identity formation – Debating Communities and Networks IX

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

Rachel M.Winship

Curtin University

Abstract

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

Introduction

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

LiveJournal and the history of blogging

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

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

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

Dear Diary: Community and LiveJournal

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

Identity and anonymity debate

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

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

Trolling and doxing

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

Conclusion

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Growing Up In The Social Network

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

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

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

Building Communities and Community Identities on Social Networks

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

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

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

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

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

Factors of Online Communities that Influence Online Identity

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

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

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

Creative and Emotional Privacy for Young Internet Users

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607076007

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

Identifying Generational Differences in the Formation of Identity in Online Communities and Networks

Abstract:

This paper is to examine the generational differences in the formation of identity in online communities and networks. A focus on Erik Erikson’s theory of identity formation and Erving Goffman’s theory on the presentation of self is used to understand the emerging influences on identity formation. The generational differences are explored through looking at ideas of forming identities before we are born following through to digital footprints. The theme that online networks and communities can have both a positive and negative effect on identity is explored. The paper uses implications of new technology as a way to highlight the argument that identity formation has become more complex than it previously has been. In the article adolescents are referred to this can be assumed for the purpose of this paper children aged 10-19. Older generations for the purpose of this paper is referring to those who did not grow up in a fully digital world (30+).

Keywords: generation differences, online identity, identity formation, presentation of self, social networks, online communities

Identifying Generational Differences in the Formation of

Identity in Online Communities and Networks

The appearance of generational differences in the formation of identity online is becoming apparent because online spaces are more accessible from a young age. The rapid shift in modern technology and online spaces can be held accountable for this. Online communities and networks as a whole can be a positive experience opening minds and educating opinions. There is also a dark side to networks and communities where people can be bullied anonymously and unrealistic body images portrayed can have detrimental effects on young children/teenagers as they go through the important stages of identity formation. Where immediate surrounding were once the only aspect shaping our identities this is no longer the case in an online world. In relation to this, this paper will explore how forming our identities before we are even born and the exposure to online spaces from a younger age impacts on identity formation compared to older generations. Anonymity online and the rapid shift in new technologies will be used to outline the difference in generational experiences of forming identity. Our digital footprints follow us well past the point we leave our online identities, knowledge of digital footprints have strong impacts on ones presentation of self.

Defining Networks and Communities

A community in the general sense is a group of individuals who have a common center to participate in discussion and activities (Coyle, 1941). Communities can be large or small and take many forms such as forums, pages, groups, blogs and chatrooms on or offline. Similarly, to communities, a network (most commonly associated with social networks) can be defined as the linking of groups and individuals online (“What is a Network,” 2016). Networks and communities work together to create spaces for like-minded individuals. Within these spaces expression of individual identity is encouraged and almost always positively welcomed, however, some online spaces can lead to identity confusion.

Discussion

With the advancement of new online platforms for networks and communities the idea of online identities and presentation of self has become more complex. Our youth is an important time to discover ourselves as we begin to decide what we identify with. Our identity refers to ones core values, beliefs and background with many aspects of life having both positive and negative effects on this (Kasinath, 2013). During adolescence, and in the current climate of online culture, it can be difficult to distinguish right from wrong and how you define yourself. With so many outside influence, adolescents can easily be swayed in their opinions, causing them to conform to social pressures from a young age. This continuous pressure during the adolescent stage can lead to identity confusion (Kasinath, 2013). Kasinath (2013) states that when we are in infancy we form a sense of self but as we grow into adolescence we seek to answer the question of who we are. A psychological theory formed by Erik Erikson about the formation of identity follows eight stages of crisis to be resolved by the individual (Kasinath, 2013). It can be argued that older generations were able to overcome these stages more successfully as they were not strongly influenced by negative outside factors and the influence of social media. This is not to say that today’s adolescent generation is worse off than older generations, just that there are visible differences between how their identities are formed. People often use social media to document the highlights of their life, leaving a digital footprint in the process. Leaver and Highfield (2018) explore the way in which people share information about others who cannot speak for themselves and how this information creates a digital footprint. With the rise of technology platforms such as Instagram have rapidly gained popularity and visible networks and communities are visible on Instagram through followers, following and hashtags. It has become a rite of passage for many expecting mothers to post a photo of their ultrasound images to social media using distinctive hashtags where the image can appear in a collective space of similar images (Leaver & Highfield, 2018). Little do many parents know the information they are sharing about their child can hold some very specific and personal identifying factors and this is likely to follow them into the future staying with their online identity forever. Information such as this helps social networking sites who data mine to make predictions and assumptions about their future audiences before the user has even known themselves (Leaver & Highfield, 2018). This initiation of an identity before children are even born is something emerging in social culture now, with the first generation to grow up fully digital now entering adolescence the depiction can be made between generation identity gaps.

In the years 1994-1995 online networks and web-based communities, in the form of notice boards and forums, began to appear but were still foreign to most (Lake, 2009). During the early years on the web, when online networks and online communities began to form, individual presentation of the self online consisted of multiple avatars and identifying handles not directly linked to their offline presentation of self (Leaver & Highfield, 2018). However, this is very different to what we see today, Leaver and Highfield (2018) stating the shift towards presentation of an ‘authentic self’ as the realname web. This shift between generations can be explained by the ages technology is introduced to us when the older generations began using social networks and online communities they had already formed an identity offline and to have an online identity felt like it needed to be privatised and different to their offline presentation of self. Adolescents now have formed their online and offline identities simultaneously which has resulted in a more authentic and real presentation of self online. If we look more deeply into the theory of presentation of self by Erving Goffman, the idea is explored that we present different versions of ourselves in different situations (Kuznekoff, 2012). The appeal of multiple presentations of self is that you can use different presentations to seek benefits (Urick, 2014). The idea that our identity is a performance and our online identities are an extension of ourselves reflects in the way that social media and being a part of an online community has taken over the way we think. Often adolescence will think about their decisions not based on who they will see in person but who will see their online posts from the event. Older generations built relationships based on face-to-face communication where technology has pushed for a shift toward online communication. This means our online presentation of self feels more important than ever and can have some serious implications. As with any performance such as an actor or actress the audience has free will to interpret the meaning (Kuznekoff, 2012). Thus meaning that rather than just freely being yourself the thought is often playing on your mind of what others think of you, this constant pressure adolescents are facing can lead to anxiety, depression and body image issues. Cyberbullying is also a major impact that has been on the rise in more recent years as social media and online communities become a prevalent part of teenager’s lives. In a study by Van Der Nagel and Frith (2015) it was stated that anonymity is useful in allowing exploration of identity without fear of judgment, however, it does open the doors for cyberbullying. Cyberbullying is the act of sending online messages, comments, photos or posts in order to offend or hurt someone’s feelings (Kuznekoff, 2012). With constant access to the online space when bullying in the playground was once escapable it is now much harder to do so when it follows you home. This can largely impact on the way people form their identity as they see this as part of themselves when they can be much more that what the bully is reducing them to. However, online communities can provide a safe haven for like-minded individuals to escape from reality and thus help them further develop their identities in this sense. Anonymity has often been seen in a negative light due to bullying but it has been found to be an important feature in navigating identity exploration in an online world (Van Der Nagel & Frith, 2015). This suggests that one generational difference in forming identity is that it has become a more complex process of exploration and navigating the online space to form a strong identity compared to what may seem a straight forward path for generations who did not grow up online.

As discussed our online presentation of self is often an extension of our offline identity and in the era of realname web the link between online and offline is synonymous. This means anything online linked to your name creates a digital trace which stays with you forever, even after you pass (Leaver & Highfield, 2018). What makes up your digital footprint can be seen to make up part of your identity and lead people to make assumptions about you based on what a simple search of your name presents. It can be assumed a generation who has grown up digital will have a larger digital footprint than their elders and there are implications that this can have on present life and legacy. When anyone can link your name to an online identity through a simple google search, it is safe to assume potential employees have easy access to much of your online presentation of self. Depending on the circumstances this can be either a negative or a positive implication of a digital footprint. The pressure younger generations have to keep their digital footprint clean can often be a burden on identity formation as it hinders them expressing their true selves. In Bennett’s study (as cited in Kuznekoff, 2012) it was found that 90% of employers use social networking sites to determine potential employees and 70% had rejected a potential employee due to their social media. This leads to the idea of privacy being an issue for young children who don’t understand the concept of how data spreads and remains online forever (Kuznekoff, 2012). Young children enter private details into online networks and communities having no idea where this information might end up in the future, making them vulnerable to online attack (Gray & Christiansen, 2010). Similarly, to how data mining can use ultrasound images to predict future users, adolescents information can be data mined from networking sites and online communities allowing targeted advertising and suggested friends to be directed straight towards you (Kuznekoff, 2012). These suggested friends may be complete strangers and for a young child on social media this presents many threats. As we age identity can be in constant movement and having documentation of each small and embarrassing part of your identity is not often thought of until a reminder of your twelve-year-old self is brought back onto your Facebook timeline. As we change our identity it is not unusual to no longer identify with specific things and when these things are attatched to your name online it can be hard to escape these labels. Older generations are able to grow and move forward without this reminder of their past, while it is not to say this is positive or negative we can conclude that the experience of a digital footprint is vastly different between generations. Once we pass and our online presentation of self lives on creating a timeline from beginning to end of our online lives we no longer have control or say over what stays and goes, or maybe it is hard to say that we ever did have control.

Conclusions

This paper has explored the rapid shift in modern technologies that has allowed children to explore online communities and networks earlier than ever before. This has impacted on the way adolescents form their identities in an online world compared to older generations who were not exposed to online networks and communities until later in life. The road to forming identity has become seemingly longer and more complex with the addition of online networks and communities. This is not to say it is harder for younger generations to form their identities but the experiences between generations is vastly different. Outside influences, such as bullying, could once be escaped but the shift toward and online presence has made these influences more prevalent. However, there are negative influences on identity within networks and communities, there can also be strong positive influences in communities that help people find inspiration that guides identity development and open minds to new ideas. The role that this has on forming identity online can be seen in a physical presentation of self on and offline. Digital footprints are an important aspect in the appearance of generational differences. Younger generations are faced with their young identity following them through their lives even if they no longer identify with this presentation of self. This digital footprint has been proven to impact on individuals search for a job where potential employees make judgments based off this. Younger generations exploration of identity online can take many forms, most of which, are logged and will always be an accessible part of them. Our identities are no longer shaped by our immediate surroundings but by a variety of influences within these online networks and communities.

References

Coyle, D. C. (1941). What Is a Community? The American Journal of Nursing, 41(11), 1290-1290.

Gray, D. M., & Christiansen, L. (2010). A call to action: The privacy dangers adolescents face through use of facebook.com. Journal of Information Privacy & Security, 6(2), 17-32. doi: 10.1080/15536548.2010.10855886

Kasinath, H. M. (2013). Adolescence: Search for an identity. I-Manager’s Journal on Educational Psychology, 7(1), 1-6. Retrieved from https://search-proquest- com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1476284556?accountid=10382

Kuznekoff, J. H. (2012). The online presentation of self: Re-examining goffman’s presentation of self across contemporary CMC contexts. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/ docview/1034564908?accountid=10382

Lake, M. (2009, July 5). Timeline: the evolution of online communities. Computer World. Retrieved from https://www.computerworld.com/

Leaver, T., & Highfield, T. (2018). Visualising the ends of identity: pre- birth and post- death on Instagram. Information, Communication & Society, 21(1), 30-45. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2016.1259343

What is a Network? (2016, Jun 29). Progressive Digital Media Technology News Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview /1800380713?accountid=10382

Urick, M. J. (2014). The Presentation of Self: Dramaturgical Theory and Generations in Organizations. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 12(4), 398-412. doi: 10.1080/15350770.2014.961829

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

PDF download: Hannah Bluett NETS2002 Conference Paper

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