User talk:Amy Duval

Online Authenticity and Identity

Introduction
Ordinarily the concept of identity is considered to be the practice of being oneself, or the sense of self a person possesses. Identity was traditionally thought of as being consistent in terms of character and personality in self-representation to online and offline communities, but the growing popularity of such communities correlates with the creation of multiple identities belonging to one individual. Online communities are a replication of our culture, and if “the internet is, above all else, a cultural creation” (Burton 215) it is suggestible that these communities can act as a substitute for an unsatisfying reality. People are “made up of multiple and changeable identities” (Burton 66) and the line between physical reality and virtual reality becomes blurrier as the two parallels blend together, and who or what should be considered responsible, the user or the internet?

Online Communities
Online Communities are an absolute and solid form of communication technology that is involving a growing amount of participants as popularity continues to increase. These communities lack “physical proximity” (Porter 5) meaning that in contrast with offline social interactions which involve physicality’s such as speech, body language and being in the direct presence of one another, online communities portray all these aspects of physical communication through the use of text. Porters Internet Culture goes on to describe that even when you are participating in such online social endeavors you are “surrounded by a global multitude” (6) and that through your computer you are surrounded by other users from all walks of life and areas with the ability to communicate with all or none, even though you are alone at your computer. Through the screen you have virtually unlimited access to information and people. Porter refers to the term virtual as being “the appearance of being real or authentic, which in turn defines an online community” and is “an online imitation of culture” and although it is not an exact replica of offline communication because of its lack of physical qualities, “it may perform and function similarly” (9).Online communities involve the translation from realities verbal and physical dialogue to textual communication, and details may be lost. Communities are commonly thought of as groups of people who are interconnected with one another through similarities and commonality between users, identities and sense of self, emotional connections, continued discussion and ongoing relationships. Virtual communities in turn can be considered as “social aggregations that emerge from the net when enough people carry on those public discussions long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace” (Porter 7). From this, it is reasonable to conclude that an online community has several required parts to be considered successful. Firstly, a certain amount of public discussion that carries on and proves to be lasting and continues to be sustained by a certain amount of human emotion. The amount of human emotion is difficult to define and measure, emotion over the internet can only be displayed through text and it also difficult to decide how much emotion is required to confirm an online community presence (Porter 7). The assumption is that emotion must come from personal investment and attachment from each user to the community in which they are active in, and the shared emotions that is communicated with other active users. Online communities must create a sense of unity in order to confirm a permanent existence and a sustained membership. Consider online communities as a “social fragmentation of contemporary life” or “another window in real life”, and as semi-public communications between groups that are “determined by our sense of belonging to a place” and aren’t just strictly controlled by individuals (Burton 172/173). Burton explains in Media and Society that “particular discursive practices shared by a group may be said to construct a social reality, it can be argued, would constitute a community”, the users perceive their online endeavors to be a form of reality, a community, a social network, thus making it one (174). Facebook is an online community that has gained enormous popularity in the past few years since its debut as an online social networking site. According to the previously defined terms high levels of personal and emotional investment in the users are easy to find based upon how many people continuously check their accounts throughout the week and actively use the applications provided, update their profiles, statuses, and photo albums, message one another, make and receive friend requests, plan and invite friends to events, and post on one another’s walls. However, deeper and more personal topics are typically avoided, while shallow conversations are actively pursued. Relationships formed or validated over Facebook are based on previous knowledge of existing and past relationships, these relationships may or may not extend into real life, either result are considered common occurrences. Facebook is intended to be an extension of real life social communities, another medium of communication technology, a place to keep in touch and to receive updates on other member’s activities, plans and thoughts. Though Facebook may attempt to function and perform as an imitation of culture in order to distract us from its failure to produce the same physical properties that define real life. Facebook, like other online communities, give us the freedom to publicly legitimize and validate aspects of our social relations, identity, and sense of self, without the limitations of physical social communities and issues of time and space are no longer a concern, as the internet is always accessible (Porter 23). Porters Internet Culture goes on to explain how online “communities aren’t formed without a conception of self, our identities contribute to the establishment of communities” (25) meaning that all social identities band Facebook users together along with a collective sets of interests, motivations and in turn creates a sense of unity, a collaborative “us”.

Manipulation
The user is considered to be the traditional manipulator of computer mediated technologies, the user being the one to control, direct, or influence (in this case) online communities. In terms of internet usage, manipulation can be considered with regards to the amount of control of information released and displayed online, the amount of time spent online and on which sites (Lister 204). Lister explains in New Media: A Critical Introduction that the internet was created for people to use and control for their own purposes, intentions, and motivations (205). “Technologies are nonetheless influenced by a systematic process of cultural domestication” (Caron & Caronia 5) through interpretation of users, functions in online communities are added or lost, and their purpose is based upon a cultures needs and demands.

With regards to Facebook, manipulation tends to be more relevant in the creation of the online persona that is portrayed to other members. The user can alter and enhance pieces of information displayed to others and although this is a common occurrence it isn’t necessarily deemed to be offensive among the members of the online community Facebook, but complete and drastic alteration of activities, interests, favorite movies, music etc; are considered to be rare and distasteful. Users may manipulate “appearance, personality, or behaviors to project greater attractiveness” (Zywica and Danowski 13). The vast majority of Facebook users have continuous, existing offline relationships with friends on their account; therefore any blatantly misleading information depicted on a user’s profile page tends to be noticed. One Facebook user said “given that they all know me, any ‘embellishments’ or outright lies are going to be spotted quite quickly”. Some users even feel that their profile page is an “under-representation” of themselves, meaning that for privacy reasons they kept the photos on their page to a limited amount, and activities, hobbies and interests aren’t explained or listed in great detail. Some also list their profile pages under ‘private’ so that only certain friends and family members can view the information displayed on their page. In this sense, Facebook can be considered a moderately accurate self representation site in an online community when relying on the accuracy of a Friends profile page. Many people do not add friends to their account if they have never met, seen, or heard of them before, which actually is a very broad spectrum of people, but it isn’t as common to add complete strangers on Facebook as it is on MySpace or Nexopia (two other popular online community and networking sites). This is not to say that completely misconstrued information is never posted on a user’s profile, but based on the knowledge of previous and existing relationships, this occurrence is moderately rare. Fake profiles are created, but usually not for means of self exploration, but instead are made with intentions of tarnishing reputations (either the user whom the fake profile is depicting, or other users who the fake profile may be targeting).

Burtons Media and Society Critical Perspectives explains how online the “issue becomes one of dominance rather than of outright control: dominance of content” (216). Through the medium of the internet there can be no absolute and complete control of content that is displayed online, only dominance and influence. The type of content may be influenced or shaped by the user for example Facebook members are able to choose the information displayed on their individual profile pages, but ultimately have no control over the layout of the page, the information on other user’s profiles, the categories under which users can fill out personal preferences and other factors exclusive to Facebook. Users can control which sites they visit, but they have no control over the content of the majority of sites, and any control over content is restricted to certain areas.

Why Change?
“RL is just one more window, and it’s usually not my best one” says a College Junior in Turkle’s Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet (13). To him, real life is another pop up window on his computer screen, and compared to the multitude of other windows the real life window is the one where he feels he succeeds the least. He is able to split himself into “two or three or more” personas, one in which he plays the part of a woman and in another he may act the role of a ‘manly man’, and in another he can be a rabbit other users suspect to only be a program without a human behind it and he can alternate between the three personas he has created for himself whenever he decides (Turkle 13). He says he can “turn pieces of my mind on and off” (Turkle 13), meaning that switching from window to window he can identify and separate the different personas he has created in each one. Online, users can create newer, better versions of themselves, highlighting only their positive attributes and minimizing their faults, while acting out fantasies and recreating social situations which they don’t feel could happen in real life. Our identities are anchored in our culture but the same restrictions aren’t carried from physical reality to virtual reality (Caron & Caronia 18). Normal social constraints do not always apply online, therefore allowing users to thoroughly explore different aspects of their selves, enact fantasies, achieve social statuses different from their own and increase their popularity; feats they feel are unachievable in real life. The internet can act as an escape method, providing users with an online reality that is separate from their offline inadequacies or failings. “For virtual reality to be interesting it has to emulate the real. But you have to be able to do something in the virtual that you couldn’t do in the real” (Turkle 219). Online communities create the desire to render a specific image or identity through the enrichment of a public profile that will be deemed attractive and appealing to others. Facebook is an online community that replicates culture but without regular offline social constraints, allowing members to lose their original inhibitions. Zywica and Danowski explain in their article The Faces of Facebookers how adolescents who are considered popular look to verify and improve their popularity through the use of Facebook while the unpopular look to compensate for their offline social inadequacies (11). A large amount of Facebook users are adolescents where popularity and appearance may be a primary concern (Zywica and Danowski 11) but this is not to say that the older users do not alter or enhance their profiles as well. Users who are considered to have higher self esteem don’t feel the need to compensate and look to enhance their social statuses by increasing the amount of people who like them whereas users with lower self esteem may try and make up for their offline unpopularity by minimizing social disapproval and lessening the amount of people who may dislike them, but regardless of self esteem levels, most try and improve their popularity and attractiveness online (Zywica and Danowski 12-13).

There are several motives for creating a Facebook account; reasons involving “self-enhancement, self-protection and self-esteem” (Zywica and Danowski 13).Enhancement involves creation of a users “profile in a misleading or exaggerated way to gain friends or foster images others find attractive” (Zywica and Danowski 13) and protection involves “minimizing weaknesses” (13) but not necessarily amplifying good or attractive qualities. Zywica and Danowski state that the main traits that are altered are “behaviors, personality and appearance” (13) on Facebook. Behaviorisms may be changed to appear more sociable, funny, intelligent and physically attractive whereas offline it is much harder to conceal these areas if they are thought to be insufficient. Offline situations allow less time to consider how to portray oneself in a desirable manner, whereas online (Facebook) users have the ability to carefully consider and plan ahead the persona they want to display, and the aspects of themselves they want to amplify or enrich. On Facebook there is more mystery and allurement, certain features can be chosen to be revealed or to be kept secret. Personalities can be changed to be deemed of a more intelligent, comical, or sociable nature. Tastes in music, interests, activities, interests, books, movies can be shifted to more appealing or attractive choices, shyness can dissipate online when users are no longer forced to communicate face to face, all communication is through text and visuals. A surprising feature that can be enhanced online that cannot always be successfully done offline is physical attractiveness. When photo albums are created, the creator is given the ability to ‘tag’ friends in the photo where the name of the person appears when the user scrolls the mouse over a face in the photo. Notifications are sent out when a friend is tagged in a photo, resulting in many views of the album. The person who is tagged has the ability to ‘un-tag’ themselves, thus decreasing the amount of unattractive photos other people can see them in, and this is a frequent occurrence on Facebook. Many girls invest time and effort into the application of makeup, styling their hair, and choosing their outfit before posing for photos on their webcam with the intention of posting them on Facebook. Posing is a skill many users have learned over time in order to produce the most attractive photos possible. ‘The angles’ are certain positions photos are taken from and are considered to be good for accentuating attractive qualities and can improve a figures appearance, changing the lighting, tone and colour brightness can hide unsightly skin problems and heighten the colours in the picture for a more artistic feel And many male users have learned to identify what these ‘angles’ to determine how attractive a female is, and if a female uses too many of these angles in the majority of her photos, there is reason to be suspicious of her offline appearance as her photos may be an misleading representation of her physical appearance. In some drastic cases, Photoshop and other programs can be used for further alteration of photos or for the improvement of unattractive ones. One male Facebook user says “many people put digitally enhanced pictures online” and another female user said that they “altered my pictures to look more attractive for my face” (Zywica and Danowski 18).

In less noticeable or apparent cases, users may not be aware of the changes made and whether or not the changes were intentional or not is debatable, and its possible they may be imitating other users unconsciously (Zywica and Danowski 14). Communication between individuals online is much less complete than face to face interactions because factors such as body language, physical presence, and tone of voice are eliminated, so information displayed online appears to be more prominent then if it was mentioned in a face to face social interaction (Zywica and Danowski 14). Many introverted personality types are thought to be exploring their true selves or “the real me” (Zywica and Danowski 14) on Facebook because they feel certain parts of themselves can’t be expressed properly face to face whereas extroverts find their identity in offline interactions.

Liar Vs Explorer
Because of the lack of regular social standards and expectations in online communities, identity exploration increases amongst users as they discover the ability to explore and rotate through different areas of the self, exaggerating and heightening separate pieces, trying on different fragments of their personalities and becoming active in endeavors they wouldn’t normally pursue in their offline social situations. Individuals with lower self esteem tend to explore issues of identity online and pursue the “real me” more than individuals with higher self esteem, based on the notion that there is less to lose for someone who feels they are failing or aren’t moving forward in their social lives (Zywica and Danowski 14). Acceptance is guaranteed in an online community, whereas in offline reality, it is not, and amongst individuals who are already questioning their identities, the internet is another medium in which they can explore and investigate their selves through. In New Media A Critical Introduction Lister explains “that different forms of computer based communications will inflect how we present ourselves and therefore how we experience ourselves” (166) meaning that if a users specific characteristics are more actively explored online, users may feel that they may possess these characteristics more than they actually do seeing themselves as increasingly intelligent, sociable, attractive amongst many other qualities. Zywica and Danowski speculate how the “real self” can become indeterminable based only on verbal communication, the self-representation made through speech isn’t always adequate and that the main reasons behind exploring identity online are self-exploration, to see others reactions, to compensate for social failures and overcome shyness, and as a method to help form relationships (14). Facebook also gives user the opportunity to gain self knowledge through viewing other people and comparing them (Zywica and Danowski 15) which can result in a greater understanding of one’s dislikes and likes, their notion of what is aesthetically appealing and fueling ideas for reconstructing their own online image.

One Facebook user reasons that some users exaggerate online “because they are insecure with themselves in real life and hiding behind a computer monitor allows you to be whatever you want to be” and that he “wouldn’t consider them to be a liar, just insecure with who they are in real life.” Certain members are much more lenient with the notion of exploring oneself online, and try to understand such behaviors that may be behind it. Other users are more harsh and aren’t afraid to term someone a liar but mostly in regards to cases where the two identities are almost complete opposites of one another. The users are considered to be completely responsible for the image they present online, looking at the internet as a tool for identity reconstruction and that the users determine internet behavior, but the fact that the internet strongly encourages and allows such issues of several identities to form isn’t strongly considered. Someone who is considered a liar in real life isn’t necessarily a liar in virtual reality; the term may be lost in translation from real life to the medium of the internet. If someone was to actively pursue several different identities in real life they would be called a liar, not an explorer, on the basis that they are splitting their personality into several pieces. In real life, it is more difficult to keep the identities separate and it’s likely they will eventually bleed into one another but online, these separate identities are easier to keep separate in different domains and safe from one another so that they remain disconnected and the user can turn on one part or another as they please. The line between reality and virtual reality can become blurred, when personal and emotional investment becomes higher in virtual reality compared to real life. Online community members tampering with their sense of selves can confuse their reality selves with their online selves, troubling over which is the “real me” and which is the extension and how and if they can co-exist and become one, or if they must remain separate in their different mediums. In this sense, the internet becomes the manipulator of the user, distorting the user’s vision of themselves and resulting in the inability to keep the multiple identities separate, and determine fantasy and reality.

Concluding Statements
It is difficult to determine if there is a difference between a user who is exploring their identity online and someone who is considered a liar because they inaccurately portray their physical self online. However, there is a difference in intent behind the two terms. An explorer and investigator of online communities is looked at as attempting to find “the real me” (Zywica and Danowski 15) and therefore the user isn’t considered to be a liar because they are investigating aspects of their personality online that they already possess but may not portray in physical reality. If a Facebook user is creating a representation of themselves online that doesn’t act as an extension (hidden or not) of any of their interests, demeanors or character traits and all information is entirely fictional then it may be safe to term them a liar. The intent behind the action decides which label is proper for certain users, if profiles are fabricated with the intent of causing serious mischief or harm in an online community they are often classified as a liar. But if the user is experimenting with their identity because they feel too constricted to do so in real life, then jumping to the conclusion of labeling them a liar is capricious and judgmental.