systems such as experience, monetary items, obstacles and constraints to guide players to behave accordingly. The game makes it difficult to achieve the ultimate goal (reaching a high level) without the use of collaboration and the formation of communities. Maslow’s (1943) Theory of Human Motivation explains some of the motivation for certain behaviours within MapleStory. The use of positive stimulus to reward and negative stimulus to discourage what MapleStory deems desirable or undesirable behaviour, motivates players to willingly embrace the desirable behaviour. MapleStory pays significant attention to the facilitating tools necessary for collaboration which is communication. Various forms of communication tools are accessible to its gamers. This allows Maple Story’s gamers to easily communicate with each other to form communities and find other gamers to collaborate with. MapleStory is designed to have various options of play, but its also designed when players choose to collaborate and form communities it provides them with best results and fastest route to the ultimate goal of the game which is reaching the highest level.

                        References 

Collaboration. (n.d.). Retrieved April 01, 2018, from http://www.dictionary.com/browse/ collaboration?s=t

Caillois, R. (2001/1961). Man, Play and Games, (translated by Meyer Barash). Urbana: University 

of Illinois Press 

Game | Definition of play in English by Oxford Dictionaries. (n.d.). Retrieved March 30, 2018, from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/game

Juul, J. (2010). The Game, the Player, the World: Looking for a Heart of Gameness*. ^^The Game, 

the Player, the World: Looking for a Heart of Gameness*, 248-270. Retrieved March 25, 2018, from http://www.revistas.uneb.br/index.php/plurais/article/viewFile/880/624

Khambatti, M. S., Ryu, K. D., & Dasgupta, P. (2002). Efficient discovery of implicitly formed peer-to-peer communities. International Journal of Parallel and Distributed Systems and Networks, 5(4), 155-164.

Liebe, M. (2016). There is no magic circle: On the difference between computer games and tradi tional games. The Philosophy of Computer Games Conference Proceedings, 1-4. Retrieved March 20, 2018, from https://books.google.com.au/books?id=168vCw AAQBAJ&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=Tara Brabazon play up play around&source=bl&ots=EQ7- x8xrN7&sig=7Do5SlDHuwaPy95jXN9p b4N2IO8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQpbKO38zKAhVP02MKHXP2CZc Q6AEIKzAF#v=onepage&q&f=false.

Maslow, A. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), pp.370-396.

McIntyre, J., Palmer, D., & Franks, J. (2009). A Framework for Thinking about Collaboration within the Intelligence Community. Person Associates. Retrieved March 20, 2018, from http: www.pherson.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/09.-A-Framework-for-   Thinking-about-Collaboration-within-the-Intelligence-Community_FINAL.pdf

Melis, A. P., & Tomasello, M. (2013). Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) strategic helping in a collaborative task. Biology Letters, 9(2), 20130009-20130009. doi:10.1098/rsbl. 2013.0009

Nuys, D. V. (2013). The Emotional Foundation of Mind- Dr Jaak Panksepp. The Neuropsychotherapist, 90-104. doi:10.12744/tnpt(2)090-104

Panksepp, J., Knutson, B., & Pruitt, D. L. (1998). Toward a Neuroscience of Emotion. What Develops in Emotional Development?, 53-84. doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-1939-7_3

Play | Definition of play in English by Oxford Dictionaries. (n.d.). Retrieved March 30, 2018, from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/play

Reeves, B. & Read, J.L. (2009). Total engagement: Using games and virtual worlds to change the way people work and businesses compete. Harvard Business Press: Boston.

Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.

Williams, D. (2013). A Brief Social History of Game Play. A Brief Social History of Game Play. Re trieved March 20, 2018, from https://is.muni.cz/el/1421/podzim2013/IM082/um/ WilliamsSocHist.pdf .

The Social Media Obsessed Generation Changing the US Gun Debate for the Better

Catherine Paull 

Abstract

This paper explores how the surviving victims of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas (MSD) High School mass shooting have created a strong community and used social media to advocate for tighter gun control. They have formed the Never Again movement that has already gained widespread support, and organized two national events (National Walkout on March 14, and March for Our Lives on March 24). This paper examines how Web 2.0, and more specifically Twitter, has been used to form, mobilise, and maintain online communities. It also explores how social activists can use Twitter to create branding and social capital.

Introduction

“Be a nuisance where it counts. Do your part to inform and stimulate the public to join your action. Be depressed, discouraged and disappointed at failure and the disheartening effects of ignorance, greed, corruption and bad politics – but never give up.”

Marjory Stoneman Douglas (Willingham, 2018).

Marjory Stoneman Douglas was a journalist, environmentalist, activist, and had a high school named after her in Parkland, Florida USA (Willingham, 2018). Her quote was placed near MSD High School on March 14, the day of the National Walkout in North America in response to the school shooting, one month after 17 people were killed (Willingham, 2018). After the horrific event, several MSD students came together and created a movement which swept across North America, and the world, via the web. It is through the affordances of Web 2.0 that this community has been so successful. Twitter facilitated the formation, mobilisation and maintenance of the community, and without Twitter the community may not have formed.

The Never Again movement can be classified as a community of practice that formed as a result of their effective use of Twitter, and maintained through their leaders’ focus and determination. According to Katz, “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, p.332). Through Twitter, other users have connected to the movement, and participated in debate surrounding gun reform with the leaders of the Never Again movement. A community of practice has three main features; it has a shared domain of interest, lively and active community members, and has a form of practice (e.g. sharing information, planning events, etc.) (Komorowski et. al., 2018). The Never Again movement can therefore be classified as a community of practice because of the shared interest in gun control, the community members and leaders are very active. Emma Gonzales, one of the more well-known leaders because of her passionate speech at the Fort Lauderdale Rally a few days after the shooting (Witt, 2018), created a Twitter account for the movement and has already posted 1, 653 tweets, and has over 1.5 million followers (Gonzalez, 2018). The community has a form of practice that includes sharing information, creating events (National Walk Out, March for Our Lives), and rallying against the NRA (National Rifle Association) (March For Our Lives, 2018). To understand how social activism is able to utilise the affordances of social media, this paper examines the Never Again movement, focusing on how an online community was formed, its ability to mobilise community members into real-world action, and how self-branding and social capital are used for activism.

Community formation and mobilisation

A community is a group of people connected through a common interest or topic, and it is based on the exchange of information (Katz et. al., 2004). The Never Again community was formed through the social media platform Twitter, using its hashtag tool. The hashtag #NeverAgain was created by Cameron Kasky two days after the shooting in MSD High School in Parkland, Florida (SBS News, 2018). Hashtags are a form of tagging folksonomy, which is a user-generated system of classifying information (Highfield & Leaver, 2015). Bruns and Burgess agree, and further suggest “hashtags are used to bundle together tweets on a unified, common topic,” which is why they can be useful for crisis situations, or activism movements (Bruns & Burgess, 2011, p.5). Hashtags on Twitter allow users to find tweets that are not generated by the people they already follow, and allows people who do not have Twitter accounts to also find posts (Bruns & Burgess, 2012). The #NeverAgain hashtag sparked the movement, and it quickly gained traction on Twitter, and a few days later the community was formed. According to Bruns and Burgess, “it is this very flexibility of forming new hashtag communities as and when they are needed, without restriction, which arguably provides the foundation for Twitter’s recognition as an important tool for the discussion of current events.” (Bruns & Burgess, 2011, p.7). The victims of the school shooting were standing up and talking about gun reform in a way that had never been done before. According to Dana Fisher, an expert on US social protests from the University of Maryland, the shooting happened during a period of intense political activism, which began with the Women’s March the day after President Trump’s inauguration (SBS News, 2018). Fisher argues “people are paying attention to politics like they haven’t before, including children,” and unlike the last school shooting at Sandy Hook, where 20 elementary school children and 6 staff members were killed, the students of MSD High School are older and therefore able to speak up (SBS News, 2018, “What Makes Parkland Different,” para. 3). Professor McAndrew, a mass shooting expert, argues “the ease with which social media is integrated in their lives also gives them an edge when it comes to organising and communicating with each other, as well as with the world at large” (SBS News, 2018). The cohesion of the movement is suggested to have been why it gained so much traction in such a short amount of time (SBS News, 2018).

Some scholars argue online activism is not strong enough to mobilise or sustain a movement, because these communities do not have any face-to-face communication (Harlow, 2011). Huberman et al, also argue there are two types of networks on Twitter – those that “matter” and those that do not (Huberman, Romero & Wu, 2009). The networks that matter are smaller, include people who are friends of the user offline, and they interact more frequently (Huberman, Romero & Wu, 2009). Huberman et al, argues the broader network, which reaches more people, is less influential because there is less interaction (Huberman, Romero & Wu, 200).

However, the MSD students were able to successfully mobilise their online community, and hold two significant protests offline – the National Walkout (March 14) and the March for Our Lives (March 24). According to Aguiton and Cardon, Web 2.0 platforms like Twitter highlight the importance of weak cooperation because they allow weak ties to mobilise and work together to share information (Aguiton & Cardon, 2007). This is demonstrated by the interaction and collaboration between the main organisers (the MSD students) and their weaker ties (their Twitter followers), which generated success for the two events, the Walkout and the March. The movement started online, however, the organisers effectively mobilised their community to flow offline. The National Walkout was originally planned to be a seventeen minute walkout with each minute representing a fatality in the MSD High School shooting, however, in many cities the demonstrations continued (Grinberg & Yan, 2018). According to USA Today, 2,800 schools across North America had students participating in the walkout, with some teachers joining in as well (Bacon & Hayes, 2018). It is estimated that 800,000 people marched in Washington DC on March 24 (Reilly, 2018), which demonstrates the successful mobilisation of weak ties. Marches were also held in Parkland, San Francisco, New York, Oakland, Bethel (location of 1997 school shooting where two students were killed), Newtown (location of the Sandy Hook shooting), and all around the world including Paris (The Guardian, 2018). Not only was online communication effective, it was the only way for these two events to unite students across the country in a way that has never been done before. TIME suggested “they’re the first school-shooting survivors who are old enough, angry enough, and medi-savvy enough to force the nation to grapple with a problem that adults have failed to solve” (Alter, 2018). Bruns and Hanusch argue social media platforms, like Twitter, “offer unprecedented opportunities for users to reshape public understandings of crisis events, contesting or reinforcing mainstream media frames” (Bruns & Hanusch, 2017, p. 1138). This is exactly what the MSD students, and other North American students, are successfully doing now to push back against the NRA. Twitter allowed these students to form and mobilise their online community, thereby turning it into an offline community as well.

Maintenance of the community and its message

The Never Again movement has been prolonged in the global news cycle because the MSD students have control over their message. Two core members of the Never Again campaign have tweets pinned to their Twitter account addressing the issue of others blaming or attacking political parties.

Instead they remind people to support the movement, work together, and advocate for change. After the initial reaction to the event, the MSD students narrowed the focus of their movement to a five core aims – fund research into gun violence and prevention/intervention programs, eliminate restrictions on the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF), universal background checks, ban on high-capacity gun magazines (magazines which hold more than ten rounds, that allow rapid firing), and a comprehensive assault weapon ban (March For Our Lives, 2018). The movement also promotes an increase of voter registration and turnout (for the upcoming midterm elections) (Alter, 2018). Instead of a generalised conversation about gun reform, the Never Again movement has centralised their message. Bastos argues social media platforms, like Twitter, “can rapidly shift between information diffusion and social network formations as users move from specialized to generic topics of conversation” (Bastos et. al., 2018, p.291). This means the centralisation of information allows more people to join the community because there is a clear topic of focus. This makes the movement more inclusive and helps appeal to Americans who do not want to give up their right to bear arms (under the Second Amendment in the Constitution).

Social capital and self-branding

This case study on the Never Again movement demonstrates how branding and social capital on Twitter can be used for social activism. Social capital is the concept of value that is associated to a person or that is constructed and reinforced by social contact, civic engagement, and a sense of community (Katz et. al., 2004). According to Katz, social capital is built through trust, which allows communities to accomplish more than any individual can (Katz et. al., 2004). It has become common practice for prominent public figures to use “self-branding” on social media to increase their social capital (Hanusch & Bruns, 2016, p. 39). The core members of the Never Again movement have effectively accomplished this using the affordances of Twitter. Four of the leaders of the Never Again movement mention their campaign, and demonstrate some aspect of their individuality through their Twitter account bio (refer to Appendix B).

Cameron Kasky brands himself as a Gryffindor (a Hogwarts house in the popular UK book series Harry Potter written by J.K. Rowling), and founder of #NeverAgain (Kasky, 2018).

Delaney Tarr brands herself as a student, an activist, and a “meddling kid” (in reference to the popular kids television show Scooby Doo) (Tarr, 2018).

David Hogg brands himself as a surfer, dreamer, reporter and activist (Hogg, 2018).

Jaclyn Corin brands herself as a “high school girl trying to save the country with her friends” (Corin, 2018).

These Twitter bios are personal, link to the Never Again movement in an effective demonstration of self-branding, and allows people to connect and relate with them. This approach by the leaders of the community builds social capital for the campaign, which influences more people to connect to the movement. In an interview with TIME, Corin suggests that without social media the Never Again movement would not have spread as effectively as it has – “social media is our weapon” (Alter, 2018). As activists, they have utilised the affordances of Twitter powerfully to promote themselves and their campaign.

Conclusion and future research

In conclusion, the Never Again movement has effectively used social media as an activism tool to promote their campaign. The MSD students are part of the generation that has been labeled narcissists by adults and stereotyped as constantly on social media. However, they are utilising the affordances of the very tools, such as Twitter and hashtags, that they are mocked for using, in order to advocate for change and lobby for tighter gun control in a way that has never been done before. According to Alter, “over the past month, these students have become the central organizers of what may turn out to be the most powerful grassroots gun-reform movement in nearly two decades” (Alter, 2018). To those who mock their movement, slander their leaders, and berate their message, Emma Gonzalez’s reply is – “we are prepared to call BS” (CNN, 2018, minute 10:35). In future studies, it will be important to evaluate how other student led social activism online will develop, and determine whether it is as widespread as the Never Again movement. However, in the near future it will be interesting to see how successful the Never Again movement is as the debate for gun control continues. The movement should be followed to determine if effective gun control measures are implemented in North America.

References

Alter, C. (2018, February 21). ‘We Just Had a Gun to Our Heads.’ The Florida Shooting    Survivors Are Transforming America’s Gun Debate. Retrieved from TIME: http://time.com/5169436/florida-shooting-kids-gun-control-debate/

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

Bacon, J., & Hayes, C. (2018, March 14). ‘We deserve better’: Students nationwide walk out in massive protest over gun violence. Retrieved from USA Today:             https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/03/14/thousands-students-across-u-s- walk-out-class-today-protest-gun-violence/420731002/

Barnitt, John [John_Barnitt]. (2018, March 31). Retrieved March 31, 2018, from https://twitter.com/John_Barnitt

Bastos, M., Piccardi, C., Levy, M., McRoberts, N. and Lubell, M. (2018). Core-periphery or decentralized? Topological shifts of specialized information on Twitter. Social Networks, 52, pp.282-293.

Bruns, A. & Burgess, J. (2011) The use of Twitter hashtags in the formation of ad hoc publics. In Proceedings of the 6th European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) General Conference 2011, University of Iceland, Reykjavik.

Bruns, A. and Burgess, J. (2012). RESEARCHING NEWS DISCUSSION ON    TWITTER. Journalism Studies, 13(5-6), pp.801-814.

Bruns, A. and Hanusch, F. (2016). Journalistic Branding on Twitter. Digital Journalism, 5(1), pp.26-43.

Bruns, A. and Hanusch, F. (2017). Conflict imagery in a connective environment: audiovisual content on Twitter following the 2015/2016 terror attacks in Paris and Brussels. Media, Culture & Society, 39(8), pp.1122-1141.

CNN. [CNN]. (2018, February 17). Florida student to NRA and Trump: ‘We call BS’ [Video File]. Retrieved March 28, 2018, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxD3o-9H1lY

Corin, Jaclyn [JaclynCorin]. (2018, April 2). Retrieved April 2, 2018, from             https://twitter.com/JaclynCorin

Gonzalez, Emma [Emma4Change]. (2018, March 31). Retrieved March 31, 2018, from https://twitter.com/Emma4Change

Grinberg, E., & Yan, H. (2018, March 16). A generation raised on gun violence sends a loud message to adults: Enough. Retrieved from CNN: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/14/us/national-school-walkout-gun-violence-  protests/index.html

Harlow, S. (2011). Social media and social movements: Facebook and an online     Guatemalan justice movement that moved offline. New Media and Society, 1-19.  DOI: 10.1177/146144811410408

Highfield, T., & Leaver, T. (2015, January 5). A Methodology for Mapping Instagram Hashtags. Retrieved October 30, 2016, from First Monday:             http://www.firstmonday.dk/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/5563/4195#p4

Hogg, David [davidhogg111]. (2018, March 31). Retrieved March 31, 2018, from  https://twitter.com/davidhogg111

Huberman, B. A., Romero, D. M., & Wu, F. (2009). Social Networks that Matter: Twitter Under the Microscope. First Monday. Volume 14 Number 1. http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2317/2063

Kasky, Cameron [cameron_kasky]. (2018, April 2). Retrieved April 2, 2018, from  https://twitter.com/cameron_kasky

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.

Komorowski, M., Huu, T. and Deligiannis, N. (2018). Twitter data analysis for studying communities of practice in the media industry. Telematics and Informatics, 35(1), pp.195-212

March For Our Lives. (2018). How We Save Lives. Retrieved from March For Our   Lives: https://marchforourlives.com/how-we-save-lives/

Reilly, K. (2018, March 24). Here’s the Size of the March For Our Lives Crowd in  Washington. Retrieved from TIME: http://time.com/5214405/march-for-our-lives-attendance-crowd-size/

SBS News. (2018, February 23). Who are the #NeverAgain teenagers pushing for US gun control? Retrieved from SBS News: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/who-are-the-neveragain-teenagers-pushing-for-us-gun-control

Tarr, Delaney [Delaney Tarr]. (2018, April 2). Retrieved April 2, 2018, from   https://twitter.com/delaneytarr

The Guardian. (2018, March 25). March for Our Lives: hundreds of thousands demand end to gun violence – as it happened. Retrieved from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2018/mar/24/march-for-our-lives-   protest-gun-violence-washington

Willingham, A. (2018, March 14). In the wave of walkouts, a quote from Marjory Stoneman Douglas becomes a rallying cry. Retrieved from CNN: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/14/us/marjory-stoneman-douglas-quote-walkout-trnd/index.html

Witt, E. (2018, February 19). How the Survivors of Parkland Began the Never Again Movement. Retrieved from The New Yorker: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-the-survivors-of-parkland-began-the-never-again-movement

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International License.

Feature Image attributed to TIME Magazine and photographer Peter Hapak.

Are All Identities Presented Online Real? Identifying Managed Identities within Virtual Online Communities

 

Are All Identities Presented Online Real? Identifying Managed Identities within Virtual Online Communities

Jack Walton

Curtin University

ABSTRACT:

This paper explores several published articles that argue how one’s identity has been formed online and how it is represented within virtual communities. Hodkinson (2015) goes into depth about how young millennials express their personal identities (of which sexting is a component) online and contribute to some of the consequences that can go with it. This then leads to the question, are all identities expressed in online communities necessarily real? This paper will use these references to back up the point that online social media platforms and communities can lead to a world of managed identities or identities that cannot always be represented in the physical world.

Introduction

 Throughout modern society, virtual online communities have become dominant in many peoples (particularly millennials) lives. “Virtual communities and social network sites are becoming ubiquitous among those who communicate via the internet” (Porter, 2015, p.161). Many people form their identities within these virtual communities and these can be either real, completely fake or somewhere in between. This paper will argue that whilst the virtual world gives you the freedom to explore your identity, it can lead to a world of managed identities or an identity that cannot be fully expressed in the real world. It will argue that millennials are focusing on virtual online communities to gain popularity within their circle of friends and peers in their real lives; life is generally full of both positivity and negativity, however, most of the time, young millennials only post the positive aspects of their life on social media. This paper will examine some of the major consequences that can come from this anomaly. It will also examine the different types of virtual communities that can enable users to construct an identity of their choice.

Keywords: millennials, identity, communities, virtual

Discussion

“Online community is composed of members sharing common interests” (Zhou, 2011, p.3). Ever since Web 2.0 was formed, millennials in particular have been relying on virtual social media communities to prove their personal identities to their peers. “Participation in online cultures of sharing and interaction via social media is becoming increasingly … compulsory among groups of young people” (Robards, 2014 in Hodkinson, 2015 p.2). Donath (1999, p.N/A) makes it clear that in reality, there is an inherent unity to the self, the human body is something that is strongly connected to our personal identities. Once users have signed up to a social media platform, they begin constructing an online identity, which can be real, something in between or completely false. Boyd (2007, p.13) makes it clear that the common-sense approach to an online identity is to express the most noticeable or important aspects of identity and to leave others to interpret. This generally means that only the positive aspects of our personal identities will be expressed online. Whilst we do this in real life to some extent, the difference with online communities is the extent to which these profiles can be “managed” often as the user is often exaggerating/boasting about how optimistic their life is, when in fact the reality of life is that it is full of ups and downs.

In general, one must constantly update one’s profile or statuses within the social media platform if one wants to maintain a positive image to one’s peers. Forman, Kern and Gil-Egui (2012) make it clear that individual identities are part of the formation of an online community; hence bringing people who share similar interests together. These communities can be further expanded with more members joining. Within an online community, “Identification requires individual members to maintain an active relationship with other community members” (Zhou, 2011, p.8). This means that one must make an effort to keep up to date with what is going on in the community and they have to understand “group goals, values and conventions when they join a community” (Zhou 2011, p.8). Hence, there is peer pressure to comment on or update members of the community. This pressure can sometimes lead to the building up of a contrived image.

Numerous studies have explored the relationships between millennials and the digital world as well as the impact it has had on them. Hodkinson (2015) raises the analogy of the “virtual teenage bedroom” and argues how social network communities have influenced (or deceived) their identities. “Social network sites retain intimacy and the individual-centred format continues to facilitate the exhibition and mapping of identities” (Hodkinson, 2015, p.1). In today’s generation, many millenials feel the need to express a different (managed) identity on social media platforms (most notably Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat) to make themselves fit in to their peer communities and to gain likes. This is further backed up by O’Keefe and Clarke-Pearson (2011) who go into depth about the reasons and risks behind teenagers’ virtual identities. “Because of their limited capacity for self-regulation and susceptibility to peer pressure, children and adolescents are at some risk as they navigate and experiment with social media” (O’Keefe and Clarke-Pearson, 2011, p.800). Physical communities such as school, sport clubs or other extra-curricular activities can influence these different identities online. For example, a young millennial Facebook user may constantly add photos of positive events that happen in their life (such as outings or travels) to gain likes. This results in making their life look like it is perfect all the time. Posting negative status’ will not gain them any attention from their peers because the key communication tool is the “like” button.

As likes seem to be very important (and competitive) to some adolescents during their high school days, creating overly positive identity representations online is a way for them to gain more likes and followers. This has led to major issues since the 2010’s era, including cyber-bullying or, worse, suicide in teenagers. This is further backed up by Gross (2017) who goes into depth about the issue of sexting and cyber bullying and the major effects it has had on millennials. According to Gross (2017), likes are so important to the point that some girls feel the need to post explicit pictures of themselves online to gain “popularity” approval from their peers. Even though Gross’s article focuses on young females posting these images, boys are just as guilty too. Based on this research at least initially young millennials inadvertently create this “superior” image of themselves, which, in many cases, because of the competitive nature of a peer group can result in peers ending up being envious of them.

The competiveness within school and communities can have a large impact on teenagers and how they choose to present their identities often ultimately resulting in sexting. Mascheroni, Vincent and Jiminez (2015) discusses this false idea of identity and how “constructing an autonomous identity is a fundamental task for adolescents and pre-adolescents.” Mascheroni, Vincent and Jiminez (2015) makes it clear that in young girls particularly, exposing the human body is seen as a way to attract “likes” and “followers” on social media platforms. “Girls post pictures consistent with conformist beauty standards to avoid being marginalised” (Mascheroni, Vincent and Jiminez, 2015, p.N/A). This suggests that many young girls are feeling insecure about their social lives and they feel that gaining a certain number of likes will help them “fit in” with their peers in their middle/high school community. Selfies are also seen as a major form of visual communication between young teens. To gain more Facebook “likes” from their classmates, a school student may have docked a profile picture (make themselves look skinnier, more attractive etc.). In the minds of these young adolescents “the number of likes they receive on their profiles is understood as an indicator of their inclusion in the peer group” (Mascheroni, Vincent and Jiminez, 2015, p.N/A). They have “incorporated selfies in the process of exploring their identity and as a means of “presentation, representation and embodiment” (Mascheroni, Vincent and Jiminez, 2015, p.N/A).  Mascheroni, Vincent and Jiminez (2015) also make it clear that whilst they may gain many likes from this false identity, it raises the question about cyber bullying and how this can have a major effect on these young millennials lives. “While cyber sexual bullying is called many names: sexting, online sexual bullying, or generally cyber bullying, they all refer to the same activity –sending nude or semi-nude photographs through the internet (Gross, 2017, p.557). It also reinforces a loss of identity within the young person as they are feeling the need to change themselves to gain attention from peers online. Furthermore, virtual communities (in this instance, social media communities such as Facebook and Instagram) can tie in with real life communities (schools and sporting clubs). For example, bullying may initiate online where identities can be hidden but read by real friends from school. This bullying can then extend in to the playground in real life. Likewise, bullying at school can be extended to online bullying.

Within online dating communities, another example of changing identities is where people can customise their own profiles as well as doctor their own images to get attention from other people all over the world. Gibbs (2010) refers to this as warranting. “Warranting refers to the capacity to draw a reliable connection between a presented persona online and a corporeally-anchored person in the physical world (Walther, 2009, p.232 in Gibbs, 2010, p.74). Online dating can also consist of both real and fake profiles. According to Norcie and De Cristofaro (2013, p.N/A), “a user could set up a fake social network profile, link it to her [or his] ODS profile and “Certifeye” it.”  This means one can create a false profile, pretending to be someone else and it can seem legitimate. Rege (2009) explores the idea of fake online identities and how people scam others around the world. “Romance scams are international in scope and no centralised database tracking victims and their losses are currently available” (King and Thomas, 2009 in Rege 2009, p.495). Even though this paper was written in 2009, tracing devices are still not available. Such scams are, however, understood to be significant in leading to many disturbing consequences for the victims. Online dating can be seen as a sub-category of sexting. When a user gets more and more comfortable with somebody they have met online, they may feel the need to send explicit images of themselves to their new found virtual partner (even if they are not fully aware if the relationship is real or not).

One major consequence from online dating, managed identities and sexting is mental health issues such as depression and anxiety which can further lead to tragic events such as suicide. Wensley and Campbell (2012, p.650) make it clear that cyber bullying can come in many different forms such as “sending nasty e-mails or text messages, creating insulting websites dedicated to an individual, or posting hurtful or embarrassing pictures online.” All of these forms of cyber bullying can have a significant impact on one’s mental health leading to tragedy. A more significant suicide was the death of an American girl Jessica Logan in 2008. According to No Bullying (2017), Logan sent a nude photo of herself to her boyfriend. However, the image was sent to many teenagers in several different high schools in the Cincinnati area (once the couple broke up). The cyber bullying continued through several different social media platforms which caused Logan to take her life. According to No Bullying (2017), another major suicide that sparked social media in 2012 was the death of British Columbian Amanda Todd. An image of Todd’s breasts exposed went viral on several different social media platforms causing her to be bullied from classmates, hence she had to move schools several times. Months later however, she took her own life. Mental health issues have been a major concern for millennials (and in some cases older generations) over cyber bullying and online harassment and there have been many attempts between governments to stop this. However, to date, they have not been successful.

Conclusion

This paper has discussed how our virtual identity is constructed influenced by the online community. It demonstrates how initially our identity is influenced by a desire for likes. This leads to an overly positive identity that can not be lived up to in real life. This can lead to a sense of a lack of fulfilment in oneself as well as in jealousy of peers. The pressure to stay connected to these online communities can also have a negative impact of one’s self esteem. The competitive nature of these communities can lead to sexting and bullying which can transfer into the real world especially in confined environments such as schools.  Bullying and sexting can be devastating and can lead to depression and even suicide.

References

Donath, J. (1999) ‘Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community’, London: Routledge. Retrieved from: http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html

Forman, A. E. Kern, R. and Gil-Egui, G. (2012). Death and mourning as sources of community participation in online social networks: R.I.P pages in Facebook. First Monday 17(9), http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3935/3288

Gibbs, J., Ellison, N.B. and Lai, C. ‘First Comes Love, Then Comes Google: An Investigation of Uncertainty Reduction Stratagies and Self-Disclosure in Online Dating.’ https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210377091

Gross, M. (2017). Cyber sexual bullying,“sexting” in schools, and the growing need to educate the youth. The University of the Pacific Law Review, 48(3), 555-574. Retrieved from: http://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/uoplawreview/vol48/iss3/11

Hodkinson, P. (2015) ‘Bedrooms and Beyond: Youth, Identity and Privacy on Social Network Sites’, New Media and Society, online before print, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815605454

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

No Bullying (2017). “Jessica Logan – The Rest of the Story”. Retrieved from: http://nobullying.com/jessica-logan/

No Bullying (2017). “The Unforgettable Amanda Todd story”. Retrieved from: https://nobullying.com/amanda-todd-story/

Norcie, G., De Cristofaro, E., & Bellotti, V. (2013, April). Bootstrapping trust in online dating: Social verification of online dating profiles. In International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security (pp. 149-163). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. Retrieved from: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.4155.pdf

O’Keefe, G. and Clarke-Pearson, K. (2011) ‘Clinical Report – The Impact of Social Media on Children, Adolescents, and Families. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-0054

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

Rege, A. (2009). What’s love got to do with it? Exploring online dating scams and identity fraud. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 3(2), 494. Retrieved from: https://search.proquest.com/openview/75ff9576e029c3f25473da1b53790d9d/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=55114

Zhou, T. (2011). Understanding online community user participation: a social influence perspective. Internet research, 21(1), 67-81. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662241111104884

The Impact of Web 2.0 on Online Dating Communities

Abstract

This paper explores the changes in online technologies that have helped facilitate growing online communities and their subsequent effects on online dating. The advancements of Web 2.0 technologies have allowed Web users to easily and more efficiently participate and collaborate in online communities. Platforms such as social networking sites encourage users to share content and form connections with other users of similar interests (Cormode & Krishnamurthy, 2008). This has helped propel online dating as virtual communities provide a better suited romantic network for people of either isolated communities or of small romantic possibilities, such as those looking for specific qualities. Even though dating, whether online or offline, is one-to-one, the affordances of Web 2.0 and communities allow Web users to meet and communicate with a far greater romantic network than they would be by offline dating practices alone. This can be seen by the abundance of online dating sites that encourage the formation of weak ties within online communities to create a bigger dating pool, so that Web users can better find a romantic match. This includes growing niche dating sites such as JDate and Christian Mingle, operated by Spark Networks, which aim to bring together people of the same faith who are seeking long-term relationships. It encourages the formation of weak ties online as users are willing and wanting to meet people outside of their offline romantic network.

Keywords: Web 2.0, communities, online dating, network, weak ties

Impact of Web 2.0 & Communities on Online Dating

The impact of Web 2.0 on the growth of online dating communities is the opportunity to forego face-to-face communication and spacial proximity when it comes to looking for a romantic partner. Web users from all over the world and of different ethnicities, religions, and sexual orientations can meet a new network of romantic possibilities as a result of changing Web 2.0 technologies. Specifically, it has changed the way people can find information and communicate with other people of interest online. Prior to the facilitation of online dating, people would generally look within their community to find a partner but are now empowered as a result of the Internet to look beyond spacial proximity and face-to-face communication to do so. Instead, users can find suitable interest communities provided by leading online dating networks such as Spark Networks. Spark Networks provides users with niche dating sites to help create weak ties among other users as they encourage similar people to come together on the same site; such as popular JDate and Christian Mingle bringing together users of the same religion. Weak ties refer to the bridges made between strangers or friends-of-friends, and is the first stage of cultivating any friendship, and help online dating site’s such as JDate to excel by providing a common community for people to meet.

Affordances of Web 2.0 on Community

Web 2.0 can be characterised by technological advancements that facilitate a more “socially connected Web” where everyone is able to add to and edit the information space (Cormode & Krishnamurthy, 2008); a result of standards produced from people working on Web 1.0 (Berners-Lee cited by Anderson, 2007). Users of the Web have moved from mostly content consumers to now content creators; where niche groups can exchange content of any kind to people from anywhere (Cormode & Krishnamurthy, 2008). Certain features that have come to be associated with ‘Web 2.0’ include participation, user as contributor, and richer user experiences, and should be seen as a consequence of a more fully implemented Web (Anderson, 2007). Sir Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the World Wide Web, believes Web 2.0 is what the Web was supposed to be all along; an interactive and collaborative global information workspace all about connecting people (cited by Anderson, 2007). The ability that Web users can create and share content to anyone is a result of a series of technologies such as blogs, wikis, and social networking sites, that enable greater user participation and collaboration. Cormode and Krishnamurthy believe the important site features of a Web 2.0 platform include first class entities and prominent profile pages; ability to form connections between users; ability to post content in many forms, such as photos, videos, and comments; and other more technical features, such as third-party enhancements, rich content types, and communication with other users (2008). These features allow Web users to greater organise content and communication online, and thus encourage users to interact with the Web as a result of the ease of access and use of online platforms. More importantly, the ability to control Web 2.0 technologies has encouraged the formation of online communities; where users of the same interest and of same social networks can participate and collaborate together, opening the door for endless possibilities of online communication.

Online communities, as defined by Tedjamulia et al., are a social network of users who share similar interests and practices and who communicate regularly over a common communication medium (as cited by Liu et al., 2014). The abilities for online communities are therefore endless as they allow anyone with access to a common communication medium to interact, and have been found useful for knowledge sharing, building relationships, sharing experiences, buying and selling, having fun, and creating new personalities, environments, or stories (Armstrong and Iii, as cited by Liu et al., 2014). The rise in social networking sites, however, has propelled online communities as a result of their collaborative nature. As defined by Boyd & Ellison, a social network site should allow individuals to: (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system (as cited by Porter, 2015). Thus the structure of social networking sites means mutual information sharing is central in creating online communities, as it provides connection, communication, and privacy management capabilities (Porter, 2015). Just by participating in the structure of social networking sites, Web users are automatically creating and engaging in an online community fuelled by users with similar interests. This can be seen with the rise of online communities, ranging from social, professional, interest, and dating communities.

Online dating communities, in particular, are a growing industry aimed at providing a communication channel for Web users all over the world, tailored specifically to users who are looking for a romantic partner, connection, or encounter (Quesnel, 2010). As a result of growing Web 2.0 technologies, social networking sites such as JDate and Christian Mingle have allowed Web users to better find a dating community suited to different dating needs. In particular, it has seen the rise in ‘interest communities’ where spacial proximity is not a necessary condition as it instead involves people with common interests communicating with each other (Averweg & Leaning, 2012). For example, Jewish people looking for a Jewish partner in a small community will benefit from using Jdate as it provides a central online community of varying Jewish singles looking for long-term relationships. Even though dating in these examples is one-to-one, community is an important element of online dating as it encourages similar people to come together in hopes of finding a romantic partner.

Impact of Web 2.0 & Communities on Online Dating

Ortega & Hergovich explain that dating in the past hundred years has been a result of ‘weak ties’ which serve as bridges between close friends and other clustered groups, allowing people to connect to the global community in several ways (2017). This phenomenon means that people were more likely to marry a friend-of-a-friend or someone they coincided with in the past, such as through work or educational institutions (Ortega & Hergovich, 2017). The way Web 2.0 and online communities have revolutionised dating is by connecting users “to meet and form relationships with perfect strangers, that is, people with whom they had no previous social tie” (Rosenfeld & Thomas, as cited in Ortega & Hergovich, 2017). The affordances of the Internet have brought people together from all over the world and of varying differences to better find a suited romantic network. Subsequently, people are no longer bound to geographical locations and community barriers as online dating serves as a bridge between strangers and users to meet people outside of said barriers. Online dating creates a larger dating pool for Web users as it brings people from outside their known social circle, creating connections with ‘strangers’ of similar interests in hopes of forming solid relationships. It also allows users to make weak ties with even more people and bridge over to even more communities as online dating creates a virtual community space, allowing users with a desire to connect to strengthen ties with other users (Ortega & Hergovich, 2017).

Why Interest Communities are Important for Online Dating

Above all, the importance of online communities is its ability for Web users to establish ties with people whom they would have of otherwise had no connection to. For online dating, its main attraction is to expand the romantic network for people seeking a romantic partner. Interest communities can help speed up the process by creating a central (virtual) location for people of similar orientations, ethnicities, and other qualities to easily meet online. Spark Networks does this by providing users with a portfolio of premium niche dating sites that all aim for singles seeking serious relationships (“Global Leader in Online Dating”, 2018). CEO of Spark Networks Adam Berger explains ‘niche dating’ as a tight-knit community, where “people instantly feel comfortable and know they’re among people who are just like themselves in many different ways” (as cited in Alfonsi & Thompson, 2010). By creating a narrower and shallower dating pool, niche dating sites connect people “by their beliefs, their backgrounds, and their passions” (Berger, as cited in Alfonsi & Thompson, 2010). By following Boyd & Ellison’s structure of a social network site, Web users would create a public or semi-public profile within niche dating sites in order to articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection (as cited by Porter, 2015). By creating a profile and answering a questionnaire Web users can easily identify with whom they already share similar qualities, such as Berger’s examples of beliefs, backgrounds, and passions. For example, users of Spark Network’s can create a public or semi-public profile, articulate a list of users with similar beliefs and passions, and view and create connections with suitable users. This new dating pool will be specifically tailored to each user and will subsequently increase their romantic network possibilities as it allows them to meet suitable people outside of their offline community.

Online Dating Today

CEO of Spark Networks Adam Berger believes by catering different dating sites to specific qualities of different individuals, people are more likely to feel comfortable with online dating as they are already in a community that they would want to associate themselves with. This can be seen by the success of Spark Network’s most popular niche dating site ‘JDate’ which is the “leading online community for Jewish singles and [is] responsible for more Jewish marriages than all other online dating sites combined” (“Global Leader in Online Dating”, 2018). This proves the argument that even though dating is one-on-one, online communities are a necessity and extremely influential in the online dating realm. Compared to finding a partner solely in face-to-face communities, people now have the luxury to find a better suited romantic network of people as a result of varying niche dating sites. For example, people in a small Jewish community can expand their network by using JDate to find more Jewish partners in other surrounding communities. This helps to cancel out all people the Web user is not interested in, much like in real life, as the aim of niche dating sites is to bring together similar people. Spark Network’s has other popular sites such as Christian Mingle, aimed for people who practice Christianity; Elite Singles, for educated and successful singles; and eDarling, for European users seeking long-term relationships, under their repertoire. By providing a bundle of different niche dating sites, Spark Networks increases the potential to meet the perfect partner by decreasing and specifying various dating pools. Instead of users jumping into a dating site of millions of people, they have the opportunity to find a better suited romantic network based on their own interests and qualities in a much more personal pool.

Conclusion

To conclude, the affordances of Web 2.0 allows Web users to greater organise content and communication online and encourages users to interact with the Web and with each other. Greater interaction is the result of growing interest communities and communication platforms where groups of similar people can come together online for a myriad of reasons, such as for educational, professional, and social purposes. The success of online dating in particular is the result of the increase in social networking sites, such as Spark Networks, which encourage similar people to communicate and create meaningful connections online. Interest communities and niche dating sites have helped propel online dating as they provide users with a more suitable and personal online dating pool, bringing together people of similar qualities and interests by creating public or semi-public profiles. Without the ease of Web 2.0’s platforms, people would look within their offline community and within their weak ties to find a romantic network but are now empowered as a result of online dating sites. Instead of looking just within a geographical community, users can find various online dating communities based on beliefs, backgrounds, and passions, and are able to meet people with whom they otherwise have no connection to — only increasing their romantic network.

Maletic_18822072_ConferencePaper

References

Alfonsi, S., & Thompson, V. (2010, June 18). As Dating Pool Shrinks, Love Matches Grow. abcNews. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Broadcast/spark-networks-niche-dating-web-site/story?id=10909280

Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education. JISC Technology and Standards Watch. Retrieved from http://21stcenturywalton.pbworks.com/f/What%20is%20Web%202.0.pdf

Averweg, U. R., & Leaning, M. (2012). Social media and the re-evaluation of the terms ’community, ’virtual community’ and ’virtual identity’ as concepts of analysis. i-Manager’s Journal on Information Technology, 1(4), 12. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1671518035?rfr_id=info%3Axri%2Fsid%3Aprimo

Cormode, G., & Krishnamurthy, B. (2008). Key differences between Web 1.0 & Web 2.0. First Monday 13(6). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2125/1972

Liu, L., Wagner, C., & Chen, H. (2014). Determinants of Commitment in an Online Community: Assessing the Antecedents of Weak Ties and Their Impact. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 24(4), (pp. 271-296). Retrieved from https://www-tandfonline-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/doi/abs/10.1080/10919392.2014.956609

Ortega, J., & Hergovich, P. (2017). The Strength of Absent Ties: Social Integration via Online Dating. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.10478

Spark Networks SE. (2018). Global Leader in Online Dating. Retrieved from https://www.spark.net/about-us/company-overview/

Porter, C. E. (2015). Virtual communities and social networks. In L. Cantoni & J. A. Kanowski (Eds) Communication and Technology (pp. 161-181). Retrieved from https://books.google.com.au/books?id=AhxpCgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Quesnel, A. (2010). Online Dating Study: User Experiences of an Online Dating Community. Inquiries Journal/Student Pulse LLC, 2(11), 3. Retrieved from http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/323/online-dating-study-user-experiences-of-an-online-dating-community

Online LGBT+ Communities and Exploration of Alternative Identities

Abstract

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

 

 

Introduction

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

 

Gain knowledge on different communities

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

 

Participate in different communities

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

 

Break away from forced identity

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

 

Experiment with identity

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

 

Risks of exposure to infinite publics

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

 

Cyberbullying and anonymity

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

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

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

 

Learn about and form relationships

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

 

Conclusion

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

 

References

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The Symbiotic Relationship Of Online Gaming and Community Building

Written by Callum Duffy, Curtin University

 

Abstract: This paper largely focuses on the relationship between Online Gaming and the various Communities formed because of it. Specifically analysing communities found by using ‘Overwatch’ as a prime example, the main argument presented is that various communities focused on a single, core aspect unifying them all are more or less interconnected individuals with similar general interests in regards to this core aspect, and thus have the potential for collaboration and dialogue between each other.

 

The relationship between communities and online gaming is, at its very core, a relationship that is symbiotic in nature. In relevance to this, this conference paper will focus primarily on the formation of communities in regards to online gaming, the variation of interests within formed communities and how these vary and diverge into different niche communities, the formation of friendships between members existing within the same community, and how these communities still relate to one another in regards to a singular, dynamic interest. For this conference paper, we will specifically be looking at the various communities that are brought together by the popular FPS game produced by Blizzard entertainment, ’Overwatch’.

 

A community, as defined by Gusfield (1975) focuses on two primary concepts when defining community, The first of these concepts focusing on the geographical sense of community, etc. neighbourhood, town, city. The second is relational, concerned with quality of character of human relationship, without reference to location (p. xvi). In regards to online gaming, the second definition of community provided by Gusfield is an accurate definition as to what an online gaming community is, as the relationships formed through online gaming isn’t limited by the boundaries of geographical location, as the online medium allows player to connect with each other and form relationships/communities with one another. In relation to this, Overwatch allows players from all over the world to play against one another as it isn’t limited by geographical restrictions, this allowing players to connect and as a result allowing the formations of communities, regardless of geographical location. Overwatch itself particular is a game with various communities that have been formed from it’s large, generalised community of those who play the game. I will focus on 3 different communities within the generalised player community, these being the casual, competitive and e-sport based Overwatch communities. It’s important to note that these 3 chosen communities do not accurately represent the different niche groups that exist with the generalised Overwatch player base community, rather, they represent the shift in community based priorities in relevance to Overwatch as a whole, and the interests that each group prioritises.

 

There are various communities within the game Overwatch that cater to the various players that play Overwatch. The casual Overwatch community represents the approximate majority of those who play Overwatch, and those involved within this community simply play the game for relaxation and enjoyment within their leisure time, and build friendships with the players that they meet in game, or through other communication mediums that allow members of this community to collaborate and share information. With this in mind, the primary methods of communication for those in this community are either the in-game voice chat, where individual players can speak to other players on their team, or Youtube comment sections, where they can leave comments under videos that appeal to them and their interests in relation to Overwatch. The ‘competitive’ Overwatch community focus primarily on the competitive game modes that Overwatch offers, where players get ranked based on their skill level. These players seek to improve their skills in playing a particular character, or acquire better game sense through more playtime and experience. More often than not, individuals that associate themselves with this community in particular diverge into different, niche communities that focus on the fundamental principles that the members of this community share. For example, if a player involved in the competitive community plays a particular character mores than others, he/she may also be involved in a sub-community that focuses on playing that particular character, certain exploits that players can use to better play that character, or a generalised appreciation community focusing on that character. The competitive Overwatch community uses a variety of ways to communicate, including the aforementioned methods that the casual community uses to communicate with. However, a difference in the communication side to this community in particular focuses on the application of the official Overwatch forums. These forums allow players to commentate on the state of the game overall, communicate with game developers and ask/answer questions, and communicate with like-minded players on specified topics. Finally, Overwatch’s e-sports community focuses on the ‘professional’ side of play, with professional Overwatch players receiving sponsorships, business deals in the form of contracting to an e-sports team, and being a general figurehead/role model for all Overwatch players. This community represents a minority within the Overwatch community, as the majority of Overwatch players do not associate themselves with the professional side of the game.

 

E-sports in particular, is arguably the most niche of communities that Overwatch offers. E-sports in itself is defined as “an area of sport activities in which people develop and train mental or physical abilities in the use of information and communication technologies” (Wagner, 2006). Individuals can be associated with E-sports as a competitor or more often than not, simply an observer. This is where the divergence of communities within the game Overwatch begin to reassemble into an amalgamate of individuals with similar interests. Namely, the aforementioned competitive community begins to shift towards a larger involvement in the e-sports community, be it as a spectator or an actual competitor. Overwatch itself has its very own e-sports tournament labelled ‘Overwatch League’, this league hosts various international teams, and has a central presence within the game itself. Overwatch allows player to purchase cosmetic items that represent these teams in game, in a fashion similar to that of a football jersey. With this in mind, this further strengthens the idea of merging different communities within Overwatch, as casual players have access to e-sports related cosmetics, and resources allowing them to further explore the professional Overwatch league.

 

The casual community found within Overwatch however, is the broadest of these communities that the vast majority of the player base fits into. Where casual players might play the competitive modes that Overwatch offers, they still see it as just a game, and don’t necessarily focus on the same aspects the the competitive communities of Overwatch may focus on. The formation of online friendships between individuals within this community are genuine and are capable to exist in an offline setting also. As said by Domahidi, Festl and Quandt (2014), “ Players with a pronounced motive to gain social capital and to play in a team had the highest probability to transform their social relations from online to offline context. We found that social online gamers are well integrated and use the game to spend time with old friends—and to recruit new ones”. With this in mind, the idea that communities are capable of bringing likeminded individuals together  is solidified and proven. This is regardless of how niche a community may be, as for example, a casual player may be persuaded to become a part of a competitive community via friendships made online, or a simply change in opinion towards the game as a whole.

 

With the aforementioned in mind, the various communities that are found within Overwatch are capable of interacting with each other through various different means. Specifically mentioned before were the official Overwatch forums as a large medium used by those involved within the competitive Overwatch community. Youtube however, is the biggest way for the general Overwatch community members to gather information. Be it through the official PlayOverwatch account that posts official trailers, development updates and short animated films, or fan accounts that post game commentaries, professional game analysis or funny meme montages; Youtube is a medium that allows the vast majority of the generalised Overwatch community to interact with one another. Specifically, Youtube is a medium that connects well with younger audiences that have grown up in a digital era, specifically teenagers, which in itself can be considered a sub-community of Overwatch. Youtube content creators can be seen as social influencers that shape the foundation of the decision making process of their audiences, and there is no better example of this than the relationship between these social influencers and their teenage audience. As put by Chua & Banerjee (2015) “personal opinions and experiences have become one of the most valuable sources of information to assist users in their purchase decision-making process”. When the opinions of a professional Overwatch player is shared through Youtube, and reaches the screen of a fan of said influencer, there is a great chance that said fan will copy and follow the personal opinion and review of the influencer in question. Once again we see the merge between communities found within the general Overwatch community, in this case we see the casual, teenage audience form their own opinions and ideas on a particular idea based on the influence of a social influencer, more often than not in this case a competitive, celebrity figure that belongs to a niche community of Overwatch entertainers.

 

Thus, we are presented with a correlation between the various niche communities that belong to the generalised Overwatch community as a whole. This correlation is that the various niche communities influence one another, to the point where the divergence of these communities merge back together into a singular entity. This singular community is characterised and stereotyped to have specific traits shared amongst the members of this community, and with Overwatch in particular this generalised trait would be toxic gameplay that certain players bring to the table. This is recognised even by the developers of the game in question. In a video posted to the PlayOverwatch Youtube account, lead developer Jeff Kaplan addressed the audience about the increased negative social interactions that occur between player of the game, and the steps that the team are taking to rid toxicity from the game. In the video, Kaplan states, “We have taken disciplinary action against over 480,000 accounts, and 340,000 of those were a direct result of players using the reporting system. So you can see, the vast majority of actions we take are because players have said hey, there’s another player here doing something very bad and I want to see some action” (PlayOverwatch, 2017). In regards to this video, we can see that the Overwatch community are characterised by being toxic in game. However, we can also see that this is a big problem that many individuals both inside and outside of this community want to see be dealt with.

 

We can see that Youtube is the primary medium being used to address the various Overwatch communities in question. The social influencer of the video being lead developer Jeff Kaplan is a figurehead that the majority of the player base look up to, and hearing him say that reporting toxic behaviour in Overwatch is a good step to ridding the toxicity problem in Overwatch makes the communities in question listen to this, and thus form their own opinions and ideas behind this. This in turn changes the overall attitude and behaviour within the various communities found in Overwatch into an attitude that is committed to neutralising and reducing bad player behaviours within the game. This video and the reactions of the individuals within the specific Overwatch communities that this video targets is a clear cut example of how various, niche communities still relate to one another via a singular purpose, and how the power of social influence has the ability to change specific attitudes and form opinions within communities.

 

Overall, there is a distinct correlation between online gaming, and the formation of communities and the individuals that associate themselves with online games. The various opinions, thoughts and values that are shared between members of online game communities are generally shared, with a few principle outlying values creating certain niche communities within a generalised community focusing on an online game. These opinions, thoughts and values are subject to change with the input of social influencers altering these already existing opinions, thoughts and values, and thus influence which type of community an individual may choose to associate themselves with. However, the already underlying thoughts, values and opinions that represent the entire, generalised community still exist between various niche groups, and thus allow collaboration and unity between these groups whilst retaining a sense of uniqueness present in the various niche groups found within a community.

 

 

  • Chua, A. Y., & Banerjee, S. (2015). Understanding Review Helpfulness as a Function of Reviewer Reputation, Review Rating, and Review Depth. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 66(2), 354-362.
  • Domahidi, Emese & Festl, Ruth & Quandt, Thorsten. (2014). To dwell among gamers: Investigating the relationship between social online game use and gaming-related friendships. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 107–115. 10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.023
  • Gusfield, J. R. (1975). The community: A critical response. New York: Harper Colophon.
  • McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of Community: A Definition and Theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6-23. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e5fb/8ece108aec36714ee413876e61b0510e7c80.pdf
  • PlayOverwatch (Official Game Development Youtube Account). (2017, September 13). Developer Update | Play Nice, Play Fair | Overwatch [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnfzzz8pIBE
  • Wagner, Michael. (2006). On the Scientific Relevance of eSports. 437-442. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220968200_On_the_Scientific_Relevance_of_eSports
  • Warmelink, H., & Siitonen, M. (2011). Player Communities in Multiplayer Online Games: A Systematic Review of Empirical Research. Proceedings of the 2011 DiGRA International Conference: Think Design Play, 6, 1-21. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3acd/d7a7402cf8c517350f9f6041c29e4b0f34ed.pdf

 

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.

Fortnite: The Viral Success of Socially Competitive Online Multiplayer Games and their Communities

Abstract

This paper aims to investigate the power social capital holds in cross-platform online gaming communities, and argues that socially completive multiplayer games are more popular because of their development of social capital. Fortnite: Battle Royale, although a relatively new game, is a prime example of how the cross-platform communities have resulted in the viral success of a game. This paper explores the theory of communities, both online and offline, and their relationship to socially competitive multiplayer gaming.  It will discuss the different types of gaming communities and how they span across numerous different platforms. It will also discuss the social capital that is held by members of the Fortnite: Battle Royale (Fortnite) community and how the community has grown since the game’s first release.

Fortnite: The Viral Success of Socially Competitive Online Multiplayer Games and their Communities

The transition from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 has led to the creation of a more collaborative and interactive Internet. Web 2.0 is about the development of communication and content that was not possible in Web 1.0 (Davis, 2009). Online multiplayer games are a development of Web 2.0 that have been able to combine console gaming systems (such as the PlayStation 4) with the Internet to create a unique online experience. This paper aims to discuss how the popularity of socially competitive online multiplayer games have impacted on the cross-platform communities surrounding the games and the social capital these communities hold. We will be examining online multiplayer games that are considered to be competitive but are also used for social interaction between players. These online multiplayer games have resulted in the formation of communities that exist outside the gaming consoles and games itself, and can be found across multiple different platforms online. These communities that are formed around a game create social capital that both individuals and the community hold. Katz defines social capital as a set of shared values and expectations that a community holds. It is about the power people hold through their social networks and the value that is placed on that power (Katz 2004). Social capital is especially important in gaming communities as it revolves around trust and cooperation. This paper will discuss how the popularity of an online socially competitive multiplayer game can result in social capital that spreads across communities that are established in different platforms across the Internet. Using the free-to-play online game ‘Fortnite: Battel Royale’ (Fortnite) as an example of a socially competitive online multiplayer game that players have formed communities in, not only, the game platform itself (PlayStation 4) but across multiple other platforms as well (Twitter, YouTube, Instagram etc.). Fortnite: Battle Royale is a third-person shooter, survival game. It involves up to 100 players (who can play solo or in squads of two or four) that compete to be the last man standing (“Epic Games’ Fortnite”, n.d.).   The game involves a vast selection of weapons that are scattered across the map and a constantly shrinking safe zone that executes lethal damage to player’s health when caught outside it. Building aspects incorporated into the gameplay elevates this game above similar games within the genre. Players can destroy objects in the environment to collect materials that allow them to build defenses to protect themselves or to help them travel (“Epic Games’ Fortnite”, n.d.).

Community Theory and Practice

Community is a social system. It relies on the social interaction, common ties and psycho-cultural bonds that link people together (Katz, 2004). A community is a network of people whose social interactions have formed a group of likeminded people who support one another. Communities can exist in both the physical and virtual environments, sometimes switching between the two. Online communities can break through barriers that physical communities may have, like geographical location, gender, race, ethnicity and age (Katz & Rice, 2002). The absence of these barriers allows for the online space to create communities that thrive on the diversity of common interests and goals that create a sense of belonging for an individual. Katz discusses four types of communities: traditional communities, imaginary communities, pseudo communities and social networks (Katz, 2004).  Traditional communities are closely linked with the design of physical communities. They promote the ideas of co-dependency and commonness, achieving a collective purpose. Social networks are about the communities formed online, they are about individuals and their personal networks; what communities they choose to be a part of. This type of community provides a sense of belong for the individual who has now become the center of their own community (Katz, 2004). Imagined communities are formed online but are still linked to the physical world (Katz, 2004). These communities encompass the ideas of social networks while creating an imagined form of sentiment in the physical world (Katz, 2004). And lastly, pseudo communities have very similar characteristics to that of a traditional community but, are formed virtually rather than in a physical geo-graphical location (Katz, 2004). Fortnite: Battle Royale can be considered a social network, because the majority of the communities surrounding the game are only present online, and focuses on the individual experience within that community. However, smaller Fortnite communities could also be considered imagined communities. These imagined communities can be seen where smaller communities are formed in the physical world to play together, and discuss the game.

Virtual communities are often seen to produce what are known as ‘weak ties’. Weak ties describe distant or casual relationships (Porter, 2015). Typically formed online, weak ties link individuals to a plethora of information across social networks and communities. This information exchange within communities can be important in online gaming communities as it can help players to advance in the games and facilitates player-to-player interaction. Communication is a key part of communities and often results in weak ties converting into stronger, more personal ties. The compelling nature of online gaming communities is that a community focused around one specific game does not have to live within the confides of that gaming platform. The social aspect of gaming has allowed for communities to form outside of the parameters of an online multiplayer game. For example, the communities centered around Fortnite are not only distributed between the platforms of the gaming console such as forums and chats but appear on other online platforms. These platforms range from streaming and video content on Twitch (a live video streaming platform) and YouTube, to microblogging sites like Twitter and discussion websites like Reddit. Each of these platforms contribute to a much larger overarching community solely dedicated and invested in Fortnite. These communities allow players to form social connections and Koivisto argues that it is the reason why players continue to play a game (Koivisto, 2003). Communities allow players to express themselves, and create discussions and their own content surrounding a game. This is also closely linked with the social capital surrounding online gaming communities and the power it can hold.

Social Capital and Online Multiplayer Gaming

The popularity of online multiplayer games is based on its social aspects.  Games, such as Fortnite, can become very competitive but still facilitate sociality through head-set conversations and online multiplayer team battles. Social capital has become an import concept in the formation of social interactions and relationships online (Trepte et al., 2012). It has many effects on communities and the individual members in that community. Social capital builds support, trust, and cooperation (Trepte et al., 2012). It helps participants to solve collective problems, widens the awareness of interconnectivity between people, increases trust and aids the process of communication (Putnam, 2000). Examples of the significance of social capital is demonstrated in cross-platform communities around Fortnite, and the value the communities place in members of that community. Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Reddit, Facebook, Twitch and numerous other platforms have facilitated the creation of these communities. To show the scale of these communities you can look at the follower size of Fortnite on Twitter and Twitch. The official Twitter account of the game has over 2.2 million followers and connects with players by providing them with updates, news and replying to the community’s queries and questions (“Fortnite (@FortniteGame)”, n.d.). On Twitch, there are over 10.4 million followers of Fortnite streams and videos.  On platforms such as Twitch, and YouTube, a video sharing platform, have created Fortnite communities around popular content creators. The number one Twitch streamer, ‘ninja’, has been claimed as a “god” in the Fortnite community (Nattrass, 2018). With an unprecedented 108 million channel views and over 4.4 million subscribers, ninja has established himself as an esteemed member of the Fortnite community. YouTubers such as ‘Ali-A’, ‘elrubiousOMG’, ‘Willyrex’ and ‘ninja’ (again) are also prominent with between 6-28 million subscribers apiece (“Top 250 YouTubers games Channels”, 2018). These gamers have built their social capital around the Fortnite community. Their popularity is not just equated to the entertainment they provide, but also the sense of belonging and support other players subscribe to. These cross-platform communities are the reason why socially competitive online multiplayer games are so virally popular.

Popularised Online Multiplayer Games

In 2018 PlayStation released statistics of their top ten downloaded games. This includes Call of Duty: WWII, Grand Theft Auto V, NBA 2K18 and Rocket League (Massongill, 2018). Each of these games involve both an offline single player and/or multiplayer mode, as well as an online peer-to-peer multiplayer mode. However, the second highest downloaded game of 2017, Horizon Zero Dawn, only supported an online-only multiplayer mode, rather than offline single player and multiplayer modes. The popularity of these games may be contributed to a multitude of factors, but it is the sociability of the online multiplayer aspects that become a highlighting factor. PlayStation consoles offer a chat system they call ‘party’. Creating a party allows for individuals to voice and text chat with their PlayStation friends, and other players, whilst in a game or using other PlayStation applications (“About parties”, n.d.). Parties are an important aspect of gaming as it allows players to socialise with their friends and the wider gaming community. Players can connect with each other, and this facilitates the manifestation of relationships outside the limitation of geographical location. This social side of gaming is one of the strongest motivators for players to continue playing a game, and forms both pseudo communities and social networks (Trepte et al., 2012).

The success of Fortnite has been swift. It’s accessibility and competitiveness has led to its rise as one of the most popular online socially competitive multiplayer games. On February 4th 2018 Fortnite’s servers crashed when the game hit a peak of 3.4 million concurrent players (Nunneley, 2018). This rapid scale of growth since the game was released in September 2017 was unimaginable for the game developers. With over 45 million players it has stood out against other popular games. It has been labelled as a “relationship building, strategic masterpiece of warfare”, as it has enabled social bonding and team building that isn’t as possible in other online multiplayer games (Fortnite: An exploration of a cultural phenomenon, 2018). These statistics show that it is clear that the game is widely popular and the communities have a large span, but it is also important to acknowledge the smaller communities that form inside these larger ones. Individuals may only participate in their own personal social networks. They may only talk to people that they already know offline and do not want to socialise with players that they do not know. These smaller communities may not come in participate directly with the larger communities but by association they are contributing to the overarching community of Fortnite, and online multiplayer gaming communities as a whole. However, some scholars note that these gaming communities can result in an increase in anti-social behaviour (Trepte et al., 2012). It can form addictions, increase isolation and deteriorate offline relationships between players and their peers (Trepte et al., 2012).

Conclusion

Communities are a key part of humanity. They create networks of individuals who have come together to bond over their common interests and connect with people.  The support and security they provide were once limited to geographical location but now, with the arrival of Web 2.0, communities span across all areas of life. People can find their own space within the Internet that celebrates their interests with other like-minded individuals. Gaming communities are just one example of the vast network of communities that exist online. The pseudo communities provide support for gamers and creates relationships between players that may not have existed otherwise. Online socially competitive multiplayer games promote sociability and builds social capital between gamers. Players are able to converse not only through the game itself but across different platforms on the Internet. Through livestreams, gamers like ‘ninja’ and ‘Ali-A’ are able to showcase their abilities and provide help and insight into the games they play. The popularity of socially competitive games are tied to the online multiplayer aspect they provide. Games like Fortnite: Battle Royale have become viral because of the community that has formed around the game. The players have found something that they love to play and are sharing that with the people around them, both online and offline.

References

About parties | PlayStation®4 User’s Guide. Manuals.playstation.net. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://manuals.playstation.net/document/en/ps4/party/about_party.html

Davis, C. (2009). Web 2.0 definition, usage, and self -efficacy: A study of graduate library school students and academic librarians at colleges and universities with ALA accredited degree programs. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/304844103?accountid=10382

Epic Games’ Fortnite. Epic Games’ Fortnite. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/home

Fortnite (@FortniteGame). Twitter.com. (n.d.) Retrieved from https://twitter.com/FortniteGame/with_replies?lang=en

Fortnite: An exploration of a cultural phenomenon. (2018). University Wire Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/2001674512?accountid=10382

Katz, J.E., & Rice, R.E. (2002). Social consequences of Internet use: Access, involvement and interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Katz, J. E., Rice, R. E., Acord, S., Dasgupta, K., & David, K. (2004). Personal Mediated Communication and the Concept of Community in Theory and Practice. Annals of the International Communication Association, Vol.28(1), p.315-371. https://doi-org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.1080/23808985.2004.11679039

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

Massongill, J. (2018). PlayStation Store: The Top Downloads of 2017. PlayStation.Blog. Retrieved from https://blog.us.playstation.com/2018/01/05/playstation-store-the-top-downloads-of-2017/

Nattrass, J. (2018). Ninja: Everything you need to know about the Fortnite God and Twitch star. Metro.co.uk. Retrieved from http://metro.co.uk/2018/03/16/who-is-fortnite-god-ninja-and-just-how-is-this-twitch-megastar-making-at-least-350000-from-gaming-7391914/

Nunneley, S. (2018). Fortnite hit 3.4M concurrent players last weekend and the servers couldn’t handle the pressure. VG247. Retrieved from https://www.vg247.com/2018/02/08/fortnite-3-4-million-concurrent-players-servers-crashed/

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

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (pp. 288-289). New York: Simon & Schuster.

Top 250 YouTubers Games Channels. (2018). Socialblade.com. Retrieved from https://socialblade.com/youtube/top/category/games/mostsubscribed

Trepte, S. Reinecke, L. and Juechems, K. (2012). The social side of gaming: How playing online computer games creates online and offline social support. Computers in Human Behavior, vol.28(3), p.832-839. DOI: 10.1016/jchb.2011.12.003

Header image retrieved from: Alpha Coders

© 2018 Briana Marino. All Rights Reserved.

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.