Tag: Online Identity

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

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/

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

Abstract

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

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

Introduction

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

Virtual Communities & Hashtags

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

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

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

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

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

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

Identity as a performance

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

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

 

Deceptive identities online

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

References

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

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

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

Katz, J. E., Rice, R. E., Acord, S., Dasgupta, K., & David, K. (2004). Personal Mediated Communication and the Concept of Community in Theory and Practice. In P. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication and Community: Communication Yearbook 28 (pp. 315-371). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.      Available: http://www.comm.ucsb.edu/faculty/rrice/A80KatzRiceAcordDasgupt David2004.pdf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Over-sharing in an online environment and its relationship to building communities and networks of virtue friends

<a href="https://www.freestock.com/free-photos/happy-group-friends-gossiping-cell-phone-101409499">Image used under license from Freestock.com</a>

Abstract

With the expansion of social media platforms and the increase in user numbers, people are sharing personal information on an unprecedented scale. Consequently, the term “over-sharing” has been used to describe the online habits of many social media users. This conference paper draws on academic research to argue that social media users have developed online communities and social networks built on “virtue friends”, creating an environment where over-sharing is simply a normal and characteristic behaviour pattern of those seeking to maintain and build strong connections.

Introduction

Social media platforms today have given people the ability to craft their own identity, expand their social networks and feel as though they are part of a real but online community – all of which are intrinsically linked in contributing to a person’s online behaviour. As online connections turn into virtue friendships, over-sharing has become an expected and normal pattern of behaviour.

This paper will seek to define virtue friendship and explain why this level of friendship can be achieved in an online environment. It will also seek to explain why people look to build social networks and be part of online communities, including to illustrate what over-sharing is and investigate what motivates people to do it. This paper will combine all of these to demonstrate that over-sharing is nothing new, but rather a pattern of behaviour that has always been there between virtue friends. However, it is a behaviour that has seen greater visibility with the expansion of social media platforms.

Virtue friendship

Social media has generated much debate on whether the connections people form on platforms such as Facebook can be defined as virtue friendships, the highest level of friendship that can be reached according to Greek philosopher Aristotle. In his teaching, Aristotle believed that this kind of friendship was “based on mutual admiration of our friend’s character and sharing of the same values” and “based on mutual concern of each person for the other for his own sake” (Kaliarnta, 2016, p.66).

Aristotle’s view is consistent with more contemporary research on identity, networks and community as evident in Zizi Papacharissi’s book titled A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites, which was a collection of academic research papers on social media platforms. It concluded:

“Social network sites carry the expectations of sociability, meaningful connection to others, conviviality, perhaps even empathy and support…there can be no question that “community”, with all its affective and historical complications, will continue to frame popular understanding of MySpace and Facebook” (Papacharissi, 2011, p.106).

Through these descriptions one can draw the conclusion that people seek to build and maintain virtue friendships in both the offline and online environments. However, many researchers still believe that this level of friendship is unattainable online.

In 2012, a group of researchers published in the journal Ethics and Information Technology three key reasons as to why virtue friendship could not be achieved online. The authors expressed concern that people would only present a certain aspect of their character online, rather than reveal their complete self, which prevented the ability to build close connections. The same researchers also believed that people would be unable to pick up on subtle behaviour patterns that people exhibit when having one-on-one physical interactions in an offline environment ‑ something that would arguably allow people to gain more of an insight into another person’s character. Additionally, there was a belief that social media was changing the way people interact with one another. Specifically, that people were satisfied with having very brief connections online, rather than developing the traditional type of friendship that one would expect to achieve in an offline environment (Kaliarnta, 2016).

In contrast to the argument that virtue friendship cannot be achieved online—and in support of the thesis of this paper—researchers argue that social media platforms do the exact opposite by expanding the avenues by which people can learn about others through their online communities and social networks without having to engage in direct communication. A person’s behaviour—in terms of what they say and do—can be observed on multiple social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn, and assists in building a more accurate picture of that person’s character (Kaliarnta, 2016). To illustrate this in more detail, a person may want to portray themselves in a particular light on Facebook. However, this presentation will be undermined by their own actions on other social media platforms, therefore allowing for a more accurate assessment by others. In other words, a person’s digital footprint tells a story—no matter how fragmented the information is—about where they work, what they say, what they do, what music they like, where they go for holidays, what their political affiliations are, with whom they socialise, and whether or not they are in a relationship (Power of positivity, n.d.). All this and more can be determined by observing the online activities of others without the need for any one-on-one interaction in an offline environment. This personal information, which is available from multiple social media platforms, demonstrates that virtue friendship can be achieved, or perceived to be achieved online, through the ability to determine another person’s character through their digital footprint. This was the very character Aristotle said was important to building virtue friendships. Interestingly, research has shown that an estimated 70 per cent of Facebook users have people they already know offline as Facebook friends (Kaliarnta, 2016, p76). These findings support the argument that social media platforms are being used by people to develop the connections they have offline and online and turn them into virtue friendships.

Over-sharing

The concept of over-sharing is not new at all. In the 1988 book ‘Handbook of personal relationships: theory, research, and interventions’ it was stated that “disclosure of inner feelings and experiences to another person fosters liking, caring, and trust, thereby facilitating the deepening of close relationships” (Duck 1988, p. 372). This assessment illustrated that even before social media existed, virtue friendships were built on over-sharing and that it was the normal character behaviour for people seeking to build virtue friendships and find a sense of “belonging”. Stefano Tardini and Lorenzo Cantoni’s 2018 research paper defined belonging as being part of a community (Tardini & Cantoni, 2018, p.373).

Since the introduction of social media platforms, over-sharing has become more pronounced and has received a significant amount of negative publicity. In Oversharing: A Critical Discourse Analysis, it defined over-sharing as:

“a new word for an old habit made astonishingly easy by modern technology. It is yet another product of digital advances that allow people to record and transmit their lives—in words, videos, and graphics—to anyone with internet access” (Hoffmann, 2009, p.2).

This definition is consistent with other research that concluded over-sharing was:

“to divulge more of their inner feelings, opinions and sexuality than they would in person, or even over the phone. Text messaging, Facebooking, tweeting, camming, blogging, online dating…are vehicles of this oversharing, which blurs the boundary between public and private life” (Agger 2015).

Though these definitions are contemporary and are well founded, they are simplistic and do not acknowledge other research that has identified numerous phycological factors as to why people over-share on social media.

Over-sharing, belonging and community

The 2011 review Why do people use Facebook? brought together several studies that looked at the psychology behind what motivated people to use that particular social media platform. The review found that 1) a need to belong and 2) a need for self-presentation were the two key factors driving people to use Facebook (Nadkarni & Hofmann, 2011, p.245). This view is consistent with American psychologist Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, which identified five key areas as to what drives a person’s motivation in life. These were physiological, safety, social or sense of belonging, esteem and self-actualization needs. Maslow’s held that:

“people act to satisfy the lower needs before satisfying their higher needs. A starving man for example, first devotes his energy to finding food. If the basic need is satisfied, he can spend more time on his safety needs, such as eating the right foods and breathing good air. When he feels safe, he can take the time to deepen his social affiliations and friendships. Still later, he can develop pursuits that will meet his need for self-esteem and the esteem of others. Once this is satisfied, he is free to actualize his potential in other ways. As each lower level need is satisfied, it ceases to be a motivator and a higher need starts defining the person’s motivational orientation” (Andreasen & Kotler, 2008).

In 2012, belonging was also defined as “the experience of being valued, needed, or important with respect to other people, groups, or environments, and the experience of fitting in or being congruent with other people, groups, or environments through shared or complementary characteristic” (Zhaoa, Lua, Wang, Chauc, Zhang, 2012, p.4), which is also consistent with Tardini and Cantoni’s definition of community. These definitions support this paper’s argument that social media users developed social networks and online communities built on virtue friends.

The review by Nadkarni and Hofmann uncovered that social media had also been an excellent tool for those who struggled to make connections offline. One of the studies highlighted in the review identified that “people with low or high levels of neuroticism were inclined to share more basic information” (Nadkarni & Hofmann, 2011, p.245).

The journal Are Close Friends the Enemy? Online Social Networks, Self-Esteem, and Self-Control published by Keith Wilcox and Andrew Stephen in 2012 conducted research into social networks, self-esteem and self-control. This study complimented and extended on the research by Nadkarni and Hofmann. The research concluded that people seeking “strong ties” online experienced an increase in self-esteem and confidence the more they browsed online, resulting in a reduction of self-control (Wilcox & Stephen, 2012). This research did not focus specifically on over-sharing but looked more broadly at the implications of a person having reduced self-control. While Nadkarni and Hofmann’s research demonstrated that some people over-share because social media platforms give them the confidence to express themselves and build connections through those platforms, in Wilcox and Stephen’s study it appears that over-sharing could be a behaviour exhibited when a person experiences an increase in self-esteem and confidence that leads to a lack of inhibitory self-control when seeking to build strong connections. These findings support this paper’s thesis that over-sharing is simply a normal characteristic behaviour that one would expect to see on social media platforms. The combination of building a social network and online community of virtue friends, having greater self-confidence, a desire to belong, and a reduction of self-control have created an environment of over-sharing.

The research so far reviewed in this paper has confirmed that it is a combination of variables that have contributed to an environment of over-sharing, with the search for belonging a common thread that connects all of them together. Several studies have introduced the concept of “social capital” to explain the connections people make and the behaviours they exhibit online today. It has been defined as:

“the core idea of social capital theory is that networks have value…social contacts affect the productivity of individuals and groups…Human capital refers to connections among individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them” (Bartkus & Davis, 2009, p.18).

In 2007, the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication published the findings from a comprehensive study that examined the relationship between Facebook and social capital. The findings in this study again supported the results in other research identified in this paper that concluded that building strong connections had a direct relationship with self-esteem. Additionally, the journal paper supported Nadkarni and Hofmann’s conclusion that online networks were helping those who would otherwise struggle to build strong connections or find a voice, as well as encourage more self-disclosure (Ellison, Steinfield & Lampe, 2007, p.1146 & 1147). This reference to greater self-disclosure can be interpreted as over-sharing. Regardless of whether you accept this interpretation or not, the finds support the argument of this paper that over-sharing online is expected behaviour between virtue friends. It also highlights that virtue friendship can be achieved in an online environment.

Conclusion

From research identified in this paper, it is evident that social media platforms have enabled people to grow their social networks widely with apparent aim of cultivating virtue friendships, the extent of which may at times seem limitless. The ability to determine a person’s character through the sharing of personal information on multiple social media platforms has been recognised as the conduit to achieve this. Through their quest for belonging, users have identified with a community and it has given those who lack confidence the means to share their stories with a wider audience. Even though over-sharing has been seen by some to be about depicting a false representation of one’s self, research has demonstrated that for others it has been about getting oneself known by actively connecting to a wide social network which over-sharing facilitates. Over-sharing is now seen as the norm if one is seeking to build strong connections in both offline and online environments, and a way of reaching-out to the world. A person’s desire to belong and build strong connections is clearly evident by the growth in the number of people joining social media platforms.

References

Agger, B. (2012) Oversharing: Presentations of Self in the Internet Age. Summary retrieved from https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781136448270

Andreasen, A., Kotler, P. (2008). Strategic Marketing for Nonprofit Organizations. New Jersey, United States of America: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Bartkus, V., Davis, J. (2009). Social Capital: Reaching Out, Reaching In. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.  Retrieved from http://link.library.curtin.edu.au/p?pid=CUR_ALMA51115531750001951

Bernstein, E. (2013). Thank You for Not Sharing –  What Triggers People to Reveal Too Much; Avoiding the Post-Conversation Cringe. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323826804578466831263674230

Duck, S (1988). Handbook of personal relationship: theory, research, and interventions. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Retrieved from http://depts.washington.edu/uwcssc/sites/default/files/Reis%20%26%20Shaver,%201988.pdf

Ellison, E., Steinfield, C., Lampe, C. (2007). The Benefits of Facebook “Friends:” Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Site. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x

Kaliarnta, S. (2016) Using Aristotle’s theory of friendship to classify online friendships: a critical counterview. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10676-016-9384-2.pdf

Nadkarni A., Hofmann, S. (2011). Why Do People Use Facebook? Review. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.007

Papacharissi, Z. (2011). A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/curtin/detail.action?docID=574608#

Power of positivity (n.d.) What Do Your Social Media Updates Reveal About Your Personality? Retrieved from https://www.powerofpositivity.com/social-media-updates-personality/

Tardini, S., Cantoni, L. (2018) A Semiotic Approach to Online Communities: Belonging, Interest and Identity in Websites’ and Videogames’ Communities. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266218884_A_SEMIOTIC_APPROACH_TO_ONLINE_COMMUNITIES_BELONGING_INTEREST_AND_IDENTITY_IN_WEBSITES%27_AND_VIDEOGAMES%27_COMMUNITIES

Wilcox, K., Stephen, A. (2012) Are Close Friends the Enemy? Online Social Networks, Self-Esteem, and Self-Control. Journal of Consumer Research. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1086/668794

Zhaoa, L., Lua. Y., Wang, B., Chauc, P., Zhang, L. (2012). Cultivating the sense of belonging and motivating user participation in virtual communities: A social capital perspective. International Journal of Information Management. Retrieved from https://doi-org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2012.02.006

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

Image used under license from Freestock.com

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

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

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

Abstract 

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

Keywords

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

Introduction

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

‘Facebook Official’: Dating Online

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

 

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

 

Competitive FPS communities; An analysis of the types of communication that occurs in the third place and the emergence of esports in mainstream society

Abstract

Communities play an important role in acknowledging different groups of people who have similar interests. Within these communities, candidates facilitate different methods of communication with applications, evident through the progression in new emergent technologies. This paper first explores the concept of ‘third place’. It then reviews the concept of online games, delving into the specific First-Person Shooter (FPS) community. From here, a precedence for online games is established. The paper then caters towards discussing how online games become competitive through the realm of ‘esports’. Various contemporary examples of ‘esports’ competitions will be looked upon from game titles such as Overwatch and Call of Duty. Each game provides various types of communication, aiding gamers within a competitive environment. Finally, I will transition to the importance of communication in offline events whilst looking at the proliferation of ‘esports’ becoming more evident in contemporary society for viewers as well as players who participate.

Introduction

Over the years, online games have provided an avenue for a variety of people to escape realism and pressures of the ‘real world’. These spaces are often considered as separate to those experienced in real life, donned as a ‘third place’. Soukup (2006) explores the research of sociologist Ray Oldenburg to which identifies the Third Place as “public spaces used for informal social interaction outside of the home and workplace”. Oldenburg specifies the characteristics of these spaces which are a good starting point in identifying and providing a discussion around this community. From Soukup (2006), he argues that third places:

  • Are on neutral ground;
  • Are a leveller;
  • Conversation is the main activity;
  • Are accessible;
  • [Are a] home away from home, they have ‘regulars’; and
  • [Have a playful mood]

‘Third place’ is situated and considered as an extension of ordinary life. In this paper, I’ll be identifying online games within this space, specifically First-Person Shooters (FPS’). The online gaming community is far too big to identify; therefore, the main scope of this paper will primarily cater towards this specific niche in the gaming community. For those that are unaware, the competitive environment is currently on the rise and is referred to nowadays as ‘esports’. Seo and Jung (2014) explore this as “an area of sport activities in which people develop and train mental or physical abilities in the use of information and communication technologies”. Expanding media platforms have promoted this ever-changing phenomenon with it becoming more than just an activity but rather a more inclusive participative activity through spectatorship. With its rapid increase in popularity, “online computer gaming leagues and locally networked events have offered players a place to engage in serious or career competition” (Seo & Jung, 2014, p.636). With ‘esports’ occurring both online and in offline settings, communication between players is vital to achieve success. This paper will investigate the FPS community and how it creates a competitive environment and promotes a larger level of communication within the third place. Examples such as Overwatch and Call of Duty will be discussed regarding online and offline settings to further explore the notion of a competitive environment. Finally, I will look at communication at ‘LAN’ events and its importance in an offline environment whilst pursuing the ideal of ‘esports’ and its relevance in contemporary society through its growth through viewership and participation of ‘esport’ ‘athletes’.

Third Place and its relationship with Online Games

As previously mentioned, scholars such as Oldenburg have defined ‘third place’ as a “public space[s] used for informal social interaction outside of the home and workplace” (Soukup, 2006, p. 421). Contrasting from what’s usually considered as ‘normal life’, video games offers further social interaction and a platform whereby consumers can escape from reality. According to Wadley et al. (2003) companies such as Sony and Microsoft were the first of many to pioneer this. It is said that “Sony and Microsoft appear to have similar visions for online console gaming: a global network connecting millions of users, who not only play videogames with each other, but also socialise online” (Wadley et al., 2003, p.238).

Online games come in many different forms, whether it’s through multiplayer against other individuals, or cooperative play whereby players team up with others to perform a certain set of tasks. ‘Third places’ are often regarded to be on ‘neutral ground’ and are ‘accessible’. However, in some cases this is not always possible. With a gap in technology, not all people have access to platforms whereby third places occur, in this case, online games. Scholar Papacarissi argues that “the fact that online technologies are only accessible to and used by, a small fraction of the population contributes to an electronic public sphere that is exclusive, elitist and far from the ideal” (Soukup, 2006, p.430). The ‘leveler’ and ‘accessibility’ arguments that are initially enforced by Oldenburg are under scrutiny, conflicting with the ideal of being available to all.

While this seems to be the case, ‘social capital’ helps to support Oldenburg’s views. Robert Putnam defines social capital to be the “connections among individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness arise from them” (Soukup, 2006, p.430). Moreover, while “connectedness might foster equality, it is not necessarily ‘distributed’ evenly…not all people are equally connected with other members of their communities” (Soukup, 2006, p.430). In the case of online games, it provides members a platform to communicate and to meet others, but in some cases, not evenly. The significance of the third place and online games offer and “provide greater opportuni[ties] for diverse people to acquire social capital” (Soukup, 2006, pp. 430-431) as an extension from daily life.

How do Online Games become Competitive? The concept of ‘Esports’ and its rise within contemporary society

An aspect of online games that has become profoundly more popular over the years is the concept of ‘esports’ or more commonly referred to as ‘competitive video games’. Seo and Jung (2014) explain its concept with the ideal being based around “the emergence of professional and semi-professional tournaments, where consumers have been able to celebrate organised and competitive gaming practices”. It’s progression has seen the creation of “leagues and locally networked events [which] have offered players a place to engage in serious or career competition” (Seo & Jung, 2014, p.636). Industry body Electronic Sports League (ESL) reported that in 2012 there were “3.6 million registered users in Europe” (Seo & Jung, 2014, p.642). South Korea has been regarded as the hub of ‘esports’ for many years. In its early stages there were “more than 430 professional ‘athletes’ in South Korea who make a living from playing computer games, and the 2013 WCG – an ‘eSports’ tournament comparable to the Olympic Games for traditional sports – saw 400 computer game players attend from 40 different countries” (Seo & Jung, 2014, p.642). The scalability of this phenomenon is quite remarkable. Team-based titles such as Overwatch and Call of Duty are that of which are subject to current competitions produced on global level with the Overwatch League as well as the Call of Duty World League. At the highest level, and even in online matches, communication is an important aspect that can influence the sequence and result of events in-game. Next, it’ll be critical to analyse the types of communication each title makes use of, showing its relevance and how it helps gamers in a competing environment.

Types of Communication experienced within an Online setting

Text Communication vs. Voice Communication – and the addition of non-verbal in-game tools

Fig 1. Overwatch in-game text-based chat channels between team members (blue) and everyone in the match (orange). (Overwatch Chat, 2016).

Overwatch utilises different modes of communication, the first being text oriented. Players can communicate with their teammates using in-game tools such as ‘pinging’ which notifies their team when their abilities will be available. Following this, gamers can also initiate text-based conversations with their team. Figure 1 shows an example of the text chat in action. The players highlighted with the orange text display their disliking towards a players skill within their match. On the other hand, players are also able to communicate via the voice chat system. This is by far the more preferred way of communicating with team members being able to co-ordinate strategies and plays much more efficiently. The ‘competitive’ playlist is a place where the nature and testing of skill is created through Overwatch. Players are presented with a rank based on how they play against one another. A change in rank or ‘skill rating’ (SR) is a result of either winning or losing a match. Levels of communication are therefore required to be very efficient for teams to focus on obtaining specific objectives or eliminating the appropriate targets. Online games that offer something at stake or worth playing for creates value and frames the game as being competitive. To be successful in this environment, communication plays a pivotal role in crafting the way a team plays as well as adjusting to situations as they happen.

Types of Communication experienced through offline events – competing in a ‘LAN’ environment

Communication is not only conducted in an online setting but also through an offline environment at events or more commonly known as ‘LANs’ (Local Area Network). A LAN is a social event whereby “gamers link their PCs…in order to play together” (Jansz & Martens, 2005, p.335). This social setting is very common for those participating in ‘esports’ with major competitions hosted in this environment. The example makes mention to PCs being linked but console games, such as Call of Duty and Halo, have also been subject to LAN events over the years. LAN events commonly offer something tangible for those who win. The offline setting of LAN events creates a different essence of competitiveness. Communication plays a very important role at LAN events with so much more at stake in comparison to an online setting. Previously, I mentioned that communication was used to co-ordinate specific plays by teams to win in certain situations. Communication is much different in this environment with many gamers often subject to performance anxiety or lack of communication under a much stressful setting.

Fig 2. Call of Duty ‘esports’ stars OpTic Gaming take out the 2017 Call of Duty World Championship with a $600,000 USD prize and title of the best team ever. (Fletcher, 2018).

The tangibility of the prize money, trophy, as well as non-tangible aspects such as reputation is something often creates a competitive environment amongst gamers. Tangibility creates a drive “to win or surpass others…to accomplish levels that one’s friends cannot” (Jansz & Martens, 2005, p.337). Winning an event or any competition for that matter enables gamers to hold a reputation over others that haven’t completed the same feat; this is one of the main drivers that promotes competitiveness in an offline setting. Gamers such as those from OpTic Gaming would have been inclined to use a high level of communication between one another for processes in-game to be a lot more effective, and as a result, helped them to successfully win the tournament. Therefore, LAN events are an amalgamation of both online games as well as a social space for competitive gamers. For what was once regarded as a ‘third place’, this is one of the many concepts that are starting to blur the lines of becoming a much more evident part of the ‘real world’.

‘Esports’ viewership rivalling that of traditional sports and the future for ‘esport’ ‘athletes’

The viewership of traditional sports in comparison to that which is generated from ‘esports’ is something quite interesting. With the introduction of streaming platforms, such as Twitch and YouTube, it has lessened the barriers of entry into the realm of esports. According to Lack (2017) “Streaming platforms like Twitch (launched 2011) acted as growth catalysts for eSports”. Moreover, these platforms “provided the stage for tens of millions of viewers to watch their favourite teams and players live without traveling from their bedrooms. In doing so, they have allowed audience numbers to compete, and even outcompete, with traditional sporting competitions” (Lack, 2017).

Fig 3. Shows the finals viewership comparing NBA and MLB finals against the finals for League of Legends on the streaming platform Twitch. (Lack, 2017)

Viewership of ‘esports’ online can also be replicated in an offline setting at live events. One of the prime examples of this was at the League of Legends World Championship Final in Seoul, South Korea. It was said that “40,000 fans crowded…where huge opening and closing ceremonies featured bands like Imagine Dragons” (Lack, 2017). The viewership of ‘esports’ has transcended from preceding years. Twitch has pioneered a movement allowing for everyday consumers to delve into the concept of ‘esports’ online. The growth rate of the industry is remarkable with “Corporate sponsorship, audiences, and prize funds start[ing] to grow at a rapid rate” (Lack, 2017). Not only this, but “tournament regularity; from the year 2000 to the year 2010, the annual frequency of tournaments increased by 2600%” (Lack, 2017). The progression of this phenomenon is something that needs to be taken seriously with games like Dota 2 which has “awarded little short of $90,000,000 in prizes, with $20,000,000 given out in one tournament alone” (Lack, 2017). Following this even “Colleges and universities are cultivating ‘eSports’ teams” (Lack, 2017). For people that show a high interest in this field, one that was considered traditionally to be a hobby, can now look at ‘esports’ in a way that blends into ‘contemporary’ life as possible job prospects.

Limitations

There are a few limitations that need to be considered regards to the contents discussed in this paper. These include:

The scalability of Online Games. The online gaming community is far too broad to explore for the sake of this paper. The research conducted is only limited to that of the First-Person Shooter community and does not make many ties to extended gaming genres.

Examples identified. The examples of Overwatch and Call of Duty only offer a small insight into the realm of ‘esports’ and shouldn’t be reflective of the whole industry.

Accuracy of statistics. The statistics regarding ‘esports’ viewership should be reviewed more closely from various sources and should not be regarded as an accurate representation unless reflected in similar cases.

Conclusion

In summary, Online Games offer a range of benefits towards consumers exposed to its many intricacies. For many, games are a part of a third place which is identified by Soukup (2006) as “public spaces used for informal social interaction outside of the home and workplace”. Games within a third place offer an increased level of social capital as people learn to create relationships and form friends as an extension of everyday life. However, it must be noted that not all consumers have access to such technologies, making it somewhat exclusive. There’s also an aspect whereby games become competitive. I explained the concept of ‘esports’ and how competitiveness is stemmed contrasting to casual play amongst consumers. For those seeking to succeed in such a diverse and competitive environment the use of communication is vital. From here, the methods of communication experienced in First-Person Shooter titles are referred to, ultimately aiding gamers perform their best competitively. The paper transitioned to communication at ‘LAN’ events and how it differs from its online counterpart. Finally, the concept of ‘esports’ events from a viewership perspective are explored and how it’s becoming more evident as a part of contemporary society with an increase in esports tournaments online and at live events; ultimately rivalling those of traditional sports.

 

References

Fletcher, A. (2018). Top 5 Largest Esports Games & Their Prize Pools. Retrieved from
http://www.xygaming.com/content/top-5-largest-esports-games-prize-pools/

Jansz, J., & Martens, L., (2005). Gaming at a LAN event: the social context of playing video games. New Media & Society, 7(3), 333-355. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444805052280

Lack, A. (2017). A Comprehensive History of Esports. The Good, The Bad, and The Atari 1976 Space Invaders Tournament [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.adspreemedia.com/blog/comprehensive-history-esports-good-bad-and-atari-1976-space-invaders-tournament

Overwatch Chat. (2016). Chat Example. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/overwatch_chat/status/773348692640227328

Seo, Y. & Jung, S-U. (2014). Beyond solitary play in computer games: The social practices of eSports. Journal of Consumer Culture, 16(3), 635-655. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540514553711

Soukup, C. (2006). Computer-mediated communication as a virtual third place: building Oldenburg’s great good places on the world wide web. New Media & Society, 8(3), 421-440. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444806061953

Wadley, G., Gibbs, M., Hew, K., & Graham, C. (2003). Computer supported cooperative play, “third places” and online videogames. In S. Viller and P. Wyeth (Eds.), Proceedings 2003 Australasian Computer Human Interaction Conference (OzCHI 2003), Ergonomics Society of Australia, Canberra. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Gibbs3/publication/251747173_Computer_Supported_Cooperative_Play_Third_Places_and_Online_Videogames/links/5625617c08aed3d3f137129f.pdf

Identity, Pseudonymity, and Social Media Networks

Abstract

This paper explores the topic of identity in communities and social networks, specifically, how pseudonyms are used by social media users to control what is revealed about their identity (and to whom), for political dissent, to explore identity, and for freedom of expression. Examining published research by Hogan (2013), Marwick and boyd (2011), Papacharissi (2009), Smyth (2012, Lee and Liu (2016), Baym (2011), Christopherson (2007), Farrall 2012), Schäfer (2016), and Wielander (2009), this paper argues that the individual and societal benefits of pseudonymity far outweigh any harm. While there is evidence that pseudonyms and anonymity might lead to bad behaviour, the evidence also suggests that pseudonymity allows social media users to avoid context collapse, facilitates free speech, democracy and political dissent, affords teenagers the ability to experiment with their identity, and facilitates freedom of religious expression as well as freedom of non-religious expression.

Keywords: online identity, anonymity, pseudonymity, privacy, social media, social networks, online community, context collapse, political dissent, identity play, non-religious expression, religious expression.

Identity, Pseudonymity, and Social Media Networks

The purpose of this paper is to explore the topic of identity in communities and social networks, specifically, how pseudonyms are used by social media users to control what is revealed about their identity (and to whom), for political dissent, to explore identity, and for freedom of expression. Facebook users are told not to sign up for accounts with pseudonyms, but are required to sign up with their real names, that is, “the name they go by in everyday life” (Facebook, n.d.). Mark Zuckerberg believes that using a pseudonym to represent your identity is misleading and deceitful, saying, “having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity” (as cited in Van der Nagel & Frith, 2015, para. 7). On the other hand, Christopher Poole, founder of 4chan, believes “Zuckerberg’s totally wrong on anonymity being total cowardice. Anonymity is authenticity. It allows you to share in a completely unvarnished, raw way” (as cited in Hogan, 2013, p. 292). Hogan defines anonymity as “a state implying the absence of personally identifying qualities” (Hogan, 2013, p. 293),whereas pseudonyms “are a practice, which is often meant to facilitate nonidentifiable content” (2013, p. 292). The two are very closely linked, with pseudonyms being used to represent a particular type of identity, or to obscure identity entirely, facilitating anonymity. Many people agree with Zuckerberg, in that anonymity prevents accountability, enabling people to behave badly on the internet (Christopherson, 2007; Van der Nagel & Frith, 2015). However, this ignores the many advantages that pseudonymity affords both individuals and society as a whole. In this paper, I argue that pseudonymity in social networks protects privacy and empowers freedom of expression. Firstly, I will discuss pseudonymity with regards to context collapse. Secondly, I will discuss how pseudonymity facilitates free speech, democracy and political dissent. Thirdly, I will examine how pseudonymity affords teenagers the ability to experiment with their identity. Finally, I will discuss how pseudonymity facilitates freedom of religious expression as well as freedom of non-religious expression.

Context Collapse

Pseudonymity allows social network users to avoid “context collapse” (Hogan, 2013, p. 300; Marwick & boyd, 2011). People’s lives are made up of different parts, which involves different activities, and participation with different types of communities, and the way we behave and present our identities varies according to the context (Hogan, 2013; Marwick & boyd, 2011). We present ourselves differently to our friends, families, and work colleagues, and there are details of our lives which we may feel comfortable in sharing with one group, but not with another. It may be especially important to keep our personal life separate from our professional life, especially if there is a fear that details of our personal life may impact our professional reputation, even if it is doing something some people might perceive as being harmless. Similarly, Papacharissi describes the internet as a place where the barriers between public and private have been removed, or where there is a “confluence of private and public boundaries” (2009, p. 206). This has resulted in the need for individuals to “adjust their behavior so as to make it appropriate for a variety of different situations and audiences” (p. 207). For many, this can be difficult to achieve, and as noted by Marwick and boyd, some people attempt this through self-censorship (2011, p. 125). Although Papacharissi notes that some people create online boundaries by using privacy settings to control who has access to information on their social media sites, for many people, this may not go far enough. As Poole states, despite social media networks like Facebook enabling you to separate your audience into groups or lists, “the core problem is not the audience, it’s your context within that audience. It’s not who you share with, it’s who you share as” (Poole, 2011, 0:49). This, as he explains, is because our identities are “multifaceted […] like diamonds” (2011, 1:20). In other words, even though we still have just one identity, we present ourselves, and express ourselves differently in different contexts, and in order to maintain that degree of separation, people sometimes need to use pseudonyms when engaging with others on social networks.

Free Speech, Democracy and Political Dissent

Furthermore, pseudonymity also protects free speech, democracy and political dissent. Whistleblowers and activists may fear that criticising governments, politicians or corporations will lead to reprisals. Silencing protestors and whistleblowers means that corrupt or bad behaviour will continue, without any accountability, and with no hope for democratic reform. As Joichi Ito said in the New York Times,

The real risk to the world is if information technology pivots to a completely authentic identity for everyone. […] In the U.S., maybe you don’t mind. If every kid in Syria, every time they used the Internet, their identity was visible, they would be dead (as cited in Sengupta, 2011, para. 14).

The Arab Spring demonstrates how social media can be used to organise political protest and “for the promotion of free speech” (Smyth, 2012, p. 928). Protesters can use the Internet, mobile phones and social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter to quickly communicate with many people at one time, facilitating the dispersal of information as well as facilitating the organisation and mobilisation of protests (Smyth, 2012). But as Ito suggests, social media can also be used for surveillance and “to identify and punish dissents” (Smyth, 2012, p. 929). Equally important is Lee and Liu’s argument that the use of pseudonymity and anonymity is as important in a democracy as it is “in a repressive authoritarian society” (2016, p. 19). Even in places such as America and Canada where free speech is enshrined in law, pseudonymity and anonymity protects free speech and democracy by allowing people to express their views or criticise governments or politicians without fearing punishment.  Hogan exemplifies this with a case in Canada, where the mayor of Aurora, Phyllis Morris, lost her election campaign because of anonymous critical comments on a blog. She tried, unsuccessfully, to sue the commenters and the website, but the anonymity of the commenters was protected by law. However, as Hogan states, if they had been forced to reveal their identities, they may not have felt as comfortable about giving their “pointed, but legitimate, criticisms” (Hogan, 2013, p. 290). In light of this, it is inadequate to say that anonymity is not necessary in a democracy, because democracies can easily become authoritarian when individuals lose the protective cloak of anonymity which enables them to hold their government to account.  Pseudonymity, particularly when attached to anonymity, affords whistleblowers and dissenters a level of protection, which leads to a freer society.

Teenagers and Identity Play

Equally important, pseudonymity affords teenagers the ability experiment with their identity. This is what Baym calls “identity play” (2011, p. 387). Using the internet to explore or play with their own identity can benefit teenagers’ personal development (Christopherson, 2007, p. 3042). Pseudonyms release teenagers from any pre-conceived impressions or expectations their peers may have of them, giving them a clean slate to express themselves any way they like. Christopherson reports that one teenager claimed that pseudonymity meant he could talk to whomever “he wanted to talk to without negative social consequences… [and] people on the internet tended to be more expressive about thoughts and feelings than in FtF [face-to-face] communications” (p. 3042). Someone previously known as being introverted might be more expressive and communicative on online social networks such as discussion boards or chat rooms because they do not feel pigeonholed by their previous social reputation, allowing them to break free from any previous baggage and explore a new identity. Christopherson also noted that gaining confidence over the internet can also lead to greater confidence in offline, face-to-face environments (p. 3042). It appears that identity play is even more important for Chinese teenagers. A poll conducted in 2007 showed that Chinese teenagers “showed a 2 to 1 greater interest in anonymity” (Farrall, 2012, p. 435) compared with American youths. Additionally, twice as many Chinese youth admitted to experimenting with how they present themselves online, adopting “a completely different persona in some of their online interactions, compared with only 17 percent of Americans” (p. 435). This suggests that teenagers feel an enormous pressure to fit in and conform to a social group, which may be driven in part by “a need for a sense of belonging” (Wellman & Gulia, 1999, p. 14; Riding & Gefen, 2004). Pseudonymity means that teenagers can experiment with their identity in a socially supportive online community while maintaining their privacy and avoiding negative social consequences in their offline environment. Fear of negative social consequences can deter teenagers from expressing their individuality and exploring their identity. Pseudonymity thus allows teenagers to play with their identity and discover themselves, building confidence and leading to greater personal development.

Freedom of Non-Religious Expression

There is also evidence of pseudonymity facilitates freedom of non-religious expression. Schäfer (2016) writes of a case in Indonesia, where Alexander An was imprisoned for promoting atheism and attacking Islam on his Facebook page. Schäfer notes that in Indonesia, “where religiosity is the norm” (p. 253), and where there is “growing intolerance […] for expressing non-religious views” (p. 254), a growing number of atheists are using the internet and social networking sites to communicate and build a community of support. In most cases, they use pseudonyms on Facebook and Twitter to disguise their identity while still allowing them to be visible as a group. Schäfer points out that although it is possible for state authorities to trace the offline identities of social media users, it is really the general public who call for atheists to be held accountable. Since the average person does not have the technical means to trace the identities of the atheist internet writers, pseudonymity means that atheists can express their views without fearing a backlash. An chose to use his real name on his Facebook page, and was only arrested after members of the public tracked him down (Schäfer, 2016). These members of the public exemplify the physical local community who have created “an imagined community of sentiment, based on its opposition to others” (Katz, Rice, Acord, Dasgupta, & David, 2004, p. 336), with the “others” being the atheists. However, it is also clear that even the anti-atheistic community is mediated by technology, and that the atheistic and anti-atheistic communities are both physical and virtual “hybrids” (Katz et al., 2004, p. 337). Schäfer (2016) confirms this by noting that online discussions and meetings can carry over offline, even between the two. While using his real name was An’s choice, if everyone were forced to use their real name, there would be a significant decline in the number of people in Indonesia willing to express their anti-religious views online. So even if a real name is required to become a registered Internet user, the ability to use a pseudonym online protects people from harm, and enables the freedom of non-religious expression. This is also true for religious minorities in societies where non-religion (or a different religion) is the norm.

Freedom of Religious Expression

On the other hand, pseudonymity facilitates freedom of religious expression. China is an example of a “tightly controlling state” (Schäfer, 2016, p. 259), where the government has become increasingly wary of the growth of Christianity. Since 2013, Christian churches in China have been forced to remove their crosses, and some buildings have been demolished altogether (Goldman, 2018). More recently, Christians have been forced “to remove images of Jesus and replace them with pictures of Communist Party Chairman Xi Jinping” (Maza, 2017, para. 1). This type of anti-Christian government behaviour has driven many to join underground “house Churches” (Wielander, 2009, p. 166). Just as the internet and social media networks are used by Indonesian atheists to build a visible online community profile, Chinese Christian online publications such as Aiyan have been used to build a Christian community identity in China (Wielander, 2009). Wielander notes that most authors who contribute articles to Aijan avoid identification by using pseudonyms such as Christian names instead of their real name (2009). The online edition of Aijan also publishes readers’ comments, or “reaction to articles […]  therefore, while not having the immediate nature of a chat room, there clearly does exist a certain amount of exchange and interaction online between members of the community (Wielander, 2009, p. 170). This demonstrates how Chinese Christians can use blogs or other social media networks for communication and mutual support, but pseudonymous activity seems to have become increasingly stifled by China’s more recent changes to the real name internet policy. In the past, “real name registration was […] ‘encouraged’ rather than mandatory” (Farrall, 2012, p. 434). However, in 2011, Beijing became the first Chinese city to require micro-blogging service providers to “have their users register using their real names and personal information” (Li, 2012, para. 1).Whereas atheistic Indonesians are less concerned about real name registration because they are more fearful of offending fellow citizens rather than their government, the significant decline in “politically sensitive microblog posts” (Lee & Liu, 2016, p. 21) in China since 2011 demonstrates that citizens fear being punished by their government. This will impact Chinese Christians who are no longer able to use pseudonyms to protect their identity. Pseudonyms allow persecuted religious minorities in authoritarian societies the ability to gather in an online community of support and express their religious beliefs.

Conclusion

In summary, pseudonymity in online social networks protects the identity of users and facilitates freedom of expression. While some believe that accountability can only be enforced when people use real identities online, and that anonymity facilitates bad behaviour (Van der Nagel & Frith, 2015), Lee and Liu emphasize that, even when people use pseudonyms, their identity is still traceable (2016, p. 5). This means that anonymous social media users are still ultimately responsible for bad or illegal behaviour, but it also means that authoritarian societies can trace dissenters. However, even in these societies, pseudonymity still provides some level of protection. The evidence suggest that pseudonymity allows social media users to avoid context collapse, facilitates free speech, democracy and political dissent, affords teenagers the ability to experiment with their identity, and facilitates freedom of religious expression as well as freedom of non-religious expression. These advantages benefit not only individuals who are using pseudonyms but society as a whole through the promotion of a freer society.

 

References

Baym, N., K. (2011). Social networks 2.0. In The handbook of internet studies (pp. 384–405). Wiley. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/doi/pdf/10.1002/9781444314861.ch18

Christopherson, K. M. (2007). The positive and negative implications of anonymity in internet social interactions: “On the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog”. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(6), 3038–3056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2006.09.001

Facebook. (n.d.). What names are allowed on Facebook? Retrieved March 27, 2018, from https://www.facebook.com/help/112146705538576/

Farrall, K. (2012). Online collectivism, individualism and anonymity in East Asia. Surveillance & Society, 9(4), 424–440. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1314689548/abstract/C3A6319B862D4E33PQ/6

Goldman, R. (2018, January 13). Chinese police dynamite Christian megachurch. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from https://www.smh.com.au/world/chinese-police-dynamite-christian-megachurch-20180113-h0hujr.html

Hogan, B. (2013). Pseudonyms and the rise of the real‐name Web. In A companion to new media dynamics (pp. 290–307). Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/doi/10.1002/9781118321607.ch18

Katz, J. E., Rice, R. E., Acord, S., Dasgupta, K., & David, K. (2004). Personal mediated communication and the concept of community in theory and practice. In P. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication and community: Communication yearbook 28 (pp. 315–371). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Retrieved from http://www.comm.ucsb.edu/faculty/rrice/A80KatzRiceAcordDasguptaDavid2004.pdf

Lee, J.-A., & Liu, C.-Y. (2016). Real-name registration rules and the fading digital anonymity in China. Washington International Law Journal, 25(1), 1–34. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1862879515/citation/64452EB0023C429BPQ/9

Li, S. (2012, February 2). Is real-name registration necessary for micro-blogs? Beijing Review. Retrieved from http://www.bjreview.com.cn/forum/txt/2012-01/30/content_422194.htm

Marwick, A. E., & boyd, d. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810365313

Maza, C. (2017, November 14). Christians in China must replace Jesus with pictures of Xi Jinping or lose social services. Newsweek. Retrieved from http://www.newsweek.com/china-christians-jesus-x-jinping-social-services-welfare-711090

Papacharissi, Z. (2009). The virtual geographies of social networks: a comparative analysis of Facebook, LinkedIn and ASmallWorld. New Media & Society, 11(1–2), 199–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444808099577

Poole, C. (2011). “High order bit” talk. Web 2.0 Conference, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3Zs74IH0mc

Ridings, C. M., & Gefen, D. (2004). Virtual attraction: Why people hang out online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(1), 00–00. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2004.tb00229.x

Schäfer, S. (2016). Forming “forbidden” identities online: Atheism in Indonesia. Austrian Journal of South – East Asian Studies; Vienna, 9(2), 253–267. http://dx.doi.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.14764/10.ASEAS-2016.2-5

Sengupta, S. (2011, November 14). Rushdie wins Facebook fight over identity. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/technology/hiding-or-using-your-name-online-and-who-decides.html

Smyth, S. M. (2012). The new social media paradox: A symbol of self-determination or a boon for big brother? International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 6(1), 924–950.

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). http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v20i3.5615

Wellman, B., & Gulia, M. (1999). Net surfers don’t ride alone: Virtual community as community. Retrieved February 28, 2018, from http://groups.chass.utoronto.ca/netlab/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Net-Surfers-Dont-Ride-Alone-Virtual-Community-as-Community.pdf

Wielander, G. (2009). Protestant and online: The case of Aiyan. The China Quarterly, 197, 165–182. http://dx.doi.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.1017/S0305741009000095

© 2018 Sandra Endresz. All Rights Reserved.