Virtual Community – Debating Communities and Networks IX

Bread Stapled to Trees: a typical (web 2.0) community?

Author note: Kim Cousins is PhD student and tutor at Curtin University. She can be contacted at kim.cousins@curtin.edu.au.

Abstract

This paper investigates the shift of communities from a physical to an online environment (covering both web 1.0 and web 2.0) and argues that virtual and traditional communities are more alike than they first appear, due to the types of networks employed and developed by participants. Although focused around an absurd topic, the subreddit Bread Stapled to Trees (BST) is an example of a strong virtual community and displays many characteristics of a traditional offline community including weak ties and strong social identity. The benefits for individuals within this type of community are numerous, including peer support and a sense of belonging. However, it should also be acknowledged that virtual communities are not necessarily seen as a replacement for physical communities.

Introduction

Online communities are sometimes viewed as less significant or ‘real’ than physical communities but these two forms of communities are quite similar in many ways (Langner & Seidel, 2014). Online, or virtual, communities allow for specialised discussions to form around often obscure topics between participants who would not likely meet in the offline world due to geographical constraints or varied social structures. Virtual and physical communities are more alike than they first appear, due to the types of networks employed and developed by participants (Cantoni & Danowski, 2015). Although often discounted as being based on weak ties, many of these groups, such as the subreddit BST, create a strong sense of community, belonging and social identity. The premise of BST is simple — community members take photos of bread they have stapled to trees and share the photos online through the link aggregation site Reddit. Other members then provide comments and moderation, as well as their own photos of bread stapled to trees. As this shows, the term community conjures up many different meanings but the most common one refers to it as a group of people with a shared goal (Ridings & Gefen, 2006). Community can also be defined as a group of people exhibiting elements of “social interaction, common ties and physical colocation” (Hillery, 1982). This interaction between community participants and their involvement in the community then creates a social system, which in turns helps them create and become a part of something bigger than themselves (Katz et al, 2004). In the context of this paper community refers to groups of people sharing an interest in a common activity in order to create a feeling of belonging. This helps give a sense of community and was once found mainly through social groups, sporting clubs and the like. Although these traditional communities still exist, virtual communities have become a source of belonging for many. Howard Rheingold was one of the first to coin the term virtual community, at a time when the internet and online world was relatively new for many of its participants (Rheingold, 1993). Rheingold called virtual communities “social aggregations” and discussed the potential this technology had to bring people together, at a time when people were spending more and more time apart (Rheingold, 1993). The next major step in the progression of virtual communities came when web 2.0 technology became available.

Web 2.0 is both a movement and a set of technological tools (Fuchs, 2014). It has contributed to a shift in society where community is commonly sought online. Starting in the early 2000’s, web 2.0 technology allowed for virtual communities to become interactive places where participants could spend time not only reading about other perspectives but also add to the discussion (Fuchs, 2014). Prior to web 2.0 tools being widely used, virtual communities operated through bulletin boards or electronic mailing lists, which contained static information, and made sharing information possible but a much slower process than it is today (Ridings, 2006; Wellman & Gulia, 1999). Participants could share information, but it was generally text-heavy and unable to be easily edited by others. Read-only access facilitated reading as a way of sharing knowledge and information, but meant participants were unable to engage in conversation (Kubiak, 2013). Web 2.0, with its two-way mode of communication through editing and commenting, made it easier to create spaces for virtual communities through increased communication and collaboration. An almost instant reply is now possible, allowing for deeper levels of communication between participants. Web 2.0 is further defined by trust between participants, collective intelligence and personal control over self-produced data (O’Reilly, 2005). These elements can be seen through Reddit, which follows a forum-style structure based around two main actions — sharing and community.

Networks and ties in community

Communities are an integral part of life regardless of the method participants use to communicate. Traditionally, community was used to denote a physical space, or spaces, where these people met and carried out shared goals (Katz, 2004). Since the growth of the internet and web 2.0 technologies, the spaces in which a community can operate have spread to include online. These virtual communities have not replaced physical communities, but often operate in tandem with them. Where physical communities can be limited in terms of participant numbers, virtual communities can incorporate any number of people. There are several characteristics of virtual communities which align with those of physical communities. A set of rules is integral to the structure of both types of communities, along with respect for other members and a certain level of communication (Feenberg & Barney, 2004). A strong community will have dedicated roles, regardless of whether it operates online, offline or across both environments. Strong communities also make the most of the various networks within them, as created through the ties of the participants. Weak ties and close ties are evident in both virtual communities and physical communities, however the development of virtual communities has led to a change in the way weak ties are used within networks. Weak ties refer to the relationships we form with people who we are not very close to — acquaintances, in other words. The people we are closer to, such as friends and family in most cases, form the basis of close ties, which are dominant in physical communities. However, virtual communities are now full of networks involving both weak and close ties within participants (Raine & Wellman, 2012). Web 2.0 and virtual communities have also allowed for these relationships to become more predominant in our lives. Although we are not particularly close to these people we can often build an idea of their identity through social media posts (Raine & Wellman, 2012).

Platforms such as Reddit encourage the creation of weak ties as well as the opportunity to develop these relationships into close ties. Part of the appeal is not just the ease in joining and participating in these communities, but the chance to share information — especially information based on opinion (Jenkins, 2006). These platforms and forums have developed from initial web 2.0 technologies to offer places where community and a sense of belonging can grow. Reddit creates an interesting type of virtual community as it encourages participants to take a structured role. Redditors are community moderators and the communities on Reddit are self-regulated. Moderation is carried out within each community on Reddit by these volunteers. Much like a physical community has roles and ranks, Reddit communities also assign moderators. These participants are responsible for the look and feel of the community through logos, for example, and by setting the parameters of the community. They act as a gatekeeper by removing offensive comments or participants and have the ability to bestow other participants with the role of moderator (Reddit, 2018). These structured roles have the ability to create, grow and maintain the various types of ties.

A quick analysis of Bread Stapled to Trees

Reddit is a community space which was initially based on funny videos and LOL-cat humour (Massanari, 2015). Platform policies have shaped the way it is now used and a unique culture has been created by Reddit users. It offers users a more anonymous presence than social networking sites like Facebook. Reputation can be gained through karma points and trophies (much like Snapchat) but users are not required to directly share any information about themselves. Users share links — on anything from current affairs to attaching bread to trees — and discussion is focused around the topics these links raise. With 79,400 members at the time this paper was written (growing from 63,503 members the previous month), BST is already much larger than the average physical community. Stapling bread to trees is acknowledged by the community members as being an absurd activity but fosters a sense of belonging. As community member Comedynerd said:

There are several aspects of the BST community which are similar to those of communities in general. Although BST is not a serious topic, the community follows a set of rules which are clearly displayed on the subreddit (see below).

Moderators, or ‘redditors’ are responsible for shaping and enforcing these rules and are expected to be shown respect by other community participants. Communication takes place within the community via photo posts and comments on other photo posts. Reddit uses a system based on what it calls karma points. Participants are rewarded for both sharing information (through links or photos) and commenting on other people’s posts. Karma points indicate the frequency of positive actions by participants and are voted on by others in the community, giving increased standing and building respect. This is not just a competitive action; it was devised to promote altruistic behavior (Reddit, 2018). This aligns with the O’Reilly’s initial nature of the internet, especially in regard to web 2.0 as a collaborative and community-based forum (O’Reilly, 2005).

Once classified as “novelty accounts” (Bergstrom, 2011), communities such as BST, have a number of benefits for participants looking for the experience of being part of a community. There are many individual reasons why people choose to become a part of specific communities but the overarching factors are to gain information, share values and facilitate human contact (Ridings & Geffen, 2006). These factors encourage us to become involved with communities and relate to networking and bonding, as well as a sense of belonging. Social identity is a key element of this belonging (Jenkins, 2014) and a major part of communities such as Reddit and BST. Social identity helps drive communities through the creation and ownership of ideas and movements, and it is collective intelligence that drives virtual communities (Jenkins, 2006). By combining knowledge and resources, communities can do much more than individuals. This is true for both virtual and physical communities. Although virtual communities continue to grow in popularity, it should be noted that the concept of physical community is still important. There is current research suggesting the encouragement of physical community centres as a preventative health measure for participants (Monbiot, 2018).

Conclusion

Virtual and physical communities are more alike than they first appear, due to the types of networks employed and developed by participants. This similarity has developed over time, beginning with mainstream use of the web and continuing with the transition of web 1.0 to web 2.0. For the BST community, recording and sharing the physical act of stapling bread to trees creates a feeling of involvement and belonging, as well as social identity. These elements of community were common in our lives when we were heavily involved in physical communities and continue in virtual communities. Both virtual and physical communities are important in contemporary society and, as the existence and popularity of platforms such as Reddit shows, can provide participants with many benefits. The ties and networks created through virtual communities, even ones based around absurd topics like BST, can be just as strong as the ones formed through physical, offline communities. A global movement involving the act of stapling bread to trees is not likely to cause massive change but the act of building a kind community, based around sharing with others and being a part of something bigger than yourself, could.

References

Aguiton, C. and Cardon, D. 2007. The Strength of Weak Cooperation: An Attempt to Understand the Meaning of Web 2.0. Communications & Strategies, 65(1).

Bergstrom, K. 2011. “Don’t Feed the Trolls”: Shutting down debate about community expectations on reddit.com, First Monday, 16(8).

Cantoni, L. and Danowski, J.A. (2015). Communication and Technology. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.

Feenberg, A. and Barney, D. (2004). Community in the Digital Age: Philosophy and practice. Maryland, VA: Rowman & Littlefield.

Fuchs, C. (2014). Social Media: A critical introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hillery, G.A. (1982). A Research Odyssey: Developing and testing a community theory. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Jenkins, R. (2014). Social Identity. New York, NY: Routledge.

Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York, NY: NYU Press.

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.

Kubiak, T. (2013). Social Media Measurement, Marketing of Scientific and Research Organizations, 2(8).

Massanari, A. (2015). Participatory Culture, Community and Play: Learning from Reddit. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Langner, B. and Seidel, V.P. (2014). Sustaining the Flow of External Ideas: The role of dual social identity across communities and organizations, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(4).

Monbiot, G. (2018). ‘The town that’s found a potent cure for illness — community’, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/21/town-cure-illness-community-frome-somerset-isolation?utm_source=nextdraft&utm_medium=email, accessed March 25, 2018.

O’Reilly, T. (2005). ‘What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software’, O’Reilly, http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html, accessed April 28, 2018.

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling Alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Raine, L. and Wellman, B. (2012). Networked: The new social operating system. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Reddit. (2018). Frequently Asked Questions. https://www.reddit.com/wiki/faq, accessed April 30, 2018.

Reddit. (2018). Moderation, https://www.reddit.com/wiki/moderation, accessed April 30, 2018.

Rheingold, H. (1993). The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Ridings, C. and Gefen, D. (2006). ‘Virtual Community Attraction: Why People Hang Out Online’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2004.tb00229.x

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

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

Banner credit: /u/despot1

PDF Bread Stapled to Trees

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

Abstract

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

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

Introduction

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

Virtual Communities & Hashtags

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

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

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

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

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

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

Identity as a performance

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

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

Deceptive identities online

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abstract

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

Keywords

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

Introduction

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

‘Facebook Official’: Dating Online

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abstract

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

Introduction

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

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

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

Third Place and its relationship with Online Games

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Communication experienced within an Online setting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Limitations

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abstract

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

Introduction

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

Indigenous Australians and Facebook

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

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

Indigenous Identity

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

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

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

Community Ties

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

Creating New Community Ties

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

Strengthening Existing Community Ties

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

Education

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

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

Limitations

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abstract

Introduction

Networks and ties in community

A quick analysis of Bread Stapled to Trees

Conclusion

References

Abstract

Introduction

Virtual Communities & Hashtags

Identity as a performance

Deceptive identities online

Conclusion

References

Abstract

­Abstract

Introduction

Indigenous Australians and Facebook

Indigenous Identity

Community Ties

Education

Limitations

Conclusion

References

Abstract