Online Media Platforms and Social Networking allow for Deceptive Communication to Occur Online with Ease

 

Online Media Platforms and Social Networking allow for

Deceptive Communication to Occur Online with Ease

Abstract

This paper explores the connection between social networking platforms and the arise of deceptive communication in cyberspace as social media and technology become more interweaved into everyday routines.  The purpose of this paper is to assess how online platforms are changing the role and meaning of identity when evaluating online forums and whether social networking has encouraged deceptive communications upon individuals as new technologies have allowed for misleading and disingenuous interactions with ease. Through analyzing examples and various author studies, further clarity on this topic should be provided to understand if social platforms do indeed influence traditional communications and interactions and if in turn, have affected how identity and communities should be comprehended online.

 

Keywords: social networks, identity, online identity, community, social media, deceptive interactions, catfishing.

 

 

Online Media Platforms and Social Networking allow for

Deceptive Communication to Occur Online with Ease

 

Technology has had a profound effect on the way it has encouraged individuals to come together and communicate (Smith and Kollock, 1999). Online media platforms allow for interactions to differ from traditional face-to-face encounters, which can allow for deceptive communication to occur online, which can result in the presence of a misconstrued and phony identities being commonplace online. This has given way to the arise of catfishing and dishonest interactions in social networking platforms and within dating communities. These social networks have stripped away many of the core signals and concepts that make up the qualities of a conventional face-to-face encounter and therefore has made it easier for phonies to appear on social networks as someone they are not.  (Smith and Kollock, 1999) On these said online networks, communication is fast, inexpensive and reaches people at a world-wide level with platforms that allow for collaboration and interaction that has not yet been seen before this recent decade. (Smith and Kollock, 1999) This raises questions such as “How is the internet changing our basic concepts of identity, self-governance, and community?” (Smith and Kollock, 1999, p. 1). The powerful rise of social networking in accordance with the intensive reliance on technology this modern age has allowed, has encouraged individuals to take part in deceptive activities online, such as the introduction of ‘Catfishing’ on online platforms.

How the Rise of the Net has altered the meaning of Identity Online

The role of identity when evaluating social networks (and the communities that are created within these networks) is significant. When interacting within these social networks and communities, being aware of the persons who you are communicating and interacting with is vital. When communicating in the physical realm, individuals can be certain of whom they are connecting with, due to all the bodily cues that come with physical interaction. When evaluating virtual communication, it’s a very different premise (Donath, 1999). The online world allows people into a space which is abundant with interactive social platforms in which individuals are able to engage and meet with each other. “Instead of people talking to machines, networks are being used to connect people to people…These shifts make the creation of thousands of spaces to house conversations and exchanges between far-flung groups of people practical and convenient. Using network interaction media like email, chat and conferencing systems people have formed thousands of groups to discuss a range of topics, play games, entertain one another and even work on a range of complex collective projects” (Smith and Kollock, 1999, p.3) This has given rise to a completely new definition of identity when evaluating users of the internet, with parallel and multiple identities existing through innumerable platforms through virtual screens at a global scale (Turkle, 1997).

As Pearson (2009 n.p) outlines “Identity- as- performance is seen as part of the flow of social interaction as individuals construct identity performances fitting their milieu. With a heightened self–consciousness, online environments take this construction of performance to another level.” The internet’s technological advancement that has made way for an abundance of social networks, has indeed contributed to the sense of identity for individuals online. The introduction of these social networks is substantial, as the usage of these networks has webbed its way into countless individual’s everyday lives. Considering the limitless social network communities available to people, individuals can now express their identities through social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat. Through Blogs, Wikis or YouTube or even through dating communities like Tinder, eHarmony, and Bumble. There are endless opportunities for consumers of the net to latch their identities onto and “Real life can be just ‘one more window’” (Turkle, 1997, p. 74) These social spaces and platforms in which people are now engaging in and expressing these identities has given rise to the question, are the people we meet and interact with online, in this window, to be trusted?

The Net is Allowing for Deceptive Communication Online with Ease

The rise of the internet has also given rise to questions about the genuineness of the individuals we interact with online, as self-presentation of individuals is an aspect that can be controlled easily raising thought about the authenticity of others online.  “We begin with a consideration of identity, the basic building block of social interaction. All of our interactions, even those with strangers, are shaped by our sense of with whom we are interacting. In face-to-face and telephone interactions, there are a wealth of cues of varying reliability to indicate our identity and our intentions. Our clothes, voices, bodies, and gestures signal messages about status, power and group membership. We rely on our ability to recognize fellow group members in order to know who we can turn to and what we can expect.” (Smith and Kollock, 1991, p.8) With these distinctive physical cues stripped away, it leaves space for the imagination to replace what isn’t there. This means anyone on the internet can be anybody or anything they wish to be. The ease of self-presentation has never been so achievable for individuals and the will to create a persona for yourself is one that many find intriguing. “Critics worry that life on the net can never be a meaningful or complete because it will lead people away from the full range of in-person contact. Or, they worry that people will get so engulfed in the simulacrum virtual reality, they will lose contact with real life” (Wellman & Guilla, 1997). Not only is it of concern that meaning, and loss of contact is possible, But, what does self-presentation mean for individuals online? Are internet users under threat of ingeniousness and unsafe encounters? “O’Brien points out that there is a strain between those who view online interaction as an opportunity to ‘perform’ a variety of perhaps fabricated roles versus those who see cyberspace as a new communication medium between “real people” (Smith and Kollock, 1999, p.12). Moreover, how are we to define and decide who a real person is?

On differing social network platforms, the terms and conditions generally differ regarding whether the users of the site are able to communicate through an alternative identity than the one they were ‘legally assigned’ (Van Der Nagel & Frith, 2015). An example of this; is the controversial “real-name” anti-anonymity movement that Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg is leading. The user policies Facebook outlines specifically state that users are expected to identify as one person. With Zuckerberg stating, “having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity” (Van Der Nagel & Frith, 2015, n.p). However, this has caused some uproar from the drag queen community after Facebook commenced a mass deletion of personal pages from those who prefer to use stage names rather than legitimate names (Buhr, 2014).

Participants of the drag community believe they identify with their stage identities more so than their lawful one and are protesting for the right to express this online. (Buhr, 2014) An extract from their appeal is as follows; “We cannot emphasize enough that Facebook is a poor arbiter of what is or isn’t a real name. Performers with legitimate-appearing names get locked out of their accounts while people with account names like “Jane ICanBeBadAllByMyself Doe” go without scrutiny” (Buhr, 2015, n.p). However, on the flipside of this argument, some argue that the allowance of using multiple identities or illegitimate identities online can be extremely dangerous and can cause major turmoil for some participants of the online world, there have been known “catfishing” incidences that are becoming commonplace amongst Facebook as well as many other social networking sites. “The net is only one of many ways in which the same people may interact. It is not a separate reality. People bring to their online interactions such baggage as their gender, stage in the life-cycle, cultural milieu, socioeconomic status, and off-line connections with others” (Wellman & Guila, 1997, p.3) But what does this signify for our basic concepts of identity, self-presentation and community when people connecting on the social realm have imagined up their own separate reality, and these factors are not true to the person behind the screen.

 Deceiving Communication, Phoney Identities and Catfishing Incidence on Social Media and Dating Platforms

The use of modern technology has become a 21st-century cultural necessity to most individuals, most finding it hard to function without the usage of social media in their daily routines. That being said, there are also certain risks that may accompany the use of particular social networking sites. With online deception and catfishing becoming relatively normal to the online realm, users are at risk of experiencing threatening and misleading encounters online (Blazka, Smith & Smith, 2017). ‘Catfishing’ is a term that encompasses the action of an individual online, enacting on an incident of treachery and deceit by fictionalizing an entire being on the virtual realm (Kotteman, 2015). These predators assume the role of an alternative identity to deliberately trick people into a fictitious romantic or emotive relationship by stealing somebody else’s personal information and pictures or by fabricating a unique identity, and in online forums, this act is becoming progressively more mainstream (Kotteman, 2015). One of the first globally documented cases of Catfishing was recorded by known NFL football player Manti Te’o who was fooled into believing his cyber girlfriend, Lennay Kekua, had passed away from leukaemia, or had even existed (Blazka et al., 2017).

The investigators of the case state; “There was no Lennay Kekua. … She was not diagnosed with cancer, did not spend time in the hospital, did not engage in a lengthy battle with leukaemia. She never had a bone marrow transplant. She did not request he send white flowers to her funeral. Her favourite colour was not white. Her brother, Koa, did not inform Manti Te’o that she was dead. She did not exist. (Kotteman, 2015, p. 2).  She was merely a creation of someone’s imagination to intentionally deceive. After the relationship between Te’o and fictitious Lennay had been so deeply broadcasted by the media, the world was introduced to the phenomenon of Catfishing, and individuals felt disturbed and scared of the online realm they assumed they could trust (Kotteman, 2015). Catfishing is not only common on social networking sites such as Facebook but has also found its way into genuine dating platforms used by innocent customers whom are intentionally searching for a life partner. “With more than one-third of relationships being facilitated through Internet dating and with 45% of online daters citing social networking sites as the primary way in which they connect with potential mates, there are clear psychological and relational implications that make studying online interaction more important than ever” (Kadrich, 2016, p.9).

The conception of online dating has given humankind the chance to witness and observe the shifting traditional standards surrounding relationships online and understand the significant features of online behaviour, such as “impression formation and self-presentation strategies” (Van Der Nagel & Frith, 2015, p. 415). As online dating has considerably transformed from being a “marginal to mainstream social practice” (Van Der Nagel & Frith, 2015, p. 415) over the past decade with 17.5% of internet users claiming they have tried online dating (Kadrich,2016 ), it can be imagined how many individuals now contribute to the online dating world and what that could signify for the genuine partakers who are forced to engage with phonies, and how these misconstrued identities are becoming more common to ensnare a stranger. In some cases, Catfishing is used as a method to scam lonely and vulnerable romantics. Ian Doney was one of many victims of Catfishing, who at 51 years of age, trusted he had finally found love after finding a woman on a single persons website (Computer Act!ve, 2017). He was scammed out of thousands of dollars, sending his ‘love’, money to meet him abroad. She never showed up. He tried again to send her money and meet her, again, to no avail. Doney was eventually scammed into substantial debts and subsequently struggled to afford basic necessities or to even eat. He eventually spiraled into an immense depression and eventually paid the ultimate price by slitting his wrists and ending his life (Computer Act!ve, 2017).

This is just one example of the dire and extensive effects Catfishing and dishonest social networking can have on innocent victims, with researching showing “that roughly 20% of online dating service users use deceptive tactics” (Kadrich, 2016, p. 52) Even if the deception is something as minor as to enhance their appearance online to appear more desirable or lying about education, culture or class (Kadrich, 2016). It is evident that the technologically reliant world in which we live is increasingly becoming more deceptive on these social networking platforms used by individuals everyday, due to the ease and effortlessness it takes for individuals to conjure up a phony identity and ensnare a stranger.

Conclusions

To close, it is undeniably apparent that modern technology has had a powerful impact on the development and progression of social networks and the way in which individuals are now choosing to interact and communicate online with other fellow networkers. As the net provides a space for individuals that is substantially varying to that of a traditional face-to-face encounter due to the lack of bodily cues, it is proving to be a space that can allow for deceptive communication with ease. The existence of fraudulent and phoney identities is becoming more commonplace with cases of catfishing and deception occurring at a high rate on varying social platforms. This is due to the effortlessness it takes for these imitation artists to fictionalise an entire identity on these platforms that run with accessibility and convenience. It is ascertaining to be a space that is potentially threatening concepts of identity and community as we know it and revolutionising how we comprehend these concepts online.

 

References

Blazka, M., Smith, L.E., & Smith, K.D. (2017). Follow Me, What the Harm? Considerations of Catfishing and Utilizing Fake Online Personas on Social Media. Journal of Legal Aspects of Sport, 27, 32-90. Retrieved from http://heinonline.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/jlas27&page=32&collection=journals#

Buhr, S. (2014). Facebook won’t budge on letting drag queens keep their names. TechCrunch  Retrieved from http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/18/facebook-wont-budge-on-letting-drag-queens-keep-their-names/.

Ellison, N., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing Impressions Online: Self-Presentation Processes in the Online Dating Environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 415-441. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00020.x

How can we Detect Online Dating Scammers? (2017). Computer Act!ve (504), 11. Retrieved from https://search-proquest com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1940858972?accountid=10382

Kadrich, M. (2016). Examining the Use of False Identities in Online Romantic Interactions. Retrieved from Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1832346720?accountid=10382

Kottemann, K. L. (2015). The Rhetoric of Deliberate Deception: What Catfishing Can TeachUs. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1707929589?accountid=10382

Smith, M. A., Kollock, P., & Ebooks, C. (1999). Communities in cyberspace / edited

by Marc A. Smith and Peter Kollock. London ; New York: London ; New York : Routledge.

Wellman, B., & Gulia, M. (1999). Virtual Communities as Communities: net surfers don’t ride alone. In M. A. Smith & P. Kollock (Eds.), Communities in cyberspace (pp. 167-194). Retrieved from http://groups.chass.utoronto.ca/netlab/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Net-Surfers-Dont-Ride-Alone-Virtual-Community-as-Community.pdf

Van der Nagel, E., & Frith, J. (2015). Anonymity, pseudonymity, and the agency ofonline identity: Examining the social practices of r/Gonewild. First Monday, 20(3), <xocs:firstpage xmlns:xocs=””/>. doi:10.5210/fm.v20i3.5615

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

Pearson, E. (2009). All the World Wide Web’s a stage: The performance of identity in onlinesocial networks. First Monday, 14(3). doi:10.5210/fm.v14i3.2162

Turkle, S. (1997). Multiple Subjectivity and Virtual Community at the End of the Freudian Century. Sociological Inquiry, 67(1), 72-84. doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.1997.tb00430.x

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

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

Author:  Bec Allen

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

Abstract

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

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

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International

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

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

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

Social Capital and Identity

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

Intellectual Property and Cultural Protocols

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

Kinship and Connectivity

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

The Politics of Listening

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

Conclusions:  Growth despite challenges

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

Banner image CCO Creative Commons

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wellman, B. & Gulia, M. (1999). Net Surfers Don’t Ride Alone: Virtual Communities as Communities. In P. Kollock, & M. Smith (Eds.), Communities and Cyberspace. New York: Routledge.

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