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/

The Rise of the Sharing Economy: Building Powerful Communities

The Rise of the Sharing Economy:

Building Powerful Communities

Ananya Alagh

Curtin University

Abstract

In this paper, I intend to examine the way in which Web 2.0 has had a significant impact on our sense and understanding of community, and has allowed for the generation of meaningful interpersonal relationships across physical and geographical barriers. I look at the way that Web 2.0 ideologies have changed our idea of community through the specific lens of digital economic communities, referred to as the sharing economy. With reference to real life examples, and detailed studies like Guttentag (2013) and Luckman (2013) on specific peer-to-peer markets, I outline the unique way in which digital economic communities act as a forum for the formation for strong networks of relationships between participants to create powerful digital communities. I argue that there are intrinsic social conventions that guide behaviour, and specific motivations for participation within these kinds of communities, that has allowed the sharing economy to expand so rapidly, and thrive over the past few years.

A PDF for this paper is available here.

——————————————————

It is almost an understatement to say that advancements in digital technology have had a drastic impact on day to day life around the world. In fact, the expansion of Web 2.0 based applications has radically changed the way in which we carry out almost all of our activities and interactions with one another.

Since it is the concept that underpins this analysis, it is important to define exactly what is meant by the term Web 2.0. Rather than just a set of technologies, for the purpose of this argument, Web 2.0 can be thought of as a philosophy as well; which is able be practiced as a result of the growth of this digital technology (Hoegg, Martignoni, Meckel, & Stanoevska-Slabeva, 2006). The basic ideology of Web 2.0 focuses on collaboration and creation between users of the medium, creating the potential for users to build strong interpersonal relationships and grow sizable digital communities. It is an environment within which users can engage with one another about to the content and services provided to them, which generates an interface for multi-way interaction, rather than one-way information dissemination from content creator to consumer (Fuchs, 2010). It has changed our understandings of community from a concept that is defined by physically confines, to instead perceive it as a network of meaningful social connections that aren’t necessarily bound by a physical or geographical space (Ridings, Gefen & Arinze, 2002). Web 2.0 has connected members of the public across the globe to form powerful networked communities.

These changes have had significant implications for interactions between corporations and their global consumer base. Users can now engage in digital participation in a way that supports the voices and actions of other community members, creating an overwhelming presence, that corporations must take into account in order to be operate in this new, digitized world that seems to be controlled by digital publics.

Given the prominent role users have within this digital environment, it could be argued that Web 2.0 has essentially altered the basis of the the way in which traditional economic communities function. It has created a huge change in terms of the dynamics between corporation and consumer. As a consequence of the intense focus on user interaction and collaboration, as well as the new complexity of online spaces, Web 2.0 has given rise to a digital marketplace within which consumers have the capability to participate as customers or merchants, as desired. The emergence of this “sharing economy” within which consumers can provide services traditionally provided by companies or corporations, has served as a basis for web users to create strong, thriving digital economic communities (Zervas, Proserpio, & Byers, 2017).

Within this paper, I intend to analyse the effects of Web 2.0 in terms of re-shaping and strengthening ties between internet users across the globe, with reference to a few specific examples. I argue, that the sharing economy that has emerged as a result of Web 2.0 has empowered consumers by strengthening communities in both a social and economic sense, giving rise to modern digital economic communities that have the power to function in place of traditional industry.

Economic Communities Online: The Sharing Economy

Much like real life, digital communities that lack direct geographic links tend to form when various individuals find shared interests, hobbies or opinions and then engage in related activities or dialogue about them within a common digital space (Ridings, Gefen & Arinze, 2002). However, there is an added level of complexity and interest in terms of the idea of digital communities when observing economic communities specifically. The factors that serve to maintain and strengthen community ties – such as mutual trust, knowledge-sharing, and balancing self-reliance with interpersonal support – become amplified with the complications that arise when concepts such as the quality of goods and services, and ongoing financial exchanges feature prominently as forms of community interaction (Hsu, Ju, Yen & Chang, 2007). It is important to break down the way in which digital economic communities function efficiently, to understand how the digitisation of these social and economic relationships have both stemmed from, and become strengthened by Web 2.0.

Digital economic communities, in their entirety, are generally referred to as the sharing economy, or peer-to-peer markets. The sharing economy consists of “software platforms acting as an intermediary between buyers and sellers” (Allen, 2015, p.24). Defining the sharing economy in this way demonstrates the way in which it is set apart from other digital communities. Although these economic communities feature participants from a wide range of demographics just like other communal spaces on the web, participants are identified within the community as either buyers, sellers, or both – which outlines some important basic conventions for interaction between two or more community members. It indicates that members in an interaction identify as either providers or consumers of a given service, rather than two exact equals. In a community within which roles are so strongly defined on the basis of ensuring the quality transmission of services and secure transmission of finances, the trust-based aspect of relationships between community members can be tested much more intensely than in other digital communities, as the implications of these interactions can have real life consequences.

Community Building in Peer-to-peer markets

Despite the added pressure on relationships within digital economic communities, the last few years serve as proof of the fact that the sharing economy actually seems to be thriving. There is a variety of examples across different types of services that demonstrate the massive expansion of peer-to-peer markets.

In the year 2014, Uber and Airbnb were valued at $18.2 billion and $10 billion respectively; both significantly higher than their counterparts within the traditional transport and hospitality industries (Cannon & Summers, 2014). The incredible success of these firms even led to the creation of other companies with similar business models. Independent craft-based businesses run via personalized websites or social media accounts, as well as sites featuring multiple vendors, like Etsy, continue to grow in popularity. Airtasker, is another example of a unique kind of peer-to-peer market place. The app that allows participants to hire other qualified participants on through the medium to complete short-term skilled labour tasks. It had immense success within Australia, generating over $5 million worth of jobs between 160,000 users between the years 2008 and 2014 (Allen, 2015).

Evidently, there seems to be incredible growth and success within the sharing economy. These user-centric communities continue to grow rapidly as a result of the the expansion and sustenance of the networks of meaningful relationships between the participants of these communities. This continuous growth and maintenance of these relationships is made possible by the very fact that the social conventions that guide bonding and relationship building in digital economic communities seem to be enhanced, rather than damaged, by the added dimension of the realities of maintaining financial security whilst purchasing goods or services from vendors on the web.

Within this section, I aim to outline some of the specific conventions for interaction based upon the technology and ideology of Web 2.0, and how they have facilitated the growth of strong digital economic communities, with reference to examples.

Trust and Knowledge Sharing

Social conventions like trust building and knowledge sharing become integrated as one within the sphere of online economic communities (Ridings, Gefen & Arinze, 2002). This in demonstrated in the system of ‘reviewing’ other participants – whether they are vendors or consumers. The review system is a direct result of the user-friendly Web 2.0 technology which creates lower barriers for participation, and even more importantly, the ideology of sharing and collaboration that guides the democratized digital space we associate with Web 2.0 (Van Dijck & Nieborg, 2009). It is somewhat unique to economic communities online.

Writing reviews – beyond just contributing to the numerical rating system – is a style of knowledge sharing that also serves as a multi-way trust building mechanism. Participants that receive positive reviews are deemed as highly trustworthy, which facilitates more future interaction between them and other participants in the community, strengthening the social ties of multiple community members. These reviews hold a special kind of significance for these economic communities, because they serve as an additional guarantee to users that they will be guaranteed appropriate services in return for their money. Ridesharing apps like Uber and Ola encourage riders to add comments and feedback along with their numerical ratings. Airbnb lets users write public reviews for both hosts and guests. In addition, participants that actually write reviews, contribute valuable information to the collective pool of knowledge available to all participants within the medium (Hsu et al. 2007). As a result, they expand their own breadth of potential social connections and build a more trustworthy image as a result of their contributions. Writing reviews to share knowledge and build networks of trust with other community members is an intrinsic part of digital economic communities, facilitated by the mechanisms of Web 2.0 that has contributed to the immense success of the sharing economy.

Behavioural Norms

Another important factor in terms of ensuring the sustained success of digital economic communities, which ties in with the idea of a review system; is adherence to socially acceptable behavioural norms (Hamari, Sjöklint, & Ukkonen, 2015). Although this phenomenon is generally observed across all communities, both online and offline, it takes a unique form within peer-to-peer markets. On a general level, understanding community norms and ensuring self-conduct in accordance with these norms, is a phenomenon that is commonly understood through the lens of by Bandura’s Self Cognitive Theory and Social Learning Theory (Hsu et al., 2007). It is the idea that individuals learn behavioural conventions by observing the way other individuals act in a given social context, and then mimic this behaviour when confronted with a similar situation. However, without the existence of real life cues and real time responses to guide behaviour, digital community members must engage in social learning and calibrate self-cognition very differently (Fuchs, 2010). This is where behavioral norms tie in closely with the review system. The reviews are an explicit demonstration of the appropriate style of communication and language within a given economic community – and the subject matter of the reviews provides clear indication as to what kinds of actions and interactions are positive, versus negative. It is an adaptation of social cognition that is appropriate for digital communities. This becomes especially pertinent to economic communities when considering the idea of outcome expectations (Hsu et al., 2007).

Outcome expectations

Outcome expectations are a key component that define the basis for trust and strong relationships within digital communities. However, within economic communities, this extends past positive social outcomes only. Measurable items like money, deadlines and service standards dictate adherence to behavioural norms on a stricter level, since inadequate delivery any of the above could lead to real life consequences that negatively impact relationships formed via the medium.

The media-rich Web 2.0 landscape is an effective way for vendors to reach out to potential consumers to demonstrate the appeal of their own product. The use of photographs is also correlated with a higher perceived trustworthiness of the vendor (Steinbruck, Schaumburg, Duda, & Kruger, 2002). Airbnb and Etsy are two examples that illustrate the use of images as the main mode of communication between vendor and consumer (Guttentag, 2013 & Luckman, 2013). As a result, failure to deliver on promised outcomes and the standard of advertised products or services is perceived by other community members as a violation of the explicit rules of the site, as well as the implicit social conventions that are appropriate within the community. Participants that do not deliver desired outcomes, and therefore deviate from the appropriate behavioural norm are subjected to deterioration of their social relationships and standing within the community, as well as damage to their business that results from the poor feedback they receive for deviating from the accepted community standard. This feedback would come in the form of ratings and reviews – the main mode of communication of digital economic communities. This is very demonstrative of how the participatory ideology of Web 2.0 and all concepts that form the foundation for strong digital economic communities are all incredibly closely intertwined. Engaging with other participants through the medium in accordance with the set social standards in order to sustain meaningful community relationships is key.

Power dynamics

The final point for discussion, in regards to the way in which digital economic communities have resulted in such strong networks between participants, is related to the power shift Web 2.0 has created from corporation to consumer (Guttentage, 2013). The Web 2.0 culture of participation generates new connections between participants, and these connections are sustained because participants recognize the power they have as part of this community of likeminded individuals. Especially within peer-to-peer markets, consumers can rely on each other, instead of continuing to support corporations or institutions that try to exercise control over their spending. This is demonstrative of the way in which Web 2.0 ideology can support autonomous thought, which gives individuals a sense of control and power. Maintaining financial flows within their own communities shifts control from traditional institutions, to community members, and allows them to browse more specialized products, instead of typical mass produced items. Guttentag (2013) explores this in the context of Airbnb, describing the way in which consumers have the potential to upset traditional industry, by choosing the lower-cost, highly unique homes offered on Airbnb, instead of generic hotel accommodation. Etsy is another great example of how niche crafts created by other community participants hold a distinct appeal over typical mass-produced goods (Luckman, 2013). These consumers are in fact creating a demand for niche, individual items that the traditional market cannot cater to (Guttentag, 2013). Community members recognize that they are receiving carefully crafted pieces that aren’t owned by too many other consumers. This also comes with an awareness that their purchase strengthens the community as a whole, and builds another connection within the network of participants, so the community can continue to thrive.

Conclusion

It’s evident that the sharing economy which has emerged as a result of Web 2.0 interfaces and ideology, has had a significant impact in terms of building strong digital communities. The continued growth and sustenance of these digital economic communities is driven by the low barriers for creation original content, and interaction between creators and consumers of participatory culture. Participants of these economic communities can feel powerful by choosing to create their own products and services, by choosing to purchase goods from other community members instead of traditional institutions and of course, by continuing to build meaningful inters personal relationships through these actions; therefore, strengthening their communities.

References

Allen, D. (2015). The Sharing Economy. Institute of Public Affairs, 67(3), 24-27. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1735010807?pq-origsite=gscholar

Cannon, S., & Summers, L. (2014) How Uber and the Sharing Economy Can Win Over Regulators. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved 25 April 2018 from https://hbr.org/2014/10/how-uber-and-the-sharing-economy-can-win-over-regulators

Fuchs, C. (2010). Social software and web 2.0: their sociological foundations and implications. In Handbook of research on web 2.0, 3.0, and X.0: technologies, business, and social applications. Volume II, ed. San Murugesan, 764-789. Hershey, PA: IGI-Global. http://fuchs.uti.at/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Web2.pdf

Guttentag, D. (2013). Airbnb: disruptive innovation and the rise of an informal tourism accommodation sector. Current Issues In Tourism, 18(12), 1192-1217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2013.827159

Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M., & Ukkonen, A. (2015). The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative consumption. Journal of the Association for Information Scienceand Technology, 67(9), 2047-20159. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23552

Hoegg, R., Martignoni, R., Meckel, M., & Stanoevska-Slabeva, K. (2006). Overview of business models for Web 2.0 communities. University of St.Gallen Research Platform Alexandria. Retrieved 28 March 2018, from https://www.alexandria.unisg.ch/publications/31411

Hsu,M., Ju, T., Yen, C., & Chang, C. (2007). Knowledge sharing behaviour in virtual communities: The relationship between trust, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65(2), 153-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.09.003

Liu, S., & Mattila, A. (2017). Airbnb: Online targeted advertising, sense of power, and consumer decisions. International Journal Of Hospitality Management, 60, 33-41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.09.012

Luckman, S. (2013). The Aura of the Analogue in a Digital Age: Women’s Crafts, Creative Markets and Home-Based Labour After Etsy. Cultural Studies Review, 19(1), 249. http://dx.doi.org/10.5130/csr.v19i1.2585

Ridings, C., Gefen,D., & Arinze, B. (2002). Some antecedents and effects of trust in virtual communities. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11(3-4),271-295 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0963-8687(02)00021-5

Steinbruck, U., Schaumburg, H., Duda, S., & Kruger, T. (2002). A picture says more than a thousand words. CHI’02 extended Abstracts On Human Factors in Computing Systems. http://dx/doi.org/10.1145/506443.506578

Van Dijck, J., & Nieborg, D. (2009). Wikinomics and its discontents: a critical analysis of Web 2.0 business manifestos. New Media & Society, 11(5), 855-874. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444809105356

Zervas, G., Proserpio, D., & Byers, J. (2017). The Rise of the Sharing Economy: Estimating the Impact of Airbnb on the Hotel Industry. Journal Of Marketing Research, 54(5), 687-705. http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmr.15.0204

Why we play online games and how it effects our communication with others online and offline

Abstract

This paper discusses the realm of online communication and how games such as massively multiplayer online role playing games (MMORPG’s) are effecting our communication with others. Works such as Homo Ludens by Johan Huizinga and the telling’s of Herodotus are discussed with relevance to current and historical applications of the essence and importance of play. Drawing on relevance to discuss elements of the magic circle and a third space, Pokémon Go has been used as a recent example of how these concepts are prevalent in all types of games, as well as providing brief relation to World of Warcraft and The Sims in terms of synthetic worlds and breaking the magic circle.

Keywords: magic circle, synthetic worlds, third space, online games, MMORPG’s, online communication, relationships, communities.

PDF available here

Gaming and Communication

Games and play can create new circles of communication that exist outside of normal social circles, known as the third place. Online games and traditional games are influenced by a magic circle, that defines what rules are relevant in the real world, and in the game world. The proceeding text is an explanation of synthetic worlds, and how it is different from the “real world” explained within a current online context of MMORPG’s and with reference to traditional games and play, directly providing examples from the recent Pokémon Go and also the 2,500 year old story of how the Lydians saved their civilisation with games.

Discussion of the concept of play and the introduction of the magic circle was first conversed by Dutch anthropologist Johan Huizinga in 1938, in his book Homo Ludens. Huizinga states that “we find play present everywhere as a well-defined quality of action which is different from “ordinary” life.” (Huizinga, 1949, p 4). Over centuries play has been adapted to the technologies of the current time, for example there are statements recovered from the Greek historian Herodotus describing the famine in Lydia over 2,500 years ago. He states: “These games they invented as a resource against the famine, and thus they used to do:–on one of the days they would play games all the time in order that they might not feel the want of food, and on the next they ceased from their games and had food: and thus they went on for eighteen years.” (“Herodotus on Lydia”, 2012). This later led to the civilisation being divided in half, with half leaving Lydia in search of new lands, later becoming the Etruscans, later known for the Roman Empire, and therein saving their civilisation. As mankind make technological advancements, online games become a more prevalent pastime or career path and the essence of play and the magic circle evolves from the case described in Lydia to what we have now online. With current technology allowing communities to connect over online games from all over the world, developers are able to create games that impact the world and encourage people to be more active members of their community. Whether it be for their own benefit, such as Pokemon Go encouraging people to go out, walk around and explore. Or be it something on a larger scale such as RUFopoly, an interactive game designed to make people think about the challenges faced in the rural-urban fringe development (“RELU – RUFopoly | Birmingham City University”, 2011).

There are those that argue that there is no magic circle, such as (Liebe, 2018). The Magic Circle is described as a scenario where the rules of the real world are suspended, and new normative rules are created in the game space. I believe that this is relevant in terms of online games such as World of Warcraft or The Sims, as there would be some rules that are relevant in the real world and in the game world, such as a character or person needs to eat to survive. But there are also those that would not apply, and other rules would take place, and in circumstances where the magic circle is broken, or the unspoken rules of the game is broken, the laws or rules of that world do not apply, and the person is no longer playing the game, they are playing their own modified version of the game where new rules apply. For example, when a player uses cheat codes in the Sims to change a Sims mood, age or needs, they are operating outside of the magic circle, as they are no longer playing the game the way that it was intended. With the example of The Sims, because it is not an online game played with other people, it is not so controversial that people break the magic circle, however in online synthetic worlds such as World of Warcraft, if someone was to use cheat codes to increase their character wealth or in game experience in this synthetic world, it can break the trust between players and become an unpleasant environment.

Edward Castronova is a Professor of Telecommunications and Game Design and works with the economics of synthetic worlds. He discusses online games such as MMORPG’s in the context that “the synthetic worlds now emerging from the computer game industry, these playgrounds of the imagination, are becoming an important host of ordinary human affairs.” (Castronova, 2007, p. 2). This is relevant in terms of games such as World of Warcraft or EVE Online where people spend most of their day or it is even their full-time job, to play the game and earn in game currency, which can in turn generate real world profits. One of the main aspects of these online games, is the social interaction that they facilitate between people that they never would have met had it not been for this “third space”. It gives people the ability to communicate with people that they otherwise wouldn’t know and gain an understanding of other perspectives that they would not have known about from closer niche communities or their direct offline communities. Online communication can also often provide non-biased opinions as they do not directly know the person that they are talking to, close relationships can often hinder the response that the person may give because they are unsure of the response they will get especially if it is a personal topic or controversial topic that they fear they may be judged on. Whereas online if you are communicating with people that you don’t personally know, you are less likely to hold back opinions because there is fewer consequences if the people you are talking to do not agree with your response, they will likely not have to interact with those people again if they choose nor will they be likely to see them in person, so there are fewer consequences. This can be a negative thing as it often promotes the “keyboard warriors” mentality of people saying whatever they want and having no fear of repercussions, although that is often the realm of social media, and gaming chats are generally more focussed on the task at hand. These synthetic spaces have allowed for the creation of a specific third space where people create new circles of communication, specific to that particular context, such as World of Warcraft, the communication or chats within that synthetic world are based around talking about the game, which enables the distinction of a third space. There have been reports by Frostling-Henningsson, 2009; Jansz & Martens, 2005; Jansz & Tanis, 2007 cited in (Trepte, Reinecke & Juechems, 2012) that “Gamers report that the social side of gaming is important to them and one of the strongest motivators to engage in gaming.”

The Internet, and online games in particular can also facilitate communication about topics and interests that are not available elsewhere, particularly in small offline networks where people of similar interest may be difficult to find. The internet has enabled communication about topics and interests, that in small direct communities for example in small towns or isolated neighbourhoods, people may not have the opportunity to express their interest in these topics or issues with others of the same interest. Communities such as World of Warcraft facilitate communication between people all around the world, that they would not have had the opportunity to communicate with. This opens an avenue for people that struggle with social interactions face to face as well, as it allows them to talk to people of similar interest in a way that they are comfortable with and can express their opinions more confidently. It gives people the skills and understanding on how to communicate with people that they are not familiar with online and therefore give them an insight into a community or subject that they would not have been knowledgeable in, given their close offline relationships. Relationships and communities developed via games can often be stronger than others because to play a game, you have to trust that the people you are playing with will follow the rules of the game and you are connecting over a similar interest in the game. Take an example of Pokémon Go. Although players need an internet connection to play the game, it is an augmented reality game which encourages players to go out into the world and explore and interact with other players, which can form new friendships and community circles.

To gain a clearer understanding of these topics, lets look at an example of Pokémon Go more deeply. The game became widely successful around the world being released July 6, 2016 by developer Niantic, and at June of 2017 there had been an estimated 752 million downloads of the application (Smith, 2018). However, popular the game may have been when it came out, users quickly left the game, with users peaking at 28.5 million and dropping to under 5 million in the US after 6 months (Siegal, 2017) due to lack of game content and buggy servers. Nearly two years later and the game has lost quite a lot of its player base, and those left would be classed as the “hardcore” or “dedicated” players. A lot of these players would have established groups of players that they frequently play with and enjoy spending the time playing the game with. This is evidence of a third space, whereby there may be some overlap with work and social circles and the Pokémon Go community, but it is also a separate circle of people, that the player has met while playing the game. The synthetic world being the augmented overlay that the game has created of the world.

Although it utilises real world landmarks, the game itself is played within a virtual overlay of the real world. Megan Farokhmanesh recounts the events of the 2017 Pokémon Go Fest in Chicago, which was widely regarded as a failure for the players and Niantic. 20,000 tickets were sold for the event with some participants flying in from other states and countries to participate in the first official event hosted by Niantic (Farokhmanesh, 2017). Although it was widely unsuccessful as reported by the players having network issues and generally not being able to play the game, the event created a magic circle. The designated area within Chicago was that magic circle where new game rules applied to those that attended the event, which were different to those outside of the event space, and did not purchase a ticket, those players experienced the game as it normally is, beside from the mobile network issues experienced in the area, due to the sheer number of players attempting to connect to the servers.

As games have evolved over the centuries, they have been saving civilisation in more ways than one. They saved the Lydians by allowing them to pass time through a famine, and an increasing amount of games such as RUFopoly have been created to help change the world, and help people gain an understanding of how they can help the world through playing games. Communities have also thrived through the creation of online multiplayer games such as World of Warcraft, which has brought together millions of players since its release, all working together striving for the same goal; winning. There has been an increasing amount of discussion over whether online games have been helping or hindering human social development, while there are studies showing that games hinder social capital, it becomes dependent on the context in which the research is done, and what games are being analysed. Games such as Pokémon Go have allowed people that don’t go outside and interact with people and live unhealthy lives, to go out and explore and meet new people and interact with people all playing the same game, even if those people have nothing in common except that they play the same game. This has been highly beneficial in allowing people to become more open minded and social with people that they would not have known otherwise and increases peoples motivation to go out and socialise more, with the help of a video game.

References

Castronova, E. (2007). Synthetic worlds (p. 2). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Farokhmanesh, M. (2017). I went to Pokémon Go Fest, and it was a disaster. The Verge. Retrieved from https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/25/16019404/pokemon-go-fest-refunds-disaster-review

Herodotus, . (2012, January 18). Herodotus on Lydia. Ancient History Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://www.ancient.eu/article/81/

Huizinga, J. (1949). Homo Ludens: a study of the play-element in culture. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Huynh, K., Lim, S., & Skoric, M. (2013). Stepping out of the Magic Circle: Regulation of Play/Life Boundary in MMO-Mediated Romantic Relationship. Journal Of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(3), 251-264. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12011

Liebe, M. (2018). There is no magic circle: on the difference between computer games and traditional games. Potsdam, Germany: Universität Potsdam. Retrieved from https://publishup.uni-potsdam.de/opus4-ubp/frontdoor/index/index/year/2008/docId/2558

RELU – RUFopoly | Birmingham City University. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.bcu.ac.uk/research/-centres-of-excellence/centre-for-environment-and-society/projects/relu/rufopoly

Steinkuehler, C., & Williams, D. (2006). Where Everybody Knows Your (Screen) Name: Online Games as “Third Places”. Journal Of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(4), 885-909. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00300.x

Smith, C. (2018). 80 Amazing Pokemon Go Statistics. DMR. Retrieved 2 April 2018, from https://expandedramblings.com/index.php/pokemon-go-statistics/

Siegal, J. (2017). Four out of five ‘Pokemon Go’ users have quit. BGR. Retrieved 2 April 2018, from http://bgr.com/2017/04/03/pokemon-go-popularity-2016-users/

Trepte, S., Reinecke, L., & Juechems, K. (2012). The social side of gaming: How playing online computer games creates online and offline social support. Computers In Human Behavior, 28(3), 832-839. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2011.12.003

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

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.

Gaming Communities in and beyond Game Worlds

Gaming Communities in and beyond Game Worlds (Click for PDF)

Zachary Riordan

Curtin University: Bentley

Correspondence: Zachary.Riordan@student.curtin.edu.au

Abstract

This paper discusses many of the most important aspects of community in gaming, within and beyond the game world. This includes: how communities form in online games and how activities centred around gaming facilitate online communities. The paper argues that games, and online subsidiary activities centred around them, provide social benefits to participants that compliment off-line social interaction by promoting the growth of communities both within and beyond the game world. More specifically, this paper analyses and explores: game worlds, “third place”, flow, hallucination of the real, text-based messaging, Voice over Internet Protocol, playing with friends, social media content creation, and “modding”; and relates these aspects to social benefits including: bridging and bonding social capital, agency, social proximity, familiarity, and weak and strong ties.

Keywords: community, gaming, social capital, weak and strong ties.

Gaming Communities in and beyond Game Worlds

The social benefits of game play and communities created within games have been extensively researched (Trepte, Reinecke, and Juechems, 2012). In the context of 2018, communities not only thrive within games themselves but also the secondary activities surrounding the games. This paper argues that: games, and online subsidiary activities centred around them, provide social benefits to participants that compliment off-line social interaction by promoting the growth of communities both within and beyond the game world. This paper will firstly discuss how communities form within game worlds and the types of communities created. Then it will explore how these, and new, communities form and prosper via subsidiary online activities that centre around games. These subsidiary activities include, but are not limited to, social media content creation and modifying games. Throughout the paper I will also analyse the social benefits that players and participants attain because of the communities they become a part of.

In-Game Communities and Immersive Game Worlds

Online gaming has developed over multiple decades, with video games dating back over 45 years (Leaver, 2018). The realism, expansiveness and detail in video games has, obviously, increased extensively over this time. This, and the number of participants is likely to continue to increase in future years (Leaver, 2018; Kim, Lee, Thomas, and Dombrowski, 2009). Far from the likes of static games such as “Pong”, these games are detailed enough for players to express themselves within the game (Leaver, 2018). Furthermore, because of technologies such as the World Wide Web, players can interact with not only the game world but other players. This interaction, as well as communication, forms the basis for online communities to develop and grow (Steinkuehler, and Williams, 2006). As detailed below, player interaction occurs within games and using other platforms such as social media.

Many games have enough detail that immersive worlds are created, where players are, at-least for the most part, solely focused on what is happening in the game. Frostling-Henningsson (2009), describes this state of being as “flow”. Sufficiently detailed games can take multiple forms and include multiple genres of games. However, game genres such as Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPGs) are the most profound examples of online game worlds. These games can be described as “Third places”, which are “crucial… for civic interaction” (Williams, Ducheneaut, Zhang, Yee, and Nickell, 2006; Oldenburg, 1997). This is because of the extensiveness of the game and the actions available to the player (Williams and Ducheneaut, et. al., 2006). There are many roles a player can play, hence role-playing game, and no one player can be a master of everything. Therefore, to prosper in these “worlds” (Frostling-Henningsson, 2009) players should not only communicate but also cooperate with each other (Williams and Ducheneaut, et. al., 2006). This cooperation leads to communities forming within the game. Katz, Rice, Acord, Dasgupta, and David (2004) describe this type of community as a “pseudo-community”. This does not mean that the community is not real, but rather the community is based in a virtual world and has a group focus. The community type “Social Network” could also apply for some players or groups who exhibit individual centred attributes (Katz, et al., 2004). Furthermore, common goals and ongoing communication lead to partnerships, friendships and strong ties developing in the game (Williams and Ducheneaut, et. al., 2006; Domahidi, Festl, and Quandt, 2014).

One well researched game is popular MMORPG “World of Warcraft”, which at its peak had twenty million monthly paid players (Leaver, 2018). This game’s popularity can largely be attributed to the communities around and in the game that were developed because of the immersive, detailed, and continuing world centred around engaging gameplay (Williams and Ducheneaut, et. al., 2006). Game mechanics, such as an in-depth virtual economy and levelling system, lead to a “hallucination of the real” (Frostling-Henningsson, 2009) where new personas, personalities and lifestyles are created and/or expressed.

The state of “flow” and the “hallucination of the real” are both ways of describing the level of immersion games facilitate. This does not only occur in MMORPGs but also First-Person Shooters (FPSs). In these games, players are looking through the eyes of a soldier that they control. Online gameplay is centred around fighting against, and with, other players. Candy (2012) describes his level of extreme focus on trying to keep himself but more importantly, his teammates alive. With games such as “Counter Strike: Global Offensive” (CS: GO) a team of players work together to fight against another team. Much like a virtually violent sport (Williams and Ducheneaut, et. al., 2006). Candy (2012) states that the level of cooperation and fast paced nature of the games lead to strong friendships being formed. This can be described as bonding social capital which develops into strong ties (Steinkuehler, and Williams, 2006). These players turn their team into a community, one of which, the members are very close. Even so much so that once virtual friendships expand past their initial “third place” into the offline world (Candy, 2012).

As stated above, being able to communicate is obviously a key driver in forming social bonds and communities. There are many ways in which games facilitate and promote communication between players. The simplest way many games facilitate online communication, is through in-game chat. This allows players to communicate using text-based messages. However, this is crude by 2018’s standards. The time taken to create a message causes a delay between when the producer wants to communicate the message and when the viewer receives it. The, relatively, long time that the message takes to create, means that this form of communication is less often used in fast paced games and/or is often limited to use for greetings when gameplay is slower. This limits the ability for players to acquire bonding social capital or develop strong ties through using in-game, text-based messaging alone. In saying this, the messenger’s in-game name is associated with the message, meaning social proximately, familiarity, and bridging social capital is created using in-game chat (Trepte, Reinecke, and Juechems, 2012).

In many online FPSs, like “CS: GO”, Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) is a feature that allows players to speak to other players while in the game. VoIP within the game can facilitate the communication between players who are not friends. In the case of “CS: GO”, in-game VoIP is commonly used when matchmaking with-out friends. This means the players who become part of your team are not players that you personally know. VoIP allows these new teammates to strategize, give “call outs”, or simply communicate in real time. Strategizing or simply giving good call outs result in social capital and a sense of agency for the communicator and would not be possible with-out the use of Voice over Internet Protocol (Candy, 2012). Real time communication also promotes a sense of “flow”, develops the game into a “third place”, and encourages players to form communities (Frostling-Henningsson, 2009; Williams and Ducheneaut, et. al., 2006; Candy, 2012).

Games have also used other ways of connecting players with each other. A standard feature in any online game in 2018, the ability to create a list of friends and easily join each other’s games, should not be overlooked as the most important aspect of facilitating social gameplay. The widespread inclusion is likely due to social reasons being the main cause of gameplay (Frostling-Henningsson, 2009; Domahidi, Festl, and Quandt, 2014) and the exclusion of this feature, and therefore social gameplay, would be essentially unacceptable for many gamers.

In some cases, game features connect existing players with their friends whom may not play the game. Social games, or games based on social networking platforms, have used this technique for many years (Di Loreto, and Gouaich, 2010). More games, and games of different genres, are starting to utilize this technique. A recent example (2017/2018) is “Fortnite” (Bedford, 2018). When a player is not in a game of “Fortnite” they are firstly prompted to invite other friends that are online. However, players are also prompted to link their game account to Facebook. This is a clear example of “Fortnite” utilising in-game features, and other digital networking technologies, to extend the gaming community for the specific player and to increase the size of “Fortnite’s” community. This results in bonding social capital being created between existing friends who were Facebook friends but can now easily game together and strengthen their bond.

Communities in Subsidiary Activities Centred Around Gaming

Being part of a gaming community can offer much more than just playing a game. As detailed above, very strong sub-communities can form within a game itself. However, arguably to benefit most from the community around a specific game, the player should participate in multiple aspects of the community. This includes many subsidiary activities that centre around a game but are beyond gameplay. The biggest activity, in terms of active participants, is being involved in social media based on the game. The social media coverage of games is very large and complex (Minguez, 2014). The communities formed on social media platforms are not necessarily the same as the ones formed within games, but any content created by, from, or about a game is still centred around that game and connects to the game itself. Social media coverage of a game and any communities that form because of this are extensions of the game and the communities it promotes.

The media created based on games is essentially infinite and impossible to analyse in its entirety. Due to the shear amount of content, social media content about games, or a specific game, should be broken down into three groups: non-professional user-generated content, professional user-generated content, and industry generated content. Furthermore, where there is a group of participants that can share commonalities, there is a community (MacQueen, et al., 2001). This means that the members of each of these groups can be classified as a community. For example, a group of social media marketers working for a company would be considered a community.

Communities also interact with each other on social media. For example, industry members often promote professional content-creators’ work. This shares some of the industry’s agency with the content creator as a gift for creating content on their game. Specifically, “Fortnite” representatives often use their institutional authority to share and promote video content made by aspiring content creators (Fortnite, 2018). Industry members also “like” or “favourite” non-professional user-generated content. This gives the player social capital and agency in several sub-communities such as their friends or other players. Both actions, and others not mentioned, create mutual benefits and provide motivation for all parties.

Another important subsidiary activity based on gaming, is “modding” or modifying games. “Mods” or modifications to a game are quite commonplace in certain single player games such as “Fallout” (Bailey, 2018). Communities around “mods” or certain “modders” (modifiers) are also quite extensive. Because of the advancement in hardware and software used to create “mods” and the large number of people interest in games, many “mods” have been made. However, the ability to create useful, or even professional, “mods” is highly respected in the gaming community. This has meant “modders”, especially the best ones, receive a large amount of agency and social capital within their sub-community, and even the gaming community in general.

“Mods” can range in size from very small, to whole new games created in a different game engine (Bailey, 2018). The small “mods” can be made by one person, however, the largest “mods” are made by a team. This team requires large amounts of cooperation and collective problem solving. Furthermore, a team of “modders” can spend many years creating a “mod” without guaranteed financial compensation. Because of this, and the passion required to undertake such a task, the group can form a strong community based on gaming. Social capital is created within the community and received from beyond the “modding” community as detailed above. Furthermore, the feeling of belonging and accomplishment, and the friendships developed are just some of the social benefits that occur because of this subsidiary activity of gaming (Koivisto, 2003).

Conclusion

The communities formed within and beyond games can provide large social benefits to the participants. This includes but is not limited to, bridging and bonding social capital, agency, and social proximity and familiarity. All, or some, of these benefits combine and allow participants of gaming communities to create and develop friendships and belong to their community(s). This can occur within the game world or outside of it, through online subsidiary activities. However, both are centred around gaming and the communities that occur because of it.

The concept of communities, even within a gaming stream, is very large. Moreover, gaming as a stream is very broad and complex. This has meant this paper cannot, and has not, explored all aspects of community within gaming. More specifically, aspects including: e-sports, cosplay, gaming events, gaming lounges, and more, have not been discussed. Also, greater depth in the aspects discussed could occur if the focus of the paper was narrower. However, this paper has discussed many of the most important aspects of community in gaming, including: game worlds, “third place”, flow, hallucination of the real, text-based messaging, VoIP, playing with friends, social media content creation, and “modding”.

References

Bailey, D. (2018, January 3). This mod brings all of Fallout: New Vegas into the Fallout 4 engine. PC Games N. Retrieved from https://www.pcgamesn.com/fallout-4/fallout-4-new-vegas-mod

Bedford, J. (2018, February 2). Fortnite: Battle Royale – How to link friends on Facebook. Metabomb. Retrieved from https://www.metabomb.net/fortnite-battle-royale/gameplay-guides/fortnite-battle-royale-how-to-link-friends-on-facebook

Candy, G. (2012). In video games we trust: High-speed sociality in the 21st century. Fast Capitalism, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.uta.edu/huma/agger/fastcapitalism/9_1/candy9_1.html

Di Loreto, I. & Gouaich, A. (2010). Social Casual Games Success is not so Casual. Research Report, University of Montplellier – CNRS. Retrieved from http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/48/69/34/PDF/FunAndGames2010-03-22.pdf

Domahidi, E. Festl, R. and Quandt, T. (2014). To dwell among gamers: Investigating the relationship between social online game use and gaming-related friendships. Computers in Human Behaviour, 35. 107 – 115. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260947110_To_dwell_among_gamers_Investigating_the_relationship_between_social_online_game_use_and_gaming-related_friendships

Fortnite. (2018, March 31). Laugh along with @TSM_Hamlinz as he pilots his way to a win [Tweet]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/FortniteGame/status/980095979608268800

Frostling-Henningsson, M. (2009). First-Person Shooter Games as a Way of Connecting to people: “Brothers in Blood” Cyberpsychology & Behaviour 12(5). Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=9bb6b4f6-443f-4f88-ab26-15331092aa85%40sessionmgr102&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=44564372&db=bth

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). Retrieved from http://www.comm.ucsb.edu/faculty/rrice/A80KatzRiceAcordDasguptaDavid2004.pdf

Kim, J., Lee, E. Thomas, T. & Dombrowski, C. (2009). Storytelling in new media: The case of alternate reality games, 2001-2009. First Monday, 4(6). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2484/2199

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

Leaver, T. (2018). Web Media: Gaming Media Convergence [iLecture]. Retrieved from https://lms.curtin.edu.au/webapps/blackboard/content/contentWrapper.jsp?course_id=_80670_1&displayName=iLectures&href=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Fblti%2FlaunchPlacement%3Fblti_placement_id%3D_40_1%26course_id%3D_80670_1%26mode%3Dview%26wrapped%3Dtrue

MacQueen, K. M., McLellan, E., Metzger, D. S., Kegeles, S., Strauss, R. P., Scotti, R., Blanchard, L., and Trotter, R. T. (2001). What Is Community? An Evidence-Based Definition for Participatory Public Health. American Journal of Public Health, 91(12), 1929–1938. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1446907

Minguez, K. (2014, November 7). The Merging of Social Media and Gaming. Social Media Today. Retrieved from https://www.socialmediatoday.com/content/merging-social-media-and-gaming

Oldenburg, Ray (1997). The great good place: cafés, coffee shops, community centres, beauty parlours, general stores, bars, hangouts, and how they get you through the day. Retrieved from http://illinois-online.org/krassa/ps410/Readings/Third%20Places/Oldenburg-Vanishing%20third%20places%201997.pdf

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

Trepte, S. Reinecke, L. and Juechems, K. (2012). The social side of gaming: How playing online computer games creates online and offline social support. Computers in Human Behaviour, 28. 832 – 839. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233489327_The_social_side_of_gaming_How_playing_online_computer_games_creates_online_and_offline_social_support

Williams, D., Ducheneaut, N., Zhang, L., Yee, N., & Nickell, E. (2006). From Tree House to Barracks: The Social Life of Guilds in World of Warcraft. Games & Culture, 1(4), 338-361. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/doi/abs/10.1177/1555412006292616

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

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