Tag: Community

Help A Sister Out: Forging positive connections on Web 2.0

Mia Lindsay

Abstract

This paper examines the Facebook page Help a Sister Out, as an example of an online community and third place. It was created in 2015 as a page for women in Perth to ask for advice and seek connections with other women on the page. By observing it as a Web 2.0 third place, it can be seen that Help a Sister Out has certain features that facilitate positive communication and connections between members. This article highlights these features, how they fit within the third place criteria and the way this creates a safe and comfortable environment for it’s members.

Introduction

The creation of online communities in Web 2.0 has broadened the idea of an active ‘third place’, initiating a movement that has seen people from across the world join together to share common interests or ideas. Aldosemani, et al (2015) defines community as “a psychological condition of feeling close to groups of individuals who share membership, influence, common needs and emotional connection” (p.1020). Help A Sister Out in Perth! (No Boys Allowed), a Facebook group created by Ninya Lishus in 2015, allows exactly this. The page provides a forum that women in Perth can join to ask questions to other members, about anything from personal advice, to restaurant or hotel recommendations, to help using Photoshop, and so on. In the 3 years since its creation, the community has grown to over 32,000 members and has 8 active administrators. The page has in many ways become an active ‘third place’, defined by Oldenburg (1989) as neutral locations where users can voluntarily enter and participate that are outside of home, known as first place, and work, known as second place. Initially this meant cafes, restaurants, parks or clubs, but the generation of Web 2.0 has allowed online forums and communities such as Help A Sister Out, to become a kind of third place. The way friendships between strangers are formed, how help and advice is sought through weak ties in the network and the way the administrative services and guidelines of the page limit negative issues are all ways in which this community facilitates positive communication and connections in a Web 2.0 third place. While there are some dangers in taking unsolicited and often uneducated advice from strangers, particularly regarding medical or financial advice, overall the effect of Help a Sister Out as a third place appears to be a positive one.

Creating and maintaining friendships

“Today we are seeing the advent of social networks formed in cyberspace. People meet in online forums and through online dating services; they keep in touch with an unprecedentedly large number of people via electronic media” (Donath & Boyd, 2004, p.1). The online third place is an important sphere in which established friendships could be maintained and strengthened, and new friendships and relationships can blossom. Baker-Eveleth emphasises how “The places become a home away from home. The third place is a comfortable arena to revisit and interact with friends” (2003, p.17). Help a Sister Out creates a comfortable and inviting third place where members are encouraged to freely ask for and give advice to and from other members. It aims to be a no judgement space where people can connect and seek support without the stresses of home or work. The aim of the community is women helping and building up other women.

 

In terms of creating new friendships online, Oldenburg states, “Not even to its inhabitants is the third place a particularly intriguing or exciting locale. It is simply there, providing opportunities for experiences and relationships that are otherwise unavailable”. While many question the validity of friendships formed and maintained online, which will be discussed further in later paragraphs, there are many examples of how people are welcomed and common interests are shared on the page. This can lead to online friendships being born, and those online friendships can later become real life friendships.

A friendly environment in which regular visitors encourage quieter non-regulars to participate in conversation is a defining factor in a successful third place (Baker-Eveleth, 2003, p.16). Regular members on Help a Sister Out make the page seem much more like a community than just a forum that people join, and the friendliness of those members are vital to making a friendly environment that new members want to return to.

“Users may browse members’ profiles and statuses, view photo albums, follow links to recommended, and so forth. Exploration helps physically distant users discover similarities and establish social connections, repurposing their usage to meet individual needs”. Aldosemani, et al (2015) highlights how members can utilise the features of the page to their own social advantage, using it to make connections and forge friendships.

By definition, Web 2.0 enables social interaction through networking platforms such as email, chat room or social media forums (Murugesan, 2010). The growth of these networking platforms has reversed the original friendship flow, in which you are friends with someone in real life, and then you become friends on the Internet through various forums. Now it is becoming more common for friendships and relationships to begin online and graduate in to face-to-face. An example of this is one of the many posts on the page where women are looking to make new female friends in their area. They post about their general locations, likes and interests and what they are looking for in friendship, and invite people to connect with them, subsequently forging new friendships that begin online and can later become face-to-face.

 

Helping each other out

The forming of friendships in these communities is not only beneficial emotionally, as discussed in the previous paragraph, but can also be beneficial in other areas of life. This is emphasised by Baker-Eveleth, who says “getting to know people and interacting with them helps create a network or web, broadening our exposure to other experiences” (2003, p.1). Donath and Boyd agree, describing social networks as “sources of emotional and financial support, and of information about jobs, other people and the world at large” (2004, p.1). Thompson (2008) discusses how the growth of weak ties through social media and online communities can help solve problems such as job hunts or information enquiries. Expanding networks beyond friends and family to distant acquaintances can be very useful because “they’re further afield, but still socially intimate enough to want to help you out”. The whole idea behind Help A Sister Out is based off this theory, as members of the group automatically feel willing to give help to people they feel associated with, usually with the knowledge that if the reverse situation was to occur, people on the page would be equally willing to help them.

With over 32,000 members, the Help A Sister Out community supports Gil de Zuniga and Valenzuela’s idea that weak ties within larger networks allow people access to information or opportunities not available within their immediate circle of family and friends (2011). The strength of these communities lies in the cycle of people forming weak ties and accessing information from them, which then encourages more participation in the community, which further forms more weak ties, and so on. Online communities in particular facilitate conversation between weak ties, as the social barriers of culture, race, gender or ethnicity, which so often stop these connections being formed offline, are not as present online.

Benefits of guidelines and administrative services

Aldosemani, et al (2015), highlight how with the inclusion of generally accepted rules and activities, an online space can also be considered a third space. The administrative services in the Help A Sister Out community play an important role in not only allowing it to become a third place, but also facilitating positive communication. Upon entering the Help A Sister Out page, there is a pinned list of rules that apply to all members of the group. These include rules such as; no meanness, nastiness or rudeness, no ‘name and shame’ posts, be polite, helpful, considerate and supportive, and all adult or sensitive posts must have a trigger warning at the top (Help A Sister Out, 2017).

Administrators have the ability to turn off comments on particular posts, delete posts and comment deemed outside of the page guidelines or remove members. These features help maintain a positive environment where women feel they can post and speak freely without fear of judgment or being attacked for their opinions, so long as those opinions aren’t hurtful. Guidelines for the framework of all online communities, not just Help A Sister Out, are important as they limit space for public humiliation or embarrassment and the sharing of private information on a public forum (Ewbank, et al, 2010, p.32). Ewbank, et al, encourage institution and community organizers to create a safe space online by revisiting and revising current codes and guidelines to limit the vulnerabilities of Web 2.0 community platforms before they become larger issues (2010, p.40).

Aldosemani, et al discuss how a third space should be “accessible and user friendly, designed to facilitate conversation, exhibit a low profile and ultimately reside on neutral ground where the organisation assumes a minimal role in fostering and monitoring conversation” (2015, p.1025). This criteria is reflected in the structure and rules of the page, in which all members are equal and the administrators play little to no role in starting conversations, but rather facilitate a forum for the conversations to occur on their own. But by monitoring the conversations and limiting negative or judgmental conversations, again there is more room created for constructive conversations.

Flaws in the community

Despite the positive conversations and connections being made on Help a Sister Out, there are some dangers to such an environment being built in a Web 2.0 third place. Members giving out unsolicited and uneducated advice on medical or financial issues can lead to a number of problems. For example, someone accepting advice on treatments for a sick child without seeking professional medical advice could very quickly go wrong if the child is wrongly diagnosed or treated. Psychologist Tony White (Ryan, 2015) warned members to be cautious when asking for advice on the page, not only for the risk of wrong advice but also that people can respond with hurtful comments if it’s a topic that may be seen as controversial (for example suicide, abortions, children’s vaccinations).

Stewart (2010) also questions the validity of online friends in comparison to real life friends. Similarly, Thompson (2008) asks, “What sort of relationships are these? What does it mean to have hundreds of ‘friends’ on Facebook? What kind of friends are they, anyway?”. He thinks that it’s possible that having so many connections online, and viewing so much content makes a person spread their emotional energy too thin that they don’t have enough for real-life intimate relationships. Donath and Boyd (2004) imply that people seek more connections online in an attempt to boost their own status, verify their sense of personal identity or to maintain a certain reputation, and thus these public connections are not real. It is possible that for many online communities this may be the case, however Help A Sister Out appears for the most part to be about women supporting other women, answering questions they might not have been able ask in their circle of family and friends, and building friendships from weak ties that offline barriers may never allow.

Conclusion

The facilitation of positive communication and connections in a Web 2.0 third place is highlighted in the case study of Perth-based Facebook community, Help A Sister Out. Involvement in the Help a Sister Out community is an example of how actively participating in a third space can have a positive affect on the rest of a person’s life. Examples of the ways that the page encourages the maintenance of existing friendships and the blossoming of new ones, how engagement with weak ties within larger communities such as this can help individual members, and the role of administrators and community codes and guidelines show the way Help a Sister Out facilitates positive communication and connections in a Web 2.0 third place. While many hold doubts about the strength of friendships created online and the validity of the advice offered on pages such as these, overall it could be seen that the environment created in these communities is a constructive one. Help a Sister Out in Perth (No Boys Allowed) brings women together from across Perth in a community that encourages women lifting each other up and offering each other immediate, mobile and publicly accessible help, advice, support and friendship in a way that would never have been possible outside an online community.

References 

Aldosemani, T. I., Shepherd, C. E., Gashim, I., & Dousay, T. (2015). Developing third places to foster sense of community in online instruction. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(6), 1020-1031. doi:10.1111/bjet.12315

Baker-Eveleth, L. (2003, August). An online third place: emerging communities of practice.

Donath, J., & boyd, d. (2004). Public Displays of Connection. BT Technology Journal, 22(4), 71-82.
DRAFT http://smg.media.mit.edu/papers/Donath/socialnetdisplay.draft.pdf

Ewbank, A. D., Kay, A. G., Foulger, T. S., & Carter, H. L. (n.d.). Conceptualizing Codes of Conduct in Social Networking Communities. Social Computing. doi:10.4018/9781605669847.ch137

Gil de Zúñiga, H., & Valenzuela, S. (2010). The Mediating Path to a Stronger Citizenship: Online and Offline Networks, Weak Ties, and Civic Engagement. Communication Research, 38(3), 397-421. doi:10.1177/0093650210384984Help a Sister Out. (2017). In Facebook [group page]. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/groups/1555723208012564/

Oldenburg, R., & Brissett, D. (1982). The third place. Qualitative Sociology, 5(4), 265-284. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0098675

Ryan, K. (2015 July 18). Help a Sister Out in Perth: Facebook site becomes a support network for WA women. ABC News. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-18/facebook-site-becomes-a-support-network-for-perth-women/6628318

Stewart, T. (2010). Online communities. Behaviour & Information Technology, 29(6), 555-556. Retrieved from https://doi-org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.1080/0144929X.2010.523615

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

 

Help A Sister Out: Forging positive connections on Web 2.0 by Mia Lindsay is licensed under                              Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

Growing Up In The Social Network

Abstract: This paper explores the role that online communities and the social network play in the development and implementing of identity from adolescents through to young adults. This is done primarily through the analysis of the various features and benefits of platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and Blogger as well contributing factors to identity development such as community design. Various identity theories are also briefly explored to allow for an understanding of how identity development in the Web 2.0 era is changing for adolescents and young adults and becoming a key determinant in the sustainability of online communities and networks.

 

Keywords: social networks; community; social media; identity; Facebook; Instagram; Blogger; community design; identity theory

 

 

As online communities and networks expand and the number of adolescents accessing the internet continue to increase (Johnson, 2006), the role that Web 2.0 communities play in developing and implementing identity online and offline is becoming commodious. Communication is a key driving source for why and how we utilise social networks. Donath (1996) states that communication is essential for evaluating an interaction and that knowing the identity of whom we are communicating with is also essential; however, she also notes that identity can be ambiguous. In the physical world we can link our identity to our physical bodies, whereas online our identities are linked to the pictures and words we choose to post. For young people, being exposed to a multitude of content on a regular basis, during a time where their identity and self-awareness is developing, can be overwhelming but also formative of their personalities, values, attitudes and beliefs as well as how they interact in communities both online and offline. Throughout this paper I will be arguing that social networks and communities are important platforms for the growth of identity in young people in the developing digital era. I will be doing this by analyzing the features and benefits of different platforms including Instagram, Facebook and Blogger, as well as interpreting the ways in which social networks develop communities and how these communities and networks are relevant to the identities of their users.

Building Communities and Community Identities on Social Networks

 The internet, and now the rise of social networks, allows social humans the ability to learn, connect, educate, share and influence. As Papacharissi (2011) explains, networks exist to spread knowledge and that we live in an information network that continuously expands out to other users. Through these information networks, one can develop their online identity. For children who are only just beginning to form a concept of their own identity, the new multimodal forms of learning (Burke, 2013) which consist of both virtual playgrounds and school playgrounds give children great opportunity in exploration of others and themselves. Chatrooms and online video games are lending the features of avatars and anonymity at a young age and utilizing ‘play’ to create community and engagement (Burke, 2013). Buckingham and Willet (2006) analyse the online community consisting of ‘gURLs,’ which they define to be female tech savvy web users and creators that empower their thoughts and interests through their online platforms and through features of blogging websites such as text and banners; it is considered a space where girls can speak their own language and develop their online presence and identity. There are many different communities out their depending on an individual’s identity or their interests and the various digital platforms, such as online games and blogs give users the ability to express themselves through narrative and images.

Influence, whether it be from mass media created content or convergence culture within social networks, is another defining factor of identity online as much of the content one submerges themselves in is user-generated, or mass media generated, changing the inner values or desires of the user, therefore altering the content they wish to post which then in turn alters their online persona. Online communities thrive based on their community design, something that is prevalent amongst social media platforms, most recognizably on Facebook and Instagram. Design affects how people interact and how they influence one another and even the user’s interests, based on the content that they are exposed to. The design and interaction that user’s come into contact with on these platforms is what ultimately makes them want to continue using them; they may feel a sense of belonging or community or they may feel influenced or motivated by the design of the platforms to continue logging in and creating content and having an online identity. Ren, Kraut and Kielser (2007), explore the difference between identity-based attachment and bond-based attachment, these are essentially the reasons why people continue to be a part of particular communities. If you have an identity-based attachment, you become a part of and stay in the group because you identify with the group as whole; whereas bond-based attachment refers to a singular connection with an individual in the group. These two identity characteristics along with community design are dominant determinants of identity development and community construction.

Despite being one of the biggest social media platforms in the world, Papacharissi (2011) does not see platforms such as Facebook as communities but rather as social venues where communities come to meet. So what makes a community? The ability to socialize, create meaningful connections to others, provide entertainment, and allow for support and empathy to be put out into the online space are all building blocks of a community online. When you log on to Facebook the page reads: “Facebook helps you connect and share with people in your life.” This means hat you can bring your offline ommunity online but Facebook allows for this and so much more; you can now connect with people you do not know, businesses, celebrities, charities and whatever else resonates with you as an individual, which all helps to build your profile even larger.

With youths being such a heavy part of our online communities, it is unsurprising that many of them have taken up another aspect of online community collaboration, or remix culture. There are entire genre communities on platforms such as Blogger and YouTube that allow creative liberty to their users, whether it be in the form of mash-ups or through the creation of memes. These forms of creation constitute significant cultural, social, technological, and learning behaviors (Ahn et al., 2013) and as the digital sphere continues to develop it is not surprising that digital culture, along with its remixing and remediation, is becoming a part of the everyday lives of young users. As teachers urge their students to participate in class, adolescents may be just as motivated to be a part of the participatory culture taking place online. It is strongly argued also that youths cannot possibly gather the knowledge of permissive copying practices when in fact studies have found that children as young as five years old develop concepts like having ideas and voicing negative reactions to copying (Ahn et al. 2013). Essentially, this is evidence of how youths can begin developing their core understandings and values and how they can be integrated into the online social networks that they will both contribute and interact in as they develop.

You can put a definition on to what one believes community means, however the widespread nodes of the internet have allowed communities and henceforth individual users to define themselves as whatever they want to be. There is something for everyone. Young people are increasingly going online, whether to escape reality or to establish their identity in the social network. In 2004 Slater explores the idea of disembodiment from identity, that perhaps users are detaching themselves from their bodies which contains the benefits of textuality and anonymity; you can be whoever you want to be, and nobody has to know that it is you, if you do not want them to.

 

Factors of Online Communities that Influence Online Identity

 Of course our identity is firmly rooted in where we geographically come from and the cultural norms that have intrinsically shaped our values, attitudes and beliefs throughout our lives. In connection to the online sphere and social networks one can see how geographic location can impact the development of building communities online; in China, online social networkers use different platforms as compared to western users, this is primarily a result of the restrictions on internet usage but also, many of the platforms that they use such as Weibo and WeChat are designed to be appreciated by these culturally relevant users as they are utilised not only by Chinese influencers and brands but they are largely utilised across the country. If everyone in you know is Weibo then you too will most likely use Weibo to talk to them. Other cultural factors of online communities can be interests, typically music or photography; religious values and beliefs as well as the user’s propensity for privacy. How much a user wishes to share about themselves or their online identity depends entirely upon the user. Facebook does not require their users to fill out all of their profile characteristics, but rather what you want people to see. This can then be further manipulated based on the user’s security preferences. There are now so many different platforms out there to be explored by youth today based on individual factors, such as age, location and interests. For example, anyone can make a Musically account, where you film yourself parodying songs that you like or are culturally relevant in the moment. These videos can then be shared to Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and YouTube and depending on the audience of your profile, enjoyed. Popularity of specific applications and platforms is generated from use, inviting friends via the platform, and word-of-mouth. Boyd (2007) found that teens admire the ability to visualize how their social world would look through their networked collection of profiles; they can visualize all of their friends online so they would in turn want their friends to visualize them.

Taking a look at Facebook, approximately 940,000 users in Australia are between the ages of thirteen and seventeen and with Instagram approximately 1 in 3 Australian’s are users (Cowling, 2018). These are fast becoming prime platforms for young people to begin building their online identities and join online communities. These platforms have been so successful as a result of their customizability. The notion of building your own profile including a profile picture, facts about yourself and your interests and then hyperlinks to your other profiles and platforms is once again of interest to a wide range of internet users. It is appealing because you can make your profile accurate to your offline profile or you can live your fantasy and take on the identity of whoever you please. Young users are wanting their profiles to reflect their interests and who they are and by giving youth the opportunity to share this journey with their peers it may make it easier for other young people to help form their identities, when they may be struggling with who they want to be and who they want to be seen as online. Teens and young adults often face the question of ‘who am I?’ With a vast array of environments, knowledge networks and social networks, users aren’t limited and they can explore different customs, societies and interests without fear of being reprimanded or put down which they may fear in their offline life.

The way in which communities formed online impact one’s identity, sense of self, or sense of purpose online can be seen as a reflection of how users interact online and how they build their profiles. Social networking sites are, like we explored before, social venues where users can come to gather. A private community may require a user to apply to join; the private group can then assess the user’s profile to see if they would be an appropriate participant for their group. A private community can be created through a private Facebook page or Instagram profile (that uses hashtags and private messaging to communicate and share) or it can be created through blogging platforms such as Blogger, WordPress and Tumblr which can put passwords on their user’s blogs, and can be only be accessed if the site owner gives you their password. Private communities such as these are useful tools for young users and content creators to be a part of the current phenomenon of whatever platform is currently trending yet it also allows for their safety when sharing their profiles online. Private communities are often policed or monitored closely to watch for bullying and negativity and with most users having a shared common interest there may not be any space for poor behaviour. An example of this would stem from community Facebook pages. High schools, universities and suburbs can have their own profiles where offline community participants can congregate online to voice their thoughts or share events. Facebook has the feature of a group mediator whom has the ability to add and remove users from the profiles, as well as delete comments and images if they infringe on the set rules, which the feature of pinned posts/notices is useful. Public communities, whilst harder to monitor, may also allow for more freedom in terms of self-expression and content creation, even if that does include remixing. Both of these communities need participation, content and discussion to maintain their relevancy and the more the platforms allow their users to share about themselves, the bigger they grow.

 

Creative and Emotional Privacy for Young Internet Users

            Being a participant in online communities and of social media has become almost a compulsory act for teens and young people who are wanting to engage within the sphere of their universe, but what is it costing them (Hodkinson, 2015)? Hodkinson (2015) uses the analogy of the bedroom like that of an online space or profile for a young user; it is about ownership of space or having something of one’s own. These users are bearing all to people they do not know in offline in their safe spaces but who is to know if these spaces really are safe. I think that in an atmosphere where an individual can fully be themselves, it is important to them that the interaction that they receive on their pages or content is appeasing to them. Young people could always have more urgency towards their safety as a result of internet predators. We must think of these online spaces as teens think of their bedrooms; as a private space for them to be themselves, artistically or emotionally, and trust that they would not interact with potentially sour trolls online.

There is a sense of territory, particularly on spaces such as Blogger, where almost everything is customizable; ownership and territory are not limited to young users, however it is increasingly important that we come to acknowledge the creative and emotional importance of these spaces, rather than limit what young users can do, explain how they can protect themselves whilst also having their own space online, just as one would do if they were to rent or buy a home offline.

As social networks expand to hold multiple purposes for its users, whether it be for information, communication, content creation, business and economic purposes and even for emotional expression and connection to the world, it is important to recognize that digital media and social media communities are becoming a part of growing up and identity development. Through the establishment of both private and public communities online, on platforms such as Instagram, Facebook and Blogger; people now have access to a variety of ways in which they can build and expand upon their online profiles. There are new ways for them to explore the type of content that they want to put their name to and a variety of ways for them to remain safe whilst doing it. Overall, identity can be developed and expressed through the features and allowances of digital media platforms and communities can be built online based off these identities. Online communities are there to help engage users, create discussion and develop bonds and social network identities are explorative of how we as users wish for others to understand our online presence; they can help to create friendships, reinforce or explore cultural values and societal norms and can influence our overall interests therefore shaping our identities and the communities that we are a part of.

 

 

References:

 

Ahn, J. , Subramaniam, M. , Fleischmann, K.R., Waugh, A. , Walsh, G. and Durin, A. (2012). Youth identities as remixers in an online community of storytellers: Attitudes, strategies           and values. Proc. Am. Soc. Infor. Sci. Tech., 49:1-10. doi:10.1002/meet.14504901089

 

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

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

 

Buckingham, D & Willett, R. (2006). Digital Generations: Children, Young People, and New     Media. Retrieved from http://link.library.curtin.edu.au/p?pid=CUR_ALMA2186270010001951

 

Burke, A. (2013). Children’s Construction of Identity in Virtual Play Worlds: A Classroom          Perspective. Language and Literacy; Toronto. Volume 15 (issue 1). 58-73.

https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1428558472?accountid+10382

 

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

 

Donath, J. (1996). Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community. Communities in Cyberspace.        Kollock, P. and Smith M. (eds). London: Routledge. Retrieved from:                                     smg.media.mit.edu/People/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html

 

Johnson, G. (2006). Internet Use and Cognitive Development: A Theoretical Framework. E-    Learning and Digital Media, volume 3 (Issue 4). 565-573.                                                             https://doi.org/10.304/elea.2006.3.4.565

 

Papacharissi, Z. (2011). A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Networked       Sites.

 

Ren, Y. , Kraut, R. , Kielser, S. (2007). Applying Common Identity and Bond Theory to Design of        Online Communities. Organization Studies. Vol 28 (issue 3). 377-408.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607076007

 

Slater, D.  (2002). Social relationships and identity online and offline. Retrieved from                           https://dourish.com/classes/readings/Slater-SocialRelationshipsIdentity.pdf

Conflict, Authenticity and Deception: The Impact of Trolls on Communities and Networks

Abstract

This paper will discuss how identities within technologically mediated communication channels have drastically impacted communication between online community members. This communication failure has resulted in conflicts within online communication sites, such as Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Twitter. This paper discusses the lack in social capital which will eventuate in conflict and friction within an online community. The focus on identities highlight the differences that are perceived by other community members including trolls by utilising examples such as the Madeline McCann case and the Australian Republic Movement. These differences are based on interpersonal comparisons reflecting past experiences in dealing with all aspects of authenticity and deception.

 

Keywords: Conflict, social network, identity, community, authenticity, deception, social capital.

 

Introduction

Conflict is applicable in all forms of communication, both online and offline, which often stem from within a form of a community. Typically, this conflict is due to a clash of identities with individuals or group of identities in specific community, were levels of support differs from community members. Communities are defined as a group of people that depend on social involvement and communication. (Katz et al., 2004, p. 217) This is evident through the traditional face-to-face discussions most commonly used today or alternatively through an internet-mediated communication channel, such as Facebook Messenger, Instagram or YouTube. But either way, conflict is inevitable within communities where identities express member opinions over a thread of time or a subject matter. This paper will argue that the lack of social capital will create conflict (friction) in an online community from identities that are empowered by community member differences through online communities. These differences are based on interpersonal comparisons reflecting past experiences within the aspects of authenticity and deception with a focus on trolls within social media.

 

Expression of Identity on Social Media

Before we dive deeper into how conflict manifests through social media and trolling. Jensen based his media definition as the “socially formed resources that enable human beings to articulate an understanding of reality, and to engage in communications about it with others” (2008, p.45). This definition best describes the differences in traditional communications whereas digital interactions utilises modern technology mediated devices enabling online communications. With this understanding, it is essential to note that the main difference between offline and online communities is that online communities are not bound by geographical locations and are asynchronous. Some communities are started offline with face-to-face contact and then precede to move online, a common example would be a group chat through Facebook messenger. This community is formed offline in a social physical space, which then moved online for convenience and accessibility before meeting offline again. Sole online communities, in comparison are formed without any face-to-face contact and communication is sent to multiple members, often being instantaneous, resulting in zero-time delay between messages. These online communities have no intention of progressing offline to remain anonymous and create their own performed identity.

A large majority of these online communities are commonly held on Web 2.0 platforms. Boyd and Elision define social networking sites as “web-based services that allow individuals to; construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system; articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection; and view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system” (2007, p.4). Social networking sites such as Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn, allows ‘friends’ that embodies a weaker bond in a relationship between members. Hence the membership process of a social networking site, members have an opportunity to protect their personal interest by not disclosing informative data on their profile. These social networking sites in the main do not verify any information, reinforcing the view that a members ‘online self’ may be different to their ‘actual self’. This process provides choices for members to participate within an online community, creating an opportunity for friction or conflict to arise.

Online community membership grants you several choices in order to express a non-verbal expression; whether the message remains authentic or deceptive about your identity online. Within these communities, members can remain individualistic within a group or provide support to other group members which requires time or expertise in the online community. Jensen (2011) defines this choice of social interactions as relations of availability, accessibility and performativity. That is “What is known……? Who knows what……? and Who says and does what – in relation to whom?” (Jensen, 2011, p.50). As an example, conflict may can stem from the use of Facebook to market an event, where the invitee loses control with unexpected attendees via mass communication to unintended participants. This concept underpins the notion that our online identity comes with a choice.

Further Pearson states that “Online, users can claim to be whoever they wish. Like actors playing a role, they can deliberately choose to put forth identity cues or claims of self that can closely resemble or wildly differ from reality” (2009, p. 1). Pearson then goes one to argue that our identity is like a performance, everchanging to suit the situation, meaning that our identity is not fixed at any point in time, but is instead a fluid construct that is evolving into what we deem appropriate. A key concept to this argument is that members of an online community may hide their true identity in full or part, where misaligned intentions can create conflict within an online community. This concept may lead to conflicts within social networks as it opens the door to deceptive conduct within the community, disturbing the flow of interaction (Coles & West, 2016).

 

Identity and the Community

A key feature of a community is that it must itself have a sense of identity, which are known to the members within the community (Kendall, 2011). Furthermore a community itself “confers identity and participant identities also play an important part in the formation and continuation of communities” (Kendall, 2011, p.318). From the above quotes, it can be applied that members may not contain similar knowledge and attitudinal elements of a ‘real community’ but in fact be dissimilar. This contradiction as described by Kendall (2011), directly relates to online communities – where conflict and/or friction between members may arise. Further, members are concerned about the ability of a community to mask their identity, which can relate to whether a participant is authentic or deceptive while engaging online. This was evident in the case of Madeline McCann where communities clashed over the parent’s involvement her disappearance. These communities were recognised as either Anti-McCann’s or Pro-McCann’s. These groups clashed over twitter, creating friction and conflict between the participants, that lead to different group identities within the one community. Both identities used emotive language to enhance their identities while at the same time strengthening the divide between the two groups (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017).

Emotional baggage held by group members can also lead to different identities that share common threads in the most part but be polar opposite on other views. This is particularly most noticeable with identifiers such as a person race and gender (Kendall, 2011). Donath raises the point that “knowing the identity of those with whom you communicate is essential for understanding and evaluating an interaction” (1999, p.1) particularly where the evaluation outcome is subjective. This was demonstrated with the differing opinions on how the Republic Movement in Australia provided alternative methods to select their head of state, appointment versus election (Charnock, 2001). Kendall (2011, p.318) further stated that group members can “mask their identity, or to present a deliberately deceptive identity”, to notionally benefit their members where they feel best represents themselves, authentic or not. As in the Republic Movement, the perception bias of this selection can create friction and prevent the movement progressing within the political online community.

 

Social Capital

It is important to consider the level of social capital required to create and maintain any social network. Figure 1, as shown in the Appendix represents a framework for the creation and maintenance of online communities is grounded on sociological and information technology concepts (Vivian & Sudweeks, 2003). The framework demonstrates the connection between social spaces, social capital and identity for members in the social formation of relationships. Overall social capital can be beneficial to online communities as it creates trust and honesty between members, which is vital for the survival of the online community. Eklinder-Frick, Eriksson & Hallén (2015, p.2) defines social capital as a “resource in society, where it is associated with trust and social cohesion”. Even with idiosyncratic opinions – online communities can thrive as long as trust and honesty prevails in the community. However as stated by Annen (2003, p.451) social capital is described “as a player’s reputation for being cooperative within a social network”, where any conflict within this framework can only assume the greater good will be accepted from members in determining the final outcome. But unfortunately, this is not likely to occur where cooperation is required and not forthcoming in communities where controlling behaviours from individuals does not conform to typical norms. A lack of cooperation will further discourage trust and create conflict / friction with differing knowledge and attitudinal elements over time. This is reinforced by Annen (2003) where control over a community is only developed over time and through regular communications. A lack of participation by members due to conflict will lead to poor online community performance.

 

Authenticity

When members participate in online communities, a conflict or friction situation is bound to occur given the membership process for social networking sites, even if the members are being authentic to themselves. This is due to the fact that every member’s idiosyncratic opinion originates from distinct cultural backgrounds and past experiences. According to Buendgens-Kosten, authenticity in its broadest sense is “related to the notions of realness or trueness to origin” (2014, p.1) and is referenced to the characterisation of language to the quality of text (spoken or written). So, while it is important to remain authentic to one’s self while participating in online communication sites, it is critical to remain cautious to the dangers of the internet as it is related to members cultural backgrounds and limiting the amount of identity performance taken place. This is done in a hope to avoid being characterised as a troll, who are aggressive, disruptive and deceitful (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017).

 

Deception

Social networking sites also allows for fake accounts to be created, where impersonation between members can occur with no mechanism to actualise the authentic identity. Regrettably, indirect trust is assumed for social networking sites without any verification. This deceitful tactic is most commonly known as catfishing, where one individual lures someone into a relationship through a false or factious persona. This is a downfall of online communities with no way to authenticate your identity within these communities. This idea of social caption and trust are closely linked as deceitful communication tactics represents a lack of social capital, allowing the likes of trolls and catfishes to “create conflict for amusements sake” (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017, p.76) which further reinforces the need for members to protect their identity online. As an example, Stone (1992), shows a woman who was supposedly talking to a ‘fully disabled old lady’ named ‘Julie’, who in actual fact turned out to be a “middle aged male psychiatrist” who simply wanted to talk to other women as a woman (Stone, 1992, p.2). In this case while the intent was not malicious the tactic demonstrate deception, mis-trust and potential conflict.

Deception can also be found in social networks through the concept of trolling. This is where someone pretends to be a genuine member of a community, by sharing the passion and identity of a group, but then deliberately attempts to “disrupt the community by baiting participants” (Kendall, 2011, 319). Baiting is the process in which a member of the online community deliberately posts to anger or disrespect other members of the community. The consequences of such trolling, as stated by Donath (1999, p.71) is that; “Trolls can be costly in several ways. A troll can disrupt the discussion on a newsgroup, disseminate bad advice, and damage the feeling of trust in the newsgroup community.” Furthermore, in an online community that has become sensitised to trolling “the rate of deception is high – many honestly naive questions may be quickly rejected as trollings” (Donath, 1999, p.71). This extract reinforces the damage that trolls can have on a online community, but also the level of conflict or friction that can arise between the troll and the impacted existing members.

Trolling is a common problem today with some serious cases punished by criminal conviction, however these consequences are the exception rather than the rule (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017). This has resulted in the spreadability of trolling, which has in the majority been unpoliced. The increase in trolling has followed the rise in social media networks, with the number of social network users purported to be 2.46 billion as of 2017 (Statista, 2018). With this significant statistic, it’s only a matter of time before conflict rises between users, with social capital and trust being eroded from online communities. An example of trolling was evident in the aftermath of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in 2007. This case saw a group of trolls on twitter, under pseudonyms, posting about how the parents were responsible for the abduction of their daughter (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017). These tweets were often “abusive and antagonistic and are also known to engage in verbal attacks against anyone who takes to Twitter to support the McCanns” (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017, p.71). The consequences of trolling through online communities, can often lead to the polarisation of beliefs, attitudes and values amongst the community, making trolling not only unpleasant but also very unethical where it has the ability to cause great harm (Coles & West, 2016). The actions of trolling has the potential to generate vast amounts of conflict and friction with communities, which can span years. This is evident in the McCann case with the hashtag on twitter receiving 100 tweets every hour (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017). Deception and indirect trust are key concerns for members within online communities today, without a foundation of authenticity.

 

Conclusion

This paper discussed the key elements that formed the creation and maintenance of online communities which highlighted the importance of identities, social capital and the relationships built in the social formation of an online community. With these concepts, frameworks and constructs, I have argued that conflict and or friction can apply in all forms of online communities where authenticity is non-existent. This conflict is substantially due to the expression of idiosyncratic opinions within communities that impact community identities over a thread of time and subject. This paper argues that the lack in social capital will create conflict and friction where differences exist in attitudes between members on the basis of past experiences in dealing with the all aspects of authenticity and deception.

 

 

Appendix

Figure 1: A conceptual framework for the creation and maintenance of social networks (Vivian & Sudweeks, 2003).

 

 

References

Annen, K. (2003). Social capital, inclusive networks, and economic performance. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 50(4), 449-463. doi:10.1016/S0167-2681(02)00035-5

Baym, N. K. (2011). Social Networks 2.0. In M. Consalvo & C. Ess (Eds.), The Handbook of Internet Studies (pp. 385-405). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

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

Buendgens-Kosten, J. (2014). Authenticity. ELT J., 68(4), 457-459. doi:10.1093/elt/ccu034

Coles, B. A., & West, M. (2016). Trolling the trolls: Online forum users constructions of the nature and properties of trolling. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 233-244. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.070

Charnock, D. (2001). National identity, partisanship and populist protest as factors in the 1999 Australian republic referendum. Australian Journal of Political Science, 36(2), 271-291. doi:doi:10.1080/10361140120078826

 

Donath, J. (1999). Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community. In P. Kollock, & M. A. Smith (Eds.), Communities in Cyberspace (pp. 29-59). New York: Routledge.
http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html

Eklinder-Frick, J., Eriksson, L. T., & Hallén, L. (2015). Social Capital, Individuality and Identity. Paper presented at the IMP Conference, Kolding, Denmark. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:820088/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Jensen, K. B. (2008). Media (Vol. 9). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Jensen, K. B. (2011). New Media, Old Methods –Internet Methodologies and the Online/Offline Divide. In M. Consalvo & C. Ess (Eds.), The Handbook of Internet Studies (pp. 43-58). Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

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, pp. 315-371): Routledge.

Kendall, L. (2011). Community and the Internet. In M. Consalvo & C. Ess (Eds.), The Handbook of Internet Studies (pp. 310-325). Hoboken, NK: Blackwall Publishing Ltd.

Pearson, E. (2009). All the world wide web is 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

Statista. (2018). Number of social network users worldwide from 2010 to 2021 (in billions) [Fact sheet]. Retrieved from

https://www.statista.com/statistics/278414/number-of-worldwide-social-network-users/

Stone, A. R. (1992). Will the real body please stand up? In M. Benedikt (Ed.), Cyberspace: First Steps (pp. 81-118). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Synnott, J., Coulias, A., & Ioannou, M. (2017). Online trolling: The case of Madeleine McCann. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 70-78. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.053

Vivian, N., & Sudweeks, F. (2003). Social Networks in transnational and Virtual Communities Informing Science, 1-7.

 

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

Identity as a performance: How identities are formed within the fashion community on Instagram

Abstract

This paper will argue how identities online can be shaped by their chosen communities, focussing on the fashion community on Instagram. However, these identities can sometimes be false and deceptive, which can be due to the demands and expectations within the community. Instagram has been influential within the fashion community as it is photo based, easily allows users to stay connected and create new connections. It allows users to develop a fan base and influence which can lead to being discovered and endorsed by fashion brands. Using definitions and ideas, this paper will examine the relationship between the two concepts focussing on how identity can sometimes be deceptive and the motivation behind this within the fashion community on Instagram.

Keywords: virtual community, community, identity, online identity, social media, Instagram, performance, deception, fashion, hashtags.

Introduction

The concept of what makes a community has been challenged since the development of new communities mediated through electronic communication technologies along with the way users can portray an identity. Traditionally the idea of community is considered to consist of four concepts; a place to live, a spatial unit, a way of life and social system (Katz, Rice, Acord, Dasgupta & David, 2004, p. 317). There has been an emphasis on a physical basis for a community to function throughout the years along with the inherent unity to the self, the norm of one body, one identity (Donath, 1999). However, the emergence of new virtual communities has caused the concept of communities to be challenged and redefined. Communities on Instagram can stay connected through the use of hashtags. The virtual community has allowed users form new identities different to their physical ones. However, social media communities can allow users to portray a chosen identity online which can sometimes be false and deceptive for their own benefit.

Virtual Communities & Hashtags

Katz et al. (2004) suggests that the majority of community constructs rely on social interaction and in essence, a community is a social system. This allows the concept of community to go beyond the physical definition, where a community exists only by having a geographic location (Katz et al., 2004). The physical community occupies its own physical setting and many consider the physicality of community formation important for the sense of belonging. Members within physical community’s form groups with people who exercise local autonomy in meeting their needs in a specific locality (Katz et al., 2004). The virtual community refers to communities mediated through electronic communication technologies such as social media, multiuser domains (MUDs) and internet relay chat, and also sustained through personal communication technologies such as messaging, mobile phones and email (Katz et al., 2004). The “virtual” part of a virtual community suggests a place without a geographic location which is what a traditional community is based around, and it means the primary form of communication is electronic or enabled by technology (Ridings & Gefen, 2004). Virtual communities continue to provide a social system and social interaction.

Dennis, Pootheri & Natarajan (1998) characterise virtual communities as groups of people with shared interests or goals where electronic communication is a primary form of interaction. Groups might meet regularly online to discuss a subject of interest to all members. It is argued that virtual communities are worthy of being considered a community despite not having a geospatial location like a traditional physical community. This is because of the nature of virtual communities linking large groups of people to share, ideas, feelings and desires (Katz et al., 2004). The virtual community provides ties and homogeneity by interest rather than physical location and locally isolated. Ridings & Gefen (2004) describe virtual communities as “groups of people with common interests and practices that communicate regularly…in an organized way over the internet through a common location or mechanism”.

A community is described to become “a metaphor for the primary ties outside of the households that provide us with larger social systems”. Virtual communities allow users to create and preserve ties among people who are physically separate (Katz et al., 2004). The removed physical aspect of a community also removes the traditional belief that there is an inherent unity to the self, there is one body, one identity (Donath, 1999).

Instagram is a social media platform which allows users to find and create social ties by the use of hashtags. The use of hashtags allows users to expose their brand or persona to large targeted audiences. Hashtags can be chosen to relate to a certain topic or interest, so users who relate can easily find the content and increase engagement. Hashtags help organise and categorise photo and video content which assists the process of discovery and community engagement (Loren, 2017).  Hashtags are not limited to a geographic location, which easily allows communities to form and create new connections around the world. The fashion community, like many others, is based on shared social practices and interests, unlike physical communities which are based on shared social and physical boundaries.

There are different types of hashtags including branded hashtags and community hashtags (Loren, 2017).  The use of community hashtags helps connect like-minded user around a specific subject, such as #evachenpose or #ootd. These types of hashtags can improve the searchability of a user’s posts, gain followers and grow the user’s own personal community (Loren, 2017). For example, the #evachenpose hashtag was created by Eva Chen, a fashion based instagramer and director of fashion partnerships at Instagram with 882k followers, which includes a photo of the user’s shoes, handbag and piece of fruit in the backseat of a car, which can be used sometimes as an alternative to the traditional #ootd (outfit of the day) post. This hashtag has accumulated 29.1k posts over a number of years. The #evachenpose appeals to users in the fashion community, people who like handbags and shoes and people who follow the Eva Chen Instagram (@evachen212). Chen has developed her own Instagram community and following which can be maintained and developed through the hashtag.

Instagram also allows users to ‘follow’ hashtags allowing them to stay up to date with other users in the community. Users can interact with each other by messaging each other, commenting on each other’s posts and ‘liking’ pictures and videos people post. A community is achieved through the member-generated content and the self-sustaining process it creates: “as more members generate more content, the increased content draws more members” (Ridings & Gefen, 2004). Hashtags can be utilised by the user to describe and portray their chose identities and connect to different communities.

Identity as a performance

Virtual communities allow users to put forth identity claims of the self which can be accurate or false to reality. Social media networks act as a stage in which the user can ‘perform’ and identity. Pearson (2009) puts forward that “identity-as-a-performance is seen as part of the flow of social interaction as individuals construct identity performances fitting their social environment”. Social networking platforms offer spaces which are disembodied, mediated and controllable, and also allow alternate performances for other members of the community (Pearson, 2009).

These performances by users online exist within their imagination who then use tools and technologies online to project and renegotiate their chosen identity (Pearson, 2009). Users create not only their online selves but also their staging and setting in which these selves occur by manipulating online communicative codes. However, these stages maybe social media networks which the user has chosen to be a part of. According to Schwartz & Halegoua (2015) through selected “images, videos, status updates, profiles, friend lists, visible conversations, tastes and interests, and comments that appear on their profile, social media participants present a highly curated version of themselves”. The ability to select what other people see can allow a user to put forward different identities and personas depending on the community they want to be part of and different to who they are offline. For example, if the user chooses to be a part of the fashion community on Instagram, they will then perform an identity suited for that community and follow those social cues and renegotiate their chosen identity.

 

Deceptive identities online

The online virtual community and the user as the performer, are disembodied and electronically re-embodied through the cues and signs they choose to represent their identity (Pearson, 2009). These cues and signs online can be dependent on the virtual community the user is part of. However due the fluidity the user has over the self online, the identity they perform can be inaccurate or misleading to their audience. A user can put forward as many personas online as they have time and energy to create them (Donath, 1999).

Some Instagram accounts can be fake using stock images or images of someone else without their permission. These accounts can also pay for fake followers and engagement. Purtill (2017) reported the company Mediakix created two fake Instagram accounts, @wanderingggirl and @calibeachgirl310, from scratch using stock images and secured four paid brand endorsement deals between them worth US$500 in total. This was a stunt to prove how easy it was to become an Instagram influencer. According to Purtill a user can become a fake influencer by;

  1. Finding photos: Stock images can be used or photos can be taken by the user.
  2. Purchase fake followers: It can cost around US$3-8 per 1000 followers through easy-to-find websites.
  3. Purchase engagement: It can cost 12 cents per comment and between US$4-9 per 1000 likes.
  4. Make money: get into contact with brands for endorsements.

This shows how easily users can grow and develop their Instagram accounts or several, depending on how many identities they wish to have or communities they are part of. Aspiring fashion influencers seek to accumulate a fan base which will enable fashion brands to find models and influencers to represent them. Celebrities and models are often chosen by fashion brands based on how relevant they are on social media which provides a better and more engaging story for the public (Payne 2016). This is a motivation for users to put forward deceptive identities so they can get more endorsements and influence. They can put forward as many as they desire and have the energy for. However, it can be difficult for other users to see what is ‘false’ and what is ‘true’ on Instagram.

A user can be deceptive by using items and content which do not belong to them and create a false identity. For example, users can hire clothing or bags for content to appeal to a community and its members. Instagram provides a platform for individuals in which normal societal cues are not available which allows deception to be easier. Assessment signals that help users determine deception are unavailable online (such as government issued identification) or it is not required to verify the identification of online identity (Tsikerdekis & Zeadally, 2014). According to Tsikerdekis & Zeadally (2014), conventional signals are used which are not verified and can represent deceptive information. Ways in which a user is deceptive includes information about the user’s identity, content of their posts or profile page and the channel in which communication takes place (e.g. messaging, video chat). The manipulation of any of these three categories reflects deception. Instagram allows profile management, the absence of identity verification and focuses on content which creates an environment which can be subject to deception within the three categories put forward by Tsikerdekis & Zeadally (2014). Users develop identity goals, which are used to avoid shame and embarrassment, project a more favourable image and increase social desirability (Grossman, 2017).  On Instagram, this might include creating a fake profile with false information to increase self-worth and appeal to users within a community, such as using an alternative profile picture or content. They construct their identity based on their social setting and follow communicative codes within that setting.

Conclusion

Instagram allows for identity to be a performance which can differ in communities. Identity on Instagram can also be false and deceptive depending on the user’s desires. The virtual fashion community on Instagram is maintained through electronic communication tools, such as messaging, commenting and ‘liking’ content. Instagram allows the formation of virtual communities through communicative tools and hashtags. False information can easily be concealed through strategic editing and omission of information. These tools can also shape the user’s identity performance online within their chosen communities. The traditional idea of having one body and one identity has changed with the emergence of social media, such as Instagram. Users now have the ability to create and maintain as many identities as the have the time and energy for.

References

Dennis, A. R., Pootheri, S. K., & Natarajan, V. L. (1998). Lessons from the early   adopters of Web groupware. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(4), 65–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1998.11518186

Donath, J. (1999). Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community. In P. Kollock, & M. A. Smith (Eds.), Communities in Cyberspace (pp. 29-59). New York: Routledge.            http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html

Grossman, M. (2017). Study of social media users: The relationship between online deception, Machiavellian personality, self-esteem and social desirability. Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. Retrieved from https://search-proquest.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1946736580?accountid=10382

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.      Available: http://www.comm.ucsb.edu/faculty/rrice/A80KatzRiceAcordDasgupt David2004.pdf

Loren, T. (2017, March 30). The ultimate guide to instagram hashtags in 2017 [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://later.com/blog/ultimate-guide-to-using-instagram-hashtags/

Payne, C. M. (2016). Visual storytelling: Fashion brands engagement through instagram. Available from Proquest Dissertations &These Global. Retrieved from https://search-proquest com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1886812809?accountid=10382

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/artile/viewArticle/2162/2127

Putrill, J. (2017, August 18). InstaFraud: How fake instagram ‘influencers’ are gaming brands for money. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved from  http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/how-fake-instagram-influencers-are-gaming-brands-for-money/8821440

Ridings, C., & Gefen, D. (2004). Virtual Community Attraction: Why People Hang Out Online. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 10(1).  Available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083  6101.2004.tb00229.x/full

Schwartz, R., & Halegoua, G. R. (2015). The spatial self: Location-based identity performance on social media. New Media & Society, 17(10), 1643-1660.http://10.1177/1461444814531364

Tsikerdekis, M., & Zeadally, S. (2014). Online deception in social media. Communications of the ACM, 57(9) 72-80. https://doi.org/10.1145/2629612

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

 

Gaming Communities changing the way we interact

Gaming Communities PDF

Madison Matta

 

Abstract

Gaming communities have radically changed the way people interact with one another and its instant nature, allows people to interact and also escape in a way they could never do offline. Although online gaming has been questioned over whether it’s a legitimate community, we see that it has many similar attributes of a physical community and also many advantages, such as no geographical boundaries. Gaming communities can be seen as a ‘third place’ in which people interact in a way that they are unable to in their first place (home) and second place (work). All these concepts will then be explored in the Massively multiplayer online game World of Warcraft, a game which has substantial communities within the game and uses other mediums. It will also explore how gaming capital can directly translate to social capital and what it means to have ‘gaming capital’.

 

Gaming Communities changing the way we interact

Gaming communities have radically changed the way people interact online and its instant nature for people globally allows people to interact and ‘escape’ in a way they could never do offline. There have been many arguments against the legitimacy of gaming communities and whether they should be classified as ‘real communities’. Critics of online communities write that “life on the net can never be meaningful or complete because it will lead people away from the full range of in person contact. Or, conceding half the debate, they worry that people will get so engulfed in a simulacrum virtual reality, that they will lose contact with “real life’ (Wellman & Gulia,1997). This paper will argue that gaming communities are genuine communities which allow gamers to engage with each other in ways that offline communities never could, creating an ‘escape’ for those who struggle with being a part of offline communities.

 

Gaming as a community

For a long time, there was questions over the legitimacy of online communities and their realness from scholars, “while all this razzle-dazzle connects us electronically, it disconnects us from each other, having us “interfacing” more with computers and TV screens than looking in the face of our fellow human beings’ (Fox, 1995, p. 12). This is simply untrue, and just like in a real life community we see different types of virtual communities are emerging and at the forefront of these is the gaming community. There are many elements that make up a gaming community, A community is a group of people who come together to share similarities and interests. Preece defines online communities as “people who interact socially as they strive to satisfy their own needs to perform special roles. They also have a shared purpose, an interest or need, information exchange, or service that provides a reason for community. A community has policies, rituals, protocols and laws that guide people’s interactions. Computer systems support and mediate the online communities.” (Preece, 2000). All of these elements Preece associates with online communities, particularly the shared purpose and interest, are integral parts of the gaming community. People who are part of online gaming communities all have the shared interest of the game and the games proved a reason for community. These are all factors that make up the vast world that is the gaming community.

 

How gaming communities differ from offline communities

The major differences of gaming communities when compared to offline communities are what makes them such a popular alternative for people who struggle fitting into physical communities For example, being able to interact with someone from the other side of the world in a game, or being able to switch off and stop interaction whenever they want and being able to find people with shared interests because you have so much more reach. Within each game there is a community of people with at least one common interest, the game itself, and the community is only limited by a person’s access to that game. With no physical space needed to form the community gamers socialise with each other through the medium of the game, many games encouraging communication from players and teamwork to succeed. With no real restrictions on members of the gaming community they “attempt to break through some of the boundaries of race, gender, ethnicity, and geographic location established in physical communities” (Gross, Katz and Rice, 2003). Gaming communities are absent of any real institutional authority and emerge from technology, compared to offline communities which will often have institutional authority and have physical borders and exclude people gaming has a voluntary participation by its members (Katz et al., 2004).  This voluntary participation from members and no physical borders are the main reasons the gaming community allows people to interact in a way they could never do in a physical community. People from all different parts of the world, from all walks of life, are brought together in way they never could before, and use these new formed relationships to engage with the game by playing, chatting and connecting with other platforms created by the game.

 

Gaming as ‘Third Place’

‘Third Place’ refers to the social surrounding which is different to your two usual surroundings, those usually being home (first place) and work (second place). Ray Oldenburg’s book ‘The Great Good place’ talks about the theory of Third Place stating that “individuals may belong to several formal organizations but if they have a third place it is apt to make them feel more a part of the community than those other memberships” (Oldenburg, 1999). The gaming community provides a ‘Third Place’ for its members and allows interactions with it fellow members in a way that communities at home and work cannot. In the reading ‘Online games as ‘third places’’ they explore gaming as the ‘third place’ in Massively multiplayer online video games (MMO). They explore how “By providing spaces for social interaction and relationships beyond the workplace and home, MMOs have the capacity to function as one form of a new “third place” for informal sociability much like the pubs, coffee shops, and other hangouts of old.” (Steinkuehler and Williams, 2006). All of Oldenburg (1999) criteria of the third place are met by online games, such as a neutral ground, communication, easy access and a home away from home. Although there are arguments against a game being a ‘place’ it is a space where people can come together to interact and a form a community and that’s why gaming is an example of a ‘third place’ for so many people around the world.

 

World of Warcraft

If we now look specifically at the game World of Warcraft (WoW) and how it changed the way people interact and allows people to interact in a way they could never do offline. ‘World of Warcraft (WoW) is one of the most popular massively multiplayer games (MMOs) to date, with more than 6 million subscribers worldwide’ (Ducheneaut Yee, Nickell & Moore, 2006), players can play against the environment or they can play against one another, players can also choose to role-play. The journal article ‘the social life of guilds in World of Warcraft’ explored the social dynamics of the game and its players. There studies discovered that “players were found to use the game to extend real-life relationships, meet new people, form relationships of varying strength, and also use others merely as a backdrop. The key moderator of these outcomes appears to be the game’s mechanic, which encourages some kinds of interactions while discouraging others.” (Williams et al., 2006). This shows that MMO such as WoW are so popular not just because of the gameplay but because of the relationships they can facilitate through the games mechanics. When people of shared interest are coming together to discuss create and play, they are fulfilling the elements scholars define to be what is needed for a community. Which further proves how games are radically changing the way people interact. When studying the relationships within the guilds, they found that they meant far more then the functional purposes they posses in the game (Williams et al., 2006). The studies found that “In nearly every social guild that lasted more than a month, members and leaders were aware of the need for a certain level of maturity, responsibility, and player welfare. This level of what can only be described as caring is remarkable given that the game is centred ostensibly around functional, not psychological or social goals. It is clear that social guilds go well past the game’s goals in creating and maintaining communities.” (Williams et al., 2006). All their findings found the MMO of WoW to be a game where the games format encouraged interaction and successfully developed relationships and attributes of a community.  Concluding that “WoW is in fact a vibrant third place, populated with a range of social experiences ranging from ephemeral impersonal groups to sustained and deep relationships that extend offline.” (Williams et al., 2006).

 

Online gaming and Social Capital

 Social capital is a form of cultural capital where social networks and groups are central to your influence. Social capital, is an integral part of analysing relationships and personal interactions and can be seen in gaming communities like World of Warcraft. The gaming mechanics for MMO affects how important it is for the players to co-operate and compete with others and how useful it is to form different kinds of sub-communities with people of greater ability establishing a higher social capital in the gaming communities. This bridging of social capital into the online gaming communities can be have positive affects on an individuals overall social capital. The journal article “Gaming Social Capital: Exploring Civic Value in Multiplayer Video Games” looks at gaming social capital and “Theorizes that gamers who develop ties and work together with a community of fellow gamers build gaming social capital, one’s sense of belonging to and participating in a gaming community which can be leveraged for individual benefit or collective good. In other words, the concept of social capital recognizes that there is some value inherent in one’s connections to other community members” (Molyneux, Vasudevan & Gil de Zúñiga, 2015) This further proves the value of being in a gaming community and why online gaming is a ‘third place’ for people to interact and react to others, with the study finding that “multiplayer video games are indeed associated with forming social ties within a community of gaming peers, a concept we call gaming social capital. This concept is distinct from but theoretically and empirically related to broader face-to-face social capital. Results suggest that gamers who develop gaming social capital are likely to develop face-to-face ties with others in their real-world community. Thus we observe a spill over effect from gaming social capital to social capital in the real world.” (Molyneux, Vasudevan & Gil de Zúñiga, 2015) This development of face-to-face ties and a spill over of social capital in the physical world shows how influential the interactions which take place online in video games can be.

 

Online Gaming communities have radically changed the way people can interact with one another and allows people to network in a way they could never do offline. Although there are arguments against the value of virtual communities and its ‘razzle dazzle’ from scholars such as Fox, its been proven that the attributes of a virtual gaming community have many advantages over physical communities, such as successfully breaking down boundaries of race, gender, ethnicity, and geographic location established in physical communities” (Gross, Katz and Rice, 2003). Gaming is a ‘third place’ for many people and it allows people to interact in a way that there first place (home) and second place (work) don’t allow. The MMO game World of Warcraft is an example of a third place and the interactions that take place. The way these gaming communities grow as a ‘third place’ then begins to establish an order of social capital within its members.

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

 

References

Ducheneaut, N., Yee, N., Nickell, E., & Moore, R. (2006). Building an MMO With Mass Appeal. Games And Culture, 1(4), 281-317. doi: 10.1177/1555412006292613

Fox, Robert. 1995. “Newstrack.”communications of the ACM 38 (8): 11-12.

Gross, M., Katz, J., & Rice, R. (2003). Social Consequences of Internet Use: Access, Involvement, and Interaction. Contemporary Sociology, 32(6), 691.

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.

Molyneux, L., Vasudevan, K., & Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2015). Gaming Social Capital: Exploring Civic Value in Multiplayer Video Games. Journal Of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(4), 381-399.

 Oldenburg, R. (1999). The great good place: Cafés, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons, and other hangouts at the heart of a community. New York: Marlowe: Cambridge, MA : Da Capo Press.

Preece, J. (2000). Online Communities: Designing Usability, Supporting Sociability. 100(9), pp.459-460.

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

Wellman, B., & Gulia, M. (1999). Net Surfers Don’t Ride Alone: Virtual Communities as Communities. In P. Kollock, & M. Smith (Eds.), Communities and Cyberspace. New York: Routledge.

Williams, D., Ducheneaut, N., Zhang, L., Yee, N., & Nickell, E. (2006). From Tree House to Barracks: The Social Life of Guilds in World of Warcraft. Games & Culture, 1(4), 338-361.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

Did you hear? Word-of-mouth advertising is more effective than traditional advertising

Did you hear? Word-of-mouth advertising is more effective than traditional advertising

Shannon Wells

Curtin University

Abstract

This conference paper explores the relationship between social media influencers and their followers, and how they become a community. It explores how followers are more prone to trust a social media influencers opinion on products or places because of their weak tie. This results in companies using this to their advantage by sending their products to social media influencers for them to post a review to their followers. This is called word-of-mouth advertising and companies do this because it is a cheaper way of getting their products across, and it has a more instant effect. Word-of-mouth advertising is becoming more popular than traditional advertising. Though there are still reasons as to why traditional advertising is still needed and this is due to the companies target audience, and people not having complete access to the internet. This paper uses Emily Davies, a social media influencer from Perth, as an example as to how communities can be online and offline, and how she communicates to her followers. It also uses Davies as an example on how companies use social media influencers to advertise their brands.

key words: Community, Social media influencer, Word-of-mouth advertising, weak ties.

 

Did you hear? Word-of-mouth advertising is more effective than traditional advertising

Introduction

The rise of technology and the Internet has provided a lot of opportunities for companies to advertise their products to a large amount of people (Trusov, Bucklin & Pauwels, 2009, pp. 90). It has also opened up a lot of avenues for people to communicate with others who have the same interests that they do, and this helps form communities (Rice et al, 2004, pp. 4). People can do this on a variety of different social network platforms, some of these being Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, and blogging sites. They are able to access these sites through a range of different technologies, primarily being mobile phones and laptops. Users on these websites can post a range of different things to their friends and followers instantly. Some people choose to use these social media platforms to post their opinions on places they’ve been to, products they’ve tried or brands they’ve bought, and have gained a large number of followers by doing so. This results in these users becoming social media influencers. Companies recognise the influence these users have on their followers and choose to take advantage of this by sending them their products to promote online (Uzunoglu & Misci Kip, 2014, pp. 592.). This is called word-of-mouth advertising and it is becoming more effective than traditional advertising as it reaches people faster, and it has a lower cost (Trusov, Bucklin & Pauwels, 2009, pp. 90). Social network sites help people with similar interest’s form communities online and social media influences help bring these people together, which creates a following. The followers trust the social media influencers opinion and companies take advantage of this by getting them to participate in word-of-mouth advertising, as they know it will reach a large amount of people.

Discussion

Social media influencers are able to form communities through social networks which offer online and offline social ties. Social media influencers are users on social media websites who share their interests to a large number of followers (Freberg et al, 2011, pp. 90). Social media influencers update their social media profiles regularly to inform their followers on what they are doing, what products they’re using, what brands they’re wearing, and what places they like to go to. A community is formed by doing this, the term community branches out from not only solidarity groups of close friends and neighbours, but also social networks of people who don’t live close by (Wellman & Gulia, 1997, pp. 2). Social networks communities are created through social interactions, common interests and experiences, and through a variety of different social networks (Rice et al, 2004, pp. 4). Their followers will see their posts on the places they’ve been to and the products they like, and this usually results in them going out and experiencing or buying the same products. This is where the social media influencer name comes from as followers are being influenced to do buy or do these things. This creates a weak tie between the influencers and the followers. A weak tie is when users choose to follow and trust another person’s opinion even though they might’ve never met or don’t really know each other (Wellman & Gulia, 1997, pp. 8). Though many communities online do connect offline as well, whilst still being able to keep the weak tie in place (Wellman & Gulia, 1997, pp. 13). Communities do this by meeting up with each other to enjoy their specific interests together, for example if the interest was a certain breed of dog, they would all come together in the park to walk their dogs. This keeps the weak tie relationship as they’re only gathering together for one common thing. Users are more likely to trust the opinion of someone they have a weak tie with, then those they have a strong tie with, which is their close circle of friends or family (Wellman & Gulia, 1997, pp. 13). This is because it is exposing them to different opinions and point of views then those that are close to them, who may always have the same ones. This is why users are more attracted to a social media influencers opinion as it is different to the opinions of those in their close circle (Wellman & Gulia, 1997, pp. 13).

An example of a social media influencer who demonstrates a community network is Emily Davies who uses Instagram, Snapchat and YouTube to communicate with her followers. Davies is a fashion blogger who lives in Perth and has 143,000 followers on Instagram (Davies, 2018). Davies offers a weak tie with her followers as she shares with them her opinions on products, places and brands. Davies primarily uses Instagram to post photos of her favourite outfits to show her followers, and to promote the brands she’s wearing (Davies, 2018). Davies uses the Snapchat application on Instagram to inform her followers when she has a new post up, and to also show her viewers all the new clothes she has been sent (Davies, 2018). Davies has also just released her first vlog on YouTube which shows her followers the process she goes through when getting ready for a festival (Davies, 2018). Davies social networks also offers an offline relationship as well as an online one. The social media influencer recently just had her own pop up store at the Little Market Place in Perth where her followers from Perth could come meet her, and buy some of the clothes brands she always promotes. This shows how a weak tie can also be offline, as all her followers came together for one specific interest, and that was her clothes and sense of fashion. Davies also mentions at the end of her vlog that she loves meeting her followers, and that whenever they see her at a festival to come have a chat with her (Davies, 2018). This shows the followers how much she loves and cares for them and will result in her followers always supporting her and maintaining the weak tie.

Companies use social media influencers to promote their brands and they do this through word-of-mouth advertising. Word-of-mouth advertising is when businesses choose specific social media influencers who align with their brand, to promote their products as they know it will reach a large amount of like-minded people (Trusov, Bucklin & Pauwels, 2009, pp. 90). Marketers are turning more towards word-of-mouth advertising as it is proving more effective than traditional advertising (Trusov, Bucklin & Pauwels, 2009, pp. 90). This is because the cost is lower, and the message can be received faster as a post on a social media website can be uploaded instantly (Trusov, Bucklin & Pauwels, 2009, pp. 90). Companies will send their products to social media influencers for free, and the social media influencer will post their views, preferences, or experiences on the product to their followers (Trusov, Bucklin & Pauwels, 2009, pp. 90).  Social media influencers do this by uploading photos, videos, or written posts on their chosen social media platform. These posts contain a tag to the company’s page, or a link to the specific product to make it easier for the followers to buy if they choose to. Companies know that followers will be influenced by these particular posts and will be more likely to buy it because they trust the social media influencers opinion (Uzunoglu & Misci Kip, 2014, pp. 592.). Word-of-mouth advertising is also more attractive because it offers a way to advertise their products in a different and not so obvious way, this is effective because followers don’t feel like the posts are direct advertisements from the company. Companies can do this by holding a competition with a social media influencer, or by even sponsoring their outfit for a day out as they know it will get a lot of attention.

Emily Davies uses Instagram and Snapchat to promote specific beauty and fashions brands. Davies does this by always tagging the clothes brand she is wearing in her Instagram posts, and by presenting the photo in an attractive way to show followers her specific style (Davies, 2018). Davies also uses Instagram’s snapchat application to post photos of the clothes she has been sent fresh out of the package, and always tags the brands that send them to her (Davies, 2018). Davies also uses Instagram’s snapchat application to talk to her followers in a series of Snapchat videos about her thoughts on some of the products she uses and her recommendations (Davies, 2018). The brands she promotes then reuse her photos by either posting it or sharing it to their profile, for their followers to see so it reaches a larger amount of people. Davies will also participate in competitions with specific brands, Davies will post a photo which informs her followers on what they will win and will caption it with what they need do to win it. This usually includes having to follow her, follow the brand and tagging a friend in the comments which are all things that will help the post reach more people. Davies is also being sponsored by a clothing brand who is paying for her trip to Coachella where she will wear the brands clothing for the festival, this will prove to followers her support for that specific brand.

Counter-argument

Traditional advertisements are still an effective way to advertise in society today. This is because not everyone has access to the Internet or have social media accounts where social media influencers could have an impact on them (Tater, 2016). Therefore, their source of advertisements would come from print, television or radio (Tater, 2016). Also depending on what the target audience is, depends on which type of advertising the company chooses to use (Tater, 2016). If the company is going for an older demographic, they would use traditional advertising methods as they know that would be more effective (Tater, 2016). Whereas if the company is advertising to a younger demographic they would use word-of-mouth advertising, as it is more likely they would see or be affected by advertisements on their social media websites (Tater, 2016).

Conclusion

Social media influencers have become the new advertisers for companies. Social media influencers have many followers on their social network sites, and these followers have come to care and trust what they say. This forms a weak tie between the influencer and the follower, which can be online and offline in some cases. Industries recognise the power social media influencers have over their followers and have chosen to use this to their advantage. They do this by sending their products to social media influencers who then write a post or upload a photo or video giving their opinion on the product. This forms a community as there is a whole group of people who are being influenced because they all have the same interests, and want to be using the same products or going to the same places. Emily Davies is a good example of how a community can be formed through common interests, as she has over 140,000 followers on Instagram. These followers participate in an online and offline relationship as Davies communicates with them regularly online, but also offers chances for them to meet her offline. Davies is also a good example of how brands use social media influencers to promote their products. Davies does this by wearing their clothing, uploading a stylistic photo and then tagging the brands so her followers can see and be inspired. The rise of technology and the obsession of social network sites has resulted in word-of-mouth advertising being more effective as users create weak ties with social media influencers who promote a wide range of products and places.

Reference list

Davies, E. (2018, March 19). EM DAVIES GRWM Festival Edition // FIRST EVER VLOG?! // Hidden. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/z2nKAK55vR8

emdavies__. (2018). Emily Davies (Instagram page). Retrieved from https://www.instagram.com/emdavies___/

Freberg, K., Graham, K., McGaughey, K., & Freberg, L. (2011). Who are the social media influencers? A study of public perceptions of personality. Public Relations Review, 37(1), 90-92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.11.001

Goehring, R. (2016). 3 Tips to Encourage Word of Mouth Advertising today. Retrieved from https://rewardstream.com/blog/3-tips-encourage-word-mouth-marketing-today/ 

Rice, R., Katz, J., Acord, S., Dasgupta, K. & David, K. (2004). Personal Mediated Communication and the Concept of Community in Theory and Practice. Annals of the International Communication Association, 28(1), 315-371. DOI: 10.1080/23808985.2004.11679039

Tater, M. (2016). Why Traditional Marketing is Still Effective. Retrieved from https://www.entrepreneurshiplife.com/traditional-marketing-effective/

Trusov, M., Bucklin, R., & Pauwels, K. (2009). Effects of Word-of-Mouth versus Traditional Marketing: Findings from an Internet Social Networking Site. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 90-102. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20619048

Uzunoğlu, E., & Misci Kip, S. (2014). Brand communication through digital influencers: Leveraging blogger engagement. International Journal Of Information Management, 34(5), 592-602. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.04.007

Wellman, B., & Gulia, M. (1999). Net Surfers Don’t Ride Alone: Virtual Communities as Communities. In P. Kollock, & M. Smith (Eds.), Communities and Cyberspace. New York: Routledge.

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

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

Abstract 

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

Keywords

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

Introduction

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

‘Facebook Official’: Dating Online

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

 

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

 

The potential benefits of virtual communities on Facebook for Indigenous Australian youth

­Abstract

Virtual communities on Facebook have several potential benefits for young Indigenous Australians. These communities may help to reinforce young Indigenous Australians’ identities, foster new community ties and strengthen existing ones, and improve educational practices and opportunities. This paper first discusses virtual communities on Facebook and the use of Facebook by Indigenous Australians. It then examines each of the potential benefits listed above drawing on peer-reviewed studies and the popular Indigenous Facebook group, Blackfulla Revolution. Lastly, it describes the limitations of the resources used and proposes areas of study that may be beneficial in future research. 

Introduction

The true meaning of “community” has long been disputed amongst academics and theorists, and a clear definition of the word has yet to be agreed upon (Katz, Rice, Acord, Dasgupta & David, 2004, p. 304). The Internet, which allows people from all over the globe to connect with one another, has made finding a widely accepted definition even more challenging. Katz et al. (2004) describe the difference between a physical community, a “population group defined by the space that it occupies” (Park, as cited in Katz et al., 2004, p. 311), and a virtual community, characterized by “intimate secondary relationships, specialized relationships, weaker ties, and homogeneity by interest” (Wellman & Gulia, as cited in Katz et al., 2004, p. 313). While the focus of this paper will be on virtual communities, it is important to note that physical and virtual communities are not mutually exclusive – members of a virtual community may also share a physical space and vice versa. Ridings & Gefen (2006) provide a more comprehensive definition of virtual communities: “people with shared interests or goals for whom electronic communication is a primary form of interaction” (para. 5). Using this definition as a framework, this paper will explore the potential benefits of virtual communities on Facebook for Indigenous Australian youth. These benefits include the reinforcement of Indigenous identity, the building and strengthening of community ties, and improvements in education.

Indigenous Australians and Facebook

Facebook is a social networking service that allows users to create their own profile, link to other profiles by adding “friends” and/or joining groups, post and share content (e.g. photos, videos, text posts, links, etc.), organise events, subscribe to (i.e. “like”) public pages, and more. Facebook is currently the most popular social networking service in the world (Statista, 2018), with roughly 1.45 billion daily active users in March 2018 (Facebook Newsroom, 2018, para. 3). Its core functionality is its users’ ability to connect with “friends” and belong to groups of people with which they have something in common (Lumby, 2010, p. 68). Community is therefore integral to Facebook. Facebook also enables several types of communities. It may help to form new communities of people with similar interests, values and/or goals that otherwise may never have had the opportunity to meet, or it may strengthen communities that already exist offline (Rice, Haynes, Royce & Thompson, 2016, pp. 10-11). The functionality and wide, frequent usage of Facebook make it a useful tool with which to examine the potential benefits of virtual communities.

 Rice et al. (2016) state that despite the “economic, social, cultural and geographic factors” that may limit their access, Indigenous Australians have been using the Internet and social media since its early introduction in Australia (p. 2). Furthermore, since mobile phones have facilitated Internet access, the use of social media as a communication tool by Indigenous Australians has become increasingly widespread (Rice et al, 2016, p. 3). In fact, studies have found that Indigenous Australians are over-represented as users of Facebook; 73% of Indigenous Australians actively used Facebook in 2015, compared to only 62% of the general Australian population (Dreher, McCallum & Waller, 2016, p. 29). Across the board, adolescents and young adults are known to be the primary users of social media (Rice et al., 2016, p. 2). This coupled with the fact that young Indigenous Australians face a unique set of challenges – for example, poor standards of education (Townsend, 2015, p. 2) – is the reason for the focus on Indigenous Australian youth in this paper. 

Indigenous Identity

 It has been suggested that the Internet may provide a path for Indigenous people to create “richer representations” of themselves, speak up for themselves, and publish their own stories in a place where participation is not limited (Christie, as cited in Lumby, 2010, p. 70). Being a part of a virtual community, particularly one on Facebook, helps young Indigenous Australians to understand, construct and express their identities. In her study of urban Indigenous identity on Facebook, Lumby (2010) describes how several Indigenous Australian Facebook groups encourage their users to share their art, music, ideas or “anything [they] are proud of” (p. 70). She suggests that this kind of encouragement allows young Indigenous Australians to build a stronger sense of identity and “perform” it to others in these groups (Lumby, 2010, p. 70). The concept of “performing” Indigenous identity on social media has been a popular subject of research in recent years. Carlson (2016) notes that in her research on Aboriginal identity, community and social media, several of her participants stated that they “visually express” their Indigeneity to others through their Facebook profiles, posts and networks; one participant stated that her profile, photos, groups and friends on Facebook “all highlight [her] Aboriginality” (p. 255). Rice et al. (2016) argue that performing their identity to others in Indigenous-specific Facebook groups may help young Indigenous Australians to further define and affirm that identity (pp. 4-10). It seems, then, that virtual communities on Facebook may aid Indigenous Australian youth by allowing them to explore and embrace their Indigeneity.

It has been suggested that the importance that young Indigenous Australians place on representing their cultural identity online may also have negative implications, particularly for those who do not “look” Indigenous. For example, Carlson (2016) notes that “a significant number” of participants in her research reported being challenged and/or mocked for claiming to be Indigenous online, and some admitted to “fabricating aspects of cultural knowledge” so as to be accepted in online communities (p. 256). Similarly, Lumby (2010) posits that Facebook can act as a “restraining force that regulates who can and who cannot be Indigenous”, but also notes that this kind of “surveillance” of Indigeneity regularly occurs among Indigenous Australians in the offline world too (pp. 71-73). This suggests that the issue of identity surveillance is not limited to or a result of social media.

Nevertheless, the impact of virtual communities, particularly those on Facebook, on Indigenous identity are generally positive. Rice et al. (2016) point out that a “strong cultural identity” has known positive outcomes for young Indigenous Australians, including greater participation and achievement in education and improved mental health (p. 13). Furthermore, it has been argued that all “authentic” Indigenous websites (i.e. websites run for and by Indigenous people) reaffirm Indigenous identity and assert “the right of Indigenous peoples to survive” (Dyson, 2011, p. 259). It could therefore be argued that all Facebook groups, pages and profiles run by Indigenous Australians are, in themselves, reaffirmations of Indigenous identity and assertions of the right of Indigenous Australian people to live and thrive.

Community Ties

As mentioned earlier, communities on Facebook, such as groups and pages, can help foster new community ties between people who may never otherwise have met offline or strengthen ties within existing communities and networks (Rice et al., 2016, pp. 10-11). This is particularly important for Indigenous Australians, who are more likely than other Australians to live in remote or very remote communities (Rice et al. 2016, p. 10), and who are often forced to leave their original territories to seek education and/or jobs (Dyson, 2011, p. 260).

Creating New Community Ties

Dyson (2011) notes how the Internet and social media play a crucial role in helping to “reconnect the Indigenous diaspora” (p. 260). She uses the example of the Indigenous Canadian Wendat Nation, who after being widely dispersed from their original home in the 17th century, now use discussion groups on Yahoo to talk about a range of topics including identity, culture, language, planned gatherings and the reacquisition of their original territory (Dyson, 2011, p. 260). There are several Facebook groups and pages designed for Indigenous people all over Australia to connect over similar issues to those discussed by the Wendat people. For example, the popular Indigenous Blackfulla Revolution Facebook page lists their interests as: “culture, dreamtime spirituality, first nations and dialects, history, self-determination, empowerment and advancement, and awareness and education” (Blackfulla Revolution, n.d.). The page has over 170,000 likes and followers, and regularly shares Indigenous news stories, articles about issues faced by Indigenous Australians, stories of achievement by Indigenous Australians, local event details, and links to language, health, and funding resources (Blackfulla Revolution, n.d.). These posts are liked, commented on and shared by sometimes thousands of people – many of them young Indigenous Australians (Blackfulla Revolution, n.d.). Facebook groups and pages such as Blackfulla Revolution may help young Indigenous Australians gain a greater sense of connection and belonging by allowing them to discuss issues that are important to them with others who understand and share their perspective.

Strengthening Existing Community Ties

It has been noted that social networking sites – Facebook in particular, which allows users to share a wide range of content – have gained popularity among young Indigenous Australians, largely because these sites allow them to keep up with their family and friends, especially those with whom they have lost touch after moving away from home (Rice et al., 2016, p. 11). In fact, 92% of participants in a survey of mostly young Indigenous Australians by Carlson (2016) claimed to use social media to “connect with Aboriginal family and friends across distances” (p. 257). Many also suggested that they engage in online activities with friends and family just as they do offline, such as sharing photos and updates, talking about family trees, and speaking in a shared language (Carlson, 2016, p. 257). This suggests that as well as allowing disconnected friends and family to keep in touch, Facebook enables already close friends and family members to maintain and strengthen their relationships. This increased connectivity with members of their existing social networks gives young Indigenous Australians a sense of support, which may help to improve their mental health and overall wellbeing (Rice et al., 2016, p.11).

Education

The rates of educational participation and completion among Indigenous Australians compared to the wider Australian population are very low. Rice et al. (2016) notes that 25% of Indigenous people aged 15 and over report Year 12 or equivalent as their highest level of education, compared to 52% of the non-Indigenous population (p. 2). Furthermore, of those Indigenous Australians who do enrol in higher education, only 41-65% complete their studies (Townsend, 2015, p. 2). Such low levels of education have been identified as a key factor in poor employment rates of Indigenous Australians. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2014) claims that over 80% of the difference in employment rates between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians – which are around 44% and 72% respectively – can be attributed to differences in education (para. 4-5).

Education-based Facebook groups provide several opportunities for Indigenous Australian students – particularly for those living in remote areas who may have less access to educational facilities than those in metropolitan or inner regional areas. A study by Townsend (2015) of Indigenous pre-service teachers in remote communities reveals some major benefits of mobile learning, which involves the use of Facebook groups to connect students with their peers and teachers. Firstly, participants could give and receive academic support by connecting with each other and with staff for help with their studies outside the classroom (Townsend, 2015, p. 11). One participant claimed that he and his peers had “integrated through Facebook”, and that if they were struggling with assignments, they could reach out to each other for help (Townsend, 2015, p. 11). Participants also reported using Facebook groups to offer each other personal encouragement and develop support networks with their peers (Townsend, 2015, p. 12). Townsend (2015) notes that having the opportunity to connect with their peers and teachers online helps pre-service teachers to better engage with their studies – moreover, he argues that this increased engagement may lead to higher completion of teaching degrees among Indigenous Australians living in remote areas, which may lead to more qualified teachers and therefore improved education for future Indigenous students (p. 19). While this last point is mostly theorizing, there is evidence of the positive impact of Facebook groups on school results among non-Indigenous students. For example, a study by Chen (in press) found that students who participated in a school Facebook group achieved “significantly higher” grades than those who did not (p. 5). Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that Facebook groups may also lead to higher results among Indigenous students – especially those in remote areas, for whom online communication with peers and teachers is vital.

Limitations

There are a number of limitations to the main studies and texts referenced in this paper, including:

Limited samples. The studies by Townsend (2015) and Lumby (2010) have very small sample sizes – 28 and 26 participants respectively. There is also little diversity among participants in these studies: Townsend’s (2015) study included only Indigenous Australian pre-service teachers in remote areas of Queensland, and Lumby’s (2010) study included only current or graduated Indigenous Australian university students with Facebook accounts.

Outdated information. Information cited from both Dyson (2011) and Lumby (2010) is somewhat outdated, as these texts were written seven and eight years ago respectively. Many sources referenced in each of these texts are even older (i.e. early-to-mid 2000s).

Ambiguity. There is some ambiguity in Carlson’s (2016) text, as she draws her information from one of her “recent” studies and several of her previous studies. These are sometimes not distinguished and of which the dates, aims and samples are often not specified.

Unpublished literature. Rice et al.’s (2016) literature review includes “grey literature” – academic literature that has not been formally published (p. 3).

Conclusion

Facebook is an extremely popular social networking service that allows its users to connect with others and build virtual communities. Despite several factors that may restrict their access to the Internet and social media, Indigenous Australians are heavy users of Facebook. Belonging to virtual communities on Facebook has several potential benefits for young Indigenous Australians in particular, who face their own unique set of challenges, such as poor standards of education. Facebook enables them to explore, express and reaffirm their Indigenous identity by “performing” their Indigeneity to others in Indigenous-specific groups and in their own networks. Facebook also allows young Indigenous Australians to create new community ties – often through joining Indigenous-specific groups – and strengthen existing ones. This is particularly important for young Indigenous Australians who live in remote areas or who have lost touch with friends and family after moving away from home. Education-based Facebook groups aid young Indigenous Australian students by allowing them to connect with their peers and teachers for academic support and personal encouragement. This may increase their engagement in their studies and eventually lead to improved standards of education for Indigenous students, which are currently very poor. While there is a significant amount of research on Indigenous Australians and virtual communities on social media, much of this research is limited due to small and narrow samples, outdated information, ambiguity and the inclusion of unpublished literature. Future studies would benefit from larger and more diverse samples, the use of more recent data, greater specificity in research aims and sample details, and stricter regulations on the kinds of literature cited in reviews and discussions.

References

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2014, February 28). What works to improve education and employment outcomes for Indigenous Australians? [Press release]. Retrieved from https://search-informit-com-au.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/fullText;dn=085566734433385;res=IELAPA

Blackfulla Revolution. (n.d.). In Facebook [News & Media Page]. Retrieved April 2, 2018, from https://www.facebook.com/ourcountryourchoice/

Carlson, B. (2016). The politics of identity: Who counts as Aboriginal today? Canberra, ACT: Aboriginal Studies Press.

Chen, M. (in press). Students’ perceptions of the educational usage of a Facebook group. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism. https://doi.org/10.1080/15313220.2018.1434448

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

Dyson, L. (2011). Indigenous peoples on the Internet. In M. Consalvo & C. Ess (Eds.), The handbook of Internet studies (pp. 251-269). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.

Facebook Newsroom. (2018). Company Info. Retrieved from https://newsroom.fb.com/company-info/

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.

Lumby, B. L. (2010). Cyber-Indigeneity: Urban Indigenous identity on Facebook. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 39, 68-75. Retrieved from http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2271&context=artspapers

Rice, E.S., Haynes, E., Royce, P., & Thompson, S.C. (2016). Social media and digital technology use among Indigenous young people in Australia: A literature review. International Journal for Equity in Health, 15(81), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-016-0366-0

Ridings, C.M. & Gefen, D. (2006). Virtual community attraction: Why people hang out online. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2004.tb00229.x

Statista. (2018). Most popular social networks worldwide as of April 2018, ranked by number of active users (in millions). Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/.

Townsend, P.B. (2015). Mob learning – digital communities for remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tertiary students. Journal of Economic and Social Policy, 17(2), 1-23. Retrieved from https://epubs.scu.edu.au/jesp/vol17/iss2/2

 

 

 

 

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

Posted on 04/05/2018 By Joanne Liew

Abstract

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

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

 

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

 

Background of Social Media with the Celebrities

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

 

Parasocial Relationship

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

Community

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

 

Weak Ties and ‘Friends’ Online

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

 

Conclusion

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

References

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

379. Retrieved from:

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

endorsement effectiveness on microblogging platforms. Nankai Business Review

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

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

accountid=10382

 

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

Selena Gomez is all of us. Retrieved from

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

 

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

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

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

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

d.

 

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

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

Technology. (2008, April). Retrieved from

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

 


The work by Joanne Liew is under the license of

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

PDF Download