Facebook’s Negative Impact on Romantic Relationships Through Encouraging Interpersonal Electronic Surveillance

PDF Version

Social Networking Site Facebook’s Negative Impact on Relationships Through Encouraging Interpersonal Electronic Surveillance

Abstract

This paper explores the negative impact that the social networking site (SNS) Facebook is having on romantic relationships through encouraging interpersonal electronic surveillance (IES) online. Examined throughout this paper is the heavy involvement that SNSs are playing in romantic relationships, whether it be building new relationships or maintaining pre-existing relationships. This paper discusses the contributions of jealous, anxious or attaching personality traits and how these can provoke relationship jealousy. This paper also discusses how jealousy within a relationship can lead to individuals conducting online surveillance of their romantic partner. The paper examines how relationships are being managed online and how SNSs are being used as a tool to maintain both online and offline relationships. It is also discussed in this paper the impact that IES can have post relationship and how individuals continue to monitor an ex-partners profile once they are no longer romantically involved with one another.

Keywords: social networking sites, social media, interpersonal electronic communication, dating, online dating, communities/networks.

Social Networking Site Facebook’s Negative Impact on Relationships Through Encouraging Interpersonal Electronic Surveillance

Social Networking Sites are becoming increasingly popular not only to create and develop new interpersonal relationships, but they are also commonly used to maintain existing relationships. SNSs have also presented a new platform for surveillance within romantic relationships. Tokunaga (2010, p. 705) argues that “SNSs have been reinvented into a tool for interpersonal surveillance along with their social networking capabilities”, this is an important theory to keep in mind when considering the growth of SNSs and the hierarchy that they play in romantic relationships and in online dating communities and networks. Whilst adults are still able to function without having their romantic partner right next to them, it is the emotional availability and support aspects that many expect from a romantic partner that remains a concern due to the increased use of social media and SNSs in romantic partnerships (Morey et al., 2013). This paper discusses how the online social media site Facebook has negatively impacted relationship trust by encouraging IES. The articles referenced throughout this paper will strengthen this argument by discussing how romantic relationships have been influenced by IES, what individual personalities are more likely to participate in the online surveillance of their partner and the effects that this surveillance is having on relationships and individuals even once the relationship has concluded.

Discussion

Online Relationships. Social networking sites, particularly Facebook, play an important role in the maintenance of existing online and offline romantic relationships. It has been discussed how “research has convincingly shown that SNSs are important in the emergence and maintenance of romantic relationships even though this may not be apparent from an individual’s perspective” (Neyer & Voigt, 2004, p. 282), which is an interesting point of discussion considering that majority of people use social media for reasons other than dating and romantic relationships and are becoming unaware that the emergence and maintenance of their romantic relationship, in fact, relies heavily on social media and SNSs. Social networking sites can make or break relationships; they give both a platform for individuals to find information about potential romantic partners such as hobbies and interests (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016), but also give the individuals the platform to obsess over and observe the online actions of others. Van Ouytsel et al. (2016) discuss in their article the popularity of initiating a relationship online through social networking platforms such as Facebook, with 47% of the 18-24-year-old age group surveyed admitting to using the internet and social networking sites for romantic advances. The growth and success of Facebook has created a solid platform for SNSs and its users around the world and over the years with “Facebook becoming the most successful single platform with more than one billion users worldwide” (Fox & Warber, 2014, p. 3) which shows just how dedicated users are to social media. By signing up to Facebook and creating a personal profile, romantic partners can send personal messages through the platform, can post directly to their partner’s profile publically, view photographs, investigate timeline history, and can even search through their partner’s online friends list (Fox & Warber, 2014). SNSs provide romantic partners with all they need to know about their loved one and provide users with the confidence to engage in new romantic relationships and maintain existing relationships through a social networking platform. However, there are numerous issues that can stem from individuals using Facebook as a means of communication and security within their romantic relationship.

Online Relationship Jealousy. Online social networking has been demonstrated to impact people’s romantic relationships in multiple ways. For example, “research documenting the negative impacts that social networking can have on romantic relationships by spurring jealousy, especially amongst individuals with anxious attachment styles” (Carpenter & Spottswood, 2013, p. 1531) illustrates the effects of social media and how it fuels jealousy in romantic relationships. Jealousy is a common feeling that is often experienced in romantic relationships and is especially prevalent in relationships between individuals who experience anxious or attaching personality traits. “With 950 million active Facebook members logging into their accounts daily” (LeFebvre et al., 2014, p. 79) there is no doubt that individuals are going to experience some uncertainty when it comes to their partner being active in online social networking environments such as Facebook. The frequent use of Facebook by an individual in a romantic relationship has had proven connections to some forms of jealousy (LeFebvre et al., 2014). The use of Facebook by relational partners has also been related back to Facebook-related jealousy which can be demonstrated through acts as simple as becoming jealous of a partner sending a friend request to the opposite sex (LeFebvre et al., 2014). Elphinston and Noller (as cited in LeFebvre et al., 2014, p. 80) argue that “determined cognitive jealousy and surveillance behaviours are linked to relationship dissatisfaction” this is a valid argument and puts forward the insinuation that online social networking use within romantic relationships influences the quality and outcome of the relationship.

It is the feeling of jealousy that seemingly drives those in romantic relationships to feel the need to dig further into their romantic partners’ social networking lives and online media profiles for more information on what they are doing, who they are engaging with and what they are engaging in online. This leads to uncertainty and trust issues within the relationship, “relational uncertainty stems from perceptions of ambiguity within the relationship, such as not knowing if the partner is serious about the relationship or if the relationship has a future” (Fox & Warber, 2014, p. 4). In other words, relational uncertainty in a relationship is often the cause for individuals in relationships to participate in jealous online behaviours such as IES. It is extremely normal for “the partner experiencing uncertainty to explore the content on their partner’s profile to determine what their partner is doing and who they are interacting with so that they can alleviate any uncertainty they may have about their partner and the relationship” (Fox & Warber, 2014, p.4) on the other hand, looking through a partner’s profile can also confirm any suspicions being had. Significantly, relationship surveillance through social networking sites such as Facebook is often seen as a tool of control and has also been referred to as the term Little Brother.

Little Brother is described as the occurrence in which individuals on the internet engage in surveillance through social networking sites to gain further awareness about the online behaviours and actions of others (Tokunaga, 2010). Today where online social networking is the norm, participation on social networking sites has become one of the most important ways to stay a fundamental part in a partner’s daily life (Tokunaga, 2010), which is considerably concerning. When we consider being in a romantic relationship or partnership with someone we do not presume that this means staying furthermore in touch with their social networking lives and profiles than reality itself and the physical and emotional sensations of a relationship. It is not uncommon for individuals to not realize that they are participating in IES as “surveillance can be as simple as an individual casually examining their romantic partner’s profile to gather the simplest information” (Tokunaga, 2010, p. 706). As this suggests, IES whether it is intentional or not can have a negative impact on a couple’s relationship.

Interpersonal Electronic Surveillance. Interpersonal electronic surveillance can impact romantic relationships in numerous ways. Le et al. (as cited by Sinclair et al., 2015, p. 78) state that in fact “analysis has shown that perceived social network approval is a consistent, negative predictor of relationship termination” which is an interesting argument and shows the impact that SNSs have on approval within romantic relationships online. Online social media profile analysis is otherwise known as IES, which is characterized as “surreptitious strategies individuals use over communication technologies to gain awareness of another user’s offline and/or online behaviours” (Tokunaga, 2010, p. 706). IES is an interesting concept and is very real in many romantic relationships where partners are regularly using social media platforms and SNSs to communicate with others outside of the relationship. The use of SNSs can provoke jealousy and surveillance which often leads to trust being broken within a romantic relationship, one individual may feel that their privacy has been invaded by their partner. Online social networking, in general, has affected the way in which we communicate with our romantic partners. Instead of face-to-face communication in relationships, couples are now turning to media and SNSs to communicate with their romantic partners; the internet specifically is changing relational communication, which is altering the quality of the communication within their relationship. IES, however, can develop further than just consistently observing a partner’s Facebook profile. Helsper and Whitty (as cited in Utz & Beukeboom, 2010, p. 514) report that “in about 30% of married couples at least one partner has at least once secretly read the e-mails of SMS text messages of the other partner” however, reading a partner’s emails or SMS messages is ultimately a breach of trust within a romantic relationship and is still a form of IES even though it is not conducted through social media or SNSs.

There are many different reasons for which individuals may feel the need to conduct surveillance of their partner in a romantic relationship. The first is suspicious jealousy, which can arise when a romantic partner may feel threatened by an external source whilst in a relationship (Tokunaga, 2010). The second is that individuals who have previously experienced a break of trust or infidelity with their romantic partner feel some uncertainty within their relationship and feel the need to observe their partners’ social networking profiles (Tokunaga, 2010). Interpersonal electronic surveillance can continue even after a relationship has ended with many individuals continuing to observe their ex-partner’s profiles.

Post-Relationship Surveillance. If it were not for online social networking and social media, after a break-up, many couples would have no option but to go their separate ways and would most likely not hear from or need to see their ex-partner again. But due to most individuals having online Facebook profiles along with other social networking profiles, it has become increasingly easier for people to stay in touch with one another.

It has also become increasingly easier for individuals to keep an eye on what their ex-partner is doing and who they are communicating with both online and offline. Furthermore, “when romantic relationships dissolve, people can retain access to an ex-partners status updates and pictures by remaining friends or through shared friends or information that is publically available” (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016, p. 78) this is concerning when considering the lack of privacy and security that SNSs often don’t provide. With Facebook allowing the upload of status updates and pictures, other users still have a clear view of what is occurring in a person’s life events, even if they are no longer romantically connected (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016). Interestingly, “almost a quarter of American adult social networking site users have admitted to searching online for information about someone they had dated in the past” (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016, p. 78) which many would consider seemingly unnecessary and inappropriate considering the romantic relationship has already ended. It is compelling to consider that even once a romantic relationship has ended that individuals can still watch what their ex-partners are doing. Whether an individual chooses to observe their ex-partners Facebook profile depends entirely on the individual themselves and the circumstances in which the relationship ended. There are many relationships that end and with that communication and online friendship is also cut off, and whilst this is the case for some it is not uncommon for “individuals who did not terminate the relationship themselves to search for information about their ex-partner rather than those who have initiated the breakup themselves” (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016, p. 78).

Often, social networking usage after a breakup can turn nasty, unreasonable and sometimes obsessive. IES is not the only way that ex-partners can keep in contact through social networking post-breakup (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016). Individuals can post on their personal profiles after a breakup to try and catch the attention of their ex-partner or someone who may be in contact with their ex-partner. There are three main ways that ex-partners can disturb each other through social networking; covert provocation, public harassment and venting (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016). Covert provocation can be simple things such as posting song lyric or poetry lines within status updates in reference to their ex-partner (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016). However, “these messages can be used to hurt the ex-partner or to communicate with the intention to get back together” (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016, p. 78) which often ends up having a negative effect on both the ex-partner and the individual committing the act. Public harassment activities, on the other hand, are less frequent and can include things such as “changing one’s relationship status from “in a relationship” with the intent to make the ex-partner jealous or posting embarrassing pictures of the ex-partner to humiliate them” (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016, p. 78) however, public harassment activities can also lead to a more damaging outcome. The third process of online social media disturbance is venting which includes “writing negative comments about the ex-partner and posting mean-spirited or hateful comments in a response to pictures of an ex-partner” (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016, p. 78) which is more commonly seen between young adults on social media today and majority of people have fallen victim to venting. Personality traits can also influence social media usage after breakups. Fox and Warber (2014, p. 2) discuss how “attachment styles influence reactions to breakups and that those with anxious attachment styles often have a longer recovery period and may continue to seek information about their partner after the breakup.” Fox and Warber (2014) conclude that their findings have proven that anxious attachment can cause further distress and frequent partner monitoring post-breakup. Overall, SNSs and IES can continue to impact a relationship even once it has concluded.

Conclusion

The popularity of social networking sites being used within relationships as a tool to both create new, and develop on, existing romantic relationships is becoming an increasing issue within social media platforms and SNSs which negatively impacts romantic relationships and breaks the trust between romantic partners. Social networking sites have also amplified the issue of surveillance within relationships particularly interpersonal electronic surveillance. The online social networking site Facebook has negatively impacted romantic relationships by encouraging interpersonal electronic surveillance. Surveillance within romantic relationships has been identified throughout this paper in relation to personality traits and jealousy issues being the leading causes when it comes to individuals observing their partner’s online profiles. Trust has also been identified as a contributor to interpersonal electronic surveillance. The impact that online surveillance has on relationships is negative and has affected the way that people may feel in a relationship or may treat their partner in a relationship. It was also discussed how surveillance of social networking profiles can continue even after the relationship has ended. There are many contributing factors into why individuals choose to observe their romantic partner’s social networking profiles but overall conducting surveillance of a partner’s Facebook profile is both an invasion of privacy and a violation of trust. Arguably, without the ability to survey a partner’s social networking profile, romantic relationships would work differently and would not be so negatively impacted by social media usage.

References

Carpenter, C., & Spottswood, E. (2013). Exploring romantic relationships on social networking sites using the self-expansion model. Computers In Human Behaviour, 29(4), 1531-1537. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.021

Fox, J., & Warber, K. (2014). Social Networking Sites in Romantic Relationships: Attachment, Uncertainty, and Partner Surveillance on Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behaviour, And Social Networking, 17(1), 3-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0667

LeFebvre, L., Blackburn, K., & Brody, N. (2014). Navigating romantic relationships on Facebook. Journal Of Social And Personal Relationships, 32(1), 78-98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407514524848

Morey, J., Gentzler, A., Creasy, B., Oberhauser, A., & Westerman, D. (2013). Young adults’ use of communication technology within their romantic relationships and associations with attachment style. Computers In Human Behavior, 29(4), 1771-1778. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.019

Neyer, F., & Voigt, D. (2004). Personality and social network effects on romantic relationships: a dyadic approach. European Journal Of Personality, 18(4), 279-299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.519

Sinclair, H., Felmlee, D., Sprecher, S., & Wright, B. (2015). Don’t Tell Me Who I Can’t Love. Social Psychology Quarterly, 78(1), 77-99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0190272514565253

Tokunaga, R. (2011). Social networking site or social surveillance site? Understanding the use of interpersonal electronic surveillance in romantic relationships. Computers In Human Behaviour, 27(2), 705-713. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.08.014

Utz, S., & Beukeboom, C. (2011). The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness. Journal Of Computer-Mediated Communication, 16(4), 511-527. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2011.01552.x

Van Ouytsel, J., Van Gool, E., Walrave, M., Ponnet, K., & Peeters, E. (2016). Exploring the role of social networking sites within adolescent romantic relationships and dating experiences. Computers In Human Behaviour, 55, 76-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.042

Creative Commons License: CC BY-ND

Contentious Conversations: Race, Religion and Participation Within the New Media Landscape

James Manson. May 2018.

Abstract

The ubiquity of the internet and subsequent convergence of technology and culture, combined with the functionality of social media has allowed for new media technologies to be utilised by indigenous and marginalised communities as an effective mode of communication that crosses several cultural, geographic and political lines. Social media has the capacity to democratise and empower users but also to homogenise and pervert understandings depending on its uses. This study has identified that the discussions surrounding issues dealing with indigenous and marginalised communities in Australia are not only proliferated within these communities themselves, but people are often mobilised in response to various crises and citizen reports. This uncovered an interesting mechanism whereby uninvolved agents within various political communities and special interest groups hijacked these issues surrounding indigenous and marginalised peoples, in order to, promote a loosely related agenda. Politics, power, fear, left vs right-wing politics, political correctness and human rights are identified as often at the heart of these discussions and require a discerning eye when navigating social media.

Keywords: Indigenous Communities Online, Social Media, Participatory Culture, Citizen Journalism, Social Capital.

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International

Continue reading Contentious Conversations: Race, Religion and Participation Within the New Media Landscape

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

Abstract

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

Keywords:

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

Introduction

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abstract

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

Keywords

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

Introduction

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

‘Facebook Official’: Dating Online

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abstract

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

Introduction

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

Indigenous Australians and Facebook

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

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

Indigenous Identity

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

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

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

Community Ties

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

Creating New Community Ties

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

Strengthening Existing Community Ties

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

Education

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

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

Limitations

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Katz, J. E., Rice, R. E., Acord, S., Dasgupta, K., & David, K. (2004). Personal mediated communication and the concept of community in theory and practice. In P. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication and community: Communication yearbook 28 (pp. 315-371). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

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

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

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

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

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

Using Instagram risks young adult users to develop depression

POSTED ON 06/05/2018 BY RATIMA CHANDREMA

Abstract

This paper discusses social networking sites (SNSs), which are used by around 40% of the world’s population daily to create an online world where users can use to present themselves, interact and stay connected with friends or strangers (Brown, 2018). In 2010, a social application named “Instagram” was developed and become the most popular image-based application. By that, many researches relate to social media and mental health issues have looked at the connection between them. In this paper, it will particularly investigate the connection between Instagram and depression. This paper will examine on common motives of using Instagram by young adults such as coolness and surveillance/knowledge about others and factors such as time spending on Instagram, percent of strangers followed, and social comparison which could be a risk to have depressive symptoms and could affect young adult users.

Keywords: Depression, Instagram, Mental Health, Social Media

Social networking sites (SNSs) give a public/private online space for individuals to present themselves and have remarkably changed the way we communicate, express our identity, do business, and live. Some of the most well-known and popular include Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. These SNS and associated applications are providing a channel for users to stay connected with their friends, communities, and the world (Donnelly, 2017). In these applications, users can share their ideas, personal information, photos and other kinds of media to their friends or even strangers. These abilities encourage users to express things that represent their identity. However, one of the SNS’s essential characteristics is social interaction from both content creator and viewer sides. These mentioned features create an online social world that is fundamentally different than its offline counterpart. To be successful in online social media applications means that the user has a lot of interaction from other users. The way to count those interactions is by looking at the number of their followers, numbers of likes and comment on their posts. It inspires users to present the most positive aspect of their lives in order to gain virtual attentions such as likes, or comments not only from their friends, but strangers around the world (Lup, Trub & Rosenthal, 2015). Most young adult users strive to be recognized in social media which is one of the negative impacts of using social media. This paper will focus on one of the most famous SNS among young adult, aged between 18-29-year-old called Instagram. It will examine on a statement that the usage of Instagram could affect young adult users to develop depressive symptoms.

Instagram and young adults

Instagram

Instagram is an online photo-sharing application which has 800 Million users from around the world (Wade, 2018). It is one of the most popular SNS applications among young adults. Instagram allows users to post pictures and short videos to their profiles. Text-only contents cannot be created on Instagram unlike other social media such as Facebook or Twitter (Lee, Lee, Moon & Sung, 2015). Users can write a caption or use hashtags to describe the photos. To look at the notable social interaction features, Instagram users can like, comment on posts, send direct messages to other users and they are able to tag other users in their pictures as well. Instagram users can choose to make their profile as a public or private profile but it is common for people to set their profile as public. The primary reasons of using a public profile are that it enables other users to able to view, follow the profile, give likes and comments on public posts. Another reason is the public profile can be searchable via names or hashtags on its posts (Lup, Trub & Rosenthal, 2015). By that, using hashtags can promote your pictures as well as your profile to be followed by other users who could be random strangers and gain popularity.

Motives of Using Instagram

Almost 60% of Instagram users are young adults, aged between 18 and 29-year-old (Wade, 2018). Sheldon & Bryant (2016), analysed Instagram users’ behaviors and studied the motives of using Instagram. The results show there are 4 major purposes of using Instagram which are surveillance/knowledge about others, documentation, coolness, and creativity. Moreover, they also found that users tend to put less significant on connecting or interacting with other people, but they focus more on personal identity and self-promotion. Two motives which are important to this paper are coolness and surveillance/knowledge about others.

People normally join activities because of popularity with their friends (Sheldon & Bryant, 2016). In the case of Instagram, it has features which society considers they are cool such as applying filters for your photos, tagging, following trendy hashtags, convenient ways to explore other users’ photos, and opportunities to follow celebrities’ life. Further than the features, Instagram offers a channel for ordinary people to gain popularity and self-promotion. Most of Instagram users’ goal is to gain a significant number of “likes” on their posts. For instance, Dumas, Maxwell-Smith, Davis & Giulietti (2017) have examined the frequency of doing like-seeking behaviors by almost 500 participants and the result presents that about 90% of participants have at least one like-seeking behavior. The most common behaviors are uploading and taking a picture, using a hashtag and a filter while using software or application to modify one’s physical appearance, and purchasing followers and likes are the least common behaviours (Dumas et al., 2017). They concern about the “likes” because ‘likes” are used to justify their popularity, also the number of followers is used to judge one’s popularity (Sheldon & Bryant, 2016). Greenwood (2013) said that it is human nature to have the need to feel seen, valued, and recognized by other people. Therefore, the “likes”, “comments”, and the number of followers have acted as a kind of social support from others. These can directly affect one’s self-esteem and self-worth. For example, participants in a study describe that they feel like winning, happy and flattered when they receive attentions such as likes or comments, on the other hand, it can lower self-confidence and self-esteem when they do not get many attentions (Chua & Chang, 2016).

Another motive that may cause depressive symptom is surveillance/knowledge about others. One of the main reasons for using Instagram is “surveillance/knowledge about others” (Whiting and Williams, 2013). Users that have this motive want to use Instagram to interact with friends, to see visual posts of others, to follow friends and inspirational accounts, to “like” followers’ photos. To look at the term “knowledge about others”, it means that users like to gather other users’ information ranging from socio-economic status, relationship status, number of friends and more which can be found on the Instagram profiles. These actions and behaviors of browsing other users’ photos on Instagram may trigger the presumption that these photos are demonstrative of how those users actually live. As the research from Lup, Trub & Rosenthal (2015) asserts that the act of conclusive other people life by judging from shown photos on Instagram’s profile makes people more vulnerable because they compare themselves with assumed lives of others. This can lower their self-esteem and trigger the occurrence of depressive symptoms.

Discussion

Depression is a sensitive issue to inspect and it could be different for each individual. However, researches by Lup, Trub & Rosenthal (2015), Hernandez & Smouse (2017), Donnelly (2017), and Uhlir (2016) which all study the connection of social media application usage and depression. By these researches, there are three major factors that can lead users to have depressive signs. The first is the amount of Instagram using time, next is the percent of strangers followed, and lastly social comparison. Those 3 variables are all connected together to make a development of depression of Instagram users.

The study from Lup, Trub & Rosenthal (2015) has focused on the link between frequency of using Instagram and depressive symptoms. He found that other variables such as social comparison and the percent of strangers followed are unavoidable to look at the same time. He purposes the links between those 3 factors with the depressive symptom (See Appendix A). The method that he used to collect data is doing a survey of young adult participants whose age is in the range of 18 to 29 years old. He collected information about the amount of time they use the Instagram daily, a total number of strangers who follow them and strangers that they followed, measured feeling scale 1 out of 10 of 4 items from the Social Comparison Rating Scale. Those 4 items are confident, attractive, desirable and inferior in comparison to other users on Instagram. And last needed info on depressive symptoms which measured by using the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale (CES-D). The results from Lup, Trub & Rosenthal (2015) study indicated that a significant moderator is strangers followed which associate between Instagram use and social comparison, but it has a slight effect on the association between Instagram use and depressive symptoms. Further, the research reveals that the more Instagram use is related to have a greater risk of depression only for users that have high levels of strangers followed. Still, there is a trend which shows that Instagram use and depressive symptoms can be indirectly associated when social comparison was positive at the highest levels of strangers followed. He interprets the results that more frequency of using Instagram had a slightly significant direct association with greater depressive symptoms. Also, more frequent Instagram use was not associated with social comparison, and more positive social comparison was associated with fewer depressive symptoms. About the number of strangers followed, it significantly controls the correlation of Instagram use with social comparison and it indirectly associated between Instagram use and depressive symptoms. His findings highlight the importance of how many strangers follows are, he said that it can lead to have a negative social comparison because users more likely to judge toward those they do not know and places improper attentions on their characteristics to explain behavior. However, seeing friends’ photos or posts might generate positive feelings because the users know how their friends actually live. Therefore, the conclusion from Lup, Trub & Rosenthal (2015) is using Instagram has negative effects with well-being for those who follow a lot of strangers, but for those who follow fewer strangers on Instagram, it reflects positive associations with well-being.

Another research from Hernandez & Smouse (2017) also investigates the relationship of time spent on Instagram and depression symptoms. It explains that spending large amounts of time on Instagram and seeing other people have happier lives make them believe that life is not fair. The author said that the feeling is worsen when they follow strangers and Instagram has offered an opportunity for users to do it. Moreover, when users follow public figures who have privileged lives, it will lead them to make a correspondence bias, and unsettled negative comparison, finally they could develop low self-esteem issues, dissatisfaction, and depression. Next study from Donnelly (2017), it adds another explanation for Instagram use associates with depressive symptoms by using social rank theory. Users are competing against other users to reach online social media fame and a common goal. On Instagram which fame means having lots of followers and likes on photos. Social rank theory verifies that users will feel overcome or upset if they cannot succeed in reaching the goal. Sloman (2003) states that when people fail to compete others in social rank, it considers as a failure and it can cause mechanisms for suffering from defeat. In relation to Instagram users, they could feel vulnerable and depressed because they are not achieving the Instagram platform goal by not receiving considerably likes and other attentions as other users.
Lastly, one more interesting research which similar to the research by Lup, Trub & Rosenthal (2015). Uhlir (2016) has studied the correlation between social media time and depressive symptoms. His mediation about relationships between variables are some different from Lup, Trub & Rosenthal (2015) by adding Positive self-presentation by others as a variable (See Appendix B). Although, he did not purposeful focus on Instagram the result of his research is interesting. He discusses that spending time on social media has linked to depression which mediated by social comparison. As well as, observing other users’ self-enhancing posts frequently on social media is often to have a social comparison-mediated and positive relationship to depression. Still, levels of favorable self-presentation of users are expected to be indirectly correlated with depression. He concluded that social media still can be good for users who have self-affirming purposes, but it will be unhealthy to use it for social comparison.

Conclusion

Social network applications become a new medium for people in this digital age to communicate and stay connected with other people whether friends or strangers. Most of social applications have offer interactive features such as “like”, “comment” or “follow” which are drawing attention for most teens and young adults. Especially, Instagram which has millions of users around the world and is one of the most popular among other social media apps (Wade, 2018). Instagram is a photo-based app with unique features that provoke users to have some kind of behaviors which may lead to develop depressive symptoms. From many social media or Instagram related studies, it could interpret that there are 3 major factors which are Instagram using time, percent of strangers followed, and social comparison. Those factors are the effects from their motives of using Instagram which 2 directly impacted motives are surveillance/knowledge, and coolness. However, those 3 depression provoked factors are connected together to make users have depression and it might depend on how the users use the Instagram as well. Lup, Trub & Rosenthal (2015) concludes that the users who have a higher risk to develop depression are those who spend a lot of time on Instagram, they follow a lot of stranger accounts to compare themselves with strangers and have a negative feeling toward strangers’ posts. All in all, Instagram is only a tool for online users to be used for earning popularity and connecting with other users. The application itself does not lead users to have depression but the way that the users use the application could contribute depressive symptoms. Still, more studies and research are needed to analyse the link between social media application and depression deeply because depression is a sensitive issue.

References

Brown, J. (2018). Is social media bad for you? The evidence and the unknowns.

Bbc.com. Retrieved 29 March 2018, from

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180104-is-social-media-bad-for-you-t he-evidence-and-the-unknowns

Chua, T., & Chang, L. (2016). Follow me and like my beautiful selfies: Singapore teenage girls’ engagement in self-presentation and peer comparison on social media. Computers In Human Behavior, 55, 190-197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.011

Donnelly, E. (2017). Depression among Users of Social Networking Sites (SNSs):

The Role of SNS Addiction and Increased Usage. Journal Of Addiction

And Preventive Medicine, 02(01), 1-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.19104/japm.2016.107

Dumas, T., Maxwell-Smith, M., Davis, J., & Giulietti, P. (2017). Lying or longing for likes? Narcissism, peer belonging, loneliness and normative versus deceptive like-seeking on Instagram in emerging adulthood. Computers In Human Behavior, 71, 1-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.037

Greenwood, D. (2013). Fame, Facebook, and Twitter: How attitudes about fame

predict frequency and nature of social media use. Psychology Of Popular Media Culture, 2(4), 222-236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000013

Hernandez, S., & Smouse, A. (2017). Frequency of Instagram Use and the Presence

of Depressive Symptoms in Young Adults. School Of Physician Assistant Studies. Retrieved from https://commons.pacificu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1611&context=pa

Lee, E., Lee, J., Moon, J., & Sung, Y. (2015). Pictures Speak Louder than Words:

Motivations for Using Instagram. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, And Social

Networking, 18(9), 552-556. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2015.0157

Lup, K., Trub, L., & Rosenthal, L. (2015). Instagram #Instasad?: Exploring

Associations Among Instagram Use, Depressive Symptoms, Negative Social Comparison, and Strangers Followed. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, And Social Networking, 18(5), 247-252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.0560

Sheldon, P., & Bryant, K. (2016). Instagram: Motives for its use and relationship to

narcissism and contextual age. Computers In Human Behavior, 58, 89-97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.059

Sloman, L. (2003). Evolved mechanisms in depression: the role and interaction of attachment and social rank in depression. Journal Of Affective Disorders, 74(2), 107-121. doi: 10.1016/s0165-0327(02)00116-7

Wade, J. (2018). Instagram Statistics 2017 | Smart Insights. Smart Insights.

Retrieved 29 March 2018, from https://www.smartinsights.com/social-media-marketing/instagram-marketing/instagram-statistics/

Whiting, A., & Williams, D. (2013). Why people use social media: A uses and

gratifications approach. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 16, 362–369. https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/QMR-06-2013-0041

Uhlir, J. (2016). Social Comparison and Self-Presentation on Social Media as

Predictors of Depressive Symptoms. Scripps Senior Theses. Retrieved from http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1801&context=scripps_theses

Appendix A

The diagram shows conditional associations between Instagram use and social comparison at different levels of strangers followed by Lup, Trub & Rosenthal (2015).

Appendix B

The diagram shows associations and relationships between variables by Uhlir (2016).

The work by Ratima Chandrema is under the license of

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

DOWNLOAD PDF

The social media movement: The creation of online and offline communities using social media in the Black Lives Matter Movement.

Jessica Petrides

THE SOCIAL MEDIA MOVEMENT

Abstract

This paper explores the use of social media platform Twitter and its ability to create strong communities online, which are then taken offline to enact change. I will examine what determines a virtual community and the factors that contribute to creating a strong virtual community. Building on this, I will explore how virtual communities have to capacity to transcends to that of one which also exists offline. This paper will use the Black Lives Matter movement as an example to demonstrate the way in which the online activist movement also created an offline movement by organising protests, rallies and boycotts.

Keywords: Black Lives Matter, social media, online communities, Twitter.

THE SOCIAL MEDIA MOVEMENT

Social networking sites (SNS’s) have the ability to connect a wide range of demographics, from all over the world, to form online communities. These virtual communities can be used to spread awareness, create support systems, facilitate relationships and generate strong-ties between users (Porter, 2015). These virtual communities also have the capacity to transfer to offline communities. An example of this is Black Lives Matter, an originally online community which has become an offline movement. The movement, which utilises the social media platform Twitter, fights to spread awareness against racial disparity in America, and was created following unfortunate events of mistreatment to African Americans. Originally starting as a hashtag (#blacklivesmatter), the movement transformed into on ground protests, boycotts and rallies right around America. By delving deeper into both the online and offline communities that Black Lives Matter has created, I will be exploring how SNS’s have the capability to go further than just virtual interaction, and its ability to spread awareness and form communities that gather face-to-face in the world to achieve a shared goal.

Social media communities and the Black Lives Matter movement

Porter (2015) describes virtual communities as passion-centric, where the focal point of the communication by individuals is a shared interest and the interaction of this is supported by technology. To build a strong virtual community there are a set of factors which create its foundations. These factors include a fulfilment of needs, shared emotional connection between members and a sense of belonging (Hersberger, Murray, & Rioux, 2007). Because of these foundations, the assumption for a well maintained community should include content and support which reaches its member’s expectations, be engaging and act in solidarity. As Forman, Kern, and Gil-Egui (2012) discuss, the fulfilment of needs, shared emotional connection and sense of belonging, are all factors which can be achieved in both virtual and face-to-face communities. This provides a transition from virtual community to face-to-face, and vice versa, to be that of a smooth one. Virtual communities forming on social media websites can be said to be split into two groups, computer supported social networks (CSSNs) and the other, a network-based virtual community (Porter, 2015). CSSNs cover users who only communicate over computers and have the potential to have strong, moderate or weak ties. The second, network-based virtual communities, covers those individuals who are geographically dispersed where members seek social benefits (Porter, 2015). The creation of these online communities can be performed through gaming, chat rooms and social media. With the ease of access to social media, it can be utilised as a space to gather, communicate and discuss issues. This can be seen on Twitter, which now amasses over 330 million users worldwide (Statista, 2018). The creation of online communities assisted in creating a large and ongoing civil movement in the United States of America. The Black Lives Matter movement began in 2013, as a response to George Zimmerman’s acquittal of the shooting and killing of unarmed, 17 year old, African American, Trayvon Martin. Created by Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors and Opal Tometi, three African American women who were united together in their stance to form a revolutionary peace movement, the term Black Lives Matter was created. The purpose of their movement was to, and to this day still is to, affirm African Americans humanity, contributions to society and resilience in the face of deadly oppression, as they wish to live in a world where black lives are no longer targeted for demise (“Herstory,” 2013). The movement is strong and powerful and truly took off in 2014, when protests commenced in Ferguson, Missouri, following the shooting and killing of Michael Brown, who was once again an unarmed, African American, teenager. Brown’s death by a white police officer gained a large amount of traction on Twitter, with the Black Lives Matter hashtag being tweeted about on an average of 58,747 times per day for three weeks after Michael Brown’s death (Anderson & Hitlin, 2016). The large amount of media coverage and response to this incident brought to light topics of national debate including race, rights and gun control. From these unfortunate events, and many others since (“Timeline: The Black Lives Matter movement,” 2018), the Black Lives Matter virtual community was born, and was used as a platform and tool to organise on-ground events for communities to engage in this social activism in person.

How Black Lives Matter created an online community

Black Lives Matter, which originally began as a hashtag on Facebook (#Blacklivesmatter), transcended into an extremely popular and widespread Twitter movement. It created a large community of users and from the movement entered a recognisable community, with its own agenda and identity, to end racial disparity and police brutality (Freelon, McIlwain, & Clark, 2016). Twitter emerged as a platform where users shared stories, found common ground in their concern of the events occurring and together were fighting for reform (De Choudhury, Jhaver, Sugar, & Weber, 2016). Millions of users expressed their concerns over brutality, and a recognisable community with its own agenda and identity formed (Freelon et al., 2016). This growing community utilised multiple hashtags, as shown in Table 1 in the appendix. With over 21 million tweets regarding the Ferguson riots, and over 9 million regarding the killing of Michael Brown. Millions of tweets including the names of other victims of police brutality were also posted. Members of this community were fighting give a voice to those who could no longer speak for themselves. Amongst the millions of tweets displayed in appendix one, De Choudhury et al. (2016) discovered that users with high participation in the movement rarely expressed high levels of negativity or anger in their posts. They were determined to fight for change, as a calm collective. They were firm in their stance to organise action and were socially connecting, supporting, coping and engaging with each other as a community (De Choudhury et al., 2016). The online community grew so rapidly in size, that these users had the capacity to spread news of any brutality and issues regarding the movement faster than mainstream media (Miners, 2014). Adding to this, Patterson (2016) found that the community associated with Black Lives Matter was larger than any communities that were associated with mainstream media outlets. This formed a powerful community that had the ability to be well-informed and knowledgeable and was able to control the speed of information dispersed. As Freelon et al. (2016) discusses, supportive communities consistently attract more attention than those that are unaligned or opposed, and the Black Lives Matter movement who involved users rallying together so their voices could be heard and their desire for change further discussed, is a prime example of this. Twitter support from celebrities including Lebron James, Kim Kardashian West and Lady Gaga among many more, expanded the movements reach even further (James, 2016; Kardashian West, 2016; Gaga, 2016). With celebrities having a reach of millions on Twitter, this type of traction on the issue assisted in the movements capacity to those outside of the community of the issues at hand.

How Black Lives Matter created an offline community.

From reaching millions to create a virtual community on Twitter, the Black Lives Matter movement also adapted to on-ground communities right around America. Using Twitter as the main platform, it was able to facilitate the organisation of Black Lives Matter protests, boycotts and rallies. The organisation of these demonstrations were not just completed by the founders of the movement, but were done by many individuals and other organisations who shared the same goals. From July 2014 to March 2018, over 2300 protests or other demonstrations were held in support of this movement . Some protests attracted thousands and lasted for days, the biggest, and most covered by the media being the Ferguson protests which attracted a great amount of worldwide media attention. Community members who were on-ground at the protests, continued to update members of the community who were unable to make the Ferguson protests due to geographical location (Freelon et al., 2016). DeRay McKesson was one of these community members who live-tweeted his experience at the protests. This total amount of retweets and mentions of the brutality that was displayed at the protests amassed to 1 million (Freelon et al., 2016). With people from around the world seeing what this community was capable of arranging, the protests not only become widespread throughout the United States, they also became international and continued to attract thousands, with solidarity marches held in Manchester, London, Birmingham and Bristol (Pidd, 2016). On-ground support of the movement was also demonstrated by celebrities who had originally expressed their support of the campaign via Twitter. Celebrity husband and wife duo John Legend and Chrissy Tiegen hired several food trucks to serve free food to those protesting the movement in New York, Jay Z and Beyonce hosted a charity ball where they raised $1.5 million to donate to social justice groups including Black Lives Matter, four NBA players delivered a speech at the opening of the 2016 ESPY (Excellence in Sports Performance Yearly) Awards where they brought to light their strong support of the Black Lives Matter movement and actor Jesse Williams produced a documentary titled ‘Stay Woke: The Black Lives Matter Movement’ (Price, 2016). This transition to what once began as a hashtag, to millions worth of donations, a documentary and people demanding action on-ground, is a true testament to what a Twitter movement has the capability to do.

Conclusion

As shown above in the Black Lives Matter movement, strong virtual communities have the ability to become offline communities. Virtual communities with strong foundations and a clear purpose as discussed by have similar characteristics to traditional communities, and therefore can be both online and offline. Twitter gave the Black Lives Matter movement a global audience and the employment of this social media form gave way for Twitter users to also become a part of on-ground activism rather than just online activism. The sheer magnitude of protests, boycotts, rallies and media attention the movement received is a testament to this. Although it is impossible to measure if the movement would have been as influential without the Twitter movement, I believe it would not have gained the vast amount of traction and support that is has, and still does.

Appendix:

Table 1: Retrieved from “Beyond the Hashtags: #Ferguson, #Blacklivesmatter, and the Online Struggles for Offline Justice,” by D. Freelon, C. D. Mcllwain, and M. D. Clark, 2016.

References:

Anderson, M., & Hitlin, P. (2016). The hashtag #BlackLivesMatter emerges social activism on Twitter. Social Media Conversations About Race. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/08/15/the-hashtag-blacklivesmatter-emerges-social-activism-on-twitter/#

At least 2,356 Black Lives Matter protests and other demonstrations have been held in the past 1,353 days. (2018). Retrieved from https://elephrame.com/textbook/BLM

De Choudhury, M., Jhaver, S., Sugar, B., & Weber, I. (2016). Social Media Participation in an Activist Movement for Racial Equality. Proceedings of the … International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, 2016, 92-101.

Forman, A. E., Kern, R., & Gil-Egui, G. (2012). Death and mourning as sources of community participation in online social networks: R.I.P. pages in Facebook. 2012. doi:10.5210/fm.v0i0.3935

Freelon, D., McIlwain, C. D., & Clark, M. D. (2016). Beyond the Hashtags: #Ferguson, #Blacklivesmatter, and the Online Struggle for Offline Justice.

Gaga, Lady. (2016, August 7). Paul O’neal…[Tweet]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/ladygaga/status/762381066682273792?lang=en

Hersberger, J. A., Murray, A. L., & Rioux, K. S. (2007). Examining information exchange and virtual communities: an emergent framework. Online Information Review, 31(2), 135-147. doi:10.1108/14684520710747194

Herstory. (2013). Black Lives Matter. Retrieved from https://blacklivesmatter.com/about/herstory/

James, L. (2016, July 7). This article says it all…[Tweet]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/kingjames/status/751234227836841989

Kardashian West, K. (2016, July 8). BLACK LIVES MATTER [Tweet]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/kimkardashian/status/751430737304252416?lang=en

Miners, Z. (2014). Analysis of Ferguson tweets shows Twitter’s quick grip on the news. Retrieved from PCWorld website: https://www.pcworld.com/article/2540140/analysis-of-tweets-around-ferguson-shows-twitters-quick-grip-on-the-news.html

Patterson, B. E. (2016). Black Lives Matter is Killing it on Twitter. Retrieved from Mother Jones website: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/study-shows-how-black-lives-matter-controls-police-narrative/

Pidd, H. (2016). Thousands attend Black Lives Matter solidarity march in Manchester. Retrieved from The Guardian website: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/11/black-lives-matter-solidarity-march-protest-manchester

Porter, C. E. (2015). Virtual communities and social networks. In L. Cantoni & J. A. Danowski (Eds.), Communication and technology (Vol. 5, pp. 161-179): Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.

Price, L. (2016). How Celebrities have Supported Black Lives Matter. Retrieved from People Celebrity website: http://people.com/celebrity/how-celebrities-have-supported-black-lives-matter/#the-weeknd

Statista. (2018). Number of monthly active Twitter users worldwide from 1st quarter 2010 to 4th quarter 2017 (in millions). Retrieved from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/282087/number-of-monthly-active-twitter-users/

Timeline: The Black Lives Matter movement. (2018). Retrieved from ABC News website: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-14/black-lives-matter-timeline/7585856

PDF Download

This work by Jessica Petrides is licensed under a: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

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

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

Abstract

Abstract

Keywords:

Introduction

Discussion

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

Conclusion

References

­Abstract

Introduction

Indigenous Australians and Facebook

Indigenous Identity

Community Ties

Education

Limitations

Conclusion

References

POSTED ON 06/05/2018 BY RATIMA CHANDREMA

Abstract

Instagram and young adults

Discussion

Conclusion

References

Abstract