Meryl Proost
Curtin University
Abstract
This paper looks at the properties of Facebook Groups and how this online platform can facilitate an enriched community experience. It examines three examples of Facebook Groups which have used this platform to enrich their own communities, Chat 10 Looks 3, Mums n’ Bubs – Logan and United Patriots Front. This paper details the establishment of the Groups, the motivation of members to join and gives examples of the altruistic nature of the first two Groups and examples of the far-right political activist motivation behind the latter Group. This paper discusses the academic theories behind the relative success of these three groups.
Keywords: Facebook Groups, communities
Facebook Groups Enrich the Community Experience
The application for Closed Groups on the social media platform Facebook can facilitate an enriched community experience for community groups by maintaining regular controlled contact, discussion, advice and support. Our participation in online communities adds value to our community experience and complements our offline communities, maintaining relationships with our family and friends daily and occasionally meeting up in person with members of our online communities. Most Facebook Groups begin as information pages and have evolved into altruistic communities leading on occasion to their members/users/content producers to connect and form offline communities. Concurrently, offline communities, which were initiated in person, now use social media to stay connected, distribute information and share experiences, photos, news stories and videos. This paper will examine the Closed Facebook Groups Chat 10 Looks 3, Mums N Bubs – Logan and United Patriots Front, their establishment, motivation, administration and members. These and other Closed Facebook Groups enrich the community experience providing ambient intimacy, social expectation, identity and community cooperation between their members.
The social media platform Facebook launched in May 2007. Within the platform is an application for Closed Groups (Facebook, 2007). These groups are usually administrated by an individual or group of organised members who set the guidelines, rules and terms of entry for the group. Members of the public must apply to be added to the group or suggested by existing members. This application has evolved into a valuable tool for many community groups, those initiated online and offline. The function of Closed Facebook Groups is a computer mediated communication (CMC) platform, defined as “groups of people with common interests and practices that communicate regularly and for some duration, in an organized way over the Internet through a common location or mechanism” (Ridings & Gefen, 2004, p. 3). The Notifications feature of Facebook Groups allows members to be digitally notified each time a member has uploaded a new post. Reichelt terms this constant and immediate interaction as “ambient intimacy”, this is where you are “able to keep in touch with people with a level of regularity and intimacy that you wouldn’t usually have access to, because time and space conspire to make it impossible” (Disambiguity, 2007). While Facebook Group “Notifications” enables the members of one group to constantly keep others updated with intimate details of their family life, eating or reading habits, work or gardening problems; those in another group may keep in touch constantly monitoring news stories, political rallies, blogging hate crimes or the like. A study focusing on the motivation for engaging in such groups found the factors to be based on social expectation, similar to those in real life communities. Members of these groups follow the rules of engagement as set up by the administrators and share as per the social norm within the group (Pi, Chou, & Liao, 2013, p. 1976).
One Closed Facebook Group began with the podcast Chat 10 Looks 3, hosted by journalists Leigh Sales and Annabel Crabb. The Facebook Group, of the same name, is for fans of the podcast to communicate. Just as the podcast is a forum for friends to “discuss what they’re reading, watching, cooking, listening to or irrationally exhilarated by” (Chat10Looks3, n.d.), so is the Closed Facebook Group forum of 33,000 or so members. Fans of the podcast are vetted by administrators and then given permission to join the group. Through the several years since the Facebook Group’s incarnation a language has evolved with terms like “the Brendalings”, meaning the administrators of the Facebook Group and “Smug Bundt”, regular postings of members proud cooking achievements. The members call themselves Chatters now, have a signature pin (blue fairy wren), a signature recipe (Crack) and a mascot dog (Momo). All of these signifiers bond the community. Donath, when referring to online gamers, discusses how a “language is an important indication of group identity”, it applies equally in this instance where language can be used just as accurately as the blue fairy wren pin to denote membership and inclusion. Donath likens it to moving to a new community and adopting the accent (1999, p. 8). Tales of help and support for relative strangers abound within this community such as one member collecting another’s father and taking him to a play, one offering a bed to another’s daughter stuck in London, several turning up at a country hospital to offer cabbage leaves and support for a breast cancer patient and fellow member. One comment on a Facebook Group post by Leigh Sales says “what makes CH10L3 special is that there is always someone else who’s going through the same thing you are and you can support each other through it” (Hunter, 2018). The repeated and varied actions of individuals reinforcing and reflecting the community’s altruistic identity and therefore reinforcing every member’s individual identity by being part of the community.
The “ambient intimacy”, mentioned earlier, allows for meet ups to be easier as the members feel as if they already know each other. Sandry, based on Emmanuel Levinas’ 1969 work, poses that the face we show via CMC could be broadly translated as any aspect of our personality or self we chose to reveal (2014, p.6). This brings a modern, working meaning to term “Face to Face” when referring to our online communities. Thompson’s New Yorker article also discusses ambient awareness or “ambient intimacy” as being very similar to physically knowing a close family member, their mannerisms, speech patterns or sighs (2008). Thompson explores a theory when asking why we feel so comfortable with this level of community intimacy and poses that this intimacy has been historically normal in village communities and the relatively “private” post-industrial revolution is the anomaly (2008). This kind of ambient intimacy leads Facebook Group members to turn up unannounced at a hospital bed with physical and emotional support for a fellow member previously unknown to them.
Mums N Bubs – Logan is a Closed Facebook Group of 22,000 or so members. This organisation began outside of Facebook when Logan mother, Natalie Millar, saw a need for a community for young mothers within the district of Logan City, a local government area situated between Brisbane and the Gold Coast. The region of Logan contains a population with an incredibly ethnically diverse population of a generally young, low socio-economic profile. Millar began the group using email but needed an easier way to communicate with the rapidly growing group. After one and half years, Millar felt a Closed Facebook Group was the best available choice to facilitate this community, using it to announce meetings, provide support and resources. Millar says the central feature of the group is the weekly offline meet ups in parks and playgrounds, however the Facebook Group has evolved into a 24-hour, seven day a week “help and support forum” (Millar, 2018). The group has grown from its offline, local region, to include international members in New Zealand and Ghana. Millar claims that at all times members are altruistic in their behaviour. When a parent reaches out it can be for varied reasons such as help with parenting questions or problems, family tragedies, help with government paperwork, medical issues, economic issues, mental health or social disorders. Through the Facebook Group the responses from fellow members flood in with offers of help and support, Millar reviews all responses and edits according to what is appropriate and seeks professional advice when necessary. Millar has recently been headhunted by the Local Government body to consult on the needs of the region to enrich community, based on information learned through the Closed Facebook Group (Millar, 2018). The data collected and skills learned through her Closed Facebook Group has been useful to Local Government as the online forum reflects the real-life geographic community and highlights its needs. Mums N Bubs – Logan will potentially enrich not only the online community but also the geographic community of Logan.
These two previous examples highlight the altruistic nature of online communities when the initial motivation for members is altruism. Recent world events would suggest social media is also being used to enrich certain kinds of communities not so altruistic in nature. An example of this is the Christchurch Mosque shootings on March 15, this year. ABC’s Four Corners program (Under the Radar) has highlighted the widespread use of social media within, not only Muslim Terror organisations, but also with far-right White Supremacy movements. The program revealed how the accused shooter was a member and contributor to a, now deleted, Closed Facebook Group, United Patriots Front, which boasted over 100,000 members. The Mosque shooting was streamed live, by the accused, on Facebook. As Four Corners pointed out, social media’s key features make it a perfect tool for enabling such activities as it is a one to many platform, users can be anonymous, it is cheap and it is instant (Rubinsztein-Dunlop, 2019). One purpose for anonymity online is to express parts of your personality you may choose to hide from your offline/general friend network or work colleagues. The Closed Facebook Group space allows the member to “reveal through their posts to the group wall, different aspects of their personality from those which they chose to share more generally with their Facebook friend network” (Sandry, 2014, p.3). Leader of United Patriots Front and its companion Facebook Group, Blair Cottrell stated on social media when referring to the establishment of real-life clubhouses “… we need a real community”, “he was building a community, a physical network of people on social media” (Devlin, 2018). Blair Cottrell was enriching his community through the use of Facebook Groups with a more troublesome motivation.
When exploring the reasons for the effectiveness Facebook Groups building and enriching community experience, one can look to the social media research theory of “strength in weak cooperation” (Aguiton & Cardon, 2007, p. 51). According to this theory, the connection between users or members of a Closed Facebook Group may be weak, they may only have a couple of points of reference in common, however, what makes this “weak cooperation” strong is the “density of exchanges and number of connections” when compared with real life interactions (2007, p. 54). Group members may not know each other or even real names but they are checking in with you daily or hourly and offering conversation and support, time and distance prevents our real-life community providing such validation. Web 2.0 and social media’s purpose in it lies somewhere between “individualism and solidarity” or “utilitarian and altruistic”, combining individual goals or purpose with identity building and community support (2007 p. 51 & p. 52). Through the Group members individually reinforce their own identity and are bolstered with intellectual and emotional support to feel solidarity with the Group. Members may join a Facebook Group for a utilitarian reason, to access information or resources, however, remain in the Group for the altruistic nature of the community. Several studies from as early as 2005 noted the slow transformation in CMC from individual motivated goals of users to concern for the greater good of the community (2007, p.55). Status Update posts on Chat 10 Looks 3 by members, often ask the advice of the Group or “hive”, this is a “strong” collective with “weak cooperation” helping to solve problems of the individual. As Aguiton and Cardon point out, the individual production/cooperation/participation is however necessary for the Group to operate and accomplish its collective goals (2007, p. 51). If individuals stop participating the Group ceases to be a community.
There has been much speculation in public media, because of recent world events, about whether Facebook Groups is a good or bad tool for our times. It could be said that this is a Manichean or black and white viewpoint and it must be acknowledged that there are grey areas on this topic to study. What is readily agreed upon, in this global hegemony, is that measures need to be taken to assure us of the platform’s safety. These steps seem to have begun, Facebook made an announcement on March 27, 2019 stating that it will enact a ban on “praise, support and representation of white nationalism and white separatism” and that “organized hate groups and (sic) have no place on our services” (Facebook, 2019). While this is an appropriate response, Facebook has to date declined to take on the legal and ethical responsibilities of a media company choosing to call itself a platform, even though it is fast becoming one of the largest sources of news in the world, with founder Mark Zuckerberg stressing Facebook is an internet tool and does not produce content (Facebook, 2018). A 2018 Forbes article poses that Facebook sees Groups as an opportunity for business to reach the public under the guise of community engagement. It cites examples of large companies forming groups and interacting with their customer base as a community rather than direct advertising (Holmes). While the nature of many Facebook Groups and individual members has evolved to altruism and community enrichment, the nature of Facebook itself seems alternately motivated.
Closed Facebook Groups are diverse
in purpose and nature, where one can be referred to in popular media as a “cult
of kindness” (Pitt, 2018) another is referred to as “another deadly threat” (Rubinsztein-Dunlop,
2019). Whether these social media
communities begin online or are an augmentation of an already offline community
it can be argued that the key features of an administrated forum of CMC are
“ambient intimacy”, the feeling of familiarity with a shared unique language,
the “strength in weak cooperation” with frequency of exchanges and sheer number
of contacts, the ability to build identity through the production and sharing of
content and the immediacy and low cost properties. It is these key features which enable the
platform of Closed Facebook Groups to continue to facilitate and enrich the community
experiences with increasing popularity. The world of Web 2.0 and social media is very
quickly changing world. Through this research, it has become evident that most
Facebook Groups along with other social media groups have a combination of online
and offline communities branching out from the central group. The intertwined or interdependent nature of
Facebook Groups, other social media, traditionally offline communities and
business is an area for possible future study.
REFERENCES
Aguiton C. & Cardon D. (2007). The Strength of Weak Cooperation: An Attempt to Understand the Meaning of Web 2.0. Communications & Strategies, 65(1st Quarter), 51-65. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1009070
Crabb, A., Sales, L. (n.d.). About this Group [Profile Post]. Chat10Looks3. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/groups/chat10looks3/permalink/2264690217145175/
Devlin, P. (2018, June 7). Far-right fight club: United Patriots Front Opens “men-only” gatherings where members can punch on with each other in front of an Australian flag. Daily Mail Australia. Retrieved from https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5815685/Far-right-fight-club-United-Patriots-opens-men-gatherings-Sydney-Melbourne.html
Donath, J. (1999). Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community. In P. Kollock, & M. A. Smith (Eds.), Communities in Cyberspace, 29-59. New York Routledge. Retrieved from http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html
Facebook (2007). Platform is here. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook/platform-is-here/2437282130
Facebook (2018). A blueprint for content governance and enforcement. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/a-blueprint-for-content-governance-and-enforcement/10156443129621634/
Facebook (2019). Standing Against Hate. Retrieved from https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/03/standing-against-hate/
Holmes, R. (2018, October 29). Are Facebook Groups the Future of Social Media (or A Dead End)? Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanholmes/2018/10/29/are-facebook-groups-the-future-of-social-media-or-a-dead-end/#c4681491d236
Hunter, S. (2018, December 10). [Comment on Facebook post]. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/groups/chat10looks3/permalink/2264690217145175/?comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22O%22%7D
Millar, N. (n.d.). About this Group [Profile Post]. Mums n’ Bubs – Logan. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/groups/140405902638033/
Pi, S-M., Chou, C-H. & Liao, H-L. (2013). A study of Facebook Groups members’ knowledge sharing. Computers in Human Behaviour, 29, 1971-1979. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.04.019
Pitt, H. (2018, December 16). A Cult of kindness’: Sales and Crabb Chat 10 Looks 3 an online hit. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from https://www.smh.com.au/national/cult-of-kindness-sales-and-crabb-chat-10-looks-3-an-online-hit-20181214-p50mes.html
Ransom-Hughes, M. (Producer), Kanowski, S. (Presenter), Millar, N. (Guest). (2018, December 6). More Power to the Mums. Conversations [Audio Podcast]. Retrieved from https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/conversations/nat-millar/10569356
Reichelt, L. (2007, March 1). Ambient Intimacy [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.disambiguity.com/ambient-intimacy
Ridings C. & Gefen D. (2004). Virtual Community Attraction: Why People Hang Out Online. Journal of Computer-Medicated Communication, 10(1), 1-32. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2004.tb00229.x
Rubinsztein-Dunlop, S. (Reporter). (2019, March 25). Under the Radar. In
S. Neighbour (Executive Producer), Four
Corners. Sydney, NSW: Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved from
iview.abc.net.au/Four Corners
Sandry, E. (2014). “Face to Face” Learning from Others in Facebook Groups, Digital Culture & Education, 6(1), 1-12. Retrieved from http://www.digitalcultureandeducation.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/sandry.pdf
Thompson, C. (2008). Brave New World of Digital Intimacy. The New York Times. 5 September. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/magazine/07awareness-t.html?_r=.
Thanks for that Meryl, it was a good read.
I found this quote interesting:
> Millar has recently been headhunted by the Local Government body to consult on the needs of the region to enrich community, based on information learned through the Closed Facebook Group (Millar, 2018).
It is similar to what I wrote about in the way that online and offline communities are not mutually exclusive, they can sometimes complement one another. I moved to a different state a few years ago and immediately subscribed to the local areas reddit and facebook groups to find out more about my new local area and the people that live there with the same interests. Without these online tools I would not have as much information as I currently do.
Yes, I am really interested in the interconnectedness of our lives, family, work, colleagues, off line community groups and online community groups. The source of information being circulated through all aspects of our lives does truely support Aguiton and Cardon’s argument of “strength in weak cooperation”. I was a little frustrated by the research as most articles I found dealt solely with online and did not take into account the interconnectedness. Perhaps it is because the world of Web 2.0 is moving so very quickly.
Hi Meryl,
I enjoyed reading your paper, thanks. It highlighted and clarified what I feel when I participate in closed Facebook groups.
Signifiers – I didn’t realise that this had a name – but yes it does bond a community. I have seen this in groups that I’m a member of. It’s an internal language and it flows freely within the group. The examples of help that relative strangers gave to others in need is also something I have seen and it is a strong signifier of community. If anything, I think the concept of community may sometimes be stronger online rather than in real life.
The notion of ambient intimacy is an interesting one, I too have experienced this and sometimes feel like I know someone really well – only because they have shared so much of themselves online. I find it funny how we can share so much when we have the anonymity of a screen to shield us. In my case I much prefer to communicate via text or written form rather than face to face. Is technology and social media enhancing my introversion – perhaps.
I agree with your theory that constant communication within a group strengthens the bonds of members; and that it is something that is hard to do in real life with one’s real friends. I often lament how little I see my close friends when work, family, kids, study etc consume so much time. It’s definitely easier to jump online and converse with members of an online community.
Very good paper about the way Facebook groups are viewed, black or white not grey in a lot of cases but I do put that down to the media in promoting the ends of the spectrum and not the middle ground which can be quite innocent and altruistic. I noted in my paper that Facebook does get away with a lot by remaining a tech company and not a media company, it is interesting that governments are looking to have them called a media company under local law to exact some means of responsibility for their content. I always have the issue of too much intimacy vs too little never knowing what I should share but I do agree constant communications is better than none at all and you decide what you want to read anyhow.
Hi Graeme, thanks for your comments. I guess just like in a real life social situation we choose how much we share and how much we reveal, the same goes for our social media use. With millennials and post-millennials in my family and the periphery I notice their standards for sharing are quite different. I do acknowledge however that what I choose to share in both real life and online is quite different to that of what my mother or grandmother would have shared with their community, a normal generational shift perhaps. For the time being I will continue to keep it classy with posts and move through Web 2.0 as a lurker.
Hello Meryl
Your paper has me thinking about the closed Facebook groups I am in and have me thinking why, did I join and what are they really about. I personally don’t post on these groups, rather sit on the fence as a spectator and occasionally with make a comment. One is a group that post for sale vintage and antique items of crockery, china and art deco, all my style, but I never buy. I have a personal Facebook page with 16 friends all known to me personally, sole for the purpose keeping up with all they are doing. Facebook certainly creates “interconnectedness” in our daily lives, I can remember as a young child the interconnectedness of families in 1950’s was by posting a letter to your relative stating the day, time and date you would visit them. How times have changes for the better. This was an excellent read and very informative.
Hi Robin,
Thanks for commenting. Maybe you’re a great listener, your sincerity may be such that you are online exactly who you are in “real life” if there is really a difference anymore. I am not a very active participant either, I could probably be defined as a “lurker”. I feel I am still keeping up with the conversation just being there. My Facebook Profile statement is “I want to see what you had for lunch, where you went on holidays and what your kids are doing!”, however, I rarely comment or go beyond a “like”. As I was just mentioning to Andrea in the comments, my interest was really picqued by Thompsons Theory “when asking why we feel so comfortable with this level of community intimacy and poses that this intimacy has been historically normal in village communities and the relatively “private” post-industrial revolution is the anomaly (2008)”. Thanks again Robin.
Hi Meryl
You are right, I tend to listen before making any comments, I like to think what to say before posting. I’m 69 and I believe my attitude toward releasing too much private information about myself has been taught to me by my parents over years. I’m a bit jealous of the those who have grown up with social media and have a decent understanding of the workings of it. I’m a fence-sitter and would rather be that introverted user on Facebook, in real life though I am an extrovert and enjoy meeting people. I was a wedding celebrant for ten years and had so much fun with the couples getting married.
That is amazing Robin, I am exactly the same, quite the extrovert at parties. I have seriously thought that I would love to be a celebrant as well. It shouldn’t surprise me that much that we are like minded people who find themselves in a similar position in life. I guess we are, as the research would suggest, finding our community here.
Hi Robin. As a fence sitting in your groups (which I am in a couple of mine also), do you feel as though you are a part of the community? Is there something that keeps you in the group? And what would make you more comfortable in taking a more active role?
Hi Tracey
I had to think about your question “do you fee as though your are part of the community?” I’ve come to the conclusion that I’m not really a part of the community, as I very rarely post comments. I do have a friend in NSW that I will comment on her posts as they are usually entertaining, she is quite a character. I realised that for me to contribute to the group the comment I am responding to has to interest me. I ignore postings of food for example, I don’t comment on any of the family photos either. In this case I would rather wait to have a face-to-face comment directly with the person. Just old school I think! I probably would take an active role within the group if the subject if I am passionate about what the group is all about. For example I have really enjoy being part of our conference posting, I am quite interested in the content that we are all posting. Probably because I’m in my late 60’s, the holiday, food, pets, silly comments etc are of no interest to me, I prefer to read more intelligent posting.
Hi Andrea, this has been my experience as well. Study has me on the lookout for the echo chamber effect happening in these Facebook groups. I belong to among others, an international movie critics group, who often have very differing opinions, however, never descends into trolling. The administration and regulation of these groups is an attractive feature. My aunties, uncles and cousins have all started our own closed group and it is definitely enriching our family being able to communicate every day in a way which the generation before us could never have such an intimate relationship. However, this is where this theory really interests me, are we resetting?
“Thompson explores a theory when asking why we feel so comfortable with this level of community intimacy and poses that this intimacy has been historically normal in village communities and the relatively “private” post-industrial revolution is the anomaly (2008)”.
There are so many grey areas when studying social media, just like studying real life, which brings again the question is there any difference between the two anymore?
Hi Meryl,
I love that you use groups for your family to communicate! What a great idea, particularly if you have members overseas or need to get information out to everyone.
You pose an interesting theory. But do we live in villages anymore? Globalisation has removed so many boundaries, we are all a part of a worldwide community
I agree – there are so many grey areas, I guess it depends on the user. Social media can be used to reflect real life, however it can also be ‘fake news’.
Interesting paper, Meryl. Your discussions about the “United Patriots Front” Facebook group have me thinking about the role and responsibility of mediators within a page and who is ultimately responsible for the dissemination of hate speech, particularly when such speech proliferates into offline society and results in utter tragedy.
Your essay does raise questions, probably outside of scope a little, about privacy. Although these Facebook groups are closed and are invitational only, content is still available for the owner of the platform (Facebook, in this case) to use at their discretion. They obviously also have the power to remove pages such as the “United Patriots Front” if they deem it to not sit within their acceptable community guidelines. It then also raises questions about what is acceptable content to share and who has the right to decide what is “right” and “wrong”.
I enjoyed your discussion about signifiers and have been thinking about what kinds of signifiers exist in the online communities I consider myself to be part of. It also has me thinking about common convention signifiers which come and go across daily life use of social media – thinking different trending hashtags, use of particular filters and emojis to mean different things.
You note in a comment above about whether there is any difference between social media and “real life” which is something I have been grappling with lately. I am coming to the conclusion that social media has converged in on our lives and is not something that should be considered independently but rather integrated. Questions then shift to focus on how social media has changed the way we communicate and access information and what that means for social change, cohesion and daily operations.
Thanks for your comments Emily, you are right, privacy seemed more of a concern for a few years back and we all seem to just accept the consequences of posting these days. The word “closed” does imply privacy without delivering it. Did the issue just go away or did we get overwhelmed or bored of being concerned when the urge to share or commune seems greater?
I find the topic of signifiers in our lives fascinating. In an earlier subject I remember identifying that even my 80 year old parents have their signifiers of belonging to a certain community with the clothes they wear, the car they drive, the establishments they frequent and their language choices.
The question whether there is difference between “real life” and social media comes up in most of the conference papers. Whilst commenting on an other paper I was posing the question, when referring to online racism, do online comments reflect the hegemony of society? The concept of yes being the answer is quite depressing in that context. However, looking at the altruism of the Closed Facebook Groups I case studied, it is evident there is a division of good and bad and perhaps social media does reflect the hegemony of society.
Thanks Meryl.
Privacy is an interesting one, particularly because I am sure privacy policies are listed in the social media site’s terms of use, but they are so long and onerous who actually reads them before simply clicking “I agree”. (Side note – I am also interested in how digital technologies have shifted the need for an actual physical, hand-written signature on paper, to a simple “click” on a webpage to agree to certain things, particularly with issues of privacy – but that discussion can be left for another day).
What worries me, and relates to my paper quite a bit, is that if social media does reflect the hegemony of society, what does that mean for those who cannot adequately access social media sites due to lack of access to reliable infrastructure or digital illiteracy? It is concerning when you start assuming that people just know the conventions of social media – what does this mean for social inclusion, job hunting etc.?
Sorry – these things are probably off topic but these conference papers raise so many questions and makes my brain tick over…
No you are totally correct, it is common for emergent technology whilst benefitting one community, has the potential to alienate or have a destructive effect on another geographic or socio-economic community.
I am similar to Robin, in the way that I am part of quite a few of closed Facebook groups but I am always a spectator with a comment here and there. One of the main pages I’m apart of is a girl & womens advice page which is a great community and safe place to go when in need of advice of any kind. I would agree that the feature of groups adds and enriches the feeling of community! The feature is also such a great way to meet new like minded people, or have people to relate to in terms of struggles and hardships as shown by the Mums and Bubs group, a wonderful place for all mothers to not feel judged and receive help and advice from people who might have experienced the same things!
Such a great read and I learnt so much from it!
Hi Tafadzwa, Thanks for reading and your comments. I still enjoy “being in the room”, in the groups I belong to even without commenting. I still feel part of the community, just hearing from humans who feel and think the way I do helps the bond. I did reach out to the Chat10Looks3 group to ask them to send me stories of IRL meet ups. The response was overwhelming.
My daughters follow girl&women advice pages. Whilst I do not, my daughters actively engage and I have been shown many posts and comments.
Thanks for an interesting paper Meryl. I certainly agree that Facebook groups facilitate community experience. One of my favourite facebook groups is Planner Addicts Australia, which has close to 13,000 members. There are however only around 50 or so members who regularly post to the group, and a similar set of signifiers as you identify in your paper. Posts are often made by new members asking for clarification of the terminology being used, or the significance of a particular brand or style of planner, immediately identifying them as somewhat uninitiated into the planner world. This leads me to wonder if those who don’t contribute to the conversation feel the same sense of community as those who are regular posters, and whether the connectedness of the regular members is exclusive to new or irregular visitors?
Thanks Tracey, I am definitely a “lurker” in the groups I belong to. I still feel part of the community. I own a keep cup (coffee) with the the group logo on it and a tea towel with a blue fairy wren. It all seems quite ridiculous when I type it “out loud” as no one within the group would have a clue I own these signifiers …. but I know!
I get it! And I think that’s a true indicator of the community connection – when outsiders don’t know what you’re talking about!