Tag: Facebook

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)

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.

Communities Embracing and Adapting to the Web 2.0 through Facebook

Abstract

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

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

 

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

 

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

            The Welcoming of User Connection

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

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

            Sense of Community in the Digital Era

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

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

            Representations of the Internet User

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

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

            Communities adapting to Web 2.0

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

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

Conclusions and Future Study

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

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

 

  References

Aguiton, C., & Cardon, D. (2007). The Strength of Weak Cooperation: An Attempt to Understand the Meaning of Web 2.0. Communications & Strategies, 65(1), 51 – 65

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Communities Adapting to the Web 2.0 Through Facebook (PDF)

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

Location’s Place in a Web 2.0 World

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

Abstract

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

Keywords

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

Introduction

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

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

Web 2.0 Online Communities

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

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

The Advent of the Smartphone & Location-Based Social Networking

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

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

The Importance of Location on Snapchat

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

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

Figure 1

Figure 2

Online Communities & Facebook Marketplace

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

Pokémon GO & the Implications of Location Sharing

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

Conclusion

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download Conference Paper as PDF

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

Indigenous Australians and social networking: Post-colonial challenges and innovative digital practice

Author:  Bec Allen

Bec Allen’s work has predominantly been with Indigenous Australian young people in the development of Kimberley-based film and photography projects. Bec is currently studying her Master of Internet Communications online from the remote town of Kununurra, the home of the Miriuwung and Gajerrong people. Her paper presents some of the challenges that Indigenous Australians face when using social networking sites as well as the innovative digital practice that comes as a result.

Abstract

The Internet is shaped by the values of post-colonial culture.  This cultural hegemony is woven through legacy media forms such as film, television and print news, and informs the political landscape of modern Australia.  Despite Web 2.0’s potential for a digital democracy that might transcend society’s economic, political and cultural boundaries, equal participation in online communities is not afforded to all members of society. This paper will argue that Social Networking Sites (SNSs) can reinforce the marginalisation of Indigenous Australians and challenge cultural protocols.  It will also show that, despite these barriers to participation, the up-take of SNSs by Indigenous Australians, and FaceBook in particular, is increasing rapidly.  Indigenous Australian users are capitalising on the open and flexible nature of SNSs to produce innovative digital practices that facilitate kinship and connectivity and address the lack of political listening.

Keywords: social networking sites, Indigenous Australians, online communities, Facebook

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International

Indigenous Australians and social networking: Post-colonial challenges and innovative digital practice

The engineering of positive representations of non-Indigenous Australians of European descent in the Australian mainstream media reflects the dominant, post-colonial value systems that underpin modern Australian life. These values are woven through legacy media forms such as film, television and print news and inform the “economic and cultural policy” of modern Australia (Williams, 2004, p. 739).  The Internet, as a global, mass archive of knowledge and social practice, is laden with a post-colonial value system which Brabazon (2001) describes as “invisible” and a “structuring grammar for social truths” (p. 3).  Similarly, Duarte and Belarde-Lewis (2015) emphasise that “how we structure our knowledge shapes who, what, and how we can know” (p. 684).  SNSs, and FaceBook more specifically, are often celebrated as spaces for cultural expression and collective empowerment (Jarrett, 2008). However, scholarship into the field of online networked communities identifies that not all sectors of society have equal access and participation in this space. Once a promoter of Web 2.0 as an agent of democratisation, Henry Jenkins (2014) shifts his perspective to advocate for a systematic broadening of participation and to “push back” against corporatisation and government control of the Internet (p. 290). Despite the potential for SNSs to transcend economic, political and cultural boundaries, for Indigenous Australian users, post-colonial ways of presenting and managing knowledge continue to present challenges in the online world. This paper will begin by providing context to the Indigenous Australian experience in modern Australia and the ways in which this intersects with access to the Internet. It will then discuss the many forces at play within SNSs and some of challenges faced by Indigenous Australian users when participating in these online communities, specifically in the areas of social capital and identity and intellectual property and cultural protocols. Finally, it will show that the up-take of SNSs by Indigenous Australians, and FaceBook in particular, is increasing rapidly, with users capitalising on the open and flexible nature of this online community to produce innovative digital practices that facilitate kinship and connectivity and address the lack of political listening.

Australia’s turbulent history of colonialism and the subsequent inequity that plays out in the ‘gap’ between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians is well documented.  Current studies show that Indigenous Australians can expect to live 10 years less than non-Indigenous Australians (Life expectancy & deaths, 2017), with inequity manifesting in areas of health, education, politics, housing, employment and media messaging.  A decade on from the implementation of the “Closing the Gap” policy, Bunuba Elder and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, June Oscar indicates that the life expectancy gap has in fact widened and that the policy has been “all but abandoned” (Oscar as cited in Lane, 2018).  Additionally, parity of access to the Internet is an area of research highlighting that Indigenous people in remote Australia have slower Internet connections, less infrastructure and a lack of training in Internet usage (McCallum and Papandrea, 2009, p. 1233) compared to their non-Indigenous counterparts. Although commentators often position the Internet as a catalyst for positive social change which puts users in control of the technology and the message, (Wellman and Gulia, 1999, p. 2) this perspective overlooks which sectors of society are excluded and how code is controlled. Noble (2018) challenges John Perry Barlow’s influential manifesto, “The Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace” where he envisioned the Internet as a world that “all may enter without privilege or prejudice” (Barlow, 1996 as cited in Noble, 2018, p. 61). Noble argues that scholars are countering early commentators, such as Barlow (and even Jenkins), who pushed “utopian ideals associated with the rise of the Internet and its ability to free us” (p. 61).  Importantly, Noble emphasises the significant control that the engineers of the Internet have “over the mechanics of sense making” (p. 60) when we are participating in online communities.  Similarly, Arnstein (1969) warned that without the relocation of power and the access to knowledge about its workings, the dominant hegemonies will continue to advocate that all people are considered, all the while preserving the status quo (p. 216).  The Internet is complex archive of knowledge and social practice; however, it is evident that members of marginalised communities can experience the same challenges that they confront in the offline world.

Social Capital and Identity

SNSs such as FaceBook are participatory, online communities that facilitate the formation, development and maintenance of social capital and identity (Ellison, Steinfield, Lampe, 2007, p. 1). Social capital is defined as the “tangible assets…namely goodwill, fellowship, sympathy, and social intercourse” (Hanifan, 1916 as cited in Brian, 2007, p. 102) that are generated by human interactions. Facebook’s 10.82 million Australian users (“Number of Facebook users in Australia”, 2018) are participants in an “attention economy”, which encourages an assemblage of “self-presentation” techniques to entice other users, mainly through the disclosure of personal information and insights (Marwick, 2015, p. 138). boyd (2006) points out that SNSs are performative by their nature and exist in an egocentric realm of “context collapse” (p.1) where identity can be adapted for the benefit of accumulating “friends” and building the social network.  A study by Carlson (2013) finds that Indigenous Australians are using FaceBook as a vigorous means of strengthening social capital within their own communities and to represent their Aboriginality to other users and groups (p. 147-148).  Significantly, users are “Aboriginalising” their profile pages to proudly demonstrate their identity (p. 149). Carlson also notes that research into the area of “disembodied space” (like boyd’s notion of “context collapse”) cannot necessarily be applied to Indigenous Australian FaceBook users, where it is evident that “Aboriginal people embody rather that disembody their identity and social engagements” (p.148).  While it is evident that there is a strong element of self-determination in the act of resisting censorship of identity, there are also risks associated with the embodiment of Aboriginality while engaging in the Facebook community. Social commentator and activist, Celeste Liddle is an Arrernte woman who represents herself by the social media handle, “@blackfeministranter”.  Liddle uses FaceBook to discuss political issues and the ways these intersect with Indigenous identity in contemporary Australia.  A challenge faced by Liddle and many other Indigenous Australians is “platformed racism”, defined by Matamoros-Fernandez (2017) as “a new form of racism derived from the culture of social media platforms ‒ their design, technical affordances, business models and policies ‒ and the specific cultures of use associated with them” (p. 930).  Matamoros-Fernandez discuss Liddle’s open criticism of Facebook’s community standards after she shared an image of two Aboriginal women, bare-chested, participating in traditional ceremony. She was subsequently banned for publishing the image that was deemed sexually explicit, with Facebook indicating that such content infringed their policy and could “culturally offend” some users (p. 931).  Liddle reflects on the experience of being “trolled” by “a group of narrow-minded little white men” which she believes ultimately led to the ban.  She raises concerns about response by the” trolls” and the platform which “took great offence at Aboriginal women… not only inhabiting their bodies in a way that showed no shame… but also undertaking culture within a country which has continually tried to stop them from doing so” (Liddle, 2016).

Intellectual Property and Cultural Protocols

Facebook engineers the interpersonal connections of 2.2 billion active monthly users (“Number of monthly active Facebook users”, 2018).  It is these connections, and the personal data that was harvested from its users and distributed to advertisers, that generated Facebook’s $12 billion in the first quarter of 2018 (Solon, 2018).  Benedict Anderson argued that the “convergence of capitalism and print technology…created a new form of imagined community” (1991, p. 29). Certainly, the commercial foundations of Facebook where the act of sharing intellectual property (IP) in the form of written text and images is rewarded with “public approval, attention and recognition” (Malik, Dhir and Nieminen, 2015, p. 130) is testament to Anderson’s assertions.  For Indigenous Australians, Lumby (2010) points out that “Facebook provides possibilities for extending community, for establishing connectedness and cultural belonging, through networking aspects of pre-contact culture, language, the sharing of practiced rituals, information about kin or mobs that may have been lost, photographs, stories and so on” (p. 69).  However, there are community concerns around IP being shared, copied and remixed on the Internet which can contest important spiritual and custodial obligations (Dyson, 2011. p. 257).  Christie (2001) highlights that the Yolngu people of Arnhem Land view certain knowledge around land, language and ceremony as sacred.  Although Yolngu can share specific knowledge about their own IP, they are obliged to be mindful about sharing the IP of others (p.36).   Further, Christie argues that “this is very different from the western notion of knowledge, which is represented as abstract, universal, value free, not belonging to anyone in particular” (p. 36).  Notably, Facebook’s Data Policy shows that public posts may be downloaded, re-shared and seen by anyone through search engines, apps and even offline media forms such as television (“Data Policy”, 2018). Carlson and Frazer’s (2015) research looks specifically at Sorry Business (cultural observances surrounding the death of a community member) and the ways in which FaceBook has become a space for Indigenous Australians to grieve and strengthen kinship during this cultural practice.  In their study, though, Indigenous Australians expressed significant concern about the use of FaceBook during Sorry Business as the lack of control over images of the deceased can cause distress to community members (p. 215).  Facebook’s ability to memorialise the accounts of deceased users may be a useful point of remembrance for some family members. However, to have the account of a deceased family member removed may prove challenging for some Indigenous Australians. As of 2016, one in five Aboriginal births were unregistered in Western Australia (Gaffney, 2016).  Facebook’s policy for having accounts removed requires proof of identity, such as a birth certificate or will (“Memorialized Accounts, 2018) and without this kind of legal documentation, the profile of the deceased potentially remains visible, active and ultimately becomes known as “Sorry Pages” (Korff, 2017).

Kinship and Connectivity

Recent research into the use of Facebook by Indigenous Australians indicates that while many users face challenges, this is not preventing them from joining online communities.  SNS use by Indigenous Australians is “20 percent higher than the national average” and over 60 percent of the population in remote communities are active users of Facebook (Carlson and Frazer, 2015, p. 215).  Despite the issues that most Indigenous users are confronted with while online, Facebook has become a “modern site for kinship connectivity and community” and (Lumby, 2010, p. 70) can preserve cultural knowledge, grow resilience and assist in the building of social capital (Molyneaux, O’Donnell, Kakekaspan, Walmark, Budka and Gibson, 2012, p. 3-4).  Rice, Haynes, Royce and Thompson (2016) found that Indigenous Australian young people use SNS to preserve cultural identity and strengthen kinship connections to family members and their broader communities. They also found that these connections enhanced health and educational outcomes.  The notion of “hidden transcripts”, a concept coined by anthropologist, James C. Scott, describes tactics of resistance that marginalised communities employ when in public life.  The deployment of “hidden transcripts” to communicate and maintain connectivity on Facebook illustrates how Indigenous dissent can materialise online.  Users “improvise, interpret, bend and negotiate” their online experiences (Soriano, 2011, p. 2), using cultural nuances to protect knowledge from wider public consumption. For example, the FaceBook pages, “Noongars Be Like” and “Kooris be Like” build and maintain social capital and kinship connection through memes and colloquialisms which require cultural and contextual understanding for users to participate meaningfully in the online community. Soriano (2011) further explains that this form of resistance is designed to push back against the dominant hegemony and is visible only to those with membership to the subordinate group (p. 3).    This kind innovative practice is permeating through FaceBook despite the constraints that post-colonial value structures present to many Indigenous Australians.

The Politics of Listening

The representation and debate of Indigenous affairs has traditionally been restricted to legacy media forms such as film, television and print news. The affordances of SNS have facilitated an “open journalism” movement that has mediated a diverse range of perspectives in the conversation around complex issues such as Aboriginal land rights and constitutional recognition (Ingram, 2016). In response to the mediatisation of Australian life, Indigenous Australian Facebook users are using “guerrilla tactics to create alternative spaces of meaning, memory and identity” (Brabazon, 2001) and to produce innovative digital resistance against oppressive government policies. The #Sosblakaustralia movement grew out of a “grass-roots” response to the proposed government closure of Indigenous communities in remote Western Australia. Women from the Kimberley desert community of Wangkatjungka used FaceBook to campaign against the policy and to draw attention to the injustices faced by Indigenous Australians. The movement generated international attention and verified that Facebook could be used as a tool for self-determination and activism (Carlson and Frazer, 2016, p.1). The campaign was largely omitted from the Australian mainstream media news cycle, however an offline protest in Melbourne gained attention when it featured on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald with the headline, “Selfish Rabble Shut City” (2015).  Despite the attention and protest that was generated by the women of Wangkatjungka, Dreher, McCallum and Waller (2016) find that Indigenous voices are consistently challenged by the volume of content that is generated on SNS which ultimately affects their ability to be heard (p. 28).  Dreher et al points to the “politics of listening” as an essential part of an “ensemble of practices that are as necessary for democratic communications as ‘voice’ or speaking” (p. 27).  For meaningful engagement with Indigenous affairs to occur, a focus on listening rather than speaking will move the emphasis from those who are subjugated to those who dominate the political conversation (p. 28). #Sosblakaustralia remains a strong example of Indigenous Australians using Facebook to challenge the mediatisation of Indigenous issues and to enhance offline activism (Petray, 2001, p. 925). While the rigours of a new form of “open” media has birthed collective action by Indigenous Australians, the need for long-term political transformation beyond the short-term collective disruption of protest remains a critical issue (McCallum, 2016, p. 38).

Conclusions:  Growth despite challenges

This paper has addressed the challenges that Indigenous Australians face when using SNSs. The Australian mainstream media reinforces the dominant, post-colonial value systems that permeate through modern Australian life. These hegemonic frames are also embedded within our social network.  Aitchison rightfully argues that “technology is embedded within social relations of hierarchy and control” (2013, p.2). SNSs are often heralded as a democratiser of knowledge, however, this paper has demonstrated that not all sectors of society have equal access and participation in this space. Indigenous Australians are often excluded due to the lack of infrastructure, training, literacy and conflict with the dominant social paradigms that work against cultural protocols. But Web 2.0 is providing Indigenous Australians with a platform to enhance the exploration of Aboriginality and a vehicle to bypass and challenge the gatekeepers of legacy media. Notably, the Indigenous media sector in Australia is growing exponentially in reaction to misrepresentation and the desire for self-determination (Meadows and Molnar, 2010, p.19). Indigenous Australians continue to join Facebook and use the platform to enhance self-determination and produce innovative digital resistance, both online and offline.

Banner image CCO Creative Commons

References

Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism.   Retrieved from https://sisphd.wikispaces.com/file/view/Benedict_Anderson_Imagined_Communities.pdf

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

Aitchison, G. (2013, April 22). How capitalism is turning the internet against democracy, and how to turn it back. Open Democracy. Retrieved from: https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1332313296?rfr_id=info%3Axri%2Fsid%3Aprimo

Arnstein, S. (1969). A Ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35 (4). 216-224.             https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225

boyd, d. (2006). Friends, Friendsters and Top 8: Writing Community into Being on Social Network Sites. First Monday,             12(4). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1418/1336

Brabazon, T. (2001), How imagined are virtual communities? Retrieved from:  http://motspluriels.arts.uwa.edu.au/MP1801tb2.html

Brian, K. (2007).  OECD Insights Human Capital How what you know shapes your life: How what you know shapes your     life. Massachusetts: OECD Publishing.

Carlson, B. (2013). The ‘new frontier’: Emergent Indigenous identities and social media. In M. Harris, M. Nakata & B.             Carlson (Eds.), The Politics of Identity: Emerging Indigeneity (pp. 147-168). Sydney: University of Technology             Sydney E-Press.

Carlson, B. & Frazer, R. (2015).  “It’s like going to a cemetery and lighting a candle”: Aboriginal Australians, sorry             business and social media. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 11(3), 211-224. http://ro.uow.edu.au/lhapapers/2410/

Carlson, B. & Frazer, R. (2016).  Indigenous activism and social media: a global response to #SOSBLAKAUSTRALIA.In A. McCosker, S. Vivienne & A. Johns (Eds.), Negotiating Digital Citizenship: Control, Contest and Culture             (pp. 115-130). London: Rowman and Littlefield International.

Christie, M. (2001). Aboriginal Knowledge on the Internet. A Journal of Australian Indigenous Issues. 19, 33-50. https://search-informit-com-au.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/fullText;dn=995871709795240;res=IELIND

Data Policy. (2018).  Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/about/privacy/update

Dreher, T., McCallum, K. & Waller, L. (2016). Indigenous voices and mediatized policy-making in the digital age. Information, Communication and Society 19(1). 23 – 39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1093534

Duarte, M. E. & Belarde-Lewis, M. (2015). Imagining: Creating spaces for indigenous ontologies. Cataloguing and Classification Quarterly 53(5-6), 677-702. DOI: 10.1080/01639374.2015.1018396

Dyson, L. (2011) Indigenous Peoples on the Internet. In M. Consalvo & C. Ess The Handbook of Internet Studies. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Ellison, N.B., Steinfield, C. & Lampe, C. (2007). The Benefits of Facebook “Friends:” Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12 (4), 1143–1168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x

Gaffney, D. (2016). No identity: one in five Aboriginal births unregistered in WA.  Retrieved from             https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2016/07/04/no-identity–one-in-five-aboriginal-births-unregistered-in-wa.html

Ingram, J. (2016). Do the Guardian’s Losses Mean Its “Open Journalism” Has Failed? Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2016/02/03/guardian-losses/

Jarrett, K. (2008). Interactivity is evil!  A critical investigation of Web 2.0. First Monday, 13(3).       http://firstmonday.org/article/view/2140/1947

Jenkins, H. (2013). Rethinking ‘Rethinking Convergence/Culture’. Cultural Studies, 28:2, 267-297.             DOI:10.1080/09502386.2013.801579

Korff, J. (2017). Aboriginal use of social media.  Retrieved from             https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/media/aboriginal-use-of-social-media

Lane, S. (Producer).(2018, February 8). Closing the Gap outcomes disappointing but not hopeless: Commissioner [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/am/closing-the-gap-policies-all-but-abandoned:- june-oscar/9407342

Liddle, C. (2016). Looking Past White Australia And White Feminism. Retrieved from              https://newmatilda.com/2016/03/09/looking-past-white-australia-and-white-feminism/

Life expectancy & deaths. (2017). Australia, Australian Institute of health and Welfare. Retrieved from             https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports-statistics/health-conditions-disability-deaths/life-expectancy-deaths/overview

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

Malik, A., Dhir, A., & Nieminen, M. (2015). Uses and Gratifications of Digital Photo Sharing on Facebook. Telematics and Informatics. 33 (1), 129-138. DOI:10.1016/j.tele.2015.06.009

Marwick, A. (2015). Instafame: Luxury Selfies in the Attention Economy. Public Culture, 27(175), p.137 – 160. DOI:             10.1215/08992363-2798379

Matamoros-Fernández, A. (2017) Platformed racism: the mediation and circulation of an Australian race-based controversy on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube.  Information, Communication & Society, 20 (6), 930-946, DOI:     10.1080/1369118X.2017.1293130

McCallum, K. & Papandrea, F. (2009).  Community business: The internet in remote Australian Indigenous communities.    New Media & Society, 11(7), 1230-1251.  DOI: 10.1177/1461444809342059

Meadows, M. & Molnar, H. (2010). Bridging the Gaps: Towards a history of Indigenous media in Australia. Media History, 8(1), 9-20. DOI: 10.1080/13688800220134473

Memorialized Accounts. (2018).  Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/help/1506822589577997

Molyneaux, H., O’Donnell, S., Kakekaspan, C., Walmark, B., Budka, P., & Gibson, K. (2012) Community  Resilience and Social Media: Remote and Rural First Nations Communities, Social Isolation and Cultural             Preservation. Paper for the 2012 International Rural Network Forum, Whyalla and Upper Spencer Gulf, Australia,         24-28 September. http://meeting.knet.ca/mp19/file.php/16/Publications/2012-            Community_Resilience_and_Social_Media.pdf

Noble, S.U. (2018).  Algorithms of Oppression.: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. USA: New York University Press

Number of Facebook users in Australia from 2015 to 2022. (2018). Retrieved from             https://www.statista.com/statistics/304862/number-of-facebook-users-in-australia/

Number of monthly active Facebook users worldwide as of 4th quarter 2017 (in millions). (2018).  Retrieved from             https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/

Petray, T. L. (2011). Protest 2.0: online interactions and Aboriginal activists. Media Culture & Society, 33(6), 923-940. DOI: 10.1177/0163443711411009

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

“Selfish Rabble Shut City” (2015).  Sydney Morning Herald.

Solon, O. (2018). Facebook posts record revenues for first quarter despite privacy scandal.  Retrieved from             https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/25/facebook-first-quarter-2018-revenues-zuckerberg

Soriano, C. R. (2011). The arts of indigenous online dissent: Negotiating technology, indigeneity, and activism in the Cordillera. Telematics and Informatics. DOI: 10.1016/j.tele.2011.04.004

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, M. (2004). On the Discriminations of Postcolonialism in Australia and New Zealand. University of Toronto Quarterly. 73 (2) p. 739-754.  Retrieved from https://muse-jhu-edu.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/article/518046/pdf

 

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

Abstract

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

Keywords:

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

Introduction

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

Discussion

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

Conclusion

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

 

References

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

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

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

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

Porter, E., 2015. Virtual Communities and Social Networks. In L. Cantoni & J. A. Danowski (Eds). Communication and Technology. 161-179. Retrieved from https://books.google.com.au/books?id=AhxpCgAAQBAJ&lpg=PA161&ots=bZIat75i-L&dq=online%20virtual%20communities%202015&lr&pg=PA161#v=onepage&q&f=false

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

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

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