Twitter

The Social Media Obsessed Generation Changing the US Gun Debate for the Better

Catherine Paull

Abstract

This paper explores how the surviving victims of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas (MSD) High School mass shooting have created a strong community and used social media to advocate for tighter gun control. They have formed the Never Again movement that has already gained widespread support, and organized two national events (National Walkout on March 14, and March for Our Lives on March 24). This paper examines how Web 2.0, and more specifically Twitter, has been used to form, mobilise, and maintain online communities. It also explores how social activists can use Twitter to create branding and social capital.

Introduction

“Be a nuisance where it counts. Do your part to inform and stimulate the public to join your action. Be depressed, discouraged and disappointed at failure and the disheartening effects of ignorance, greed, corruption and bad politics – but never give up.”

Marjory Stoneman Douglas (Willingham, 2018).

Marjory Stoneman Douglas was a journalist, environmentalist, activist, and had a high school named after her in Parkland, Florida USA (Willingham, 2018). Her quote was placed near MSD High School on March 14, the day of the National Walkout in North America in response to the school shooting, one month after 17 people were killed (Willingham, 2018). After the horrific event, several MSD students came together and created a movement which swept across North America, and the world, via the web. It is through the affordances of Web 2.0 that this community has been so successful. Twitter facilitated the formation, mobilisation and maintenance of the community, and without Twitter the community may not have formed.

The Never Again movement can be classified as a community of practice that formed as a result of their effective use of Twitter, and maintained through their leaders’ focus and determination. According to Katz, “the essence of the community is one of networked individualism, in which we all choose our own communities, rather than be fitted with others into them involuntarily” (Katz et. al., 2004, p.332). Through Twitter, other users have connected to the movement, and participated in debate surrounding gun reform with the leaders of the Never Again movement. A community of practice has three main features; it has a shared domain of interest, lively and active community members, and has a form of practice (e.g. sharing information, planning events, etc.) (Komorowski et. al., 2018). The Never Again movement can therefore be classified as a community of practice because of the shared interest in gun control, the community members and leaders are very active. Emma Gonzales, one of the more well-known leaders because of her passionate speech at the Fort Lauderdale Rally a few days after the shooting (Witt, 2018), created a Twitter account for the movement and has already posted 1, 653 tweets, and has over 1.5 million followers (Gonzalez, 2018). The community has a form of practice that includes sharing information, creating events (National Walk Out, March for Our Lives), and rallying against the NRA (National Rifle Association) (March For Our Lives, 2018). To understand how social activism is able to utilise the affordances of social media, this paper examines the Never Again movement, focusing on how an online community was formed, its ability to mobilise community members into real-world action, and how self-branding and social capital are used for activism.

Community formation and mobilisation

A community is a group of people connected through a common interest or topic, and it is based on the exchange of information (Katz et. al., 2004). The Never Again community was formed through the social media platform Twitter, using its hashtag tool. The hashtag #NeverAgain was created by Cameron Kasky two days after the shooting in MSD High School in Parkland, Florida (SBS News, 2018). Hashtags are a form of tagging folksonomy, which is a user-generated system of classifying information (Highfield & Leaver, 2015). Bruns and Burgess agree, and further suggest “hashtags are used to bundle together tweets on a unified, common topic,” which is why they can be useful for crisis situations, or activism movements (Bruns & Burgess, 2011, p.5). Hashtags on Twitter allow users to find tweets that are not generated by the people they already follow, and allows people who do not have Twitter accounts to also find posts (Bruns & Burgess, 2012). The #NeverAgain hashtag sparked the movement, and it quickly gained traction on Twitter, and a few days later the community was formed. According to Bruns and Burgess, “it is this very flexibility of forming new hashtag communities as and when they are needed, without restriction, which arguably provides the foundation for Twitter’s recognition as an important tool for the discussion of current events.” (Bruns & Burgess, 2011, p.7). The victims of the school shooting were standing up and talking about gun reform in a way that had never been done before. According to Dana Fisher, an expert on US social protests from the University of Maryland, the shooting happened during a period of intense political activism, which began with the Women’s March the day after President Trump’s inauguration (SBS News, 2018). Fisher argues “people are paying attention to politics like they haven’t before, including children,” and unlike the last school shooting at Sandy Hook, where 20 elementary school children and 6 staff members were killed, the students of MSD High School are older and therefore able to speak up (SBS News, 2018, “What Makes Parkland Different,” para. 3). Professor McAndrew, a mass shooting expert, argues “the ease with which social media is integrated in their lives also gives them an edge when it comes to organising and communicating with each other, as well as with the world at large” (SBS News, 2018). The cohesion of the movement is suggested to have been why it gained so much traction in such a short amount of time (SBS News, 2018).

Some scholars argue online activism is not strong enough to mobilise or sustain a movement, because these communities do not have any face-to-face communication (Harlow, 2011). Huberman et al, also argue there are two types of networks on Twitter – those that “matter” and those that do not (Huberman, Romero & Wu, 2009). The networks that matter are smaller, include people who are friends of the user offline, and they interact more frequently (Huberman, Romero & Wu, 2009). Huberman et al, argues the broader network, which reaches more people, is less influential because there is less interaction (Huberman, Romero & Wu, 200).

However, the MSD students were able to successfully mobilise their online community, and hold two significant protests offline – the National Walkout (March 14) and the March for Our Lives (March 24). According to Aguiton and Cardon, Web 2.0 platforms like Twitter highlight the importance of weak cooperation because they allow weak ties to mobilise and work together to share information (Aguiton & Cardon, 2007). This is demonstrated by the interaction and collaboration between the main organisers (the MSD students) and their weaker ties (their Twitter followers), which generated success for the two events, the Walkout and the March. The movement started online, however, the organisers effectively mobilised their community to flow offline. The National Walkout was originally planned to be a seventeen minute walkout with each minute representing a fatality in the MSD High School shooting, however, in many cities the demonstrations continued (Grinberg & Yan, 2018). According to USA Today, 2,800 schools across North America had students participating in the walkout, with some teachers joining in as well (Bacon & Hayes, 2018). It is estimated that 800,000 people marched in Washington DC on March 24 (Reilly, 2018), which demonstrates the successful mobilisation of weak ties. Marches were also held in Parkland, San Francisco, New York, Oakland, Bethel (location of 1997 school shooting where two students were killed), Newtown (location of the Sandy Hook shooting), and all around the world including Paris (The Guardian, 2018). Not only was online communication effective, it was the only way for these two events to unite students across the country in a way that has never been done before. TIME suggested “they’re the first school-shooting survivors who are old enough, angry enough, and medi-savvy enough to force the nation to grapple with a problem that adults have failed to solve” (Alter, 2018). Bruns and Hanusch argue social media platforms, like Twitter, “offer unprecedented opportunities for users to reshape public understandings of crisis events, contesting or reinforcing mainstream media frames” (Bruns & Hanusch, 2017, p. 1138). This is exactly what the MSD students, and other North American students, are successfully doing now to push back against the NRA. Twitter allowed these students to form and mobilise their online community, thereby turning it into an offline community as well.

Maintenance of the community and its message

The Never Again movement has been prolonged in the global news cycle because the MSD students have control over their message. Two core members of the Never Again campaign have tweets pinned to their Twitter account addressing the issue of others blaming or attacking political parties.

Instead they remind people to support the movement, work together, and advocate for change. After the initial reaction to the event, the MSD students narrowed the focus of their movement to a five core aims – fund research into gun violence and prevention/intervention programs, eliminate restrictions on the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF), universal background checks, ban on high-capacity gun magazines (magazines which hold more than ten rounds, that allow rapid firing), and a comprehensive assault weapon ban (March For Our Lives, 2018). The movement also promotes an increase of voter registration and turnout (for the upcoming midterm elections) (Alter, 2018). Instead of a generalised conversation about gun reform, the Never Again movement has centralised their message. Bastos argues social media platforms, like Twitter, “can rapidly shift between information diffusion and social network formations as users move from specialized to generic topics of conversation” (Bastos et. al., 2018, p.291). This means the centralisation of information allows more people to join the community because there is a clear topic of focus. This makes the movement more inclusive and helps appeal to Americans who do not want to give up their right to bear arms (under the Second Amendment in the Constitution).

Social capital and self-branding

This case study on the Never Again movement demonstrates how branding and social capital on Twitter can be used for social activism. Social capital is the concept of value that is associated to a person or that is constructed and reinforced by social contact, civic engagement, and a sense of community (Katz et. al., 2004). According to Katz, social capital is built through trust, which allows communities to accomplish more than any individual can (Katz et. al., 2004). It has become common practice for prominent public figures to use “self-branding” on social media to increase their social capital (Hanusch & Bruns, 2016, p. 39). The core members of the Never Again movement have effectively accomplished this using the affordances of Twitter. Four of the leaders of the Never Again movement mention their campaign, and demonstrate some aspect of their individuality through their Twitter account bio (refer to Appendix B).

Cameron Kasky brands himself as a Gryffindor (a Hogwarts house in the popular UK book series Harry Potter written by J.K. Rowling), and founder of #NeverAgain (Kasky, 2018).

Delaney Tarr brands herself as a student, an activist, and a “meddling kid” (in reference to the popular kids television show Scooby Doo) (Tarr, 2018).

David Hogg brands himself as a surfer, dreamer, reporter and activist (Hogg, 2018).

Jaclyn Corin brands herself as a “high school girl trying to save the country with her friends” (Corin, 2018).

These Twitter bios are personal, link to the Never Again movement in an effective demonstration of self-branding, and allows people to connect and relate with them. This approach by the leaders of the community builds social capital for the campaign, which influences more people to connect to the movement. In an interview with TIME, Corin suggests that without social media the Never Again movement would not have spread as effectively as it has – “social media is our weapon” (Alter, 2018). As activists, they have utilised the affordances of Twitter powerfully to promote themselves and their campaign.

Conclusion and future research

In conclusion, the Never Again movement has effectively used social media as an activism tool to promote their campaign. The MSD students are part of the generation that has been labeled narcissists by adults and stereotyped as constantly on social media. However, they are utilising the affordances of the very tools, such as Twitter and hashtags, that they are mocked for using, in order to advocate for change and lobby for tighter gun control in a way that has never been done before. According to Alter, “over the past month, these students have become the central organizers of what may turn out to be the most powerful grassroots gun-reform movement in nearly two decades” (Alter, 2018). To those who mock their movement, slander their leaders, and berate their message, Emma Gonzalez’s reply is – “we are prepared to call BS” (CNN, 2018, minute 10:35). In future studies, it will be important to evaluate how other student led social activism online will develop, and determine whether it is as widespread as the Never Again movement. However, in the near future it will be interesting to see how successful the Never Again movement is as the debate for gun control continues. The movement should be followed to determine if effective gun control measures are implemented in North America.

References

Alter, C. (2018, February 21). ‘We Just Had a Gun to Our Heads.’ The Florida Shooting Survivors Are Transforming America’s Gun Debate. Retrieved from TIME: http://time.com/5169436/florida-shooting-kids-gun-control-debate/

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

Bacon, J., & Hayes, C. (2018, March 14). ‘We deserve better’: Students nationwide walk out in massive protest over gun violence. Retrieved from USA Today: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/03/14/thousands-students-across-u-s- walk-out-class-today-protest-gun-violence/420731002/

Barnitt, John [John_Barnitt]. (2018, March 31). Retrieved March 31, 2018, from https://twitter.com/John_Barnitt

Bastos, M., Piccardi, C., Levy, M., McRoberts, N. and Lubell, M. (2018). Core-periphery or decentralized? Topological shifts of specialized information on Twitter. Social Networks, 52, pp.282-293.

Bruns, A. & Burgess, J. (2011) The use of Twitter hashtags in the formation of ad hoc publics. In Proceedings of the 6th European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) General Conference 2011, University of Iceland, Reykjavik.

Bruns, A. and Burgess, J. (2012). RESEARCHING NEWS DISCUSSION ON TWITTER. Journalism Studies, 13(5-6), pp.801-814.

Bruns, A. and Hanusch, F. (2016). Journalistic Branding on Twitter. Digital Journalism, 5(1), pp.26-43.

Bruns, A. and Hanusch, F. (2017). Conflict imagery in a connective environment: audiovisual content on Twitter following the 2015/2016 terror attacks in Paris and Brussels. Media, Culture & Society, 39(8), pp.1122-1141.

CNN. [CNN]. (2018, February 17). Florida student to NRA and Trump: ‘We call BS’ [Video File]. Retrieved March 28, 2018, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxD3o-9H1lY

Corin, Jaclyn [JaclynCorin]. (2018, April 2). Retrieved April 2, 2018, from https://twitter.com/JaclynCorin

Gonzalez, Emma [Emma4Change]. (2018, March 31). Retrieved March 31, 2018, from https://twitter.com/Emma4Change

Grinberg, E., & Yan, H. (2018, March 16). A generation raised on gun violence sends a loud message to adults: Enough. Retrieved from CNN: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/14/us/national-school-walkout-gun-violence- protests/index.html

Harlow, S. (2011). Social media and social movements: Facebook and an online Guatemalan justice movement that moved offline. New Media and Society, 1-19. DOI: 10.1177/146144811410408

Highfield, T., & Leaver, T. (2015, January 5). A Methodology for Mapping Instagram Hashtags. Retrieved October 30, 2016, from First Monday: http://www.firstmonday.dk/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/5563/4195#p4

Hogg, David [davidhogg111]. (2018, March 31). Retrieved March 31, 2018, from https://twitter.com/davidhogg111

Huberman, B. A., Romero, D. M., & Wu, F. (2009). Social Networks that Matter: Twitter Under the Microscope. First Monday. Volume 14 Number 1. http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2317/2063

Kasky, Cameron [cameron_kasky]. (2018, April 2). Retrieved April 2, 2018, from https://twitter.com/cameron_kasky

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.

Komorowski, M., Huu, T. and Deligiannis, N. (2018). Twitter data analysis for studying communities of practice in the media industry. Telematics and Informatics, 35(1), pp.195-212

March For Our Lives. (2018). How We Save Lives. Retrieved from March For Our Lives: https://marchforourlives.com/how-we-save-lives/

Reilly, K. (2018, March 24). Here’s the Size of the March For Our Lives Crowd in Washington. Retrieved from TIME: http://time.com/5214405/march-for-our-lives-attendance-crowd-size/

SBS News. (2018, February 23). Who are the #NeverAgain teenagers pushing for US gun control? Retrieved from SBS News: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/who-are-the-neveragain-teenagers-pushing-for-us-gun-control

Tarr, Delaney [Delaney Tarr]. (2018, April 2). Retrieved April 2, 2018, from https://twitter.com/delaneytarr

The Guardian. (2018, March 25). March for Our Lives: hundreds of thousands demand end to gun violence – as it happened. Retrieved from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2018/mar/24/march-for-our-lives- protest-gun-violence-washington

Willingham, A. (2018, March 14). In the wave of walkouts, a quote from Marjory Stoneman Douglas becomes a rallying cry. Retrieved from CNN: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/14/us/marjory-stoneman-douglas-quote-walkout-trnd/index.html

Witt, E. (2018, February 19). How the Survivors of Parkland Began the Never Again Movement. Retrieved from The New Yorker: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-the-survivors-of-parkland-began-the-never-again-movement

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International License.

Feature Image attributed to TIME Magazine and photographer Peter Hapak.

Social Networks: Public Relations and Twitter Communities

Keely Duffield

Curtin University

Abstract

This paper explores the notion that Twitter as a microblogging social network is an efficient tool for Public Relations (PR) professionals to build long-lasting relationships with networked communities. It presents the advantages of social networks include a decrease in geographical locations and spatial boundaries, while also having the ability to send 140-character messages to mass users among various multimedia platforms. The paper argues these affordances with the support of examples to demonstrate why this is efficient for PR professionals when building strong relationships in the Twitter community. To support the argument, a case study examining the American Red Cross as an organisation that regularly users Twitter to build relationships with publics will also be included. The paper also evaluates the limitations of communicating with communities online and whether this outweighs offline face-to-face communication with communities. Ultimately, the evaluation of limitations comes to the conclusion that PR professionals need the efficiency of online social networks to engage with communities as well as the traditional meaningfulness of face-to-face communication, this demonstrating the blurred boundaries between online and offline communities.

Key Words: social networks, virtual communities, Public Relations, Twitter

Introduction

Social networking has created a platform for communities online to communicate in new ways that compresses the boundaries of time and space. Online social networking platforms such as Twitter have become an efficient resource for Public Relations professionals to build long-meaningful relationships with networked communities. While offline communications are valuable in Public Relations, social networking has decreased the barriers of time and space allowing professionals to use communication strategies within the Twitter community that aren’t available offline. The Twitter community facilitates efficient communication strategies that gives PR a number of advantages in building relationships with networked publics. These advantages include a larger community in terms of geographical locations broadened, the control of time online, and using multimedia platforms and word-of-mouth to reach a wider community. A case study conducted by the American Red Cross demonstrates how each of these advantages assist PR professionals when building relationships with the Twitter community. However, it could also be argued that there are limitations when communicating through social networks in contrast to building meaningful relationships with communities offline. When evaluating both the advantages and limitations in engaging communities online, it’s imperative to understand that both social networking communities online and offline communities present different forms of communication that are essential in building professional relationships. These types of communication demonstrate that there are blurred lines between online and offline networks.

The platform Twitter organises its own communities through networks of individuals linked together sharing information, ideas, and desires. Calhoun (2002) defined virtual communities “large groups of individuals who may be linked together to share information, ideas, feelings, and desires” whilst being independent of geospatial location (as cited in Katz et al. 2004, 325). The virtual community sees the physical community as potentially repressive, as it ignores despatialised interests. Instead, virtual communities attempt to break through some of the boundaries of race, gender, ethnicity, and geographic location established in physical communities (Katz et al. 2004, 326). Although physical communities contrast with virtual communities through face-to-face communication and communication within technology, both forms of the community become blurred as they share specific characteristics such as intimacy ties, information-driven, and high social influence of human action (Baym et al. 2007, p.736). These characteristics are recognisable Twitter as intimacy ties and information-driven content are formed through conversations of shared thoughts and feelings, while high social influence of human action is the continuous connection of tweets and re-tweets that circulate throughout the twitter community. The idea that virtual networked communities on Twitter can present comparative strong ties to physical communities can be argued in the role of PR influence within Twitter communities. An example of this can be presidential campaign elections conducted through Twitter. In 2016 Donald Trump reasoned that 28 million followers across various social media platforms helped him win the presidential election against Hillary Clinton (McCormick, 2016).

Advantages of the Twitter Community and online communication

To use social media in PR campaigns such as a presidential election allows PR professionals to input influential tactics such as geographic location, timeliness, and multimedia messages to the masses in order to build communities and followers online. Kats et al. (2014) argue that virtual communities differentiate from physical communities by the independence of geographical location. Digital media encourages globalisation as social networks have the ability to create online communities by allowing individuals to contact strangers from another location out of close vicinity. When individuals communicate with distant ties they use “space-transcending affordances” of social media networking that wouldn’t be made possible offline (Boase 2008, p. 493). These affordances include communicating with other online users asynchronously and instantaneously (Jensan et al. 2009 p. 2170). As the Internet decreases the barriers of geographical locations, social networking communities such as the Twitter community gain a greater understanding of cultural and religious variations. In doing so this creates smaller, more exclusive communities within the larger Twitter network. A smaller community of different interest and desires allows PR professionals to target a wider or specific range of publics for communication strategies. These communities can identify in the example of #kony2012, a campaign in which presented a dictator who kidnapped children to become child soldiers for a suspected civil war in Africa. The campaign as it is now known as a hoax but during this period built a large following from all over the world and managed to influence these online communities enough to send money the campaign protesting against Kony (Sichynsky 2016). This campaign demonstrates by decreasing geographic locations online is a major factor as to how PR professionals have the ability to use cultural differences to build relationships with communities online.

Traditionally to communicate offline, communities would use face-to-face contact, this communication for would only occur on occasion or weekly. However, due to the affordances of the Internet communities on Twitter have the ability to communicate instantly and asynchronously. Timeliness online allows PR professionals to not only post updates to the Twitter community regularly but also respond to a crisis in a timely manner, thus reducing the damage of losing stakeholder relationships. Timeliness on Twitter allows the public to respond to a crisis around the world in real time. In recent events that occurred, Steve Smith (Australia’s cricket captain) had been found guilty for a ball-tampering scandal in a recent test match. Smith’s apology statement at the press conference led to thousands of fans writing their sympathies for the Australian captain on Twitter (“Twitter reactions to Steve Smith,” 2018). Taking action quickly as an organisation can lead to responses from the Twitter community within a matter of minutes. In Smith’s case, the community’s mass responses have the potential to change the opinions of the rest of the public.

Virtual communities are not limited to one social media platform in which they communicate. Often communities that are formed offline use social networking sites as an affordance for communicating. Not only has social media allowed communities to communicate but to communicate on various platforms that are suited appropriately for the audience viewing the content; platforms include Linkedin to network business associates, Twitter for news, and Facebook for social (Saffer, Sommerfeldt, & Taylor 2013). Social media networks often have an algorithm that allows user accounts on platforms to connect with other social media platforms. This contributes to building larger communities online. Twitter as microblogging network meant that individuals that posted regularly and who followed over 100 accounts, would often expect to have more followers in return. This shows that what an individual posted online a mass sum of followers could like and retweet creating more attention to content created (Boyd 2006). Hashtags are an effective tool for PR professionals to link a particular interest or idea across a networking platform. Using hashtags on Twitter creates awareness around a topic by clicking the link it leads to a page on that particular platform presenting all post that uses the linked hashtag (Su et al. 2017, p.576). Using hashtags on Twitter generates conversation within the online community, especially activist hashtags and tweets. A popular example is the hashtag #blacklivesmatter which was tweeted over twelve million times (Sichynsky 2016), this changing a large percentage of Twitter to create a unified online community. Twitters social networking tools can build and maintain relationships between institutions and online communities through the use of tweets, hashtags, and hyperlinks (Su et al. 2017, p.576). By using Twitters social networking tools, it allows PR professionals to connect with other social media platforms, therefore becoming effective in creating larger communities within social networks to build stronger relationships.

When evaluating a company and consumer relationship, it is recognisable there is often a lack of trust coming from the consumers’ perception of the company. Twitter’s way of crafting short messages to reach the masses asynchronously and instantaneously has only enhanced the opportunity for PR professionals to build stronger relationships with the Twitter community. Twitter has made it simple for PR professionals to ensure trust with its publics through online conversations via word-of-mouth. Richins and Root-Shaffer (1988) defined word-of-mouth as the process whereby information is transferred from person to person, contributing to customers buying decisions (as cited in Janson et al., 2009). By understanding Twitter’s casualness an organisation can tweet to its community and if the message is positive the masses will continue to re-tweet and tweet positive reviews about organisation, hence building greater trust between consumer and company. In a research study conducted by Jansen et al. (2009, p.2177) the results showed that 60% of tweets for brands were positive and just over 22% of tweets were negative. The research also found that while there was more positive brand word-of-mouth circulating Twitter, prior research literature formulated that negative tweets have greater significance. The research conducted demonstrates that when businesses use microblogging websites it creates a space to allow two-way symmetrical communication between companies and consumers. Therefore, this allows the Twitter community to have more trust in companies by using word-of-mouth is gives the community an input in brands. This efficient PR tactic, therefore, creates a more positive, balanced relationship between Businesses and online communities.

Case Study: American Red Cross Organisation

Briones et al. (2011) conducted a case study survey, interviewing 40 participants from the American Red Cross organisation in order to examine the usefulness of social networking sites for PR communication strategies. The literature review for the research explains that not-for-profit organisations greatly benefit from social media not only because it strengthens relationships between the organisation and the community but also it allows virtual communities to have more input and collaboration within the community. The survey results showed that two-way communication dialogue developed between the Red Cross and the younger Twitter community has proven to be a valuable communication strategy for building long-lasting relationships between the organisation and its publics. The results support the idea that virtual communities on social networks appreciate two-way dialogues many of the participants stated that social media allows them to “be a part of the conversation” (Briones et al 2011, p.38). Su et al. (2014, p.573) argued that the two-way model is relevant to social media practices as they are dialogue based. In the findings, it was also notable that many participants found Twitter and Facebook were the best social media tools for building stronger relationships with the community. One participant stated, “It’s actually better, we get more response from our postings on Facebook and Twitter than our more traditional” (as cited in Briones et al. 2011 p.39).

When examining the American Red Cross case study, it can be identified that the encouragement of using Twitter to build stronger relationships was fuelled by positive reactions toward two-way communication. The success of the American Red Cross relationship with the Twitter community relies on the affordances that the Internet provides. It allows the ability to send a message instantaneously and asynchronously to another user that isn’t in the same geographic location. Not only this but social networking has the affordance to send a message to mass audiences using hashtags to get messages across to multimedia platforms during times of crisis. These affordances of social networking are the reasons the Red Cross has the capability of building strong relationships with communities online and offline.

Limitations of online communication strategies in communities

While PR still currently uses traditional media and face-to-face as a means of communication with stakeholders, social media is now an effective tool used for communicating with public on a more regular basis. The one-way communication model limited communities to engage with organisational branding. However, there are theorists such as Cummings et al. (2000) and Albrecht & Adelman (1987) that would argue that traditional media and face-to-face communication with stakeholders encourage more meaningful relationships (as cited in Baym 2007, p. 737). The limitations of social networking with communities online can be difficult to have control over conversations and responses. It can also lead to information being lost or becoming misinterpreted by the mass audience. However, it could be argued that using PR strategies offline has proven to be equally important as using them online. As Web 2.0 becomes embedded in everyday lives, it’s rare to find a community offline that doesn’t use social networks as a tool for interaction. Gruzd, Wellman, and Takheyev (2011) argued the idea that personal networks are still more robust than online social networking, however, each form of communication can enhance the other. The theorists state, “For years, social scientists have responded by systematically showing that almost all people who interact communally online also see each other in person. They have found that the Internet and in-person contact extend and enhance each other, rather than replace each other” (Boase & Wellman, 2006; Chua et al. 2010). Therefore, it is important for PR practitioners to stay relevant to their publics. To do these practitioners need to maintain community relationships and engage with communities equally online and offline.

Conclusion

Online social networks have facilitated a space that allows PR professionals to use networking and microblogging platforms such as Twitter to build long-meaningful relationships with online communities. The advantages of social network platforms have allowed PR professionals efficiently connect virtual communities. The affordances of online social networks include the decrease in geographical and spatial boundaries, and the ability to send a message to a mass number of online users that can be reached across multiple social networking platforms via word-of-mouth, tweets, and hashtags. Each of these social networking advantages is evident in the American Red Cross case study, demonstrating that each advantage has made it more efficient for PR professionals to build a long-lasting relationship with the Twitter community. It’s recognisable that there are limitations to communicating online such as the loss of control in conversations and messages lost amongst the masses, therefore, it’s valuable to use offline communication strategies as well. It’s also important to consider that PR relies on communication online and offline as they support each other as the boundaries become blurred. The significance of online communities within social networks will only expand in PR practice, as communities support a forum where they are able to engage and create this building further trust between organisations and public. Ultimately, it’s important to consider that Twitter as a microblogging social networking platform has made communication for communities and PR significantly effective.

References

Baym, N. K., Zhang, Y. B., Kunkel, A., Ledbetter, A., & Lin, M. (2007). Relational quality and media use in interpersonal relationships. New Media & Society. 9(5), 735-752. http://dx.doi.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.1177/1461444807080339

Boase, J. (2008). Personal Networks and the Personal Communication System: Using multiple media to connect. Information, Communication & Society, 11(4), 490-508. Doi: http://dx.doi.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.1080/13691180801999001

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

Briones, R. L., Kuch, B., Liu, B. F., & Jin, Y. (2011). Keeping up with the digital age: How the American Red Cross uses social media to build relationships. Public relations review. 37(1), 37-43.

Gruzd, A. Wellman, B. and Takhteyev, Y. (2011). Imagining Twitter as an Imagined Community. American Behavioral Scientist. 55(10). 1294 – 1318. Doi: 10.1177/0002764211409378

Jansen, B., Zhang, M., Sobel, K., & Chowdury, A. (2009). Twitter power: Tweets as electronic word of mouth. Journal of The American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(11). 2169-2188. DOI: 10.1002/asi.21149

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

McCormick, R. (2016). “Donald Trump says Facebook and Twitter ‘helped him win.’” The Verge. https://www.theverge.com/2016/11/13/13619148/trump-facebook-twitter-helped-win

Sichynsky, T. (2016). “The 10 Twitter hashtags changed the way we talk about social issues.” The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/

Saffer, A., Sommerfeldt, E., & Taylor, M. (2013). The effects of organizational Twitter interactivity on organization–public relationships. Public Relations Review. 39(3), 213-215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.02.005

Su, L. Y., Scheufele, D. A., Bell, L., Brossard, D., & Xenos, M. A. (2017). Information-sharing and community-building: Exploring the use of twitter in science public relations. Science Communication 39(5), 569-597. http://dx.doi.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.1177/1075547017734226 Retrieved from

Twitter reactions to Steve Smith’s emotional press conference. (2018, March 29). Sports: The Times of India. Retrieved from https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com.

Conflict, Authenticity and Deception: The Impact of Trolls on Communities and Networks

Abstract

This paper will discuss how identities within technologically mediated communication channels have drastically impacted communication between online community members. This communication failure has resulted in conflicts within online communication sites, such as Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Twitter. This paper discusses the lack in social capital which will eventuate in conflict and friction within an online community. The focus on identities highlight the differences that are perceived by other community members including trolls by utilising examples such as the Madeline McCann case and the Australian Republic Movement. These differences are based on interpersonal comparisons reflecting past experiences in dealing with all aspects of authenticity and deception.

Keywords: Conflict, social network, identity, community, authenticity, deception, social capital.

Introduction

Conflict is applicable in all forms of communication, both online and offline, which often stem from within a form of a community. Typically, this conflict is due to a clash of identities with individuals or group of identities in specific community, were levels of support differs from community members. Communities are defined as a group of people that depend on social involvement and communication. (Katz et al., 2004, p. 217) This is evident through the traditional face-to-face discussions most commonly used today or alternatively through an internet-mediated communication channel, such as Facebook Messenger, Instagram or YouTube. But either way, conflict is inevitable within communities where identities express member opinions over a thread of time or a subject matter. This paper will argue that the lack of social capital will create conflict (friction) in an online community from identities that are empowered by community member differences through online communities. These differences are based on interpersonal comparisons reflecting past experiences within the aspects of authenticity and deception with a focus on trolls within social media.

Expression of Identity on Social Media

Before we dive deeper into how conflict manifests through social media and trolling. Jensen based his media definition as the “socially formed resources that enable human beings to articulate an understanding of reality, and to engage in communications about it with others” (2008, p.45). This definition best describes the differences in traditional communications whereas digital interactions utilises modern technology mediated devices enabling online communications. With this understanding, it is essential to note that the main difference between offline and online communities is that online communities are not bound by geographical locations and are asynchronous. Some communities are started offline with face-to-face contact and then precede to move online, a common example would be a group chat through Facebook messenger. This community is formed offline in a social physical space, which then moved online for convenience and accessibility before meeting offline again. Sole online communities, in comparison are formed without any face-to-face contact and communication is sent to multiple members, often being instantaneous, resulting in zero-time delay between messages. These online communities have no intention of progressing offline to remain anonymous and create their own performed identity.

A large majority of these online communities are commonly held on Web 2.0 platforms. Boyd and Elision define social networking sites as “web-based services that allow individuals to; construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system; articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection; and view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system” (2007, p.4). Social networking sites such as Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn, allows ‘friends’ that embodies a weaker bond in a relationship between members. Hence the membership process of a social networking site, members have an opportunity to protect their personal interest by not disclosing informative data on their profile. These social networking sites in the main do not verify any information, reinforcing the view that a members ‘online self’ may be different to their ‘actual self’. This process provides choices for members to participate within an online community, creating an opportunity for friction or conflict to arise.

Online community membership grants you several choices in order to express a non-verbal expression; whether the message remains authentic or deceptive about your identity online. Within these communities, members can remain individualistic within a group or provide support to other group members which requires time or expertise in the online community. Jensen (2011) defines this choice of social interactions as relations of availability, accessibility and performativity. That is “What is known……? Who knows what……? and Who says and does what – in relation to whom?” (Jensen, 2011, p.50). As an example, conflict may can stem from the use of Facebook to market an event, where the invitee loses control with unexpected attendees via mass communication to unintended participants. This concept underpins the notion that our online identity comes with a choice.

Further Pearson states that “Online, users can claim to be whoever they wish. Like actors playing a role, they can deliberately choose to put forth identity cues or claims of self that can closely resemble or wildly differ from reality” (2009, p. 1). Pearson then goes one to argue that our identity is like a performance, everchanging to suit the situation, meaning that our identity is not fixed at any point in time, but is instead a fluid construct that is evolving into what we deem appropriate. A key concept to this argument is that members of an online community may hide their true identity in full or part, where misaligned intentions can create conflict within an online community. This concept may lead to conflicts within social networks as it opens the door to deceptive conduct within the community, disturbing the flow of interaction (Coles & West, 2016).

Identity and the Community

A key feature of a community is that it must itself have a sense of identity, which are known to the members within the community (Kendall, 2011). Furthermore a community itself “confers identity and participant identities also play an important part in the formation and continuation of communities” (Kendall, 2011, p.318). From the above quotes, it can be applied that members may not contain similar knowledge and attitudinal elements of a ‘real community’ but in fact be dissimilar. This contradiction as described by Kendall (2011), directly relates to online communities – where conflict and/or friction between members may arise. Further, members are concerned about the ability of a community to mask their identity, which can relate to whether a participant is authentic or deceptive while engaging online. This was evident in the case of Madeline McCann where communities clashed over the parent’s involvement her disappearance. These communities were recognised as either Anti-McCann’s or Pro-McCann’s. These groups clashed over twitter, creating friction and conflict between the participants, that lead to different group identities within the one community. Both identities used emotive language to enhance their identities while at the same time strengthening the divide between the two groups (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017).

Emotional baggage held by group members can also lead to different identities that share common threads in the most part but be polar opposite on other views. This is particularly most noticeable with identifiers such as a person race and gender (Kendall, 2011). Donath raises the point that “knowing the identity of those with whom you communicate is essential for understanding and evaluating an interaction” (1999, p.1) particularly where the evaluation outcome is subjective. This was demonstrated with the differing opinions on how the Republic Movement in Australia provided alternative methods to select their head of state, appointment versus election (Charnock, 2001). Kendall (2011, p.318) further stated that group members can “mask their identity, or to present a deliberately deceptive identity”, to notionally benefit their members where they feel best represents themselves, authentic or not. As in the Republic Movement, the perception bias of this selection can create friction and prevent the movement progressing within the political online community.

Social Capital

It is important to consider the level of social capital required to create and maintain any social network. Figure 1, as shown in the Appendix represents a framework for the creation and maintenance of online communities is grounded on sociological and information technology concepts (Vivian & Sudweeks, 2003). The framework demonstrates the connection between social spaces, social capital and identity for members in the social formation of relationships. Overall social capital can be beneficial to online communities as it creates trust and honesty between members, which is vital for the survival of the online community. Eklinder-Frick, Eriksson & Hallén (2015, p.2) defines social capital as a “resource in society, where it is associated with trust and social cohesion”. Even with idiosyncratic opinions – online communities can thrive as long as trust and honesty prevails in the community. However as stated by Annen (2003, p.451) social capital is described “as a player’s reputation for being cooperative within a social network”, where any conflict within this framework can only assume the greater good will be accepted from members in determining the final outcome. But unfortunately, this is not likely to occur where cooperation is required and not forthcoming in communities where controlling behaviours from individuals does not conform to typical norms. A lack of cooperation will further discourage trust and create conflict / friction with differing knowledge and attitudinal elements over time. This is reinforced by Annen (2003) where control over a community is only developed over time and through regular communications. A lack of participation by members due to conflict will lead to poor online community performance.

Authenticity

When members participate in online communities, a conflict or friction situation is bound to occur given the membership process for social networking sites, even if the members are being authentic to themselves. This is due to the fact that every member’s idiosyncratic opinion originates from distinct cultural backgrounds and past experiences. According to Buendgens-Kosten, authenticity in its broadest sense is “related to the notions of realness or trueness to origin” (2014, p.1) and is referenced to the characterisation of language to the quality of text (spoken or written). So, while it is important to remain authentic to one’s self while participating in online communication sites, it is critical to remain cautious to the dangers of the internet as it is related to members cultural backgrounds and limiting the amount of identity performance taken place. This is done in a hope to avoid being characterised as a troll, who are aggressive, disruptive and deceitful (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017).

Deception

Social networking sites also allows for fake accounts to be created, where impersonation between members can occur with no mechanism to actualise the authentic identity. Regrettably, indirect trust is assumed for social networking sites without any verification. This deceitful tactic is most commonly known as catfishing, where one individual lures someone into a relationship through a false or factious persona. This is a downfall of online communities with no way to authenticate your identity within these communities. This idea of social caption and trust are closely linked as deceitful communication tactics represents a lack of social capital, allowing the likes of trolls and catfishes to “create conflict for amusements sake” (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017, p.76) which further reinforces the need for members to protect their identity online. As an example, Stone (1992), shows a woman who was supposedly talking to a ‘fully disabled old lady’ named ‘Julie’, who in actual fact turned out to be a “middle aged male psychiatrist” who simply wanted to talk to other women as a woman (Stone, 1992, p.2). In this case while the intent was not malicious the tactic demonstrate deception, mis-trust and potential conflict.

Deception can also be found in social networks through the concept of trolling. This is where someone pretends to be a genuine member of a community, by sharing the passion and identity of a group, but then deliberately attempts to “disrupt the community by baiting participants” (Kendall, 2011, 319). Baiting is the process in which a member of the online community deliberately posts to anger or disrespect other members of the community. The consequences of such trolling, as stated by Donath (1999, p.71) is that; “Trolls can be costly in several ways. A troll can disrupt the discussion on a newsgroup, disseminate bad advice, and damage the feeling of trust in the newsgroup community.” Furthermore, in an online community that has become sensitised to trolling “the rate of deception is high – many honestly naive questions may be quickly rejected as trollings” (Donath, 1999, p.71). This extract reinforces the damage that trolls can have on a online community, but also the level of conflict or friction that can arise between the troll and the impacted existing members.

Trolling is a common problem today with some serious cases punished by criminal conviction, however these consequences are the exception rather than the rule (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017). This has resulted in the spreadability of trolling, which has in the majority been unpoliced. The increase in trolling has followed the rise in social media networks, with the number of social network users purported to be 2.46 billion as of 2017 (Statista, 2018). With this significant statistic, it’s only a matter of time before conflict rises between users, with social capital and trust being eroded from online communities. An example of trolling was evident in the aftermath of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in 2007. This case saw a group of trolls on twitter, under pseudonyms, posting about how the parents were responsible for the abduction of their daughter (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017). These tweets were often “abusive and antagonistic and are also known to engage in verbal attacks against anyone who takes to Twitter to support the McCanns” (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017, p.71). The consequences of trolling through online communities, can often lead to the polarisation of beliefs, attitudes and values amongst the community, making trolling not only unpleasant but also very unethical where it has the ability to cause great harm (Coles & West, 2016). The actions of trolling has the potential to generate vast amounts of conflict and friction with communities, which can span years. This is evident in the McCann case with the hashtag on twitter receiving 100 tweets every hour (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017). Deception and indirect trust are key concerns for members within online communities today, without a foundation of authenticity.

Conclusion

This paper discussed the key elements that formed the creation and maintenance of online communities which highlighted the importance of identities, social capital and the relationships built in the social formation of an online community. With these concepts, frameworks and constructs, I have argued that conflict and or friction can apply in all forms of online communities where authenticity is non-existent. This conflict is substantially due to the expression of idiosyncratic opinions within communities that impact community identities over a thread of time and subject. This paper argues that the lack in social capital will create conflict and friction where differences exist in attitudes between members on the basis of past experiences in dealing with the all aspects of authenticity and deception.

Appendix

Figure 1: A conceptual framework for the creation and maintenance of social networks (Vivian & Sudweeks, 2003).

References

Annen, K. (2003). Social capital, inclusive networks, and economic performance. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 50(4), 449-463. doi:10.1016/S0167-2681(02)00035-5

Baym, N. K. (2011). Social Networks 2.0. In M. Consalvo & C. Ess (Eds.), The Handbook of Internet Studies (pp. 385-405). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x

Buendgens-Kosten, J. (2014). Authenticity. ELT J., 68(4), 457-459. doi:10.1093/elt/ccu034

Coles, B. A., & West, M. (2016). Trolling the trolls: Online forum users constructions of the nature and properties of trolling. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 233-244. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.070

Charnock, D. (2001). National identity, partisanship and populist protest as factors in the 1999 Australian republic referendum. Australian Journal of Political Science, 36(2), 271-291. doi:doi:10.1080/10361140120078826

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

Eklinder-Frick, J., Eriksson, L. T., & Hallén, L. (2015). Social Capital, Individuality and Identity. Paper presented at the IMP Conference, Kolding, Denmark. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:820088/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Jensen, K. B. (2008). Media (Vol. 9). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Jensen, K. B. (2011). New Media, Old Methods –Internet Methodologies and the Online/Offline Divide. In M. Consalvo & C. Ess (Eds.), The Handbook of Internet Studies (pp. 43-58). Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

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 Annals of the International Communication Association (Vol. 28, pp. 315-371): Routledge.

Kendall, L. (2011). Community and the Internet. In M. Consalvo & C. Ess (Eds.), The Handbook of Internet Studies (pp. 310-325). Hoboken, NK: Blackwall Publishing Ltd.

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

Statista. (2018). Number of social network users worldwide from 2010 to 2021 (in billions) [Fact sheet]. Retrieved from

https://www.statista.com/statistics/278414/number-of-worldwide-social-network-users/

Stone, A. R. (1992). Will the real body please stand up? In M. Benedikt (Ed.), Cyberspace: First Steps (pp. 81-118). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Synnott, J., Coulias, A., & Ioannou, M. (2017). Online trolling: The case of Madeleine McCann. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 70-78. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.053

Vivian, N., & Sudweeks, F. (2003). Social Networks in transnational and Virtual Communities Informing Science, 1-7.

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

Beauty Influencers and Their Changing Identities

Abstract

This paper explores how within the beauty community, specifically looking at the YouTube and Instagram community of influencers that have amassed millions of followers, beauty influencers are shaped by the community as they make changes to their identities based on the platforms they are on. The platforms explored are Instagram and Twitter, discussing the infrastructure and community each platform has and the power they have. Examples of beauty influencers and their scandals are used to illustrate this point. The community and individuals who participate in the community are discussed briefly, in terms of what role they play and what power they have individually and collectively. Overall, Instagram is found to lean towards community and Twitter towards infrastructure to influence change within identity in beauty influencers.

Keywords: identity, Twitter, Instagram, social media, beauty influencers, power, beauty blogging

Introduction

The beauty industry has benefited from the fast paced and ever growing community it has attracted online. The dynamics the community present many questions as to how they continue to work and grow. In this paper, I aim to look at identity in communities and networks and will focus on the online beauty community, specifically looking at the YouTube and Instagram community of influencers that have amassed millions of followers, and I argue that beauty influencers are shaped by the community as they make changes to their identities based on the platforms they are on. The theme of power will be explored as it is a concept that ties into all aspects of this paper. First, I will compare both platforms of Instagram and Twitter, discussing their differences and similarities. Next I will examine each platform individually starting with Instagram and the relationships between individuals and influencers and how this relation shapes an influencer’s identity. Finally, I will explore Twitter and its infrastructure and, community and how it can impact how an influencer creates their identity. For the purposes of this paper, I will only discuss influencers who have a relatively large following, English and Western sector of the beauty community. This will help narrow the paper and explore influencers who do alter their identity at a larger scale.

Definitions

Key concepts such as community and identity must be defined to create a framework for this essay. According to Sanders (as cited in E Rice et al., 2004, p. 4), community is made up of four elements, which include “a place to live, a spatial unit, a way of life, and social system”. E Rice et al. (2004) further states that virtual communities though may not fit into past definitions of communities which were made more for physical communities, still are communities as they are based on different ideas compared to physical communities. They are more focused on the individual conveying their identity as true as possible without general regard to social rules in physical communities. Virtual communities are based on “shared social practices and interests”, and physical based on “shared social and physical boundaries” (E Rice et al., 2004). A more recent definition by Preece (as cited in Cavanagh, 2009, p. 2) states a community’s characteristics include “shared goals, common interests, shared activities and governance, mutual satisfaction of needs, co-operation, enjoyment, pleasure and location as common understandings of community”. This definition of community can be used to define and lay out characteristics of the beauty community. The beauty community of influencers all have a shared interest in beauty, with a focus on cosmetics and they all have a mutual understanding and passion for it. They share social boundaries in the form of grouping together influencers who have the same style of makeup or content and the social practices are very similar across influencers, sharing their makeup or lifestyle surrounding the topic of beauty. Instagram’s algorithm pushes this further by recommending similar beauty accounts to a user based on who they follow, as they post similar content. This showcases that the beauty community has characteristics of a typical community and it is not a new concept of a community. Twitter showcases this as well by the hashtags displaying several users posting makeup looks or tweets relating to beauty, showing their participation and shared interests. Dyrberg (1997) defines identity as the final product of identification, one that happens due to the existence of complex power relations. Such a definition is relevant to beauty influencers that make a brand out of their name, their identity is formed through power relations and what they do.

Instagram and Twitter

Both Twitter and Instagram have its differences and similarities in the way the community and platform encourage for aspects of identities. Both Instagram and Twitter have a like function which usually means that the viewer is showing their approval of the post (Anagnostopoulos, Parganas, Chadwick, & Fenton, 2018). The way one responds to post however, are different, as on Instagram, the comment stays within the post, while on Twitter, a new tweet is made but is attached to the original tweet (Highfield & Leaver, 2014). This difference can cause an influencer to alter their identity differently, as on Instagram, comments may have little effect due to the grouping of all the comments. Whereas on Twitter, each individual reply is a tweet on its own, creating a more sense of self for the individual as beyond their username, their display name and profile photo are shown, which might have a greater effect on how the influencer takes feedback from their posts and decides to alter from it. It might also affect the way a commenter makes their comment and what kind of message they decide to leave. Those on Instagram are only identified by their username in the comments but on Twitter, more of their identity is shown. The way comments are made on both platforms and how they can affect alterations in identity can be seen through the example of Samantha Ravndahl, who posted a photo of her in Japan and including in the description her experience and what lessons she has learnt through the trip (Ravndahl, 2018). Immediately, her post received negative comments, calling her privileged and uncultured. Ravndahl turned the comments off on that post and has never since posted anything on her Instagram of similar content. She also posted the same photo and caption to Twitter and received some negative comments but also received drastically different, positive comments. This shows that bad comments in her Instagram post gave little care in leaving a negative comment, whereas on Twitter, those who left comments realised and understood the content Ravndahl was posting. This example shows the differences between the two platforms and displays the different aspects of them. Conversely, influencer James Charles receives many positive comments on both platforms but projects drastically different identities on both platforms, with Twitter, he creates an identity of being relatable and tweets about everyday things, however with Instagram, he focuses more on makeup, fashion, and lifestyle, thus creating a professional version of himself. Both influencers show even on different platforms, communities can be similar or drastically different and how an influencer may want to alter their identity differently across platforms.

Instagram

The beauty community on Instagram are often mocked by influencers on other platforms, from their wavy brows to breast insert blending sponges, one may look at them and not understand how they work. The community can be broken up into four dominant users; brand accounts, influencer accounts, update accounts and, individual accounts. This paper will focus mainly on influencer and individual accounts, looking at the relationships and community formed around influencer accounts. Individual accounts can be viewed as the everyday participant on an influencer’s Instagram posts. These accounts may view their interactions on posts having little to no impact, however Granovetter (1973) argues that their interactions is tied to bigger aspects of social structure and that they have little to no control of this. Such interactions can also be viewed as weak ties, which are relationships people have that hold lesser value than strong ties which are ties that have a relationship that holds a strong bond. The interactions consist of commenting or liking an account or post and, viewing these posts, and the way they do this affects the community they form by influencing the social cues. This in turn impacts the influencer users who take the feedback they receive from the individual users to alter their posts/account and in turn they tweak their identity to fit the community.

Since Instagram is limited to photos, videos and a text description, this impacts how an influencer can build and present their identity. Highfield and Leaver (2014) point out that compared to other platforms, Instagram encourages “standardised bits of information”, instead of giving an extensive story. This is due to the limitations of the platform, one is only allowed to post media and text is only an option in captions and though one can share text via images, it still is a media format. This is also brought over to Instagram stories where stories are limited by time. This forces influencer to share a snippet of what they want to. Such standardised information is reflective of influencer accounts, with majority of their posts being photos at an event, a restaurant, the beach and, so on. This limit influencers on what and how much they can share about their identity. Thus, each post is important in helping to build and alter their identity, with help from comments and feedbacks from their followers, the individual users. This creates a feedback loop, allowing influencers to create and enhance any aspects of the presented identity that received approval to grow more. Thus, this shows how influencers are influenced by individual accounts and how they are shaped by the community and don’t shape themselves, they might create an identity initially, however are eventually shaped by the community. Such can occur through comments as help represent the community and are part of the influencer’s identity as they take on their suggestions and whenever you visit their page, the comments reflect aspects of the influencer, again showing that individual users shape influencers. This relationship works as individual users get content that they desire and the influencer gets more likes, comments and, views on their posts, thus increasing their influence on people. This reveals that identity of influencers are in the hands of their followers and the community. Due to the strong ties influencers and individual accounts have, in which individual accounts help to provide influencers the power they have, they almost force influencers to change their identity or fear losing their power. This is displayed by beauty influencer James Charles who has had his identity damaged by a racism scandal, which will be discussed later in detail, tries to the best of his ability to prevent another racist scandal to his name appear again in fear of losing his reputation (Charles, 2018). It must also be noted that influencer accounts can become individual accounts on other’s Instagram pages. This allows influencers to experience a similar role to individual accounts, but will never fully experience it as their power and influence will translate in their interactions as their fans will back them up.

Twitter in the beauty sphere is perceived to be a smaller platform compared to Instagram, but serves a purpose for some influencers. Like the analysis done on Instagram, I will only look at influencer accounts and individual users. Twitter has a different dynamic compared to Instagram, due to the limitations of the platform, where each tweet is limited to 240 characters. Veletsianos (2012) observes that the social networks within Twitter is a result of user’s connections with one another. Twitter not only separates each tweet from another, making each unique and a post of their own, but also structures each tweet consistently, having aspects such as date and time, username, text, and if added, links, photos, videos, hashtags and, mentions (Highfield & Leaver, 2014). This consistency leads to the platform easily being used for conversation and collaboration (Gruzd, Wellman, & Takhteyev, 2011). An influencer typically has several thousand followers and interacts with their fans. Interactions include, likes, replies, follows and, retweeting/quote tweeting. Such interactions can be easily seen on the influencer’s and individual’s page. Interactions and posts are quick and fast paced, this simulates the everyday life more in comparison to other social media platforms. The community works and is active as those who participate use Twitter to keep in touch with people, in this case to learn more about an influencer’s life (Gruzd et al., 2011). Influencers can receive tweets and comments about a tweet they posted from individuals, either positive, negative or neutral. Due to more direct, public and accessible conversations, Twitter becomes a more social platform, actively displaying strong connections influencers may have.

The nature of Twitter may cause influencers to alter their identities in terms of the relationships they show publicly. This is especially relevant as in the beauty influencer industry, the friendships one makes are also business relationships, so they might want to boost each other’s following count by faking the strength of the relationship. The community here plays a part as they can be happy to see the close relationship and encourage is by following the other influencer, thus leading to both influencers gaining more power through influence. This displays the power community has on identities of influencers, if they enjoy the identity they showcase, they encourage it and follow them. A way the platform shapes influencers is the nature of the platform. It restricts influencers with the character limit and the fast-paced tweets. Information is spread quickly (Milstein, Lorica, Magoulas, Hochmuth, & Chowdhury, 2009) and can cause influencers to rethink their tweets or count on the fact that Twitter moves quickly and tweet controversial things, as it is a platform of instantaneous posting. This can be seen through the example of James Charles, who got himself into trouble by posting a racist and ignorant tweet, joking about Ebola and Africa. Charles was quickly reprimanded by many and called out for being ignorant and racist and soon after, he apologised (Tea, 2017). Charles was blind to how fast information can spread and how it doesn’t just pass and was reminded of this through his ignorant and racist tweet. After such an event, Charles is no longer seen to be joking about race or Ebola and he has yet to post a tweet without much thought. This shows the power and immense influence of the community and how they can collectively create power in numbers and use it against people who are ignorant and racist. It showcases the way a community and dynamic of a platform can cause an influencer to tweak parts of their identity to fit the platform and its user’s demands.

Conclusion

Overall, both Twitter and Instagram’s community and platform play a part in how an influencer constructs and changes their identity. After exploring both platforms and discussing their similarities and differences, both platforms either lean towards community or platforms in how they influence change. Twitter leans towards the way the platform is constructed and Instagram leaning more on the community. However, both platforms use both platform and community to influence the change. Beauty influencers gain more out of changing their identity power and influence. A little was discussed about the community and the relationship they hold with influencers and the power they have in numbers and individually.

References

Anagnostopoulos, C., Parganas, P., Chadwick, S., & Fenton, A. (2018). Branding in pictures: using Instagram as a brand management tool in professional team sport organisations. European Sport Management Quarterly, 1-26. doi:10.1080/16184742.2017.1410202

Cavanagh, A. (2009). From Culture to Connection: Internet Community Studies. Sociology Compass, 3(1), 1-15. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00186.x

Charles, J. (Director, Producer) (2018, March 30). SHANE DAWSON AND RYLAND DO MY MAKEUP [YouTube video]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/CeCgsmTjHjk

Dyrberg, T. B. (1997). The circular structure of power: politics, identity, community: Verso.

E Rice, R., Katz, J., Acord, S., Dasgupta, K., David, K., Dasgupta, S., & David. (2004). Personal Mediated Communication and the Concept of Community in Theory and Practice (Vol. 28).

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380. doi:10.1086/225469

Gruzd, A., Wellman, B., & Takhteyev, Y. (2011). Imagining Twitter as an Imagined Community. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(10), 1294-1318. doi:10.1177/0002764211409378

Highfield, T., & Leaver, T. (2014). A methodology for mapping Instagram hashtags. First Monday, 20(3). doi:10.5210/fm.v20i1.5563

Milstein, S., Lorica, B., Magoulas, R., Hochmuth, G., & Chowdhury, A. (2009). Twitter and the Micro-Messaging Revolution : Communication, Connections, and Immediacy–140 Characters at a Time. Sebastopol, UNITED STATES: O’Reilly Media.

Ravndahl, S. [SsssamanthaaMUA]. (2018, January 4). Feeling pretty blessed and grateful [Tweet]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/SsssamanthaaMUA/status/948739378238578688

Tea, H. F. T. (Producer, Editor) (2017, February 16). JAMES CHARLES: IGNORANT COVER BOY? [YouTube video]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/9dTbq5pdYC4

Veletsianos, G. (2012). Higher education scholars’ participation and practices on Twitter. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(4), 336-349. doi:doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00449.x

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

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