Tag: Web 2.0

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.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Impact of Web 2.0 on Online Dating Communities

Abstract

This paper explores the changes in online technologies that have helped facilitate growing online communities and their subsequent effects on online dating. The advancements of Web 2.0 technologies have allowed Web users to easily and more efficiently participate and collaborate in online communities. Platforms such as social networking sites encourage users to share content and form connections with other users of similar interests (Cormode & Krishnamurthy, 2008). This has helped propel online dating as virtual communities provide a better suited romantic network for people of either isolated communities or of small romantic possibilities, such as those looking for specific qualities. Even though dating, whether online or offline, is one-to-one, the affordances of Web 2.0 and communities allow Web users to meet and communicate with a far greater romantic network than they would be by offline dating practices alone. This can be seen by the abundance of online dating sites that encourage the formation of weak ties within online communities to create a bigger dating pool, so that Web users can better find a romantic match. This includes growing niche dating sites such as JDate and Christian Mingle, operated by Spark Networks, which aim to bring together people of the same faith who are seeking long-term relationships. It encourages the formation of weak ties online as users are willing and wanting to meet people outside of their offline romantic network.

Keywords: Web 2.0, communities, online dating, network, weak ties

Impact of Web 2.0 & Communities on Online Dating

The impact of Web 2.0 on the growth of online dating communities is the opportunity to forego face-to-face communication and spacial proximity when it comes to looking for a romantic partner. Web users from all over the world and of different ethnicities, religions, and sexual orientations can meet a new network of romantic possibilities as a result of changing Web 2.0 technologies. Specifically, it has changed the way people can find information and communicate with other people of interest online. Prior to the facilitation of online dating, people would generally look within their community to find a partner but are now empowered as a result of the Internet to look beyond spacial proximity and face-to-face communication to do so. Instead, users can find suitable interest communities provided by leading online dating networks such as Spark Networks. Spark Networks provides users with niche dating sites to help create weak ties among other users as they encourage similar people to come together on the same site; such as popular JDate and Christian Mingle bringing together users of the same religion. Weak ties refer to the bridges made between strangers or friends-of-friends, and is the first stage of cultivating any friendship, and help online dating site’s such as JDate to excel by providing a common community for people to meet.

Affordances of Web 2.0 on Community

Web 2.0 can be characterised by technological advancements that facilitate a more “socially connected Web” where everyone is able to add to and edit the information space (Cormode & Krishnamurthy, 2008); a result of standards produced from people working on Web 1.0 (Berners-Lee cited by Anderson, 2007). Users of the Web have moved from mostly content consumers to now content creators; where niche groups can exchange content of any kind to people from anywhere (Cormode & Krishnamurthy, 2008). Certain features that have come to be associated with ‘Web 2.0’ include participation, user as contributor, and richer user experiences, and should be seen as a consequence of a more fully implemented Web (Anderson, 2007). Sir Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the World Wide Web, believes Web 2.0 is what the Web was supposed to be all along; an interactive and collaborative global information workspace all about connecting people (cited by Anderson, 2007). The ability that Web users can create and share content to anyone is a result of a series of technologies such as blogs, wikis, and social networking sites, that enable greater user participation and collaboration. Cormode and Krishnamurthy believe the important site features of a Web 2.0 platform include first class entities and prominent profile pages; ability to form connections between users; ability to post content in many forms, such as photos, videos, and comments; and other more technical features, such as third-party enhancements, rich content types, and communication with other users (2008). These features allow Web users to greater organise content and communication online, and thus encourage users to interact with the Web as a result of the ease of access and use of online platforms. More importantly, the ability to control Web 2.0 technologies has encouraged the formation of online communities; where users of the same interest and of same social networks can participate and collaborate together, opening the door for endless possibilities of online communication.

Online communities, as defined by Tedjamulia et al., are a social network of users who share similar interests and practices and who communicate regularly over a common communication medium (as cited by Liu et al., 2014). The abilities for online communities are therefore endless as they allow anyone with access to a common communication medium to interact, and have been found useful for knowledge sharing, building relationships, sharing experiences, buying and selling, having fun, and creating new personalities, environments, or stories (Armstrong and Iii, as cited by Liu et al., 2014). The rise in social networking sites, however, has propelled online communities as a result of their collaborative nature. As defined by Boyd & Ellison, a social network site should allow individuals to: (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system (as cited by Porter, 2015). Thus the structure of social networking sites means mutual information sharing is central in creating online communities, as it provides connection, communication, and privacy management capabilities (Porter, 2015). Just by participating in the structure of social networking sites, Web users are automatically creating and engaging in an online community fuelled by users with similar interests. This can be seen with the rise of online communities, ranging from social, professional, interest, and dating communities.

Online dating communities, in particular, are a growing industry aimed at providing a communication channel for Web users all over the world, tailored specifically to users who are looking for a romantic partner, connection, or encounter (Quesnel, 2010). As a result of growing Web 2.0 technologies, social networking sites such as JDate and Christian Mingle have allowed Web users to better find a dating community suited to different dating needs. In particular, it has seen the rise in ‘interest communities’ where spacial proximity is not a necessary condition as it instead involves people with common interests communicating with each other (Averweg & Leaning, 2012). For example, Jewish people looking for a Jewish partner in a small community will benefit from using Jdate as it provides a central online community of varying Jewish singles looking for long-term relationships. Even though dating in these examples is one-to-one, community is an important element of online dating as it encourages similar people to come together in hopes of finding a romantic partner.

Impact of Web 2.0 & Communities on Online Dating

Ortega & Hergovich explain that dating in the past hundred years has been a result of ‘weak ties’ which serve as bridges between close friends and other clustered groups, allowing people to connect to the global community in several ways (2017). This phenomenon means that people were more likely to marry a friend-of-a-friend or someone they coincided with in the past, such as through work or educational institutions (Ortega & Hergovich, 2017). The way Web 2.0 and online communities have revolutionised dating is by connecting users “to meet and form relationships with perfect strangers, that is, people with whom they had no previous social tie” (Rosenfeld & Thomas, as cited in Ortega & Hergovich, 2017). The affordances of the Internet have brought people together from all over the world and of varying differences to better find a suited romantic network. Subsequently, people are no longer bound to geographical locations and community barriers as online dating serves as a bridge between strangers and users to meet people outside of said barriers. Online dating creates a larger dating pool for Web users as it brings people from outside their known social circle, creating connections with ‘strangers’ of similar interests in hopes of forming solid relationships. It also allows users to make weak ties with even more people and bridge over to even more communities as online dating creates a virtual community space, allowing users with a desire to connect to strengthen ties with other users (Ortega & Hergovich, 2017).

Why Interest Communities are Important for Online Dating

Above all, the importance of online communities is its ability for Web users to establish ties with people whom they would have of otherwise had no connection to. For online dating, its main attraction is to expand the romantic network for people seeking a romantic partner. Interest communities can help speed up the process by creating a central (virtual) location for people of similar orientations, ethnicities, and other qualities to easily meet online. Spark Networks does this by providing users with a portfolio of premium niche dating sites that all aim for singles seeking serious relationships (“Global Leader in Online Dating”, 2018). CEO of Spark Networks Adam Berger explains ‘niche dating’ as a tight-knit community, where “people instantly feel comfortable and know they’re among people who are just like themselves in many different ways” (as cited in Alfonsi & Thompson, 2010). By creating a narrower and shallower dating pool, niche dating sites connect people “by their beliefs, their backgrounds, and their passions” (Berger, as cited in Alfonsi & Thompson, 2010). By following Boyd & Ellison’s structure of a social network site, Web users would create a public or semi-public profile within niche dating sites in order to articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection (as cited by Porter, 2015). By creating a profile and answering a questionnaire Web users can easily identify with whom they already share similar qualities, such as Berger’s examples of beliefs, backgrounds, and passions. For example, users of Spark Network’s can create a public or semi-public profile, articulate a list of users with similar beliefs and passions, and view and create connections with suitable users. This new dating pool will be specifically tailored to each user and will subsequently increase their romantic network possibilities as it allows them to meet suitable people outside of their offline community.

Online Dating Today

CEO of Spark Networks Adam Berger believes by catering different dating sites to specific qualities of different individuals, people are more likely to feel comfortable with online dating as they are already in a community that they would want to associate themselves with. This can be seen by the success of Spark Network’s most popular niche dating site ‘JDate’ which is the “leading online community for Jewish singles and [is] responsible for more Jewish marriages than all other online dating sites combined” (“Global Leader in Online Dating”, 2018). This proves the argument that even though dating is one-on-one, online communities are a necessity and extremely influential in the online dating realm. Compared to finding a partner solely in face-to-face communities, people now have the luxury to find a better suited romantic network of people as a result of varying niche dating sites. For example, people in a small Jewish community can expand their network by using JDate to find more Jewish partners in other surrounding communities. This helps to cancel out all people the Web user is not interested in, much like in real life, as the aim of niche dating sites is to bring together similar people. Spark Network’s has other popular sites such as Christian Mingle, aimed for people who practice Christianity; Elite Singles, for educated and successful singles; and eDarling, for European users seeking long-term relationships, under their repertoire. By providing a bundle of different niche dating sites, Spark Networks increases the potential to meet the perfect partner by decreasing and specifying various dating pools. Instead of users jumping into a dating site of millions of people, they have the opportunity to find a better suited romantic network based on their own interests and qualities in a much more personal pool.

Conclusion

To conclude, the affordances of Web 2.0 allows Web users to greater organise content and communication online and encourages users to interact with the Web and with each other. Greater interaction is the result of growing interest communities and communication platforms where groups of similar people can come together online for a myriad of reasons, such as for educational, professional, and social purposes. The success of online dating in particular is the result of the increase in social networking sites, such as Spark Networks, which encourage similar people to communicate and create meaningful connections online. Interest communities and niche dating sites have helped propel online dating as they provide users with a more suitable and personal online dating pool, bringing together people of similar qualities and interests by creating public or semi-public profiles. Without the ease of Web 2.0’s platforms, people would look within their offline community and within their weak ties to find a romantic network but are now empowered as a result of online dating sites. Instead of looking just within a geographical community, users can find various online dating communities based on beliefs, backgrounds, and passions, and are able to meet people with whom they otherwise have no connection to — only increasing their romantic network.

Maletic_18822072_ConferencePaper

References

Alfonsi, S., & Thompson, V. (2010, June 18). As Dating Pool Shrinks, Love Matches Grow. abcNews. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Broadcast/spark-networks-niche-dating-web-site/story?id=10909280

Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education. JISC Technology and Standards Watch. Retrieved from http://21stcenturywalton.pbworks.com/f/What%20is%20Web%202.0.pdf

Averweg, U. R., & Leaning, M. (2012). Social media and the re-evaluation of the terms ’community, ’virtual community’ and ’virtual identity’ as concepts of analysis. i-Manager’s Journal on Information Technology, 1(4), 12. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1671518035?rfr_id=info%3Axri%2Fsid%3Aprimo

Cormode, G., & Krishnamurthy, B. (2008). Key differences between Web 1.0 & Web 2.0. First Monday 13(6). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2125/1972

Liu, L., Wagner, C., & Chen, H. (2014). Determinants of Commitment in an Online Community: Assessing the Antecedents of Weak Ties and Their Impact. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 24(4), (pp. 271-296). Retrieved from https://www-tandfonline-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/doi/abs/10.1080/10919392.2014.956609

Ortega, J., & Hergovich, P. (2017). The Strength of Absent Ties: Social Integration via Online Dating. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.10478

Spark Networks SE. (2018). Global Leader in Online Dating. Retrieved from https://www.spark.net/about-us/company-overview/

Porter, C. E. (2015). Virtual communities and social networks. In L. Cantoni & J. A. Kanowski (Eds) Communication and Technology (pp. 161-181). Retrieved from https://books.google.com.au/books?id=AhxpCgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Quesnel, A. (2010). Online Dating Study: User Experiences of an Online Dating Community. Inquiries Journal/Student Pulse LLC, 2(11), 3. Retrieved from http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/323/online-dating-study-user-experiences-of-an-online-dating-community

Forming Friendships Through Online Fashion Communities

Abstract

Those with impeccable taste and a wardrobe to match are reaping the rewards with an abundance of clothing rental platforms and communities surfacing online. Similar to other peer-to-peer clothing rental platforms like ClosetDrop, Rent the Runway or Curtsy app, Clothes for Rent Perth is a Facebook group that has been created to form a community around clothing items or accoutrements for rent, assisting others search for the perfect outfit. This paper analyses the role of trust in Web 2.0 communities, particularly online fashion communities, integrating the concepts of social network theory and social capital. The paper proceeds as follows. The first section introduces the concept of social capital and trust. Then, an attempt at defining communities and virtual communities is presented and the theory of the blackboard model of mediated community is adopted. Subsequently, the argument that trust, as an element of social capital, is integral to the success of online fashion communities like Clothes for Rent Peth is entrenched in the discussion of Web 2.0, social networking sites (SNS) and communities. The adequacy and relevance of sources from the literature on the identified concepts are presented throughout the paper.

 

Keywords: online fashion communities, Web 2.0, social networks, social capital, trust

 

 

Forming Friendships Through Online Fashion Communities

Founded by sole admin/moderator Madeline Taylor – co-owner of ClosetDrop, another peer-to-peer clothing rental platform – Clothes for Rent Perth is a Facebook community that allows for greater accessibility to fashion in a cost-effective manner. Although the concept of renting clothes is not new, peer-to-peer service models have disrupted the industry as items are exchanged directly from loaners to renters, removing the need for physical retailers. As such, Clothes for Rent Perth has no brick-and-mortar stores and exclusively operates online. With more than 6,500 members to date, Clothes for Rent Perth has established a niche audience among young women in Perth, Western Australia. The thriving sharing economy enables Australians to make a profit from their existing investments, and Madeline is merging fashion technology and the sharing economy to distinguish her businesses in the competitive market. Clothing rental platforms have become extremely popular on a global scale and while alternate Clothes for Rent Facebook groups exist based on geographical location, for the purpose of this paper Clothes for Rent Perth will be the focus. The success of clothing rental platforms and communities is attributed to the nature of Web 2.0 (collaborative and community-oriented) and its tools such as SNSs like Facebook. With reference to Clothes for Rent Perth, this paper explores trust as an element of social capital, arguing the necessity of such for online fashion communities to flourish.

 

Social Capital and Trust in Online Social Networking Sites

Social capital has a prominent place in the literature of a variety of disciplines including but not limited to economics, sociology and political science (see Engbers, Thompson & Slaper, 2017, pp. 537, 538). Social capital can be viewed as “An umbrella theory that brings together such concepts of social networks, trust, social exchange, social resources, embeddedness, and social support” (Grabner-Kräuter, 2009, p. 510). Grabner-Kräuter (2009) states, “Despite the conceptual confusion surrounding social capital, most researchers agree that social capital refers to investment in personal relationships or social structure that facilitates the achievement of individual or collective goals” (Glanville & Bienstock, as cited in Grabner-Kräuter, 2009, p. 510). Most of Engbers et al. (2017) recent scholarship traces the contested origin of social capital to Coleman’s (1988) treatise on Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital (p. 538). Coleman (1988) states that:

 

“Social capital is defined by its function. It is not a single entity but a variety of different entities, with two elements in common: they all consist of some aspect of social structures, and they facilitate certain actions of actors – whether persons or corporate actors – within the structure” (Coleman, 1988, p. 98).

 

Although Coleman’s work is said to have established social capital, the conceptual understanding and the diverse quantification of the concept flourished with the publication of Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone in 2000 (Engbers et al., 2017, p. 538). Grabner-Kräuter (2009) states, “Putnam’s definition represents a synthesis of the network and trust views of social capital: ‘the core idea of social capital is that social networks have a value… social contacts affect the productivity of individuals and groups’” (Putnam, as cited in Grabner-Kräuter, 2009, p. 510). One of the key categories explored in relation to social capital is trust. Best stated by Wellman et al., SNS members “Tend to trust strangers, much as people gave rides to hitchhikers in the flowerchild days of the 1960s” (as cited in Grabner-Kräuter, 2009, p. 511).

For communities like Clothes for Rent Perth to operate effectively, a great deal of trust is required on the behalf of members. With Madeline as owner, Clothes for Rent Perth functions similarly to ClosetDrop. Therefore, as stated on ClosetDrop (2018), it is at the discretion of members to make contact, negotiate prices, pick-up and return options. So, what happens if an accident occurs and red wine is spilt on a favourite white dress, or a pair of jeans are returned with a split? The moral philosopher Annette Baier presented a valuable starting point in defining trust, suggesting “We trust when we are vulnerable to harm from other yet believe these others would not harm us even though they could” (Friedman, Kahn & Howe, 2000, p. 34). Members of clothing rental platforms are vulnerable, however, being a location-based service, many Clothes for Rent Perth members have ties (predominantly weak) or “friends” within the group which reassures trust. Furthermore, the members of Clothes for Rent Perth are dependent on each other for desired outcomes, thus as active members become familiar over time and share positive experiences, the level of trust is heightened within the community.

 

Communities in an Offline and Online Context

There is no singular definition of community. Traditionally, communities referred to a group of people occupying a shared location and although this is historically accurate, for many, locality is no longer a key definer of fellowship. While people are born into allocated communities, nowadays communities can also be initiated or selected by individuals themselves due to the ease and accessibility of such enabled by the Internet and Web 2.0. The term community is also used to describe “The condition of sharing or having certain attitudes and/ or interests in common with others” (“community | Definition of community in English by Oxford Dictionaries”, n.d.).  In both instances, communities are framed as valuable, positive entities that offer an experience of ‘togetherness’ and sense of ‘belonging’. As stated by Forman, Kern and Gil-Egui (2012) “Communities are constantly shifting, merging, and redefining themselves”.

What once was an offline activity that required very little association with others, renting clothes has been introduced online and services like Clothes for Rent Perth encourage communication, connection and collaboration with others to achieve collective goals – shifting, redefining and merging the renting community. Discussions of the online environment often involve communities. Leal, Hor-Meyell and de Paula Pessôa (2014) define virtual communities as “Social aggregations on the Internet…where individuals conduct public discourse for a period of time and with a certain degree of involvement” (p. 883). Mirroring contemporary offline communities, they are “Constructed around a common interest, experience, or task that members have, and guided by both explicit and implicit codes of conduct” (Hagel & Armstrong, as cited in Leal, Hor-Meyll & de Paula Pessôa, 2014, p. 883). These individuals form networks that “Provide friendship, information, belongingness and social resources to each other” (Wang et al., as cited in Leal, Hor-Meyll & de Paula Pessôa, 2014, p. 883). The Clothes for Rent Perth community provides these elements through the renting process. While many members have associations or friends within the group, the opportunity remains to establish new relations with others by providing information and social resources. Additionally, these elements are linked to social capital.

As aforementioned, communities can be developed upon common interests, many of which are related to purchases (Leal, Hor-Meyll & de Paula Pessôa, 2014, p. 882). Aguiton and Cardon (2007) discuss the blackboard model of mediated community based on Michel Gensollen’s (2003, 2006) research. Gensollen underlined that “Virtual communities have a blackboard structure when they are organized to share experience between consumers” (Aguiton & Cardon, 2007, p. 53). A blackboard structure is indicated for Clothes for Rent Perth as the community functions on the premise of positive experiences both with loaners and their “products”. Members of the Clothes for Rent Perth community can only develop an instrumental intimacy between them and are connected by very weak ties as they purely interact for the purpose of exchanges (outfits for money and vice versa) (Aguiton and Cardon, 2007, p. 53). True for Clothes for Rent Perth, “The organisation of exchanges doesn’t require strong involvement of the whole community, but a cluster of very active participants can lead the community in producing a lot of external effects” (Aguiton & Cardon, 2007, p. 56).

 

Web 2.0 and Communities

Intended to distinguish activities from traditional static and passive Web pages, the popular term Web 2.0 denotes a modernised version of the Web. As stated by Grabner-Kräuter (2009), “The essential difference between Web 2.0 and the traditional Web is that content is user-generated, and there is considerably more collaboration amongst Internet users” (p. 505). The definition of Web 2.0 has been subject to much refinement over the years. Tim O’Reilly is credited with the seminal work on Web 2.0 and is said to offer the most comprehensive definition of this phenomenon, stressing network effects that arise from vast user participation and collective intelligence as significant features of Web 2.0 (Fuchs, 2010, p. 775; O’Reilly, 2005). While a literature review by Fuchs (2010) determines that several authors have developed similar concepts of Web 2.0 as a platform for cooperation (p. 776), Fuchs (2010) discussion of the concept as focused on the notions of online communication, community-formation, and collaboration (p. 766) is more applicable to this paper.

Fuchs (2010) outlines three evolutionary levels of Internet development, defining “Web 1.0 as a tool for human communication, Web 2.0 as a medium for human communication, and Web 3.0 as networked digital technologies that support human cooperation” (p. 767). This demonstrates that the highly interactive technologies of Web 2.0 and beyond have shifted the platform from a systems-oriented model to a user-focus model. Furthermore, Fuchs (2010) suggests that “What is today designated as “Web 2.0” functions both as ideology and realm of commodification” (p. 767) – particularly applicable to Clothes for Rent Perth. “Web 2.0 functions as ideology in a threefold sense: as marketing ideology, as neoliberal ideology, and as political ideology. A second aspect…is that it also has an economic function that is supported by the ideological components” (Fuchs, 2010, p. 768). Communities like Clothes for Rent Perth “Constitute an audience commodity that is then sold to advertisers” (Fuchs, 2010, p. 768). Such is derived from users being content producers (user-generated content), whereby members can upload or browse media, or accrue friends with whom they exchange content or communicate online on SNSs like Facebook. Facebook is a friendship-oriented network – the SNS emphasises staying in touch with and/or reconnecting with people (Grabner-Kräuter, 2009, p. 507). As one of the most popular SNSs with more than 2.13 billion monthly active users for the fourth quarter of 2017 (Facebook, 2018), Facebook transcends barriers to bring users together.

 

Social Networks and Communities

Web 2.0 application, online SNSs or virtual communities, have enabled potential for “Rich, online human-to-human interaction unprecedented in the history of Internet communication” (Grabner-Kräuter, 2009, p. 505). Fuchs (2010) states that “The usage of community-functions provided by social networking platforms has been rising during the past few years” (p. 771). SNSs utilise mobile and web-based technologies to establish highly interactive platforms that support users to:

 

“(1) construct a public or semi-public profile… (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system” (boyd & Ellison, 2008, p. 211).

 

This definition implies that users are linked in some respect, regardless of the strength of social ties (Lange, as cited in Grabner-Kräuter, 2009, p. 507). boyd and Ellison (2008) state “While SNSs have implemented a wide variety of technical features, their backbone consists of visible profiles that display an articulated list of friends who are also users of the system” (p. 211). “Much of Web 2.0 is based upon – or actually built upon – increased personal information flows online” (Zimmer, as cited in Grabner-Kräuter, 2009, p. 505). Upon joining an SNS, users are asked to fill in the required information to generate a profile for themselves. Evidence from many SNSs indicate that millions of users do not hesitate to share personal information or content online, despite the risks related to privacy or security issues on SNSs (Grabner-Kräuter, 2009, p. 506).  In fact, “Users actually tend to trust other community members with expertise, identity, personal information, and even money lending. Users also tend to trust providers of social network sites to keep their information and photos private” (Lai & Turban, as cited in Grabner-Kräuter, 2009, p. 506). Therefore, “Social networking obviously takes place within a (largely unwarranted) context of trust” (Grabner-Kräuter, 2009, p. 506). Consequently, questions arise regarding why social networking users are so trusting.

The public display of profiles and connections is a crucial component of SNSs as this information can determine membership to a virtual community. Clothes for Rent Perth is discoverable but closed (private) community to the general public. Membership requires a user request to join and approval by the admin, Madeline. Assumedly, Madeline views the requesting user’s profile to determine whether membership is reasonable based on factors like profile picture, age, and geographical location. Most SNSs also provide a mechanism for users to leave comments or messages both publicly, on another’s profile (depending on personal user settings), and privately in direct messages (Boyd & Ellison, 2008, p. 213). Profiles enable discovery of others in the system with whom they have a relationship – acquaintances, friends, and followers (Boyd & Ellison, 2008, p. 213). “The term “friends” can be misleading as the connection does not necessarily mean friendship in the everyday vernacular sense, and the reasons people connect are varied” (Boyd, as cited in Boyd & Ellison, 2008, p. 213).

Network ties like friendships formed in communities are closely related to social capital theory, “Adopting a social network approach to the analysis of trust involves the assumption that individual actors are embedded within a network of relationships” (Jones, as cited in Grabner-Kräuter, 2009, p. 511). Granovetter (1992) describes embeddedness as “The influence of the network on its members’ behaviour,” and suggests that “Being embedded in cohesive networks accelerates the creation of trust. The cohesiveness of the network structure, where a specific relationship is embedded, facilitates the circulation of information about parties’ reputation and the socialization of common behaviour” (Grabner-Kräuter, 2009, p. 511). Therefore, the behaviour of community members is determined by the prevalent characteristics of its network (Grabner-Kräuter, 2009, p. 511). This explains the role of trust in the Clothes for Rent community, if all members behave ethically, a person behaving opportunistically will feel guilty in doing so (Ganzaroli, as cited in Grabner-Kräuter, 2009, p. 511)

As detailed, the affordances of SNSs provide a rich environment where social capital can be developed and refined (Burke, Kraut & Marlow, as cited in Lee, 2017, p. 1069).

 

Conclusion

 

“The relationship amongst the concepts of social networks, social capital and trust is far from conclusive” (Grabner-Kräuter, 2009, p. 510), and this paper contributes to an ongoing dialogue regarding these concepts. It is an attempt at a conceptual understanding of the role of trust in Web 2.0 communities, particularly online fashion communities, and the relevance of trust and social capital in SNSs. This paper argues that trust, as an element of social capital, is necessary for online fashion communities to succeed. With reference to peer-to-peer clothing rental platform Clothes for Rent Perth, this paper determined that trust and social capital results from the affordances of SNSs like the construction of profiles and more importantly, “friending” or relations with others, which are only possible due to the nature of Web 2.0 – a platform for communication, community-formation and collaboration.

References

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

Boyd, d., & Ellison, N. (2008). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x

ClosetDrop. (2018). ClosetDrop: Rent Your Wardrobe. [online] Available at: https://au.closetdrop.com/ [Accessed 2 Apr. 2018].

Coleman, J. (1988). Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95-120. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2780243

Engbers, T., Thompson, M., & Slaper, T. (2017). Theory and Measurement in Social Capital Research. Social Indicators Research, 132(2), 537-558. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1299-0

Facebook. (2018). Facebook Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2017 Results. Retrieved from https://investor.fb.com/investor-news/press-release-details/2018/Facebook-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-and-Full-Year-2017-Results/default.aspx

Forman, A., Kern, R., & Gil-Egui, G. (2012). Death and mourning as sources of community participation in online social networks: R.I.P. pages in Facebook. First Monday, 0. http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v0i0.3935

Friedman, B., Khan, P., & Howe, D. (2000). Trust online. Communications of The ACM, 43(12), 34-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/355112.355120

Fuchs, C. (2010). Social Software and Web 2.0. Handbook of Research On Web 2.0, 3.0, And X.0: Technologies, Business, And Social Applications, 763-789. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60566-384-5.ch044

Grabner-Kräuter, S. (2009). Web 2.0 Social Networks: The Role of Trust. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(4), 505-522. doi: 10.1007/s10551-010-0603-1

Leal, G., Hor-Meyll, L., & de Paula Pessôa, L. (2014). Influence of virtual communities in purchasing decisions: The participants’ perspective. Journal of Business Research, 67(5), 882-890. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.07.007

Carter_18854567_A1FinalConferencePaper1

The Symbiotic Relationship Of Online Gaming and Community Building

Written by Callum Duffy, Curtin University

 

Abstract: This paper largely focuses on the relationship between Online Gaming and the various Communities formed because of it. Specifically analysing communities found by using ‘Overwatch’ as a prime example, the main argument presented is that various communities focused on a single, core aspect unifying them all are more or less interconnected individuals with similar general interests in regards to this core aspect, and thus have the potential for collaboration and dialogue between each other.

 

The relationship between communities and online gaming is, at its very core, a relationship that is symbiotic in nature. In relevance to this, this conference paper will focus primarily on the formation of communities in regards to online gaming, the variation of interests within formed communities and how these vary and diverge into different niche communities, the formation of friendships between members existing within the same community, and how these communities still relate to one another in regards to a singular, dynamic interest. For this conference paper, we will specifically be looking at the various communities that are brought together by the popular FPS game produced by Blizzard entertainment, ’Overwatch’.

 

A community, as defined by Gusfield (1975) focuses on two primary concepts when defining community, The first of these concepts focusing on the geographical sense of community, etc. neighbourhood, town, city. The second is relational, concerned with quality of character of human relationship, without reference to location (p. xvi). In regards to online gaming, the second definition of community provided by Gusfield is an accurate definition as to what an online gaming community is, as the relationships formed through online gaming isn’t limited by the boundaries of geographical location, as the online medium allows player to connect with each other and form relationships/communities with one another. In relation to this, Overwatch allows players from all over the world to play against one another as it isn’t limited by geographical restrictions, this allowing players to connect and as a result allowing the formations of communities, regardless of geographical location. Overwatch itself particular is a game with various communities that have been formed from it’s large, generalised community of those who play the game. I will focus on 3 different communities within the generalised player community, these being the casual, competitive and e-sport based Overwatch communities. It’s important to note that these 3 chosen communities do not accurately represent the different niche groups that exist with the generalised Overwatch player base community, rather, they represent the shift in community based priorities in relevance to Overwatch as a whole, and the interests that each group prioritises.

 

There are various communities within the game Overwatch that cater to the various players that play Overwatch. The casual Overwatch community represents the approximate majority of those who play Overwatch, and those involved within this community simply play the game for relaxation and enjoyment within their leisure time, and build friendships with the players that they meet in game, or through other communication mediums that allow members of this community to collaborate and share information. With this in mind, the primary methods of communication for those in this community are either the in-game voice chat, where individual players can speak to other players on their team, or Youtube comment sections, where they can leave comments under videos that appeal to them and their interests in relation to Overwatch. The ‘competitive’ Overwatch community focus primarily on the competitive game modes that Overwatch offers, where players get ranked based on their skill level. These players seek to improve their skills in playing a particular character, or acquire better game sense through more playtime and experience. More often than not, individuals that associate themselves with this community in particular diverge into different, niche communities that focus on the fundamental principles that the members of this community share. For example, if a player involved in the competitive community plays a particular character mores than others, he/she may also be involved in a sub-community that focuses on playing that particular character, certain exploits that players can use to better play that character, or a generalised appreciation community focusing on that character. The competitive Overwatch community uses a variety of ways to communicate, including the aforementioned methods that the casual community uses to communicate with. However, a difference in the communication side to this community in particular focuses on the application of the official Overwatch forums. These forums allow players to commentate on the state of the game overall, communicate with game developers and ask/answer questions, and communicate with like-minded players on specified topics. Finally, Overwatch’s e-sports community focuses on the ‘professional’ side of play, with professional Overwatch players receiving sponsorships, business deals in the form of contracting to an e-sports team, and being a general figurehead/role model for all Overwatch players. This community represents a minority within the Overwatch community, as the majority of Overwatch players do not associate themselves with the professional side of the game.

 

E-sports in particular, is arguably the most niche of communities that Overwatch offers. E-sports in itself is defined as “an area of sport activities in which people develop and train mental or physical abilities in the use of information and communication technologies” (Wagner, 2006). Individuals can be associated with E-sports as a competitor or more often than not, simply an observer. This is where the divergence of communities within the game Overwatch begin to reassemble into an amalgamate of individuals with similar interests. Namely, the aforementioned competitive community begins to shift towards a larger involvement in the e-sports community, be it as a spectator or an actual competitor. Overwatch itself has its very own e-sports tournament labelled ‘Overwatch League’, this league hosts various international teams, and has a central presence within the game itself. Overwatch allows player to purchase cosmetic items that represent these teams in game, in a fashion similar to that of a football jersey. With this in mind, this further strengthens the idea of merging different communities within Overwatch, as casual players have access to e-sports related cosmetics, and resources allowing them to further explore the professional Overwatch league.

 

The casual community found within Overwatch however, is the broadest of these communities that the vast majority of the player base fits into. Where casual players might play the competitive modes that Overwatch offers, they still see it as just a game, and don’t necessarily focus on the same aspects the the competitive communities of Overwatch may focus on. The formation of online friendships between individuals within this community are genuine and are capable to exist in an offline setting also. As said by Domahidi, Festl and Quandt (2014), “ Players with a pronounced motive to gain social capital and to play in a team had the highest probability to transform their social relations from online to offline context. We found that social online gamers are well integrated and use the game to spend time with old friends—and to recruit new ones”. With this in mind, the idea that communities are capable of bringing likeminded individuals together  is solidified and proven. This is regardless of how niche a community may be, as for example, a casual player may be persuaded to become a part of a competitive community via friendships made online, or a simply change in opinion towards the game as a whole.

 

With the aforementioned in mind, the various communities that are found within Overwatch are capable of interacting with each other through various different means. Specifically mentioned before were the official Overwatch forums as a large medium used by those involved within the competitive Overwatch community. Youtube however, is the biggest way for the general Overwatch community members to gather information. Be it through the official PlayOverwatch account that posts official trailers, development updates and short animated films, or fan accounts that post game commentaries, professional game analysis or funny meme montages; Youtube is a medium that allows the vast majority of the generalised Overwatch community to interact with one another. Specifically, Youtube is a medium that connects well with younger audiences that have grown up in a digital era, specifically teenagers, which in itself can be considered a sub-community of Overwatch. Youtube content creators can be seen as social influencers that shape the foundation of the decision making process of their audiences, and there is no better example of this than the relationship between these social influencers and their teenage audience. As put by Chua & Banerjee (2015) “personal opinions and experiences have become one of the most valuable sources of information to assist users in their purchase decision-making process”. When the opinions of a professional Overwatch player is shared through Youtube, and reaches the screen of a fan of said influencer, there is a great chance that said fan will copy and follow the personal opinion and review of the influencer in question. Once again we see the merge between communities found within the general Overwatch community, in this case we see the casual, teenage audience form their own opinions and ideas on a particular idea based on the influence of a social influencer, more often than not in this case a competitive, celebrity figure that belongs to a niche community of Overwatch entertainers.

 

Thus, we are presented with a correlation between the various niche communities that belong to the generalised Overwatch community as a whole. This correlation is that the various niche communities influence one another, to the point where the divergence of these communities merge back together into a singular entity. This singular community is characterised and stereotyped to have specific traits shared amongst the members of this community, and with Overwatch in particular this generalised trait would be toxic gameplay that certain players bring to the table. This is recognised even by the developers of the game in question. In a video posted to the PlayOverwatch Youtube account, lead developer Jeff Kaplan addressed the audience about the increased negative social interactions that occur between player of the game, and the steps that the team are taking to rid toxicity from the game. In the video, Kaplan states, “We have taken disciplinary action against over 480,000 accounts, and 340,000 of those were a direct result of players using the reporting system. So you can see, the vast majority of actions we take are because players have said hey, there’s another player here doing something very bad and I want to see some action” (PlayOverwatch, 2017). In regards to this video, we can see that the Overwatch community are characterised by being toxic in game. However, we can also see that this is a big problem that many individuals both inside and outside of this community want to see be dealt with.

 

We can see that Youtube is the primary medium being used to address the various Overwatch communities in question. The social influencer of the video being lead developer Jeff Kaplan is a figurehead that the majority of the player base look up to, and hearing him say that reporting toxic behaviour in Overwatch is a good step to ridding the toxicity problem in Overwatch makes the communities in question listen to this, and thus form their own opinions and ideas behind this. This in turn changes the overall attitude and behaviour within the various communities found in Overwatch into an attitude that is committed to neutralising and reducing bad player behaviours within the game. This video and the reactions of the individuals within the specific Overwatch communities that this video targets is a clear cut example of how various, niche communities still relate to one another via a singular purpose, and how the power of social influence has the ability to change specific attitudes and form opinions within communities.

 

Overall, there is a distinct correlation between online gaming, and the formation of communities and the individuals that associate themselves with online games. The various opinions, thoughts and values that are shared between members of online game communities are generally shared, with a few principle outlying values creating certain niche communities within a generalised community focusing on an online game. These opinions, thoughts and values are subject to change with the input of social influencers altering these already existing opinions, thoughts and values, and thus influence which type of community an individual may choose to associate themselves with. However, the already underlying thoughts, values and opinions that represent the entire, generalised community still exist between various niche groups, and thus allow collaboration and unity between these groups whilst retaining a sense of uniqueness present in the various niche groups found within a community.

 

 

  • Chua, A. Y., & Banerjee, S. (2015). Understanding Review Helpfulness as a Function of Reviewer Reputation, Review Rating, and Review Depth. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 66(2), 354-362.
  • Domahidi, Emese & Festl, Ruth & Quandt, Thorsten. (2014). To dwell among gamers: Investigating the relationship between social online game use and gaming-related friendships. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 107–115. 10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.023
  • Gusfield, J. R. (1975). The community: A critical response. New York: Harper Colophon.
  • McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of Community: A Definition and Theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6-23. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e5fb/8ece108aec36714ee413876e61b0510e7c80.pdf
  • PlayOverwatch (Official Game Development Youtube Account). (2017, September 13). Developer Update | Play Nice, Play Fair | Overwatch [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnfzzz8pIBE
  • Wagner, Michael. (2006). On the Scientific Relevance of eSports. 437-442. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220968200_On_the_Scientific_Relevance_of_eSports
  • Warmelink, H., & Siitonen, M. (2011). Player Communities in Multiplayer Online Games: A Systematic Review of Empirical Research. Proceedings of the 2011 DiGRA International Conference: Think Design Play, 6, 1-21. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3acd/d7a7402cf8c517350f9f6041c29e4b0f34ed.pdf

 

Who is getting more sex? A comparison of generations dating online.

Abstract

This conference paper discusses the impact web 2.0 has on older adults 65 years and older Online dating platforms have created communities and a space for single individuals to find potential partners. After online dating became an accepted norm it encouraged users to utilize the platform to meet new people from all over the world. It has had an increasingly positive effect for single adults 65 years and older. As social circles shrink it becomes harder for older adults to meet new people therefore resulting in them turning to social media and online dating sites (Alterovitz & Mendelsohn, 2011). Web 2.0 has encouraged older people to go online to find relationships. Online dating sites allow older adults to find what they want in a relationship, which is commonly a low-arousal companionship however do hold sexual attraction highly (Menkin, Robles, Wiley and Gonzaga 2015). There are different sites that cater to different wants, needs and ages groups for example tinder is commonly used by younger adults whereas sites like eHarmony and Plenty of fish are used by older adults.

 

Keywords: web 2.0, online communities, online dating, perceptions, older adults, generational differences.

Web 2.0 and the acceptance of online dating

Web 2.0 is most commonly known as the ‘upgrade’ from web 1.0 (O’Reilly, 2005). Web 2.0 is commonly associated with the concept of ‘user-generated content’ (O’Reilly, 2005). User-generated content is content created by users and published online. Users of the web are no longer just reading web content but creating and participating through commenting, reacting and through own opinion blogs (O’Reilly, 2005). Web 2.0 has evolved into a participatory community where users are creating and collaborating to generate content and engagement (Karpf, 2009). Web 2.0 introduced many new and improved features and opportunities such as google AdSense, Flickr, Bit torrent, Napster, blogging, Wikipedia, tagging, online dating and many more (O’Reilly, 2005). Marwick (2013) discusses how the online community allows you to connect and communicate to other users with similar interests, who you may not have met outside of the online environment.

Web 2.0 has bought many changes to today society and how we connect, communicate. One of the major changes was to the idea of dating (Thottam, 2018). The sophistication of the internet has drastically changed the dating game over the last 10 years (Godfrey, 2011). Godfrey (2011) states that the days when a guy could simply ask a girl out on a date face-to-face or through a simple phone call are long gone. Godfrey (2011) reinforces this point by suggesting that there are now ‘unlimited options for dating and numerous tools to gain access to one’s potential soulmate’. People take time to change and adapt, especially older generations who have been so used to a certain way of doing things for so long (Thottam, 2018). When the first modern newspaper was invented, people included ads to discreetly connect and communicate with new people in hopes of finding ‘love or sex’ (Thottam, 2018). With the introduction of the internet, connecting everyone together these personal ads became digital and internet dating services were created (Thottam, 2018).

Online dating can go back to 1965 when two Harvard students used a questionnaire and an IBM 1401 to match students based on their similarities, this is considering as the beginning of match making services (Thottam, 2018). 1995, before online dating sites launched the World Wide web was available to the public to explore and meet new people (Thottam, 2018). 2000’s was an exciting time in regards to the dating atmosphere. 2000 the now popular dating site eHarmony launched, users would require to fill out a questionnaire and match with other users (Thottam, 2018). 2003 video chat channel skype was introduced making long distant relationships and meeting new people online easier, it reduced the worry about user identities through the use of live video chats (Thottam, 2018). Facebook was launched in 2004, which is not however a dating site but did majorly impact how we connect and date using the internet (Thottam, 2018). Users can now instant message and display relationships online through Facebook. 2007 bought the smart phone giving people the opportunity to communicate on the go 24/7 (Thottam, 2018). Online dating sites have since then grown to include gay dating websites and sites for those looking for different types of relationships. For example, tinder is commonly known as the ‘hook up’ app whereas sites like eHarmony are thought of a more serious commitment site.

Web 2.0 and online communities

The growth of web 2.0 signifies the change in use of internet for relational purposes (Aguiton, C., & Cardon, D. 2007). Participatory culture online encourages users who share similar interests to come together and engage in a community. Aguiton and Cardon (2007) suggest that ‘web development always contains the community ideal’. It is said that ‘common sociability and a set of roles and defined exchanges modalities gives individuals the feeling that they are part of the community and share a common vision. Web 2.0 introduced users to many different communities, the biggest being known as the blogosphere. This community is full of those who write journal like content about their interests and express opinions, allowing other users to follow, comment and co-create (Dumova & Fiordo,2012). Other online communities include social media communities, online dating communities, the wiki community and many more.

Web 2.0 has become a safe space for users to come online and be who they want to be and find those who share similar interests. Considering most people are online from many points of the world it’s a great way to find and connect with people. The online dating community has become increasing popular way to date and meet new people. Users look to online dating sites and communities like e harmony for many different reasons but mainly to find potential partners and to meet new people. Online dating communities have eased the dating process of finding new people, dating sites allow those who identify as gay or lesbian to find potential partners and also who are the same age (Clemen, atkin, Krishnan, 2015). It is now not uncommon to find someone online (Chappetta & Barth, 2016). The online dating community brings together those with similar interests and same goals allowing users to connect and communicate with like-minded people.

There are many different online dating sites which cater to different users and their different needs. Younger generations usually go for sites like tinder or grinder and look for casual relationships. Whereas middle aged adults commonly look to eHarmony.com. match.com and many more, these sites match members according to similarities shared between the two (Chappetta, & Barth, 2016). Sites that match members by their similarities allow the couples to know their personalities and interests before meeting (Chappetta, & Barth, 2016). Older adults commonly use eHarmony.com or plenty of fish (POF.com) as their online dating platform as it is more popular within an age group of adults 65+. Online dating is used by a small, but growing section of the aging population, this is evident with the numerous advertisements for ‘50-plus dating sites’ such as OurTime.com and SeniorPeopleMeet.com (McWilliams & Barrett, 2014). Match.com (2010) finds that adults 50-plus are the fastest growing segment of users and are an ‘increasing segment of the single population’ (Cooney & Dunne, 2001, as cited in McWilliams & Barrett, 2014). Online dating sites have become the most common way for adults over 50 to meet their marital partners (Gonzaga, 2010 as cited in McWilliams & Barrett, 2014).

Online Dating and Older Generations

According to Chappetta, & Barth (2016), an online dating profile is generally a “public website that other users of the online dating website can access and find information about that user”. The type of information that these profiles consists includes age, gender, location, ethnicity, height and body type, education, career and many more (Chappetta, & Barth, 2016). Online dating profiles allow users to present themselves the way they want to drawing on ‘past, present and future selves’ to create desired image (Ellison, Hancock, Toma, 2012). Identity expression is influenced by the perception of the audience, and the online dating community expects certain information to be shared (Marwick, 2013). Online dating sites are good for those “seeking companionship, sexual partners, romance, freedom from commitment and ease of meeting new people” and the reason for using online dating services will vary with each individual and with different age groups (Clemens, Atkin, Krishnan, 2015).

Menkin, Robles, Wiley and Gonzaga (2015) have found that overall users value ‘interpersonal communication more than sex’. Older users rated sexual attraction as slightly less important than younger users did, however they still highly valued the goal (Menkin, Robles, Wiley and Gonzaga 2015). A survey showed that singles aged 40-69 believe that sexual fulfillment was an important goal for many dating older adults (Menkin, Robles, Wiley and Gonzaga 2015). Menkin, Robles, Wiley and Gonzaga (2015) state that because older adults prefer low-arousal (e.g., calm) rather than a high-arousal positive emotions older adults tend to have greater preference for companionship relative to sexual attraction.

Different age groups have different perceptions and experiences towards online dating. Age is a common variable to consider when looking into the pursuit of online romances (Stephure, Boon, MacKinnon, & Deveau, 2009). Younger individuals will find that using online dating sites as a norm and an extension of their online usage (Stephure, Boon, MacKinnon, & Deveau, 2009). However, with a greater number of older individuals becoming single, motivations to seek new partners’ increases, encouraging them to go online (Stephure, Boon, MacKinnon, & Deveau, 2009). Little attention and study goes into single dating older adults due to the idea of them ‘lacking interest in intimate, particularly sexual relationships’ however many older adults enjoy dating and desire companionship (McWilliams & Barrett, 2014).

Stereotypes of older adults aged 65+ as ‘socially withdrawn or asexual’ ignore that fact that social norms are constantly changing and ‘shifting cohort demographics, it is increasingly common for ‘single older adults to be involved in dating and romantic relationships’ (Alterovitz & Mendelsohn, 2011). Opportunities to develop close relationships often reduce as social networks shrink because of ‘retirement, relocation and the death of friends and loved ones’ (Alterovitz & Mendelsohn, 2011). Due to this increased social isolation older adults are increasingly turning to social media and online dating sites to enhance their social networks. Many unmarried older adults are seen to actively participate and enjoy online dating and desire companionship (McWilliams, Barrett, 2014).

Online Versus Offline Dating

Online dating has affected the way people date and find potential partners. Online dating is fundamentally different to offline date and it can promote better romantic outcomes than conventional offline dating. Intimacy is developed at a faster rate online through online dating sites and communicating online than in a face-to-face setting (Chappetta, & Barth, 2016).  The online setting allows users to find out interests and values quicker than in a face-to-face setting which is helpful for many users especially aging adults who may want to skip the slow ‘getting to know you’ period which many young and new relationships go through. many older adults, 65 and older are commonly widows and widowers are interested in dating turn to computers to enhance their chance of meeting someone (Alterovitz & Mendelsohn, 2011). Stephure, Boon, MacKinnon, & Deveau (2009) state that due to the dating challenges older adults face, internet and online dating site users increase with age.

Online awareness within older adults can be said to be a reaction to social isolation (Thompson, 2008). Social media platforms allow users to constantly update their status and their day-to-day routines for their followers of friends to see (O’Reilly, Milstein, 2011). This results in a feeling of being in touch and a ‘lightweight but meaningful connection’ commonly known as ‘ambient intimacy’ (O’Reilly, Milstein, 2011). Ambient intimacy becomes a way to ‘feel less alone’ and as a part of a community. This is very important for the older generation to feel connected and a part of a community.

Conclusion

Online dating has fostered a dating community within the older generation involving single adults 65 years and older. It provides the aging adults a space to find and connect with new people and gives them a chance they wouldn’t usually get in reality. This virtual space works to make the users feel accepted and safe as everyone using this platform is on there for the same reason. Older generations use different online dating sites than younger generations, this allows them to not feel judged by the younger users but also to refine their search for love to those similar to their age and who are at the same point in life. Older generations are often perceived as lacking in love life and online dating helps fight this stereotype. Online dating has ultimately stepped up the dating game and has encouraged communities to form and users to come together. Older generations are able to use online dating sites to enhance their social circle and meet potential partners. Studies show that users value interpersonal communication rather than sex however sexual attraction and satisfaction is still an important goal (Menkin, Robles, Wiley and Gonzaga 2015). Web 2.0 has influenced single older adults to join online dating sites as single adults are increasingly wanting to be involved in dating and romantic relationship (Alterovitz & Mendelsohn, 2011).

References:

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

Alterovitz, S. S. R., & Mendelsohn, G. A. (2011). Partner preferences across the life span: Online dating by older adults.

Chappetta, K. C., & Barth, J. M. (2016). How gender role stereotypes affect attraction in an online dating scenario. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 738-746. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.006

Clemens, C., Atkin, D., & Krishnan, A. (2015). The influence of biological and personality traits on gratifications obtained through online dating websites. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 120-129. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.058

Dumova, T. and Fiordo, R. (eds.), (2012). Blogging in the global society: Cultural, political and geographical aspects, Hershey: IGI Global (available via library database) http://www.igi-global.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/gateway/book/49568

Ellison, N. B., Hancock, J. T., & Toma, C. L. (2012). Profile as promise: A framework for conceptualizing veracity in online dating self-presentations. New Media & Society, 14(1), 45-62. doi:10.1177/1461444811410395

Godfrey, R. (2011, Jun 23). Dating in the 21st century. Canadian Jewish NewsRetrieved from https://search-proquestcom.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/879079097?accountid=10382

Karpf, D. (2009). Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage, by Axel Bruns: New York: Peter Lang, 2008, 405 pages (Vol. 6, pp. 81-83): Taylor & Francis Group.

Marwick, A. E. (2013) Online Identity, in A Companion to New Media Dynamics (eds J. Hartley, J. Burgess and A. Bruns), Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK. doi: 10.1002/9781118321607.ch23

McWilliams, S., & Barrett, A. E. (2014). Online Dating in Middle and Later Life:Gendered Expectations and Experiences. Journal of Family Issues, 35(3), 411-436. doi:10.1177/0192513×12468437

Menkin, J. A., Robles, T. F., Wiley, J. F., & Gonzaga, G. C. (2015). Online Dating Across the Life Span: Users’ Relationship Goals. Psychology and Aging. doi:10.1037/a0039722

O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. Retrieved from http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html?page=1

O’Reilly, T., & Milstein, S. (2011). The twitter book. ” O’Reilly Media, Inc.”.

Stephure, R. J., Boon, S. D., MacKinnon, S. L., & Deveau, V. L. (2009). Internet Initiated Relationships: Associations between Age and Involvement in Online Dating. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(3), 658-681. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01457.x

Thottam, I. (2018). The history of online dating retrieved from https://www.eharmony.com/history-of-online-dating/

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

Fortnite: The Viral Success of Socially Competitive Online Multiplayer Games and their Communities

Abstract

This paper aims to investigate the power social capital holds in cross-platform online gaming communities, and argues that socially completive multiplayer games are more popular because of their development of social capital. Fortnite: Battle Royale, although a relatively new game, is a prime example of how the cross-platform communities have resulted in the viral success of a game. This paper explores the theory of communities, both online and offline, and their relationship to socially competitive multiplayer gaming.  It will discuss the different types of gaming communities and how they span across numerous different platforms. It will also discuss the social capital that is held by members of the Fortnite: Battle Royale (Fortnite) community and how the community has grown since the game’s first release.

Fortnite: The Viral Success of Socially Competitive Online Multiplayer Games and their Communities

The transition from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 has led to the creation of a more collaborative and interactive Internet. Web 2.0 is about the development of communication and content that was not possible in Web 1.0 (Davis, 2009). Online multiplayer games are a development of Web 2.0 that have been able to combine console gaming systems (such as the PlayStation 4) with the Internet to create a unique online experience. This paper aims to discuss how the popularity of socially competitive online multiplayer games have impacted on the cross-platform communities surrounding the games and the social capital these communities hold. We will be examining online multiplayer games that are considered to be competitive but are also used for social interaction between players. These online multiplayer games have resulted in the formation of communities that exist outside the gaming consoles and games itself, and can be found across multiple different platforms online. These communities that are formed around a game create social capital that both individuals and the community hold. Katz defines social capital as a set of shared values and expectations that a community holds. It is about the power people hold through their social networks and the value that is placed on that power (Katz 2004). Social capital is especially important in gaming communities as it revolves around trust and cooperation. This paper will discuss how the popularity of an online socially competitive multiplayer game can result in social capital that spreads across communities that are established in different platforms across the Internet. Using the free-to-play online game ‘Fortnite: Battel Royale’ (Fortnite) as an example of a socially competitive online multiplayer game that players have formed communities in, not only, the game platform itself (PlayStation 4) but across multiple other platforms as well (Twitter, YouTube, Instagram etc.). Fortnite: Battle Royale is a third-person shooter, survival game. It involves up to 100 players (who can play solo or in squads of two or four) that compete to be the last man standing (“Epic Games’ Fortnite”, n.d.).   The game involves a vast selection of weapons that are scattered across the map and a constantly shrinking safe zone that executes lethal damage to player’s health when caught outside it. Building aspects incorporated into the gameplay elevates this game above similar games within the genre. Players can destroy objects in the environment to collect materials that allow them to build defenses to protect themselves or to help them travel (“Epic Games’ Fortnite”, n.d.).

Community Theory and Practice

Community is a social system. It relies on the social interaction, common ties and psycho-cultural bonds that link people together (Katz, 2004). A community is a network of people whose social interactions have formed a group of likeminded people who support one another. Communities can exist in both the physical and virtual environments, sometimes switching between the two. Online communities can break through barriers that physical communities may have, like geographical location, gender, race, ethnicity and age (Katz & Rice, 2002). The absence of these barriers allows for the online space to create communities that thrive on the diversity of common interests and goals that create a sense of belonging for an individual. Katz discusses four types of communities: traditional communities, imaginary communities, pseudo communities and social networks (Katz, 2004).  Traditional communities are closely linked with the design of physical communities. They promote the ideas of co-dependency and commonness, achieving a collective purpose. Social networks are about the communities formed online, they are about individuals and their personal networks; what communities they choose to be a part of. This type of community provides a sense of belong for the individual who has now become the center of their own community (Katz, 2004). Imagined communities are formed online but are still linked to the physical world (Katz, 2004). These communities encompass the ideas of social networks while creating an imagined form of sentiment in the physical world (Katz, 2004). And lastly, pseudo communities have very similar characteristics to that of a traditional community but, are formed virtually rather than in a physical geo-graphical location (Katz, 2004). Fortnite: Battle Royale can be considered a social network, because the majority of the communities surrounding the game are only present online, and focuses on the individual experience within that community. However, smaller Fortnite communities could also be considered imagined communities. These imagined communities can be seen where smaller communities are formed in the physical world to play together, and discuss the game.

Virtual communities are often seen to produce what are known as ‘weak ties’. Weak ties describe distant or casual relationships (Porter, 2015). Typically formed online, weak ties link individuals to a plethora of information across social networks and communities. This information exchange within communities can be important in online gaming communities as it can help players to advance in the games and facilitates player-to-player interaction. Communication is a key part of communities and often results in weak ties converting into stronger, more personal ties. The compelling nature of online gaming communities is that a community focused around one specific game does not have to live within the confides of that gaming platform. The social aspect of gaming has allowed for communities to form outside of the parameters of an online multiplayer game. For example, the communities centered around Fortnite are not only distributed between the platforms of the gaming console such as forums and chats but appear on other online platforms. These platforms range from streaming and video content on Twitch (a live video streaming platform) and YouTube, to microblogging sites like Twitter and discussion websites like Reddit. Each of these platforms contribute to a much larger overarching community solely dedicated and invested in Fortnite. These communities allow players to form social connections and Koivisto argues that it is the reason why players continue to play a game (Koivisto, 2003). Communities allow players to express themselves, and create discussions and their own content surrounding a game. This is also closely linked with the social capital surrounding online gaming communities and the power it can hold.

Social Capital and Online Multiplayer Gaming

The popularity of online multiplayer games is based on its social aspects.  Games, such as Fortnite, can become very competitive but still facilitate sociality through head-set conversations and online multiplayer team battles. Social capital has become an import concept in the formation of social interactions and relationships online (Trepte et al., 2012). It has many effects on communities and the individual members in that community. Social capital builds support, trust, and cooperation (Trepte et al., 2012). It helps participants to solve collective problems, widens the awareness of interconnectivity between people, increases trust and aids the process of communication (Putnam, 2000). Examples of the significance of social capital is demonstrated in cross-platform communities around Fortnite, and the value the communities place in members of that community. Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Reddit, Facebook, Twitch and numerous other platforms have facilitated the creation of these communities. To show the scale of these communities you can look at the follower size of Fortnite on Twitter and Twitch. The official Twitter account of the game has over 2.2 million followers and connects with players by providing them with updates, news and replying to the community’s queries and questions (“Fortnite (@FortniteGame)”, n.d.). On Twitch, there are over 10.4 million followers of Fortnite streams and videos.  On platforms such as Twitch, and YouTube, a video sharing platform, have created Fortnite communities around popular content creators. The number one Twitch streamer, ‘ninja’, has been claimed as a “god” in the Fortnite community (Nattrass, 2018). With an unprecedented 108 million channel views and over 4.4 million subscribers, ninja has established himself as an esteemed member of the Fortnite community. YouTubers such as ‘Ali-A’, ‘elrubiousOMG’, ‘Willyrex’ and ‘ninja’ (again) are also prominent with between 6-28 million subscribers apiece (“Top 250 YouTubers games Channels”, 2018). These gamers have built their social capital around the Fortnite community. Their popularity is not just equated to the entertainment they provide, but also the sense of belonging and support other players subscribe to. These cross-platform communities are the reason why socially competitive online multiplayer games are so virally popular.

Popularised Online Multiplayer Games

In 2018 PlayStation released statistics of their top ten downloaded games. This includes Call of Duty: WWII, Grand Theft Auto V, NBA 2K18 and Rocket League (Massongill, 2018). Each of these games involve both an offline single player and/or multiplayer mode, as well as an online peer-to-peer multiplayer mode. However, the second highest downloaded game of 2017, Horizon Zero Dawn, only supported an online-only multiplayer mode, rather than offline single player and multiplayer modes. The popularity of these games may be contributed to a multitude of factors, but it is the sociability of the online multiplayer aspects that become a highlighting factor. PlayStation consoles offer a chat system they call ‘party’. Creating a party allows for individuals to voice and text chat with their PlayStation friends, and other players, whilst in a game or using other PlayStation applications (“About parties”, n.d.). Parties are an important aspect of gaming as it allows players to socialise with their friends and the wider gaming community. Players can connect with each other, and this facilitates the manifestation of relationships outside the limitation of geographical location. This social side of gaming is one of the strongest motivators for players to continue playing a game, and forms both pseudo communities and social networks (Trepte et al., 2012).

The success of Fortnite has been swift. It’s accessibility and competitiveness has led to its rise as one of the most popular online socially competitive multiplayer games. On February 4th 2018 Fortnite’s servers crashed when the game hit a peak of 3.4 million concurrent players (Nunneley, 2018). This rapid scale of growth since the game was released in September 2017 was unimaginable for the game developers. With over 45 million players it has stood out against other popular games. It has been labelled as a “relationship building, strategic masterpiece of warfare”, as it has enabled social bonding and team building that isn’t as possible in other online multiplayer games (Fortnite: An exploration of a cultural phenomenon, 2018). These statistics show that it is clear that the game is widely popular and the communities have a large span, but it is also important to acknowledge the smaller communities that form inside these larger ones. Individuals may only participate in their own personal social networks. They may only talk to people that they already know offline and do not want to socialise with players that they do not know. These smaller communities may not come in participate directly with the larger communities but by association they are contributing to the overarching community of Fortnite, and online multiplayer gaming communities as a whole. However, some scholars note that these gaming communities can result in an increase in anti-social behaviour (Trepte et al., 2012). It can form addictions, increase isolation and deteriorate offline relationships between players and their peers (Trepte et al., 2012).

Conclusion

Communities are a key part of humanity. They create networks of individuals who have come together to bond over their common interests and connect with people.  The support and security they provide were once limited to geographical location but now, with the arrival of Web 2.0, communities span across all areas of life. People can find their own space within the Internet that celebrates their interests with other like-minded individuals. Gaming communities are just one example of the vast network of communities that exist online. The pseudo communities provide support for gamers and creates relationships between players that may not have existed otherwise. Online socially competitive multiplayer games promote sociability and builds social capital between gamers. Players are able to converse not only through the game itself but across different platforms on the Internet. Through livestreams, gamers like ‘ninja’ and ‘Ali-A’ are able to showcase their abilities and provide help and insight into the games they play. The popularity of socially competitive games are tied to the online multiplayer aspect they provide. Games like Fortnite: Battle Royale have become viral because of the community that has formed around the game. The players have found something that they love to play and are sharing that with the people around them, both online and offline.

References

About parties | PlayStation®4 User’s Guide. Manuals.playstation.net. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://manuals.playstation.net/document/en/ps4/party/about_party.html

Davis, C. (2009). Web 2.0 definition, usage, and self -efficacy: A study of graduate library school students and academic librarians at colleges and universities with ALA accredited degree programs. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/304844103?accountid=10382

Epic Games’ Fortnite. Epic Games’ Fortnite. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/home

Fortnite (@FortniteGame). Twitter.com. (n.d.) Retrieved from https://twitter.com/FortniteGame/with_replies?lang=en

Fortnite: An exploration of a cultural phenomenon. (2018). University Wire Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/2001674512?accountid=10382

Katz, J.E., & Rice, R.E. (2002). Social consequences of Internet use: Access, involvement and interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT 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. Annals of the International Communication Association, Vol.28(1), p.315-371. https://doi-org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.1080/23808985.2004.11679039

Koivisto, E. (2003). Supporting Communities in Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games by Game Design. Paper presented at the Digital Games Research Association Conference. http://www.digra.org/dl/db/05150.48442.pdf

Massongill, J. (2018). PlayStation Store: The Top Downloads of 2017. PlayStation.Blog. Retrieved from https://blog.us.playstation.com/2018/01/05/playstation-store-the-top-downloads-of-2017/

Nattrass, J. (2018). Ninja: Everything you need to know about the Fortnite God and Twitch star. Metro.co.uk. Retrieved from http://metro.co.uk/2018/03/16/who-is-fortnite-god-ninja-and-just-how-is-this-twitch-megastar-making-at-least-350000-from-gaming-7391914/

Nunneley, S. (2018). Fortnite hit 3.4M concurrent players last weekend and the servers couldn’t handle the pressure. VG247. Retrieved from https://www.vg247.com/2018/02/08/fortnite-3-4-million-concurrent-players-servers-crashed/

Porter, C. E. (2015). Virtual communities and social networks. In L. Cantoni and J. A. Danowski, (eds). Communication and Technology. Berlin: De Gruyter. pp. 161 – 179

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (pp. 288-289). New York: Simon & Schuster.

Top 250 YouTubers Games Channels. (2018). Socialblade.com. Retrieved from https://socialblade.com/youtube/top/category/games/mostsubscribed

Trepte, S. Reinecke, L. and Juechems, K. (2012). The social side of gaming: How playing online computer games creates online and offline social support. Computers in Human Behavior, vol.28(3), p.832-839. DOI: 10.1016/jchb.2011.12.003

Header image retrieved from: Alpha Coders

© 2018 Briana Marino. All Rights Reserved.

Communities Embracing and Adapting to the Web 2.0 through Facebook

Abstract

This paper investigates the adaptation of communities to the Web 2.0, and how it has become a major characteristic to the construction of online relationships, involving the social media site Facebook. Virtual communities are explored and linked to the current digital era and how social virtual communities are using the Facebook platform in everyday life to publish content, taking part in user connection through their activity. Beverungen, Böhm, and Land (2015, p. 479) believes that user connection focuses on the ‘audience’, now ‘users’, as online communities who publish content to Facebook for users to read and use. This content may be productive or unproductive, however, Facebook is one of the leading reasons for social relationships and virtual communities and the shift from physical to virtual. Virtual communities now have the ability to connect to users they may not know personally, resulting in new relationships and interlinked personal communities (Gruzd, Wellman & Takhteyev, 2011, p. 1). This paper analyses how online user activity on Facebook has been a factor that assisted the evolution and adaptation of offline communities to online communities.

Keywords: Facebook, communities, representations, connection, interaction, users, adaptation

 

The role of communities embracing and adapting to the Web 2.0 through Facebook

 

Since the release of the social networking site Facebook, users have been given the opportunity to generate and publish their own content to their profiles ‘free-of-charge’. This impressive site has now reached an incredibly high number of users, attaining 2.2 billion active users by 2017, with numbers still rising (Constine, 2017). Facebook is not the only form of interaction for virtual communities, with popular discussion websites such as Reddit (2005) and other Internet forums also forming virtual communities where users can interact. These sites have become the most popular way to communicate in the twenty-first century, providing various options including blog-type techniques, photos and videos. Not only do they allow users to publish content but they also provide them with websites where they can listen to music, read news and play. It has become a procedure for people to sustain connections to others, communicate themselves and construct new relationships. Similar to physical communities, this shift has allowed people to also become part of virtual communities, motivating users to the adaptation of communities on the Web 2.0. With the growing development of Facebook, it has significantly impacted lives by becoming a daily activity for entertainment and cultural purposes (Jin, 2015). The site has become an environment for self-expression and participation amongst various age groups. User activity has become a major factor in the process of communicating online through Facebook, allowing these online communities to share stories, opinions and anything that takes their interest. The social networking site has not only allowed people to communicate with users’ friends or family, but has enabled them to engage with other users that they may not know personally. This has not only expanded the number of users to communicate with, but has granted the ability to form online communities with people from all over the world. User connection is the transfer from physical connection and interaction into the online world of the Web 2.0, connecting a set of people and creating a sense of community (Gruzd et al., 2011). The adaptation of groups within the social networking site Facebook has formed a sense of community in this digital era, through users participating in online discussions and debates.

            The Welcoming of User Connection

User connection is similar to the traditional meaning of connecting and creating a community – A set of people with strong interaction and connection, creating a sense of unity (Gruzd et al., 2011). Communication on Facebook can be compared to being similar to offline interaction, as information is posted and stored on personal profiles, including relationships statuses, hobbies and even debatable topics which can all be discussed in offline communities. Facebook has assisted in the creation of communities that produce their own content. User activity was created as a defining process for users who create and publish their own work online, attracting other users to read and connect with the publisher or other readers. Not only does online activity give users’ a purpose for interaction, it also serves others with new social connections and assisting with maintaining existing relationships (Gruzd et al., 2011). With the transition from audiences to online users, there has become a mass broadcast of information to social networking sites such as Facebook (Thompson, 2008).

User connection focuses on connecting and responding to others, as well as keeping up to date with new information or news that can create conversation between users or communities, similar to that of a friend group. This is the reasoning behind the concepts ‘following’ and ‘adding’. This concept focuses on the users or information that is chosen to be accessed by the account holder, placed onto a ‘News Feed’ on social media sites such as Instagram, Facebook and Twitter. Zuckerberg stated that a ‘news feed’ is “a stream of everything that’s going on in their lives.” referring to content that is being posted in an up-to-date timeline (Thompson, 2008). This feature on Facebook enables user connection to occur, with people responding or commenting on posts that they feel are relatable. This engagement is a state of mind of users that are committed, passionate and dedicated to connecting online within virtual communities about various topics and situations (Porter, 2015). Emotions of users stimulate actions, which initiate participation in the community, such as the comment section on published content that allow users to debate and discuss specific topics relating to news, games, videos etc. This connection via different hobbies and interests on Facebook groups and pages has constructed a sense of community through virtual interaction.

            Sense of Community in the Digital Era

The Web 2.0 relies on online users to generate the content, creating an approach that can define the labour that is associated with the formation of Web 2.0 content (Jin, 2015). The creation of collaborative content is one of the main aspects of the Web 2.0, including multiple media posts on Facebook and the interaction between others online that it may initiate. Facebook has enabled users to connect and converse through text, photos and videos on their profiles, providing engagement and motivating interaction with other users within the community. The Internet has opened this new economic form where user-generated content has become part of the primary attributes. Facebook has assisted in the movement of communication from purely offline to online at any time of the day. Not only has it permitted users to create an online version of their identity, users’ can create pages and groups through their accounts depending on their interests. Any user is able to request to be part of the group of be invited, creating communities with various people from around the world. Multiple social media identities are quite common, however, Facebook makes it difficult to make multiple profiles as different email addresses and information are needed to create a new account. Instagram and Tumblr allow users to create numerous accounts, even by using the same log in details. These social media sites embrace the use of multiple accounts, with Instagram allowing a user to have up to 5 pages (Instagram, 2018). Social networking sites give users the ability to follow specific accounts on a certain account and make posts that are separate to their other profiles. Social media users can be a part of multiple communities depending on the account that they are logged in to, and can communicate from multiple profiles. Facebook has limited this access as a user can be added to multiple groups and pages at one time.

For example, users may take interest in other communities focusing on cooking, exercise, fashion or even religious communities, interacting with others who have similar interests. This sense of place drives the audience to feel as if they belong to a community, also giving them a reason to generate their online identity. Social communities are a location for users’ to receive support or socialize with others through user activity, resulting in communication, similar to what people would do in offline situations. These virtual communities perform in sensible arrangements for society, as they support amalgamation and belonging. New societal communities are developed as a united establishment that influences the value of responsibility and oversteps the power of politics and wealth, functioning as groups that have the power to influence. Users that are taking part in this influential establishment have various character and disposition, representing themselves through various personal interests within communities.

            Representations of the Internet User

Internet users that are involved in virtual communities are typically portrayed in ways that reflect their personal interests and the communities they are part of. It is common for users to represent a certain style of virtual identity, usually labeled within various categories. Users have embraced the opportunity that Facebook has given them, granting them the possibility to meet their individual goals of sharing their personal disclosures in a public forum (Aguiton & Cardon, 2007). A users status and influence can define a virtual community, as activity and influential entities inspire other community members (Porter, 2015). Internet users can represent themselves in different forms through social media networks, using this form of identity to attract other users through their posts and discussions online.

Facebook has enabled users to interact with others, although, this may only be a one-way action. Users are able to follow profiles, but this does not necessarily mean the account has to follow back (Gruzd et al., 2011). Due to this process, users behind public or personal pages have been able to form communities with millions of users who may follow their page just for their content without following back. These page creators or celebrities have the capability to communicate with millions of users online, and has assisted with the creation of smaller communities within the page that may result in a perception of a real community. There are a few different types of virtual community members, as users have a different approach to online engagement and the limits of their public discussions. One user may take the personal interest approach, using Facebook to search for information, buy and sell goods and promote their capabilities to gain a certain status and maximization of recognition (Aguiton & Cardon, 2007). Another type of user focuses on their belonging within the virtual community, stimulated by distributing knowledge, collective concern and volunteering, ensuring they take part in mutual activities (Aguiton & Cardon, 2007). As there is an array of different virtual communities, there are many representations of users on social media platforms such as Facebook. Virtual community members find value in communities that seek to construct relationships through interaction and helping others, and the gratification that results from these notions. Some members also join virtual communities for the enjoyment of control in participation, having access to data, and having a sense of belonging and bond to a community (Porter, 2015). Depending on how active, significant and consistent a user is their aims can be seen as adjustable and defined by their involvement. Self-identity of members is also another factor within virtual communities, as users aim to attain a responsive and comprehensive connection to please their experience within a Facebook community (Porter, 2015). This self-awareness has transferred from physical communities to the Web 2.0, allowing users to adapt to their portrayal of themselves online.

            Communities adapting to Web 2.0

Social communities are persistently changing, integrating and redefining groups that have transferred from physical communities. Cultural marginalisations and controlled progress have shifted from physical to digital communities, placing this change in a notable point in cultural conventions. Facebook contains social attributes that create expression by users through personal content, forming communities on in the virtual world. As Facebook now has millions of active users, it is difficult to determine limits and features of the social service and the spread of information through multiple communities that have formed within the network. Facebook is a clear guide to the relational virtual domain on the Web 2.0 that has been adapted by physical communities in their own environments. This digital exchange through virtual communities from ‘face-to-face’ interaction has become a voluntary progress and coordinative collaboration.

Social media platforms were the beginning of the transformation of communities, giving people a network where they can connect and engage with friends or family without having to speak to them in person. Mark Zuckerberg, a Harvard University student, created Facebook in 2004 to connect to his friends on campus (Thompson, 2008). The network has now become one of the biggest social media platforms for users to interact with one another, and create groups and communities through connection and collaboration. Facebook has integrated peoples businesses, hobbies and interests through its many features, providing users with various options to communicate and socialize. It has given business owners the opportunity to use this platform as a way to maintain and create relationships, as well as allow workers and companies to promote their brand and preserve an online existence (Beverungen et al., 2015). Thompson (2008) used an example of a student who created a group, which declared her love for Coldplay and her wish to participate in Greenpeace, sparking many other users to join the group with her. This group provided a sense of community within the users who had joined, granting them with an environment that takes their interest. These users may not know each other outside of the social media network, but it compares to a physical community discussing these interests in a real environment. Communities have begun adapting to the Web 2.0 and the features it provides in order to build a sense of community online.

Conclusions and Future Study

            With the growing confirmation of interaction on social media sites, communities have been able to expand and adapt to the virtual world on the Web 2.0. The shift has assisted in the construction of online relationships, resulting in virtual communities and their significance to online communication. Research into the success rates of virtual communities must take place in order to study how different Internet users are finding their virtual communities and how they compare to the physical.

Facebook has provided features to assist in the growth of virtual communities and users connecting through their strong interaction, creating a sense of unity within these groups of people. As virtual identities can represent multiple versions of a person, it has permitted people to engage with specific groups and pages that take their interest, comparable to the way physical communities interact. These social media websites have opened a virtual society where user-generated content has become a major attribute to social relationships through the Web 2.0. Communities have adapted to online engagement as features online have made the process effortless to find information that captures users and inspires them to take part in user connection.

 

  References

Aguiton, C., & Cardon, D. (2007). The Strength of Weak Cooperation: An Attempt to Understand the Meaning of Web 2.0. Communications & Strategies, 65(1), 51 – 65

Beverungen, A., Böhm, S., & Land, C. (2015). Free Labour, Social Media, Management: Challenging Marxist Organisation Studies. Organisation Studies, 36(4), 473-489

Constine, J. (2017, June 28). Facebook now has 2 billion monthly users… and responsibility. Tech Crunch. Retrieved from https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/27/facebook-2-billion-users/

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

Instagram. (2018). Add and Switch Between Multiple Accounts. Retrieved from https://help.instagram.com/1682672155283228

Jin, D. Y. (2015). Critical analysis of user commodities as free labour in social networking sites: A case study of Cyworld. Routledge, 29(6), 938-950 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10304312.2015.664115

Porter, C. E. (2015). Virtual communities and social networks. In L. Cantoni and J. Danowski, (eds). Communication and Technology. Berlin: De Gruyter. 161 – 179

Thompson, C. (2008). Brave New World of Digital Intimacy. The New York Times. 5 September. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/magazine/07awarenesst.html?_r=1

 

Communities Adapting to the Web 2.0 Through Facebook (PDF)

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

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

Abstract

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

Keywords:

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

Introduction

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

Discussion

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

Conclusion

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

 

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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