Since the\nintroduction of Social Networking sites (SNSs) such as Facebook and MySpace,\nmillions of users have been attracted to the platforms and have changed the\nsections into their daily practices. The existence of various SNSs with various\ntechnological advancements supports a variety of methods and interests.\nFacebook, for instance, helps in the maintenance of pre-existing social\nnetworks alongside assisting strangers to connect based on shared interests,\nviews, everyday language, religion, sex religion or nationality. Apart from\nfacebook allowing users to meet and interact with strangers, it also enables\nusers to articulate and makes public their profile to users of the same site.\nThe visibility of an individual’s profile includes links to other members such\nas family and friends creating a network of connections between individuals.\nThese connections among people serve different functions and objectives such as\nproviding a source of emotional and financial support, information about jobs,\nother people and the world at large.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The sharing of\ninterests by using Facebook as a platform of exchange of information leads to\nthe emergence of Internet Mediated communities (IMCs). An online community is a\nsetting where people can meet and communicate with each other online (Preece et\nal. 2003). A society comprises of people who share social interactions and some\nlinks between individuals or groups. In cyberspace, as individuals with the\nsame interest in their communication channels merge, they form an internet\ncommunity symbolically delineated by a topic of interest. These communities\ncreate, collaborate and contribute to their knowledge and wisdom. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The concept of IMC\nexists in many definitions. According to Oldenburg, third places<\/em> are neutral grounds where community members meet and\nreject all discrimination, developing a sense of inclusion rather than\nexclusivity. In the conversation of the third place is the central activity\ncharacterized for being open when most other sites are closed. ICMs are always\nstrongly related to its cyberspace but do not necessarily correspond to it. The\nIMC consists of actors playing different roles while an organizer is the mentor\nof the community’s place. A member is an individual with formal membership in a\nparticular community. A moderator coordinates all the activities inside a\ncommunity’s area. A supplier is an individual or a firm that transacts\ncommercially in a community’s location and internault is an individual who is\ninterested in an IMC, visits its website is not a formal member.<\/p>\n\n\n\n IMCs are organized\ninto topics of interest which enhances their members to perceive the available\nresources in a community’s space. The core objectives of an IMC are identifying\nthe reasons, and the audience for its existence sets a mission, and by sharing\nits history, it develops an identity.IMC also shares problems, languages, and\ntasks hence help in the distribution of knowledge. The online communities also\nemerge in different forms with some similar to public places like a park or a\nstreet, where members do not feel a strong personal commitment to the online\ncommunity while others closely-knit and participants of these communities feel\na strong bond between each other and therefore return regularly. The sizes of\nthe communities vary from a few members to hundreds of thousands. Larger\ncommunities have to be more formal and include roles and conventions, whereas\nsmaller online communities might be more flexible and informal (Butler et al.\n2002). Different theories try to explain the broader interaction within the\nIMC, and they include Social Presence theory (SPT), Social Information\nProcessing (SIP) and Social Identity\/ Deindividuation (SIDE) Theory (Spears and\nLea 1992).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Social\nPresence theory deals with the ability of the mediating technology to create a\nsense of co-presence during a communication process. The degree to which the\nmediated communication conveys social presence determines how people interact\nwith each other. The Social Presence theory helps us to understand how the\ndifferent types of mediating technologies affect the way by which individuals\nget to interact and communicate with each other on Facebook. For a better\nunderstanding of communication between communicating partners, social presence\nis an essential tool as a higher social presence indicates better understanding\nbetween the communicating partners and vice versa. Social presence includes\nverbal cues, body language, and facial expressions. Mediating technologies are\nlimited in that they cannot convey non-verbal or voice-cues. This restriction\ninfluences the character of the communication in that it becomes more difficult\nfor communicating individuals o acquire a sense of social presence between the\ncommunicating partner(Culnan and Markus 1987; Walther 1993).<\/p>\n\n\n\n An example is that\ntext-based communications do not provide a basis for the exchange of facial\nexpressions and voice recognition to obtain the tone. Also, the lack of seeing\nthe other person’s physical presence influences substantially the way people\ncommunicate as people can hide their inner feelings and expressions away from\nthe people they are engaging. The absence of these characteristics can result\nfrom misunderstanding, the sense of togetherness and the warm and supportive\natmosphere is stressed continuously and mentioned within the messages exchanged\nto prevent people from misusing the trust and supportive atmosphere within the\nonline community (Pfeil and Zaphiris 2007).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Social\nInformation Processing theory (SIP) concentrates mainly on the lack of\nnon-verbal cues in CMC. According to this theory, any communication lacking a\nphysical presence, visual and audible signals does not necessitate the\nexistence of friendship or close relationships. SIP Theory states that CMC is\nas useful as a face-to-face conversation for establishing closeness and\nfriendships between communicators. The theory further explains that\nrelationships between communicators can grow to unprecedented heights only if\npeople reveal information about themselves and in return uses the same\ninformation in building the impression of the other person. CMC can benefit\nfrom verbal and textual cues despite the restriction of the lack of non-verbal\ncues. When communicators have learned to adapt to the situations,\nrelationships, and friendships maintained by CMC can be as strong as their\noffline counterparts (Walther 1992). Besides (Walther,1996) explains further\nthe existence of hyperpersonal\nperspective<\/em> in which relationships are characterized by close and more\nintimate ties than what they are online. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Social\nIdentity De-individuation (SIDE) theory explicit the social and psychological\ndimensions of CMC and conclude that CMC does not per definition restrict social\nactivities. According to this theory, CMC and group forming in CMC settings are\nhighly influenced by social group norms. Individuation is established by the\nuse of visual contact, profile pictures and proximity whereas de-individuation\noccurs when communication lacks these characteristics. Postmes et al. (1998)\nstate that, social identity develops in an online community when its members\nare in a state of de-individuation. This means that individuals do not see\nthemselves as individuals in a group by interacting with others but by\nestablishing a \u2018we’ feeling in which the awareness of individuals into switched\ninto a group perspective. People act according to the social identity\ndetermined in their respective community or group, and this shift from\nindividual to social status allows people in an online community to take on a new\naspect of their identity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In consideration\nof our self-identities, individuals define and see themselves as being unique.\nEvery individual plays a crucial role in ensuring that they represent who they are\nand the direction in which their lives take. The self-identity entails the\ntotality of knowledge and understanding people gain about them as they develop\nin areas such as personalities, attitudes and capabilities, intellectual and\nphysical attributes interests and relationships. People learn self-identities\nin two ways; first, development through self-awareness whereby thoughts,\nfeelings, behavior, current needs, and future goals are examined. Because\npeople are social beings, an essential part in their development involves\nfinding a place in the social and cultural context in which they live, and the\nfeedback from that social world plays a significant role in the evolution of\none’s self-identity. The dramatic expansion of the social world in the last decade\nfrom families, friends, neighborhood and schools to an almost-limitless\nuniverse is mainly due to a proliferation of the Internet and social media. By\nthe fact that it’s difficult to understand how these external forces are\ngaining a disproportionate influence over people’s self-identities, they are mainly\naccelerated by the recent explosion of technology shaping our self-identities\nin ways we are least aware of.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the most\nsignificant ways in which technology is changing self-identity is through the\nshift from being internal to externally driven. The sheer ubiquity and of the\ntechnological advancement in social media sites such as Facebook has taken over\nthe influence, unlike previous generations where forces that influenced our\nself-identities were positive; parents, peers, schools, communities, and media\nmostly sent secure messages about who we are and how we should perceive\nourselves. Currently, the things have changed to the other extreme whereby the\nlatest technology such as Facebook mostly governs profit motive rules and\nenergetic influences. Technology has shaped self-identities of the current\ngeneration in two ways: popular culture and social media.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Popular culture\nno-longer reflects on our self-identities as it does not provide feedback about\nhow essential our self-identities are in the reality of our lives. Instead,\npopular culture portrays or shapes as on who it wants us to be by tapping into\nour most basic needs so that we feel good about ourselves, accepted and\nattractive, disregarding the fact that elf identity shaped by popular culture\nserves its own best interest rather than what’s best for us. This self-identity\nis not an actual reflection of who we are.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Secondly,\nfacebook, a social media platform has caused has to shift away from expressing\nour self-identities and towards building facades of ourselves considering on\nhow people will perceive us and how can one ensure they view him or her\npositively. This shifts the use of Facebook for many towards acceptance,\npopularity, status, and by extension, self-esteem through their profiles and postings.\nFor one to fulfill his or her affiliation needs, the majority of people get\npossessed by virtual forces driving them to make social comparisons between\nthemselves and the individuals they come across in the social media sites.\nThese insinuations in individuals to compare themselves to others are often\ntriggered by several social networking sites which lead individuals in carrying\nout self-evaluations and do the slightly, comparison .the comparisons are\nusually based on social classes, social roles, beauty, popularity, wealth\naccumulation, and other social factors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There are two\ntypes of comparisons that people engage in social platforms, upward and\ndownward comparisons. The upward comparison involves a comparison between an\nindividual and those superior from him while downward comparison entails\ncomparison between an individual and those inferior to him or her. Lockwood and\nKunda (1997) say that upward social comparisons can be inspirational for people\nas they focus on replicating their comparison targets behavior and attitude. It\nhas been observed however that upward comparison can make individuals feel\nweaker and inferior in society hence having a direct contribution in lowering\ntheir self-esteem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Through Facebook,\nwe see our identities as to those we will like to have or to what we want\npeople to see rather than we are. People then feel fueled or compelled to\npromote an individual’s self-identity through Facebook. The existing\nrelationship between person and persona, private and public deteriorates and\ngets scrapped off ultimately making self-identity a means of acceptance and\nstatus. <\/p>\n\n\n\n However, on the\ncontrary, in striving for approval in our social lives through technological\nplatforms such as Facebook and in seeking uniqueness, people sacrifice their\ntrue self-identities and shape their characters fit with what the digital world\nviews as being an acceptable identity. The consequences of using Facebook as an\nemerging technology range from dramatic changes within individuals to shift in\ncharacter from internally-driven to externally driven.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In conclusion, Facebook has changed the way people interact with each other and how they display their self-identities. People generally copy or fake their identities on Facebook to conform them to a given group or CMC, and thus, their real characters are not displayed in their Facebook profiles, status, and timelines.<\/p>\n\n\n\n References<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bellini CG and Vargas LM. (n.d.). The rationale for Internet-mediated communities. – PubMed – NCBI. Retrieved from https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pubmed\/12650559<\/p>\n\n\n\n City University\nLondon, P. Z.Retrieved from\nhttp:\/\/ktisis.cut.ac.cy\/bitstream\/10488\/5292\/6\/Theories%20and%20methods%20for%20studying.pdf<\/p>\n\n\n\n CYBERPSYCHOLOGY,\nBEHAVIOR, AND SOCIAL NETWORKING, S. M.Retrieved from https:\/\/pdfs.semanticscholar.org\/1710\/71069cb3b58cfe8e38232c25bfa99f1fbdf5.pdf<\/p>\n\n\n\n A model for the\ndevelopment of virtual communities for people with long-term, severe physical\ndisabilities. (2006, March 6). Retrieved from\nhttp:\/\/informationr.net\/ir\/11-3\/paper253.html<\/p>\n\n\n\n Morse S and Gergen KJ.\n(n.d.). Social comparison, self-consistency, and the concept of self. – PubMed\n– NCBI. Retrieved from https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pubmed\/5485940<\/p>\n\n\n\n Online social networks:\nWhy do students use Facebook? (n.d.). Retrieved from https:\/\/www.sciencedirect.com\/science\/article\/pii\/S0747563210002244<\/p>\n\n\n\n Polity. (2016, November\n21). Retrieved from https:\/\/www.journals.uchicago.edu\/doi\/abs\/10.2307\/3235370<\/p>\n\n\n\n Procedures for Analyses\nof Online Communities. (2003, July 1). Retrieved from https:\/\/academic.oup.com\/jcmc\/article\/8\/4\/JCMC847\/4584274<\/p>\n\n\n\n Wellman: Changing\nConnectivity. (2000, February 29). Retrieved from\nhttp:\/\/www.socresonline.org.uk\/4\/4\/wellman.html<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Since the introduction of Social Networking sites (SNSs) such as Facebook and MySpace, millions of users have been attracted to the platforms and have changed the sections into their daily practices. The existence of various SNSs with various technological advancements supports a variety of methods and interests. Facebook, for instance, helps in the maintenance of… Continue reading How Facebook has radically changed the way people relate to their online identity<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":85,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-667","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-social"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/667","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/85"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=667"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/667\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":669,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/667\/revisions\/669"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=667"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=667"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=667"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}