Bachelor Thesis
Name: Serena Westra
Student number: 5879175
E-‐mail: [email protected]
University of Amsterdam
Department: Media Studies (New Media)
Date: May 2011
Supervisor: Geert Lovink
Performing the Self: Identity on Facebook
1
Abstract This thesis examines the construction of identity on Facebook and the kind of
identity that is created. First the way users construct identity on Facebook will
be examined. Several aspects will be taken into account: the software side
(including database, interface and algorithm), and the different characteristics of
Facebook (e.g. Status, Friends, Photo’s, Like Button and Profile). Does the
software of Facebook constrain the construction of online identity? Furthermore,
the kind of identity that is constructed is researched. In the second part of the
thesis, the theory of Impression Management is applied on the results. The
central question here is: are users being themselves or performing an act? It
appears that most users are being themselves, but are not presenting their full
identity. They only show the positive and public side of their selves. Besides, the
software of Facebook constrains the construction of identity. In other words,
users cannot express their full identity on Facebook. This has negative
consequences for the new generation, Generation Y.
Key Words Facebook, Identity, Software, Generation Y, Impression Management.
2
Foreword As a ‘Facebook addict’, I knew instantly that I wanted to do research about
Facebook, but it was hard to choose a research question. I changed the literature
and topic many times, even when I almost completed my thesis I decided to add
the topic I was originally interested in: Generation Y. Ever since I saw the
documentary Alles wat wij wilden it had my interests. It surprised me that I saw
so many similarities between myself and the young people in the documentary
which suffered form too high expectations and the ever present pressure to
preform. I decided to examine this phenomenon and to combine it with the
extensive use of Facebook to get some insights in the time we are living in and
the consequences of Facebook usage. Aware of the fact that we might be in a
Facebook hype, I want to grasp the conventions and usage of it before its too late.
The experience of writing a Bachelor thesis was difficult and time-‐consuming,
but I have learnt a lot and enjoyed it.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Geert Lovink for all help, feedback and guidance. I really
appreciate it that he had shown his interest in my research and took the
challenge of supervising a Bachelor thesis. I sometimes wondered if I could ever
meet his expectations, but he pulled me through and pushed me to take new
challenges. Furthermore, I would like to thank Michael Stevenson for his
guidance and feedback -‐ even when I was not his concern anymore -‐ and the
students of the course, especially Simon, for their feedback. Next, I would like to
thank my colleagues at Schouwburg Amstelveen for their help with the
interviews. Sofie en Marije for their interest, opinions, and time, Nike for her
support and grammar check in the end. Without them, the hours I have spent in
the library of the UvA would be far less enjoyable! Last, I thank my parents and
Mart for their everlasting patience, help, love and trust in me. They never
stopped believing in me.
3
Table of Contents 1. Introduction 4
1.1 Social Networking Sites 6
1.2 Facebook 7
1.3 Overview 8
2. The Software of Facebook 9
2.1 Interface 9
2.2 Database 11
2.3 Algorithm 14
2.4 The Influence of the Software 16
3. The Type of Facebook Identity 17
3.1 Real / Fake Identity 17
4. The Construction of Identity on Facebook 20
4.1 Feature Specific Statements 20
4.1.1 Profile 20
4.1.2 Status Updates 24
4.1.3 Photos 28
4.1.4 Friends 29
4.1.5 Like Button 31
4.2 General Statements 32
5. Impression Management and Facebook 36
5.1 Theory of Impression Management 36
5.2 Impression Management Applied on Facebook 37
6. Conclusion 42
6.1 Findings 42
6.2 Consequences and Prospective 43
Appendix: 46
1. Oral Interview with Mark Jennings, Utrecht: 18-‐04-‐2011. 46
2. Oral Interview with Sanne Kersenboom and Maartje
Stierenburg, Amsterdam: 27-‐04-‐2011.
51
3. Oral Interview with Sara de Boer, Annemiek van Eelst,
Robin Zuiderzee and Vera Dutter, Amstelveen: 01-‐05-‐2011.
58
4. Screenshots of Facebook: 14-‐05-‐2011. 62
References 64
4
1. Introduction
Social networking sites like Facebook, Hyves and MySpace are getting more and
more part of everyday life. According to Wikipedia,1 Facebook currently has over
680 million users, and this number is still increasing. But what are the
consequences of this extensive use for society, especially for the new generation?
This generation, called the Millennium Generation or Generation Y, started in the
eighties and nineties and is marked by an increased use and familiarity with
communications, media, and digital technologies.2 They are living in a society
that has great expectations and is very competitive; writer Ronald Alsop even
calls this generation ‘trophy kids’. ‘They and their parents have placed a high
premium on success, filling resumes with not only academic accolades but also a
smorgasbord of sports and other extra curricular activities, volunteer work in
their local communities, and exotic travels abroad’ (Alsop, 2008). The young
people are trying their best to meet this expectations and keep up with the
people around them. ‘The desire to fit in, to be part of the group, which has
always been present in youth culture, is especially important for Generation Y’
(Huntley, 2006: p.18). So, Generation Y is conformists and very selective in how
to present themselves. They try to resemble to people around them, including
friends on social networking sites. This is an interesting phenomenon. What if
Generation Y is trying to resemble to an online identity that is not real? What if
all the people around look perfect and successful, but in fact are not?
Consequently, a close look at the types of identity constructed on social
networking sites is necessary. This thesis will take Facebook as a case study,
since the extensive use and popularity among Generation Y.
Moreover, the identity on Facebook will be researched from inside. Since
Facebook is a closed networking site – you can only use it when you are signed in
– and you need to have ‘friends’ in order to use certain tools, it cannot be
researched as an outsider. Being part of Generation Y, and being a heavy
1 ‘Facebook’. Wikipedia Foundation. Wikipedia.org. Daily revision. 15-‐05-‐2011 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook> 2 ‘Generation Y’. Wikipedia Foundation. Wikipedia.org. Daily revision. 10-‐05-‐2011 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Y>
5
Facebook user myself, I find myself capable of studying Facebook. Besides, I have
done several interviews among other intensive Facebook users that e part of
Generation Y too. With the answers of the seven users I have interviewed, I want
to underpin the literature on Facebook and provide a broader view on the
subject. Above all, I want to make an attempt to grasp the conventional thoughts
about Facebook that are so obvious to many users, but hard to capture.
Moreover, I have taken both media studies and sociology courses in my study;
which will provide me with the insight and knowledge to make an adequate
connection between society and Facebook.
Currently, most studies examine the marketing side of Facebook, privacy
issues, and participation subjects. Some research has been done about Facebook
and identity, but in my opinion they do not provide a complete overview. First,
the software of Facebook is left out. The algorithms, database and interface of
Facebook have great influence on the way the site is used, so in my opinion this
needs to be examined too. For this reason chapter two will examine the software
of Facebook and the way it influences the construction of identity by users.
Second, by applying sociological theory on Facebook, the study of online identity
is taken into a broader scientific context. In my opinion, sociologic theory is not
commonly used when it comes to Facebook and other new media subjects,
although it can provide great insights. Research about identity is getting more
important in a world where you can have several identities: an offline identity,
an online identity, a Facebook identity, a professional identity, and so on. On one
hand, (un)conscious self-‐presentation can be examined with the literature of
Foucault or Freud. But on the other hand, it is less common to apply the
literature of symbolic interactionism and impression management. According to
Erving Goffman, actors are actively creating a performance with impression
management. He made a distinction between two areas of performing: the back
region and the front region. ‘What happens in the front region […] is an attempt
to manipulate the audience’ (Wallace and Wolf, 2005: p.239). Do Facebook users
actively manipulate other users, or can we see Facebook as a back region or
backstage? ‘Backstage is where actors the actors do not need to engage in
impression management; they can be themselves’ (Ibidem).
6
This thesis will examine the construction of identity on Facebook with the
theory of impression management, software studies, and a look from inside. The
main research question is: what kind of identity is constructed on Facebook and
how are users presenting themselves?
1.1 Social Networking Sites
Before having a look at the features and software of Facebook, it might be useful
to have a clear definition of social networking sites (SNSs) and an idea of the
context of Facebook. One of the first successful SNSs is Friendster, founded in
2002. After Friendster, many new SNSs were launched, like Facebook in 2004.
‘Most took the form of profile-‐centric sites, trying to replicate the early success of
Friendster or target specific demographics’ (boyd and Ellison, 2007: p.9). With
the appearance of social media and user-‐generated content, other websites that
already existed on the Internet changed accordingly. Websites focusing on media
sharing began implementing SNS features and becoming SNSs themselves
(Ibidem). Nicole Ellison and danah boyd define social networking sites as ‘web-‐
based services that 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’ (boyd and Ellison, 2007: p.3). Although
every site has it own characteristics, they are all focussed on the social network.
In their definition, boyd and Ellison sum up five characteristics of SNSs: profiles,
friends, comments, private messaging, features and user base.
Almost every SNS uses the concept of personal profiles. ‘After joining an
SNS, an individual is asked to fill out forms containing a series of questions. The
profile is generated using the answers to these questions, which typically include
descriptors such as age, location, interest, and an ‘about me’ section’ (boyd and
Ellison, 2007: p.4). In most cases, the user of an SNS can choose if his or her
profile is public or private. ‘Facebook takes a different approach – by default,
users who are part of the same “network” can view each other’s profiles, unless a
profile owner had decided to deny permission to those in their network’ (boyd
and Ellison, 2007: p.4). The specific network that a SNS focuses on differs.
However, according to boyd and Ellison most users are not necessarily
7
networking to find strangers, but are primarily communicating with people who
are already a part of their social network (boyd and Ellison, 2007: p.3). ‘In the
social networking sites, one acts in the company of friends and acquaintances’
(Donathan and boyd, 2004: p.76). Most SNSs require bi-‐directional confirmation
for friendship, but some sites, like MySpace or Twitter, use one-‐directional ties.
Although the form of friends may vary, this public display of connections has
always been a crucial component of SNSs (boyd and Ellison, 2007: p. 4). After
forming a network, users can communicate with other users. Most SNS have two
types of messages: private messages that look like e-‐mail, and public messages
that are more like comments or reactions. Facebook uses both forms of
messaging: you can send private messages to users, even though they are not
your friend, and you can send public messages as you post a message on
someone’s ‘Wall’. Last, SNSs can also vary in features and user base. For example,
some SNSs are directed to a specific user group, religion, languages or
technology (like blogging). For example, Flickr is primarily directed to photo
sharing and BlackPlanet is focussed on an African-‐American audience. However,
all SNSs have one thing in common: ‘SNSs are primarily organized around
people, not interests’ (boyd and Ellison, 2007: p.13).
1.2 Facebook
Mark Zuckerberg founded Facebook in 2004 at Harvard University in Cambridge,
Massachusetts. ‘Facebook is a site that allows for users to create profiles and
articulate their social networks’ (Lampe ed., 2007: p.436). At first, only students
with a Harvard.edu email address could access the site, so the type of users was
restricted to students only. After implementing Facebook to other universities
and high schools, Facebook opened up for all audiences and the amount of new
users on Facebook is increasing since. What makes Facebook different than other
SNSs is the fact that, as mentioned before, by default only users who are part of
the same network can view each other’s profiles and posts. The network of
Facebook is closed and only accessible when you are a friend (unless the user
changed his privacy settings). This is contrary to other with SNSs like Twitter, on
which every user has access to all the messages or ‘tweets’ on the site. Another
typical aspect of Facebook is that it allows applications of third parties to have
8
access to certain user information. This is done by for example a quiz or game.
Information is collected when participants use a tool and give permission to the
application to use their personal information. Third, as mentioned before,
Facebook was primarily directed to a small and specific audience, in contrast
with SNSs like Hyves or Twitter. ‘Unlike previous SNSs, Facebook was designed
to support distinct college networks only’ (boyd and Ellison, 2007: p. 12). At this
moment everyone can use the site: Facebook is not directed to a specific
audience. This is in contrast with BlackPlanet and Flickr. Hence, Facebook differs
from other SNSs like MySpace and Hyves in the limited freedom of expression
users have in creating a personal front. The users of the Dutch SNS called Hyves
can choose their own background and colours of their personal page, in contrast
to users of Facebook, which have to stick to default settings.
1.3 Overview
Now we have some insight in the context of Facebook and the characteristics of
SNSs and Facebook, it is possible to have a closer look at the use of Facebook.
The next chapter will take a look at the software of Facebook. Databases,
interfaces and algorithms will be examined. In addition, in chapter three the type
of identity that is constructed on Facebook will be characterized. Is this a real
one or fake one? The way users construct identity on Facebook will be examined
afterwards. First, five features will be researched: profile, status, photos, friends,
and the Like button. Secondly, some general assumptions will be made about the
use of Facebook thanks to the results of the interviews. These results will be
combined with the theory of impression management in chapter four. Are the
users really presenting themselves better than they are, or is this not possible
due to the influence of the software? Finally, the conclusion will provide a recap
and investigate the consequences of the findings.
9
2. The Software of Facebook
The construction of identity cannot be examined by only taking the users side
into account: software has great influence as well. As Lev Manovich rightfully
claims: ‘if we don’t address software itself, we are in danger of always dealing
only with its effects rather than the causes: the output that appears on a
computer screen rather than the programs and social cultures that produce
these outputs’ (Manovich, 2008: p. 4-‐5). Likewise, this thesis will examine
Facebook in order to say something about society and Generation Y. Three areas
of the software of Facebook will be examined: interface, algorithm and database.
These studies are necessary to form a complete insight on the construction of
identity by users. As boyd and Ellison mention: both social and technological
forces shape user practices (boyd and Ellison, 2007: p.14).
2.1 Interface
Interface is an essential part of software -‐ it performs as glue. ‘In computing,
interface links software and hardware to each other and to their human users or
other sources of data’ (Fuller ed. 2008: p. 149). However, according to Matthew
Fuller there is a (conventional) distinction between user interface and interface
as a whole. In this chapter only the former will be taken into account. According
to Fuller, the user interface can be seen as the symbolic handles that make
software accessible to users (Ibidem). Moreover, preferences and settings of
social networking sites software manipulate the very staging of the interface, its
colours, language, interaction menus, file handling, auto functions, warning
messages, security levels, passwords, cooperation with other software,
peripherals, and so on (Pold in Fuller ed., 2008: p.218). However, Facebook users
are not allowed to change the software. The user can only change plain text or
add or remove certain information and aesthetics that are provided by the
software. This is in contrast with MySpace, in which HTML and CSS can be
changed by users. As former New Media master student Annewil Neervis puts it:
the user-‐friendly interface of Facebook hides the technological (and for the user
often inaccessible) backend, and creates a continuity in the interface that
ensures a smooth overlap between using (e.g. creating, updating) ones profile
10
and browsing through those of others (Neervis, 2009: p. 26). Hence, users can
only change what is prefigured and have limited freedom in expressing
themselves. Thereafter Danish researcher Pold claims that the user becomes
irritatingly aware of the fact that the interface is structured around principles set
up by senders. ‘Preferences regulate the contract between the producers, the
machine and its software environments, and what I as a users prefer, thus my
preference are not purely mine, but highly negotiated in this software hierarchy’
(Pold in Fuller ed., 2008: p. 219).
In other words, when looking at the interface of Facebook, users are
restricted and have to stick to the user interface the software of Facebook has
created. As a result, the ability to create a unique online identity is limited,
especially compared to MySpace, since users are not capable of creating a
personal profile page with a unique interface. They can only change the
information they put online, and even that is constrained since the user can only
answer to questions are already there (e.g., see figure 1). Besides, users have to
stick to the tools provided. An example that will be researched more deeply
afterwards is the Like button. Users can only ‘like’ something; a ‘hate’ tool does
not exist. Consequently, users will express themselves in words and photos
instead of in the way the interface looks. So these will assumable have more
identity value on Facebook than on SNSs like Hyves or MySpace.
Figure 1: Profile settings; the user can only fill in information, not change the settings
11
2.2 Database
Next to the user interface, the database of Facebook cannot be ignored in
researching the software of Facebook. The database stores all personal
information of users: gender, age, interests, contact information, comments etc.
In that way, the database is part of the construction of the online identity on
Facebook. The users can choose what he or she wants to put on Facebook.
However, as will be described in chapter three, the information has to be
relatively realistic and similar to the real identity and the user can only add
information when asked for. For example, one can only be a woman or a man on
Facebook, not a transgender or something in between, see figure 2.
Consequently, users are obliged to express themselves in categories even though
they do not think of themselves in that manner. The only thing users can do if
they want to avoid categories is to leave them blank. Consequently, the profile
information is influenced by the software of Facebook.
Figure 2: The user can only choose between Female or Male
According to professor Richard Rogers, there has been a shift in the database.
The ‘old’ database was the site to derive the other (Rogers, 2009: p.31). ‘Now,
with online platforms, there are longer character limits, more fields, and far
greater agency to author oneself’ (Ibidem). However, new questions may be
posed; what does your form filling say about you, do you fill in the defaults only,
and do you have many empty fields? In other words, not only the information in
the database, but also the information that is missing, and the way it is showed
tells something about the users. Though, leaving a field blank can both mean that
the user do not wants to give this information by privacy or personal reasons, or
as a sign of protest against the features of the database.
Furthermore, Facebook has introduced a powerful and easy tool to gain
information about the interests of users: the Like button. By clicking on the
button, users can ‘like’ a post, comment, page or item. The amount of likes is
12
listed, and an algorithm uses this information to recommend certain pages or
things to other users, see figure 3.
Figure 3: Recommended Pages on Facebook
‘Facebook allows its member to actually champion an organization, a celebrity,
or virtually any business on the site. From there they can proclaim their
affirmation to all their friends via a Page’s Like button’ (Dunay and Krueger,
2011). This is even shown by a ‘thumbs up’ sign to emphasize the approval of the
user. Users can also like an advertisement and approval about a product or
company is collected through users for free. In fact, the influence of the Like
button reaches beyond Facebook itself: other websites on the Internet can
include the Like button as well. ‘Web site owners are leveraging the Like button
to drive traffic, build awareness and generate word-‐of-‐mouth buzz. Retailers are
starting to add the Like button to every product in their online store’ (Dunay and
Krueger, 2011). When a user is signed in on Facebook, he can even see how
many of his friends liked the content of a certain website, see figure 4.
Figure 4: Example of a Like button
Additionally, as shown in figure 5, the New York Times even uses the
recommendation function of Facebook as a way to categorize articles in
popularity: ‘What is Popular Now on Facebook?’.3
3 ‘The Tupperware Party Moves to Social Media’. New York Times. 05-‐05-‐2011. Nytimes.com. 15-‐05-‐2011 <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/business/media/05adco.html>
13
Figure 5: New York Times uses Facebook for recommendations
In other words, the Like button of Facebook created a whole new way of
collecting information about users. As a journalist of Tech Crunch writes: ‘Google
spends billions of dollars indexing the web for their search engine. Facebook will
get the web to index itself, exclusively for Facebook’ (Arrington, 25-‐05-‐2010).
Not only is information collected for Facebook, it is also done for free. At this
moment, it is still questionable what the implications are for the extensive use of
the like button. For example, it will have great implications for Google since the
likes are not public so unreachable for the company. Will the likes of Facebook
become more powerful as the number of links, which Google uses now to select
the best search results?
Furthermore, third parties have access to the database of Facebook with
applications. So with the Like button and third parties applications, a lot of
information about Facebook users is collected. However, not all users are fully
aware of this fact. The users who are aware are most of the time more conscious
in putting personal information on Facebook, as also shown in a few of my
interviews: ‘Facebook is nice, but they can get to know everything about you in
no time and abuse this information’.4 Therefore, users are influenced by the
database in constructing an identity because they do not want to fully express
themselves in order to protect their personal information.
Professor Joseph Turow examines the emergence of databases as
marketing tools and the implications this may have for media, advertising, and
society.5 With the intensive collection of information online, as with the Like
button for example, advertisements are more directed to a distinct audience.
This can only be made possible with personal user information. ‘To be favoured
with good deals and products in the new marketing words, a customer not only
4 Eelst, Annemiek van. Oral interview. Amstelveen, 02-‐05-‐2011. 5 ‘Niche Envy by Joseph Turow’. MIT Press. 09-‐05-‐2011 <http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=10936>
14
must allow surveillance but also most show evidence of his or her value’ (Turow,
2006: p.7). As a consequence, ‘niche envy’ emergences:
”Niche envy” has two meanings. One meaning pertains to competitors, who may envy the “quality” of other competitors’ costumers. The other pertains to consumers, who may envy what they believe are their friends’ better profiles, which may get them better treatment from media companies, from stores, or even form manufacturers. Both meanings suggest that somehow the marketplace is deeply involved in defining an important basis for belonging in society (Turow, 2006: p.3).
Extending the idea that database marketing is beginning to engender new forms
of envy, suspicion, and institutional distrust, Turow argues that it works against
a sense of social belonging and engagement (Turow, 2006: p. 19). Put differently,
the database has influence on the advertisements you see on Facebook and the
special offers you will get, and people may create a feeling of envy about it.
Consequently, the database can have control over your purchases since they
control the advertisements shown on Facebook. The database of Facebook
clearly reaches beyond the social networking site itself and has great influence in
how and what kind of information users show on the site.
2.3 Algorithm
Last, the algorithms of Facebook are playing an important part in constraining
the activities of users. ‘The term algorithm is used in computer science to
describe a finite, deterministic, and effective problem-‐solving method suitable
for implementation as a computer program’ (Sedgewick and Wayne, 2011: p.4).
Princeton University lecturers Robert Sedgewick and Kevin Wayne define
algorithms as procedures for solving a problem in a natural language, or a
computer program written that implements the procedure (Ibidem). Algorithms
are indispensible when it comes to dealing with a lot of data. According to
Sedgewick and Wayne, algorithms give the potential to reap huge savings, even
to the point of enabling to do tasks that would otherwise be impossible
(Sedgewick and Wayne, 2011: p.5). Facebook uses a lot of algorithms, however, it
seems that only the producers of the software know the exact way in which they
operate. Nevertheless the effects of the algorithm are visible as writer Devavrat
15
Shah points out: ‘the social network of an individual now includes many more
acquaintances than before thanks to online applications and algorithms’ (Shah,
2008: p.3). The algorithm of Facebook that recommends new friends to existing
users is used a lot. Friendship suggestions are made on the basis of the network
of other members, see figure 6.
Figure 6: Frienship suggestion on Facebook
This is different than the way a suggestion is made on MySpace, for example,
where suggestions are not based on links but on matching interests (Rogers,
2009: p.34). Not only users who are using Facebook are getting friendship
suggestions, even individuals who are not will get emails with the request to join
friends on Facebook. ‘The platforms continually encourage more activity,
inviting commentary on everything posted, and recommending to you more
friends (who are friends of friends)’ (Rogers, 2009: p.32). As a result, it is easy
for users to have a large network, but the consequence is that it is harder to keep
up with all friends. Even when users do not really want to have a large network,
the algorithm keeps pushing them to befriend more people.
Furthermore, there are algorithms that recommend pages and
interests to users, and algorithms that select posts for the News Feed. This is a
list with a number of activities and posts of friends, and is divided in two parts.
The ‘Most Recent’ News Feed selects items by the time an update, comment or
action is been done. More interesting is the algorithm of the ‘Most Important’
News Feed:
16
News Feed stories are selected based on Facebook’s proprietary algorithm that takes into consideration a member’s action on the site, the privacy setting of everyone involved, your interactions, and your account and application settings. Facebook weights all these elements in deciding which stories to publish for each member. The key is relevance, which Facebook’s News Feed algorithm is very good at delivering (Dunay and Krueger, 2010).
In other words, the algorithm decides what is most relevant and appears on top.
But can the algorithm decide what is most important for the user? Apparently
the users have no choice. They cannot select most important posts themselves so
they have to stick to the selection made by the algorithms. Thus algorithms have
influence on users, since they decide what they will read, whom they become
friends with, and always want to enlarge the network of users.
2.4 The influence of the software
Concluding: interfaces, databases and algorithms have all influence on the
actions of users. Former New Media master student Annewil Neervis claims that
both the user’s input and the form of the SNS itself control the extent to which a
persona is created within SNSs (Neervis, 2009: p.47). Although the user is free in
what he wants to fill in, the only freedom for the user when it comes to
intentional limitations lies in his decision not to participate or to be dishonest.
Besides, the user can only answer the questions on the profile page that are
asked, as shown with the user interface. Neervis claims that the creation of an
online persona therefore is not just a reflection of one’s actual being; it is the
outcome of a number of conscious decisions in combination with a predefined
set of both intentional and intentional limitations (Neervis, 2009: p. 47). The
user is not able to change something the senders have not prefigured; one cannot
change the user interface, as is possible on Hyves and Myspace. Danish professor
Soren Pold states that users are by instinct fighting against being standardized
according to typical functionalistic values (Pold in Fuller ed., 2008: p. 222).
However, the only option they have on Facebook is to stop using the SNS. So if
the preferences, information and interface on Facebook cannot be fully the
choice of the user, can the identity shown on Facebook be? Just as Neervis, I do
not think so. The software is of great influence in the performance of the user.
17
3. The Type of Facebook Identity
According to researchers Cliff Lampe, Nicole Ellison and Charles Steinfield,
individuals form impressions of others in order to decide whether to pursue or
continue a relationship (Lampe ed., 2007: p. 436). In other words, it is crucial for
a person to have a good image in order to form a network. The question is: how
exactly do users create a good image of themselves on Facebook? Before having a
close look at the construction of identity on Facebook, there are some general
assumptions to be made about the type of identity. Lampe, Ellison and Steinfield
pose:
Individuals attempt to manage these impressions, strategically emphasizing some characteristics while de-‐emphasizing others. […] However, online self-‐presentation is more malleable and subject to self-‐censorship than face-‐to-‐face self-‐presentation due to the asynchronous nature of computer-‐mediated communication (CMC) and the fact that CMC emphasizes verbal and linguistic cues over less controllable nonverbal communication cues.6
Put differently, they claim that individuals have more control online in
expressing themselves and in making up an identity than offline. According to
boyd, the reason for this is that unlike everyday embodiment, there is no digital
corporeality without articulation. ‘One cannot simply “be” online; one must make
one’s presence visible through explicit and structured actions’ (boyd, 2006: p.
18). So, it is quite easy to form a fake identity online according to them. But do
Facebook users construct a fake identity too? Is this online identity different or
similar to the offline identity?
3.1 Real / Fake Identity
boyd claims that profiles could never be real (boyd and Ellison, 2007: p. 14). She
did research about profiles on Friendster, one of the first SNSs. Friendster had a
lot of fake profiles about imaginary or famous people: ‘Fakesters’. One of the
Fakesters pointed out that there’s no such thing as an authentic performance on
Friendster—“None of this is real.” (boyd, 2006: p.28). boyd explains this
6 Citation of Walther (1996), cited in Lampe ed. (2007): p. 436.
18
statement: ‘Through the act of articulation and writing oneself into being, all
participants are engaged in performance intended to be interpreted and convey
particular impressions’ (boyd, 2006: p.28). So she states that no profile on
Friendster is similar to the real identity of the users. Although her study is about
Friendster, one could make the same statement about Facebook. However, if you
define an identity on a SNS as fake by the fact that it is written, no identity can be
real on the Internet. I think we passed this way of looking at the Internet years
ago, since the influence of it on real life is more than present. The Internet is not
a virtual, fictional reality, but an extended part of real life.
Besides, how can users of Facebook construct an online identity that is
completely different from their offline identity, when their online network is in
most cases similar to their offline network? As mentioned before, users are
primarily communicating with people who are already part of their social
network (boyd and Ellison, 2007: p.3). In other words, when using a different
identity online than offline, it will not take long before people will get caught.
Moreover, users are asked to fill in a lot of personal information on the profile
page. Subsequently there are many ways to get authentication so users are more
tended to use their real identity, name, connections, and personal information.
This is in contrast with for example dating sites or games, in which it is accepted
to use pseudonyms or imaginary persons. As a result, these persons are more
likely to act rude, since they have no connection to real life. ‘Poor behaviour is a
problem in many on-‐line discussion forums, where pseudonyms and
disconnection provide cover for angry or malicious postings’ (Donathan and
boyd, 2004: p.76). Since the social network of Facebook consists of familiar
people, the identity users create on Facebook is more reliable. Donathan and
boyd draw the same conclusion and explain:
The use of one’s real name and the network both imply that if one were to prevaricate extensively in one’s profile, real acquaintances would see this and presumably, make some rebuke -‐ or at least, one would be embarrassed to be seen exaggerating accomplishments in front of one’s friends (Donathan and boyd, 2004: p.74).
19
In that case, you can expect that most identities on Facebook are similar or just
slightly different to the offline identity.
Furthermore, the online identity on Facebook is, in most cases, a better version
of the real identity, because a good reputation is of great value. According to
Donathan and boyd, users benefit from continuing to act in ways that enhance
that good reputation (Donathan and boyd, 2004: p.76). Besides, most people
interviewed argue the same: ‘generally you put positive things on Facebook
because negative posts will give a negative image of yourself, and some other
persons will think you are a whiner’.7
Summarizing, users of Facebook tend to create an online identity that is
similar of slightly better than their real identity. As Donathan and boyd point out,
it is easy to create a false persona but the costs lie in building the network, and
this network generally knows who you are in real life (Donathan and boyd, 2004:
p.74). The next question is, how exactly do individuals use Facebook to construct
this real, positive online identity?
7 Jennings, Mark. Oral interview. Utrecht, 18-‐04-‐2011.
20
4. The construction of identity on Facebook
There are many assumptions made when it comes to describing the way people
use Facebook to construct an identity. For example, they can show who they are
by the information on their profile, the content of their status updates and
messages, the use of pictures and videos, or the network of friends they have. I
made a distinction between feature specific assumptions and general
assumptions to make it comprehensible. The features of Facebook and the ways
users apply them are examined first.
4.1 Feature Specific Statements
4.1.1 Profile My Penguin Student Dictionary describes the word profile as following:
1. to produce a profile of (somebody or something), e.g. by drawing or writing. 2. to shape the outline of (something), esp by using a template (Allen, 2006: p.703).
Interestingly, the use of the term as describing an outline of anything dates from
1650s, but the use of it ‘to summarize a person in writing’ dates only back to
1948.8 The latter is intended when speaking of profiles on Facebook. In a profile
on Facebook, users can express their interests, personal information and
experiences. The profile is divided into several parts, and appears in two
different versions: one for non-‐friends as illustrated in figure 7, and one for
friends as illustrated figure 8.
8 ‘Profile’. Online Etymology Dictionary. 09-‐05-‐2011. <http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=profile&searchmode=none>
21
Figure 7: How a Facebook profile page looks to strangers
Figure 8: How a Facebook profile page looks to Friends
22
Hence, the user is in control of who will read their personal
information The users can choose to whom he will expose
this by changing the profile settings: ‘Everyone’, ‘Friends of
Friends’, ‘Friends Only’, and ‘Other’ (e.g. ‘Only Me’).9 Through
this, Facebook made a more accurate distinction in privacy
than to let the user choose between public or private. The
profile information is divided into nine parts (Figure 9):
Basic Information, Profile Picture, Featured People,
Education and Work, Philosophy, Arts and Entertainment,
Sports, Activities and Interests, and Contact Information.10
For Example, the ‘Basic Information’ section of the ‘Edit
Profile’ page looks like figure 10.
Figure 10: Facebook Edit Profile -‐ Basic Information
9 ‘Privacy Settings’. Facebook.com. 08-‐04-‐2011 <http://www.facebook.com/settings/?tab=privacy> 10 ‘Edit Profile’. Facebook.com. 08-‐04-‐2011 <http://www.facebook.com/editprofile.php>
Figure 9: Facebook Profile -‐ Table of Contents
23
According to boyd and Heer, users are expected to perform and interpret
identity through profiles; they represent individual embodiment. (boyd and
Heer, 2006: p.6). So the profile is an important part of the online identity. ‘Profile
owners […] express an online persona through pictures, words and page
composition, as well as through data fields where information ranging from
favourite books and movies to sexual orientation and relationship status (single,
in a relationship, etc.) is indicated’ (Tufekci, 2008: p.3). Although the users can
choose what they want to fill out and how many information they give about
themselves, they have to stick to the profile settings as shown in chapter two. For
example, the section ‘Arts and Entertainment’ allows the users to name their
favourite music, books, movies, television, and games, but they cannot name
their favourite piece of art or artist. Again, the software controls the user by
limiting the possibilities.
Figure 11: Limited Profile settings on Facebook
The information shown on the profile is in most cases neutral or positive.
Negative information does not often appear. For example, when one is
unemployed, he or she can leave the part where you have to fill in your work
experience blank. So instead of giving negative information, users can just say
nothing at all. Similarly, participants of the interview argue that most
information on their profile is neutral, interesting to others, or slightly better: ‘I
do not put a lot of details of myself on the profile; I do not think that is necessary.
I only give information about special things, so maybe I am trying to present
myself better.’11 In sum, the information on the profile is neutral, interesting, or
better compared to the real identity of users. Users can influence the information
11 Kersenboom, Sanne. Oral interview. Amsterdam, 27-‐04-‐2011.
24
on the profile to a certain extent: they can only decide if and in what way they
want to fill out the fields that are provided by the software.
4.1.2 Status Updates
Although the profile seems to be the most important way users construct an
online identity on Facebook, there are other ways too. One way is by posting a
status update. The Penguin Student Dictionary describes the term status as
following:
1. The condition or standing of a person, territory, etc in the eyes of law. 2. Position or rank in relation to others in a hierarchy or social structure. 3. High social position; prestige. 4. A state of affairs; the situation in regard to something (Allen, 2006: p. 875).
The latter definition seems to be most in line with the meaning of status on
Facebook, since status updates do not necessarily contain references to
hierarchy or prestige. In a status update, users can post a small amount of words
about how they feel or what keeps them busy at that moment. Examples are:
‘Studying for an important test’, ‘I really enjoyed the party last night! Can’t wait
to see the pictures’, or ‘Going to Paris tomorrow :D’. When the users of Facebook
post a status update, this will appear on the personal page of the user and in the
News Feed, see figure 12.
Figure 12: News Feed and Status updates on Facebook
The News Feed is a list of all the status updates and actions, like writing on a
wall, making changes in the profile or befriending with some one, and is
categorized into ‘Top News’ and ‘Most Recent’ news. The status updates of
25
Facebook contain a lot of personal information and emotions. In my opinion, the
updates are more focussed on emotion than action or opinion, like the case is on
Twitter. Essential to all the posts is that they are about, or have something to do
with the user of Facebook. Whereas the status bar asks the user: ‘What’s on your
mind?’ and not ‘What’s on the mind of person sitting next to you?’ Users can talk
about themselves since the network knows the user in person since all of them
have accepted the friendship request. But on Twitter it is more likely that a
stranger will read the status update too – due to the public network -‐ and
therefore would not understand personal postings. It is common to use
emoticons, like J for happy feelings or L for sad feelings in status updates. You
can also use these emoticons to show if you like something or not. Other signs,
like <3, symbolise a specific icon, like in this case a heart. Most users write these
symbols because it is easier and faster than to describe the feelings in words.
I divided the status updates of Facebook into four categories of expressing. First,
there are a lot of updates about the activities of the user. They write about what
they did or currently doing. For example, see figure 13. Compared to Twitter, the
updates are covering a bigger period of time; it is more common to write about
your activities of the whole day than of the last two seconds: ‘most of my status
updates are prospects or retrospect of activities, for example about the next
day’.12 The updates contain a large time frame since most users of Facebook do
not update their status very often compared to Twitter.
Second, a lot of users are sharing content with other people, like YouTube
videos, links, or photos. As one of the interviewed persons mentions: ‘Facebook
allows you to share more; you can give a friend something. This is in contrast to
Twitter. Twitter is fleeting and Facebook stays’.13 For an example, see figure 13.
Especially pictures made with mobile phones are common. Compared to Flickr
and YouTube, users of Facebook are more tended to post personal images and
videos: ‘most often I post photo’s with myself on it, like when I am making music
or hanging with friends’.14 This is assumingly caused by the fact that Facebook is
12 Jennings, Mark. Oral interview. Utrecht, 18-‐04-‐2011. 13 Eelst, Annemiek van. Oral interview. Amstelveen, 02-‐05-‐2011. 14 Jennings, Mark. Oral interview. Utrecht, 18-‐04-‐2011.
26
a private network and YouTube and Flicker are public, and they do not want to
share their personal pictures with the whole world. Another difference is that it
does not really matter whether the quality of the images is good; it is the
message that counts. The picture can count as ‘evidence’: look, this really
happened and I was there. It is a form of authentication. With the video, link or
image, users can put their status update in context and give their opinion about
it.
Figure 13: Example Satus update incl. picture
Third, quite a lot of status updates are directed to reactions of friends. An
example is: ‘Today graduation. Having drinks tonight in the pub (just for fun, not
a wild party). Who is joining me?!’15 Since the network of Facebook consists for a
large part of offline friends, people are using their status updates to let them
know what they are doing so they can join them. Instead of calling all your
friends one by one, you can just ask all your friends by one action. However, the
whole network can read the post, including friends that would otherwise not be
called. Compared to Twitter, users of Facebook are more directed to
participation with friends than with strangers: ‘ I am always aware of the fact
that friends can read my posts and can react to it; I use Twitter more
15 ‘Status update of John Verbeek’. Facebook.com. Daily revision. 06-‐04-‐2011. Translated from Dutch: ‘Vandaag diplomauitreiking gehad. Vanavond ff wat drinken in the pub (gewoon gezellig, niet te bont maken), wie doet er mee?!’ <http://www.facebook.com>
27
superficially.’16 This awareness of readers is also shown in this status: ‘Booking
for a holiday in June. Any ideas?! :)’, see figure 14. In only one hour already
fourteen persons gave a reaction.
Figure 14: Status update on Facebook directed to participation
So through Facebook, users can get a quick opinion of what their friends think.
However, these reactions are generally different than reactions on the phone for
example, since the user has to stick to a small text field and the whole network
can read it. A lot of participants of the interview mention they solely post status
updates when they think they are interesting to others: ‘I only put interesting
things on Facebook; actually with the purpose to get a reaction’.17 So users are
very aware of the visibility of their actions and adjust them to their friends.
Last, status updates with good achievements and positive content. It is more
common to post a status update about something you are proud of than about
something sad that happened, for example: ‘two weeks ago I bought my first
running shoes. Right now I ran my first 10 km in 1:00:14! Great, but those 14
seconds are a bit of a shame ;-‐)’. 18 Users want to get recognition for their efforts,
and can achieve this rather easy by posting it on Facebook. I guess they have the
feeling that an achievement has more meaning when other people know about it
too. And as mentioned before, users rather post positive than negative content.
Summarizing, most status updates include a form of participation: sharing
content with friends, or asking for reactions of friends. The content of the update
is personal and positive, just like the profile information, and contains a lot of
pictures. 16 Jennings, Mark. Oral interview. Utrecht, 18-‐04-‐2011. 17 Stierenburg, Maartje. Oral interview. Amsterdam, 27-‐04-‐2011. 18 ‘Status update of Mart Jeninga’. Facebook.com. Daily revision. 30-‐03-‐2011. Translated from Dutch: ‘2 weken geleden kocht ik mijn eerste hardloopschoenen. Zojuist mijn eerste 10 km gerend in 1:00:14! Te gek, maar beetje jammer van de 14 seconden ;-‐)’ <http://www.facebook.com>
28
4.1.3 Photos
Users are also forming an identity on Facebook through photos, as already
became clear when discussing former subjects. ‘Photo’s are the most noticeable
component of Profile identity performance and active users update their photos
regularly to convey various things about themselves’ (boyd and Heer, 2006: p.8).
The profile photo is very present on Facebook; it is visible in every post as a
thumbnail, and on the profile page it appears in full size, see figure 15. ‘They
[photos] become a part of the performance of that individual’ (boyd and Heer,
2006: p.8). Although some users are using non-‐realistic images as profile picture-‐
arguably for privacy reasons -‐, most users have a profile picture of themselves.
The profile picture is important because they are a substitute for the body. In
real life interaction people can look at gestures and facial expressions in
communication, on Facebook they have to do it with only words and pictures.
Figure 15: Thumbnail of profile picture next to a status update
However, profile pictures are not the only pictures on Facebook. As mentioned
before, users are tending to use a lot of images in their status updates: ‘Facebook
users predominantly claim their identities implicitly rather than explicitly; they
“show rather than tell” (Zhao ed., 2008: p.1). Secondly, users can create photo
albums on Facebook to show and share a big amount of pictures. With ‘tagging’
there appears a tag on a picture with the name of a Facebook user, so you can see
who is in the picture. It is common to create albums with holiday or party
pictures on Facebook. Likewise as the status updates, most users are tending to
post only nice and positive pictures. They selectively choose what they want to
show the world: ‘the photo’s of which I am in control, are pictures in which I look
at my best. If I do not like a photo, I remove it from my Wall’.19 In a way, by
posting a holiday picture you are indirectly telling your friends ‘look where I
have been to!’ and by posting party pictures, the users is subtle saying ‘I go to
19 Jennings, Mark. Oral interview. Utrecht, 18-‐04-‐2011.
29
cool parties, so I must be cool too’. An image usually has more impact than
words. The conscious selection of pictures in order to form the wishful online
identity, is also clear in the image bar on the profile page, see figure 16.
Figure 16: Bar with images on a profile page
These five images are the newest pictures with the users tag, and appear
automatically on the top of the users profile page. The user can select which he
wants to hide, but cannot add pictures to the bar and again the software
constrains the actions of the user. These images and the profile pictures are a
very central part of the profile page and form a large part of the online identity.
4.1.4 Friends
Furthermore, users of Facebook can show who they are by their network of
friends. ‘Profiles have been extended to include explicitly social information such
as articulated “Friend” relationships (boyd and Heer, 2006: p.1). This network
consists of all other users of Facebook who have accepted a friendship request of
a specific person; all friendships are bi-‐directional. In most cases the network is
visible to friends, and is some cases even to strangers (this depends on the
personal privacy settings). It is called the ‘public display of connection’: ‘”Public
displays of connection” serve as important identity signals that help people
navigate the networked social world, in that an extended network may serve to
validate identity information presented in profiles’ (boyd and Ellison, 2007:
p.14). Put differently, the network is part of the online identity; it is an integral
piece of their self-‐presentation (Donathan and boyd, 2004: p.72). Donathan and
boyd conclude in their research about Friendster that impression management is
30
one of the reasons given by users of Friendster for choosing particular friends.20
They explain why the network is so important for identity:
Seeing someone within the context of their connections provides the viewer with information about them. Social status, political beliefs, musical taste, etc., may be inferred from the company one keeps (Donathan and boyd, 2004: p.72).
The kind of friends a user has is important for online identity; a user can look
more interesting when he or she is befriended with interesting persons. Besides,
Donathan and boyd argue that name dropping is used to position oneself in a
status hierarchy. People may claim connections to
celebrities or other high-‐status people to raise their own
status (Donathan and boyd, 2004: p.76). Moreover, the
amount of friends users have is valuable too. This amount is
visible on the profile page, see figure 12. Generally, it is a
positive sign when some one has a lot of friends. However,
too much or too little friends could be a sign that the users is
befriending everyone, or that there is something wrong
with him or her so no one wants to be friends. Therefore, a
user should not accept every friendship request.
Furthermore, users can show if someone is more than a
friend: a family member or a partner. With this users can
create a small hierarchy, but it is not possible to differ
between friends, close friends, acquaintances, colleagues,
and so on. As you can see in figure 17, the ‘In a relationship
with’ information is positioned on a central place of the
profile, and even above the friends list. Therefore, one can
claim that the relationship of users is more important for
the construction of identity than the amount and type of
friends.
20 Citation of Donathan and boyd (2004), cited in boyd and Ellison (2007): p.14.
Figure 17: Friends on a profile page
31
4.1.5 Like Button
Last, users can express their feelings and interest with the Like button. Users can
use this button when they comment on a status, photo, link, video or wall post.
When they click on the Like button the text ‘… likes this’ appears right
underneath the post, see figure 18. You can like your own post and comments on
posts too.
Figure 18: You can like a post on Facebook
When more than one friends like a post, the number of ‘likes’ and the names of
users that used the tool is shown. The button can also be used as a way to follow
a page or group on Facebook, see figure 19.
Figure 19: Rolling Stones Page on Facebook with Like button
By ‘liking’ a page the user can become a fan and is in some cases provided with
more information. Interestingly though, there seems to be no ‘dislike’ or ‘hate’
button. Users can only like things, but cannot express their negative feelings
about something. Are they not allowed to express negative feelings on Facebook?
Users have three options if they do not like something: write a comment about
the negative feelings, completely delete the post from their Wall or News Feed,
or mark the post as spam or abusive. In other words, disliking something on
Facebook has more radical consequences than liking something. However, the
Like tool provides users with an alternative way to show their interest. It is a
powerful tool, not only because it is easier and faster to just click on the Like
button than to write a comment in which you want to say the same, but also
because it collects information, as examined in chapter two.
32
Taking the former findings about constructing an identity on Facebook into
account, there are a few assumptions to make. First, users of Facebook are
creating an online identity that is similar or slightly better than their offline
identity. Second, they construct this by selectively choosing the information they
place on the profile, give nice and personal status updates, choose good looking
photos, make selection of representative friends, and use the like button. In other
words, they are presenting a positive self. Next to these specific findings about
the characteristics of Facebook, there are some general statements to make with
use of the interview results.
4.2 General statements about Facebook
The seven users I have interviewed made several statements that seem obvious
for them, but caught my interest. First, the participants argue that they rather
just read posts of friends, than providing content and posts themselves.
I use Facebook particularly to see what others do, not mainly to present my own identity. I do not post a lot of photo’s or status updates, except when I explicitly want to tell something. It is not my main reason to express myself, I rather watch others, see what parties are planned, and who is attending.21
Why would users rather watch other people? Arguably because users are very
concerned with their image on Facebook. Before they post something
themselves, they want to be sure that it fits in with the other posts. As seen in
former paragraphs, users are always aware of the fact that friends can read their
posts. This claim matches the general characterization of Generation Y made by
expert Rebecca Huntley: ‘Paradoxically, whilst this is a generation that values
freedom, flexibility and choice, it is also far more conformist than its X
predecessors (Huntley, 2006: p.18). They have the desire to fit in, in real life and
on Facebook, thus are very selective in their postings.
Furthermore, most of participants of the interviews use Facebook a lot,
but are not a big fan of the SNS. They feel like meaningless spending a lot of time: 21 Kersenboom, Sanne. Oral interview, Amsterdam, 27-‐04-‐2011.
33
‘I actually use Facebook too much. The first thing I do when sit behind my
computer is checking Facebook, especially for meaningless looking at other
users.’22 Why would they use it when it is a waste of time? Participants response
by claiming that although you gain information in a not very social, time-‐wasting
manner, it is nice to know things about people you would otherwise not know.23
A lot of users, including myself, have the feeling that they miss something when
they are not checking Facebook. Checking recent status updates is becoming a
daily habit, like checking your email or the latest news, and heavy users are
always afraid of missing something.
Third, users stick to certain unwritten rules. As mentioned before, it is not
appreciated when users post too personal information on Facebook. ‘I find it
embarrassing when someone puts everything, including stupid things, on
Facebook. They are really asking for attention.’24 Besides, some things are not
appropriate for Facebook, but are for other social networking sites: ‘I use Twitter
for more general content. I don’t post any information that has an ‘inside value’;
information that is only clear to people who know me.’25 And furthermore: ‘It is
not normal to show your whole résumé on Facebook, that’s more LinkedIn style.’
26 Thereafter, it is not conventional to accept friendship requests of people you
do not know. ‘I only accept requests of friends I know personally; I do not add
friends just to have friends.’27 For most users, real friends and acquaintances are
more important than a large number of friends. Ellison and boyd explain this as
they argue that the network of friends serves as important identity signals (boyd
and Ellison, 2007: p.14). Since the network reflects the identity of the user, the
network has to be representative and give a good image.
Another claim the participants make is that Facebook has great influence
on their social life. Some even complain that Facebook is a bad substitute for real
life interaction.
22 Stierenburg, Maartje. Oral interview. Amsterdam, 27-‐04-‐2011. 23 Stierenburg, Maartje. Oral interview. Amsterdam, 27-‐04-‐2011. 24 Eelst, Annemiek van. Oral interview. Amstelveen, 02-‐05-‐2011. 25 Jennings, Mark. Oral interview. Utrecht, 18-‐04-‐2011. 26 Jennings, Mark. Oral interview. Utrecht, 18-‐04-‐2011. 27 Zuiderzee, Robin. Oral interview. Amstelveen, 02-‐05-‐2011.
34
It is not natural interaction between people anymore. You read something, but don’t talk. In fact, it is half communication: you are posting things individually and read things individually. For that reason it is not social; there is no personal contact.28
They even describe the communication on Facebook as artificial and use less
often old ways of communication, like the telephone. ‘Social contacts are
managed by the Internet now, and I like it less than the way we used to
communicate. I used to call people quite a lot, but now I only call them if
necessary.’29 One of the participants mentions that this changed in a year time:
she used to call someone if she wanted to know how a friend was doing, but
know she can read it just as easy on Facebook.30 On other hand, the upside
implication for your social life is that it is easier to get in contact with old friends
and forgotten acquaintances and to stay in contact with them through Facebook.
‘It is sometimes hard to speak with your friends when you are busy, but when
you post and read messages on Facebook you can get know what everyone is
doing’.31 So, Facebook has a lot of influence on the social life of users. They use it
partially as a substitute for old communication, but it is not satisfactory.
Facebook may extend the social network, but the friendships appear to be less
intense than they used to.
The fifth thing I noticed when talking to users was the concern about
privacy and lack of knowledge of the software. A lot of participants mention that
they do not put certain personal information and pictures on Facebook for
privacy reasons: they don’t know where they will end up and who can view
them.
I don’t really understand how applications work and who can use your personal information. For that reason I already removed a lot of content, like the pictures of myself in high school. We are only interested in the things that interest us, like how to share videos, but we are not interested enough in privacy issues.32
28 Kersenboom, Sanne. Oral interview. Amsterdam, 27-‐04-‐2011. 29 Kersenboom, Sanne. Oral interview. Amsterdam, 27-‐04-‐2011. 30 Stierenburg, Maartje. Oral interview. Amsterdam, 27-‐04-‐2011. 31 Zuiderzee, Robin. Oral interview. Amstelveen, 02-‐05-‐2011. 32 Eelst, Annemiek van. Oral interview. Amstelveen, 02-‐05-‐2011.
35
Another interviewee even suggested that young users should get ‘Facebook
lessons’ in order to learn that they should not place everything on Internet. My
own findings correspond: I found it hard to find adequate information about the
software of Facebook since not much information is public. For that, it is not
hard to image that users are getting suspicious and very selective in uploading
content to the site. What does Facebook has to hide?
However, the most interesting assumption I have found concerns the
overload of information and positive images of others. Many participants
mention that they ‘know too much’ of friends and people they barely know.
The image I have of others is influenced by Facebook. I have changed too, in person and life style. I have become more jealous by it, and that is one of the biggest downsides. Maybe jealousy is not the right word, but now I know so many people it is hard to get the same level as others. You put your standards higher, you know more about others than is healthy, you even know more about your best friends than before.33
In other words, it is hard to perform just as good as the rest when you know
more people. Besides, knowing a lot also means that users can read about parties
they were not invited for and things they have missed out:
I really like Facebook and find it very useful because you can see and share activities with others, but on other hand you see also the nice actions of others you didn’t participate in. You don’t really want to know such things. You actually know too much. What should you do with all this info? You can’t really think for yourself what is important and what you want. In fact, you can feel real bad by it.34
So by knowing much about others, people can feel bad about themselves. They
get the feeling that are lying behind and have to do better. It is hard to keep up
with so many friends. But are friends on Facebook really perfect, or is this just an
image? To answer this question, the next chapter will take a close look at the
identity of users on Facebook with use of the theory of impression management
by Erving Goffman. 33 Jennings, Mark. Oral interview. Utrecht, 18-‐04-‐2011. 34 Kersenboom, Sanne. Oral interview. Amsterdam, 27-‐04-‐2011.
36
5. Impression Management and Facebook
Do users of Facebook try to look better than they really are? Are they performing
an act? And is this performance constrained by the software and algorithms of
Facebook? The literature of impression management by Erving Goffman can help
to find answers.
5.1 Theory of Impression Management
Impression Management is a sociological theory with Erving Goffman as one of
the leading figures. The theory focuses on the ways in which the individual
guides and controls the impressions others form of him or her (Wallace and
Wolf, 2006: p. 238). In other words, how can individuals present themselves in
the best light? ‘When an individual appears in the presence of others, there will
usually be some reason for him to mobilize his activity so that it will convey an
impression to others which it is in his interest to convey’ (Goffman, 1959: p.16).
Goffman defines performance as the activity of a given participant on a given
occasion, which serves to influence in any way any of the other participants
(Goffman, 1959: p. 26). This performance takes place on and behind the stage,
and this way of looking at individuals is called dramaturgy. His dramaturgy is
concerned with the lives of ordinary women and men as they act out their daily
roles on the stage of life (Wallace and Wolf, 2006: p.239). Goffman divides this
imaginary stage in a front and a back stage. ‘The front is that part of the
individuals performance which regularly functions in a general and fixed fashion
to define the situation for those who observe the performance” (Goffman, 1959:
p.22). This front stage exists of two parts:
Front includes setting (furniture and other items supplying the scenery and stage props) and personal front – items of “expressive equipment,” like insignia of office or rank, clothing, gender, age, racial characteristics, size, posture, speech patterns, facial expression, and body gestures (Goffman, 1959: p.24).
When applied to Facebook, the setting could be the software and user interface.
The personal front is the way an individual uses setting for constructing an
37
identity. So on Facebook this would be the information on the profile, the posts
on the Wall and News Feed, the amount and type of friends, and the (profile)
pictures. Individuals on the front stage are standing right before the audience.
They avoid anything that is inappropriate according to the script, and are not
improvising when they are on front stage (Wallace and Wolf, 2006: p. 239).
‘What happens in the front region […] is an attempt to manipulate the audience’
(Wallace and Wolf, 2006: p.239). The performer is aware of the audience and
want to present himself right. ‘The individual will act in a thoroughly calculating
manner, expressing himself in a given way solely in order to give the kind of
impression to other that is likely to evoke from them a specific response he is
concerned to obtain’ (Goffman, 1959: p.17).
By contrast, back stage the individual can drop its masks and step out of
character. Since there is no audience present, the actors do not need to engage in
impression management; they can be themselves (Wallace and Wolf, 2006:
p.239). Above that, the techniques of impression management are practiced in
the back stage to be used in future conversations and roles (Wallace and Wolf,
2006: p.239). However, his basic question is: ‘aren’t we all con artists, after all?’
(Wallace and Wolf, 2006: p.241).
5.2 Impression Management applied on Facebook
Even though Goffman probably never imagined it, his sociological theory dating
from 1959 could be applied to Facebook. ‘By drawing our attention to the
backstage region, Goffman helps us understand all of the hidden work involved
in accomplishing successful presentation of self in public’ (Wallace and Wolf,
2006: p. 240). This attention to the backstage region can helps us to understand
the formation of a successful presentation on Facebook as well. Goffman was
fascinated with discrepancies between appearances and realities, and with
deception and manipulation as Wallace and Wolf mention (Wallace and Wolf,
2006: p.245). One could say the same about this research that also draws the
attention to this discrepancy. Besides, it is not hard to imagine Facebook as a
theater, when you think of users as actors and friends as audience. Just like
actors, users only appear when they have something to share with the audience.
Facebook does not display the whole life of users, only selected fragments.
38
However, the theory of Goffman differs in the fact that he examines face-‐to-‐face
interactions: ‘where two or more individuals are physically in one another’s
presence’.35 This in contrast to Facebook where no face-‐to-‐face interaction is
possible, since the communication is mediated by the computer and the body is
not present. Consequently, gestures and facial expressions cannot be examined
on Facebook, even though they are an important part of the performance
according to Goffman. ‘Of the two kinds of communication – expressions given
and expressions given off – this report will primarily concerned with the later,
with the more theatrical and contextual kind, the non-‐verbal, presumably
unintended kind, whether this communication be purposely engineered or not’
(Goffman, 1959: p.16). It is impossible to examine solely non-‐verbal and
unintended communication on Facebook since users can only express
themselves purposely; they have to write themselves into being or there would
be no performance at all. In contrast to Goffmans study, this research examines
the other kind of communication: expressions given.
A small amount of researchers already made (unconsciously) a connection
between impression management theory and SNSs. Although the theory does not
provide an easy fit and is written about half a decade ago, interesting results can
be found. ‘Looking at the dramaturgical perspective and Goffman’s ideas of
impression management in online communication offers rich new opportunities
for application of classical sociological insights to our interactions with others’
(Kendall, 2010: p.135). According to sociologist Diana Kendall, many people are
today concerned not only about the impressions they make in face-‐to-‐face
encounters but also in cyberspace (Kendall, 2010: p.134). ‘Now that first
impressions are often made in cyberspace, not face-‐to-‐face, people are not only
strategizing about how to virtually convey who they are, but also grappling with
how to craft an e-‐version of themselves that appeals to multiple audiences – co-‐
workers, fraternity brothers, Mom and Dad’ (Rosenbloom in Kendall, 2010: p.
135). Like in the theater of Goffman, users of Facebook are presenting
themselves in a certain way and are aware of the present audience. They hide
parts and control the impressions they receive from the situation and are
35 Citation of Erving Goffman (1983): p.8, cited in Wallace and Wolf (2006): p.244.
39
presenting themselves in a manipulating way: they are applying impression
management. There are some researchers who have examined the use of
impression management by SNSs users. For example, researcher Keith Kenny
poses that impression management and Goffmans theater analogy could very
well be applied to social networking sites (Kenney, 2009: p.19).
When people present themselves on Facebook, they talk about themselves and they show visuals of themselves. They carefully write self-‐descriptions about their political and religious affiliations, likes and dislikes, values, and accomplishments in life. People publicize their social connections with talented friends, successful sports teams, media role models, and popular musicians. They also use lots of photographs and videos (Kenney, 2009: p.19).
In sum, he claims that users carefully create an online identity. Professors
Soumitra Dutta and Matthew Fraser agree with Kenney that online identity on
Facebook is consciously created by users by using impression management.
According to them, people make up who they are on Facebook with a keen eye
on what kind of impression they wish to create(Fraser and Dutta, 2008: 40).
However, it is not strange that users are applying impression management, since
they do not really have a choice: all communication is purposely done instead of
unintended. Subsequently, can users be seen as performing in the front stage, or
in the back stage?
Although there are few, there are arguments to claim that users of
Facebook are in the back stage. First of all, the back stage functions in the theory
of Goffman as the place to practise future conversations and roles (Wallace and
Wolf, 2006: p.239). Facebook can be seen as this place: users can practise
chatting with someone before meeting them in real life. Several persons I have
interviewed mention that it is easy to make, and stay in contact on Facebook;
especially with people they do not know so well. ‘When I have a new friend on
Facebook, I start making contact by wall posts. I don not send a private message
right away, just like you don’t ask some ones phone number when you just
met’.36 Users can also practise future conversations in the sense that they don’t
36 Eelst, Annemiek van. Oral interview. Amstelveen, 02-‐05-‐2011.
40
have to react instantly, as with face-‐to-‐face interactions. They get some time to
think about posts and messages before they comment on them. Furthermore,
another characteristic of the back stage is that actors are being themselves. One
of the interviewed persons says: “I am not perfect. When you do certain things in
real life, like being drunk on a party, you should not be ashamed of yourself
when you find a picture of it on a website’.37 This user is in a part representing
his true, unpolished self on Facebook. However, most participants told me that
they find it annoying and even embarrassing when a friend puts too much
personal information on Facebook. For example: ‘I prefer more abstract posts; I
don’t want to know that a friend just went to the toilet’.38 For that reason, most
users are not showing an unpolished, true reflection of the self. One could rather
see the performance on Facebook as front stage actions.
The main characteristic of the front stage is the use of impression
management. The conclusion that users apply it was already drawn. The way
researchers Fraser and Dutta look at identity on Facebook has similarities with a
role on the front stage; both are invented. ‘In the real world the self is presented;
in the virtual world it is invented’ (Fraser and Dutta, 2008: 40). This reassembles
gets more clear in the way they argue that social networking sites are like a
virtual catwalk.
Impression management involves constantly changing identities, much like fashion models switching outfits. Except that, in the virtual world, the curtain never comes down on the ritual of identity fabrication and self-‐ exhibition (Fraser and Dutta, 2008: 40).
Clearly they claim that social networking sites are the front stage, because users
are presenting themselves in the best light or in the best role by using
impression management. This is in addition with my own results in the former
chapters: users are presenting themselves positive on Facebook and are
selective in how they present themselves. Besides, there are more reasons to
characterize the actions of Facebook users in the front stage. Like in theatre, the
users only come on stage when they have something to tell the audience. Users
37 Jennings, Mark. Oral interview. Utrecht, 18-‐04-‐2011. 38 Dutter, Vera. Oral interview. Amstelveen, 02-‐05-‐2011.
41
are aware of the fact that friends can see their actions, as a lot of the persons in
the interviews mention: ‘I only put information on Facebook that I think other
people find interesting too, so in a way you are making yourself more interesting
and nicer’. 39 Embarrassing information is left out and entertaining content
comes in place. Users adjust their performance to the audience. Besides, the user
is acting on stage and not behind it because he intentionally wants to get a
reaction. Like someone said in the interview: ‘sometimes I post certain content
with the main goal to get reactions. In fact, that seems to be ‘the thing’ of
Facebook: finding out if friends are responding and how they feel about it.’ 40
This is not an extraordinary statement, because what other reason could there
be behind placing content on a (semi) public place? If the content is not directed
to an audience, users might as well keep a dairy or personal blog. So, most
Facebook users are aware of the presence of an audience. In addition to this, they
are presenting themselves in the best light. However, even though the user is
performing a certain role, this role is part of a biographical play: the user is
always playing himself with his real, own identity in addition to the previous
findings about the kind of identity on Facebook.
Concluding, there are more arguments propositioning users in the front
stage than in the back stage. It seems that users are trying to look good and
positive on Facebook and applying impression management. Their performance
is purposely given off, and users are always aware of the audience. Users are not
fully being themselves; they select how they present themselves on Facebook.
For that reason, there is a discrepancy between the offline, real identity and the
online identity. The online identity might be real, but it always purposely given
off and selected. In correspond with previous findings: Facebook presents a
better version of the individuals’ real identity.
39 Stierenburg, Maartje. Oral interview. Amsterdam, 27-‐04-‐2011. 40 Jennings, Mark. Oral interview. Utrecht, 18-‐04-‐2011.
42
6. Conclusion
In a time when the use of Facebook is enormous – e.g. today 25% of the
population of the Netherlands has a profile41 -‐ a close look at the use of Facebook
is necessary. This thesis combines a media studies perspective with software
studies and sociology to examine the construction of identity on Facebook. This
research was needed in order to know if Generation Y is reflecting themselves to
imagined, perfect selves and thus has to high expectations and standards. Several
conclusions were drawn.
6.1 Findings
First the software of Facebook was examined. It was shown that the software is
of great influence on the performing of Facebook users. Users have to stick to the
default settings and interface prefigured by the software, and the information
shown on Facebook is controlled by it. Personal information is used for
marketing and can cause niche envy. Moreover, algorithms have great influence
on the content users view and the people and amount of people they befriend.
Yet users have no choice: they have to stick to the features of the software, or not
use it at all.
On other hand, the user side was taken into account. First the conclusion
was drawn that users are reflecting their real, authentic identity. They do not use
a fake one since their network of friends on Facebook is similar to their offline
network. Seconds, statements about the construction of identity where made by
looking at the different features of Facebook and at the results of interviews
among users. The examination of the features resulted in the conclusion that
users are very selective in how they present themselves. They generally post
positive content, use a lot of pictures and other content, like to have
representative friends, and are very accurate in the content they show on their
profile. Participants of the interviews come to the same conclusion. They argue
that they are being themselves, but are very selective in what they show of
themselves: ‘I am being myself on Facebook, but in a certain way so that I look 41 ‘Facebook Statistics Netherlands’. SocialBakers.com. 05-‐05-‐2011. <http://www.socialbakers.com/facebook-‐statistics/netherlands>
43
good. Although I sometimes remove a picture I don’t like, I am not trying really
hard to be perfect’.42 Moreover, they have the feeling that they know too much
about other users. For that, they find it hard to keep up with the rest, become
jealous and sometimes feel bad. In sum, users are being themselves in the sense
that they don’t make things up and use their real identity, but are performing an
act in the sense that they only show half of their real identity: the positive and
public side. This statement was underpinned with the theory of Goffman in the
last chapter. Users are applying impression management and are preforming an
act on the front stage. Their identity is purposely given off and there is a
discrepancy between the real, offline identity and the identity on Facebook.
Concluding, both the results of the software, users and impression
management theory examinations prove that users are not preforming an
identity similar to the real identity, but a better and public one. Instead of being
fully who they are, they are selecting and filtering their performance. Users are
showing a better version of themselves on Facebook.
6.2 Consequences and Prospective
What are the implications of these concealing identities? With the extensive use
of Facebook, there might be a lot. One consequence is an increase of depressed
Generation Y members, as documentary maker Sarah Domogala points out in her
film. She made the Dutch documentary Alles wat wij wilden (Everything we
wanted; Sarah Domogala, 2010) about young people who are using
antidepressants since they got the feeling they are not successful or happy
enough. In this documentary, four Generation Y individuals are followed in their
strive to perfection. As they discover it is hard to fulfill their goals and even
suffer from panic attacks, they come to the conclusion that they have too high
expectations of themselves.43 They name Facebook as one of the reasons for this
high pressure. By knowing what other people do and have accomplished, they
get anxious and raise their standards. ‘I am comparing myself to other people a
42 Jennings, Mark. Oral interview. Utrecht, 18-‐04-‐2011. 43 Alles wat we wilden [Everything we wanted]. Dir. Sarah Domogala. 3Doc, 2010.
44
lot’.44 This same tendency was shown in chapter four as a finding of the
interviews: ‘because you know so many people, it is harder to gain the same level
as the people around you. In addition you put the standard really high.’45 As the
documentary shows an image of Facebook, the girl in the video mentions that
she is very concerned with constructing a good virtual image of herself.46 ‘On
Facebook everyone seems to have amazing party pictures, and then I think: why
am I sitting here on the couch?’47 They admit that Facebook is not reality, but yet
the influence is. They can’t help it. According to this documentary and journalist
Coen Damberg, Facebook friends are constructing a virtual identity in which one
friend is even more successful than the other. It makes users insecure, restless
and anxious (Damberg, 2011). According to Damberg, these people see
themselves as the cause of their failure, wrong choices and bad results. When
they don’t succeed, they are disappointed in themselves. These high expectations
are caused by the increased individualism in society. ‘This individualism is
psychological and hedonism, and makes personal performance the most
important goal in life’ (Damberg, 2011).
In other words, the pressure for Generation Y to perform well is increased
by Facebook. Especially since the conclusion is drawn that identities on
Facebook are a better version of the real identity of users. The new generation
puts their standards real high and found it hard to succeed. This offers a negative
perspective on the future of Generation Y and the implications of the extensive
use of Facebook. It makes the new generation feel anxious, restless and insecure.
Subsequently, I recognize myself and my friends in this story too. I do get the
feeling that I have to preform better, go study abroad like others, do an
internship, work next to my study, join a student sorority, and finish my study in
the shortest amount of time possible. Preferable all at the same time. You can
44Alles wat we wilden [Everything we wanted]. Dir. Sarah Domogala. 3Doc, 2010: at 19:30. 45 Jennings, Mark. Oral interview. Utrecht, 18-‐04-‐2011. 46 Alles wat we wilden [Everything we wanted]. Dir. Sarah Domogala. 3Doc, 2010: at 19:47. 47 Alles wat we wilden [Everything we wanted]. Dir. Sarah Domogala. 3Doc, 2010: at 20:24
45
always do more and better. And I can tell you: it is exhausting. However, I think
that my generation eventually will come to the insight that Facebook is not real,
and – as already mentioned – is partly nice and useful, but can also be
meaningless and a waste of time. I believe face-‐to-‐face interaction and a small
amount of close friends are more valuable than a large network on a social
network. Facebook is complementary, but not a substitute for friendship.
Consequently, I hope that Generation Y will lower their expectations and always
keep in mind that identities on Facebook are not real. In that way the negative
influence of Facebook on society will be limited.
Further research can be done about identities on Facebook. For example,
how do these identities differ per nationality, gender, or educational level?
Besides, Goffmans’ theory was just one sociological theory applied to Facebook;
more interesting results can be found when sociological theory is combined with
media studies. Positive consequences of Facebook can be examined, or the
influence of Facebook on other generations. It is still not clear what the
consequences of the extensive use of Facebook are for society and the future
generation.
46
Appendix
1. Interview Mark Jennings, Utrecht: 18-‐04-‐2011
Ik: ‘Hoe gebruik je Facebook?’
Mark: ‘Ik gebruik het om te kijken waar vrienden mee bezig zijn en collega’s,
maar dat zijn ook vaak mijn vrienden. En ik gebruik het om contact te hebben
met vrienden. Dat is wat ik passief doe. Actief laat ik zien waar ik mee bezig ben,
zoals optredens of dingen wat ik noemenswaardig vindt. Ik zet er dingen op
waar ik trots op ben.’
Ik: ‘hoe gebruik je Facebook als je er wat algemener naar kijkt?’
Mark: ‘Je zet voornamelijk dingen erop die positief zijn, omdat negatieve dingen
een meer negatief beeld van jou geven. Misschien vinden mensen je dan een
zeurpiet. Je bent positief naar jezelf, of naar anderen. Actief zet ik dingen erop
zoals waar ik ben, bijvoorbeeld: ‘ik zit nu in het park, wie heft zin om langs te
komen?’. En daarnaast leuke dingen die ik tegenkom op internet of foto’s, een
leuk YouTube filmpje. Dat is ook wat je kijkt bij vrienden.’
Ik: ‘Wat voor informatie over jezelf zet je op je Facebook profiel?’
Mark: ‘Ik zet zoveel mogelijk muziek gerelateerde informatie erop, dus niet
zoveel privé-‐foto’s. Volgens mij staat alles van mij erop. Wel mijn studie, maar
geen werkervaring want dat zou te veel zijn. Je gaat niet je CV op Facebook
zetten, dat is meer LinkedIn stijl. Verder staat er wel wat ik voor muziek leuk
vindt, dat is redelijk wat. Bij de algemene info staat een mijn werkervaring,
gender, relatie, telefoonnummer en e-‐mail adres. Ik wil dat mensen kunnen
weten wat voor school ik zit, wat mijn interesses zijn. Maar ook niet veel, alleen
de dingen waaraan onbekende mensen kunnen zien wat ik leuk vindt. De
mensen die mijn vriend zijn moeten op mijn profiel persoonlijke info kunnen
vinden. Het is een kleine opsomming van dingen die ik doe.’
47
Ik: ‘Is je profiel op Facebook representatief voor wie je bent?’
Mark: ‘Ja, mijn profiel is representatief voor wie ik ben. Maar het is niet zo
boeiend eigenlijk.’
Ik: ‘Wat voor dingen zet jij in je status updates?’
Mark: ‘Ik zet er vaak een terugblik of vooruitzicht van een optreden op, zoals:
‘het optreden gister was een leuke avond’. Anders zet ik er een overzicht op van
wat ik de komende dag ga doen. Bijvoorbeeld een hele dag, zoals morgen.
Verder plaats ik ook andere dingen zoals een aanrader van een mooie CD. Of
gewoon een stomme opmerking. Soms plaats ik gewoon dingen die ik kwijt wil,
maar ik ben er wel bewust van dat mensen het lezen en er op kunnen reageren.
Soms plaats ik iets om bewust reacties uit te lokken. Dat is ook wel een beetje
‘het ding’ eigenlijk, kijken of mensen erop reageren.’
Ik: ‘Hoe verschillen je status updates je het vergeleken met andere SNSs?’
Mark: ‘Ik gebruik Twitter veel algemener. Daar zet ik geen dingen op met ‘insight
waarde’, dingen waarvoor je mij zou moeten kennen. Ik gebruik Facebook
persoonlijker dat Twitter. Ik zie Twitter niet als vriendenkring. Facebook is meer
een dialoog dan Twitter. In FB kan je dingen of in de ruimte plaatsen, of een
bericht direct tegen een persoon zeggen. De andere kunnen dat wel horen, maar
je staat wel naast die persoon. Bij Twitter heb ik meer het idee dat iedereen
gewoon een beetje aan het schreeuwen is. Soms wel tegen bepaalde mensen,
maar die staan dan wel aan de andere kant van de zaal. Op Facebook zou je bij
wijze van spreken naar iemand toe lopen. Twitter is veel groter. Je weet nooit of
het wel aankomt. Twitter is wel goed voor het eerste contact, op Facebook heb je
altijd de blokkade omdat je eerst iemands Friend moet zijn.’
Ik: ‘Ja, ik kan goed voorstellen dat je het zo ziet. En verder, wat voor foto’s plaats
je op Facebook?’
48
Mark: ‘Het zijn of foto’s van werk, of foto’s van wanneer ik met vrienden ben. Ik
plaats voornamelijk foto’s waar ik op sta. Dat is waar het om gaat toch. Die foto’s
die je zelf in de hand hebt zijn de foto’s waar je op probeert om ze leuk mogelijk
in beeld probeert te komen. Maar dat is net zou als de foto’s die je in de
huiskamer zou zetten, daar zet je ook geen foto’s van toen je ziek was. Als ik een
foto niet leuk vindt, haal ik hem van mijn Wall af. Dat vindt ik genoeg. De eerste
blik van wie je bent, je Wall bedoel ik, daarvan haal ik de stomme foto’s weg. Je
komt ze dan wel tegen als je dieper gaat spitten, dat is geen probleem als je die
tegenkomt, maar ik vindt het niet nodig als je dat dan op je Wall terug vindt dus
haal ik ze eraf.’
Ik: ‘Vertel eens wat meer over je profielfoto.’
Mark: ‘Mijn profielfoto zegt over mij dat ik muziek maak. Meestal is mijn profiel
foto een foto van mij waar ik op het podium sta, omdat dat is wat ik doe en waar
Facebook voor mij om draait: het netwerk van muziekkanten. Maar ik heb ook
een tijd een profiel foto gehad die daar niets mee te maken had, dat was gewoon
een leuke foto. Ik gebruik die foto omdat ze dan gelijk snappen dat ik muziekkant
ben.’
Ik: ‘Geven al jouw foto’s een positief beeld van jou?’
Mark: ‘Ik heb eigenlijk wel een paar foto’s waar ik niet goed naar voren kom,
vooral de party foto’s. Maar ik vind het niet erg dat ze erop staan. Het getuigd wel
van humor vind ik. Als je dat soort dingen in het echte leven doet, moet je je er
niet voor schamen als je het terug vindt op een website. Maar je moet er dan wel
aan denken dat de meeste foto’s geposeerde foto’s zijn; het is mijn eigenschuld
dat ik er belachelijk op sta.’
Ik: ‘Dus je bent niet bezig met jezelf zo goed mogelijk neer te zetten op
Facebook? Vindt je het niet erg als er negatieve dingen van of over jou op de site
staan?’
49
Mark: ‘Ik probeer mijzelf zo goed mogelijk te profileren op Facebook, maar ik
doe er niets tegen als andere mensen er iets op zetten waar ik niet zo goed op
sta. Ik ben niet perfect. Tuurlijk staat er een keer een maffe foto op, maar dat zijn
ook niet onaardig bedoelde dingen. Dus dan is het niet erg. Als iemand echt iets
gemeens erop zet, dan zou ik wel vragen of ze het eraf halen, zoals: ‘Doordat
Mark zich verslapen had, ben ik nu te laat’. Het gaat om de intenties vind ik.’
Ik: ‘Ok. En hoe denk jij over Facebook vrienden? Hoeveel heb jij er en wat voor
soort contacten zijn dit?’
Mark: ‘Ik heb 717 vrienden op Facebook en ik ken ze allemaal. Dit is ook
andersom zo. Als ik een verzoek krijg van een onbekende, accepteer ik deze wel
als deze persoon veel gemeenschappelijke vrienden heeft. Dan vraag ik wel waar
ik deze persoon van ken. Ik negeer mensen die ik niet ken.’
Ik: ‘Altijd?’
Mark: ‘Als een ‘hoog persoon’ [in dit geval een beroemde Nederlandse
muziekkant] je toevoegt, accepteer je dit natuurlijk, want dat betekend dat dit
persoon interesse in je heeft. Je bent dan wel benieuwd waarop die gene
geïnteresseerd is. Andersom werkt het ook wel. Als je bijv. Benjamin Herman
toevoegt en hij accepteert dat, is het interessant omdat je dan kan zien waar hij
mee bezig is. Ik maak mij er niet zo druk om dat zij dan foutjes van mij kunnen
zien, omdat dat vaak mensen zijn die niet zo snel verder kijken dan je Wall. Als je
Wall representatief is voor hetgene wat representatief is voor wie je wilt zijn,
maakt ik mij daar niet druk over.’
Ik: ‘Een belangrijke vraag in mijn onderzoek is: ben je of speel je slechts jezelf op
Facebook? Hoe denk jij hierover?’
Mark: ‘Ik ben mij zelf op Facebook.’
Ik: ‘Leg eens uit?’
50
Mark: ‘Als je het vergelijkt met het podium, zet ik een pokerface op, maar ik
accepteer het wanneer mensen doorhebben dat het er niet bij hoort. Dan ga ik
niet zeggen: ‘hee wil je dat niet verder verspreiden, want dat verstoort mijn
reputatie’. Ik speel mijzelf op Facebook, maar het neigt meer naar zijn. Ik ben
mijzelf, maar wel op een manier dat ik er positief uitkom. Maar ik doe niet mijn
best om alle vlekjes weg te poetsen. Ja, tuurlijk haal ik wel eens een foto van mijn
Wall, maar dat is niet wat ik versta onder mijn best doe. Pas als je aan andere
gebruikers gaat vragen of je het wil verwijder vind ik pas dat je je best doet. Dat
is echt te veel moeite.’
Ik: ‘Kun je liegen op Facebook? Een neppe identiteit creëren?’
Mark: ‘Er is te veel sociale controle; mensen houden niet van liegende mensen.
Wat heb je eraan dat mensen je waanzinnig tof vinden om iets wat niet waar is?
Ik zet geen dingen op Facebook die niet waar zijn.’
Ik: ‘Wat is de invloed van Facebook op jou?’
Mark: ‘Het beeld wat ik van andere mensen heb wordt beïnvloed door Facebook.
Ik ben zelf veranderd door Facebook, in persoon en in mijn leven. Ik ben
jaloerser geworden door Facebook, dat is een van de grootste nadelen. ‘Jaloers’ is
een groot woord. Omdat je nu zoveel mensen kent, is het moeilijker om hetzelfde
niveau te krijgen als de rest. Je legt de lat veel hoger. Je bent veel meer op de
hoogte dan eigenlijk gezond is. Je krijgt zelfs van je beste vrienden meer te weten
dan vroeger. Ik kijk ook vaak naar ‘Most Recent’ omdat je de kans dat er iets
nieuws op staat dan hoger is dan bij ‘Most Important’, aangezien ik zo vaak op
Facebook kijk dat ik die informatie al gelezen heb.’
Ik: ‘Komt dit doordat iedereen positief is op Facebook? Of zijn er ook negatieve
mensen in je netwerk?’
51
Mark: ‘Je hebt mensen die alleen maar aan het zeuren zijn. Dat is irritant, daar
lees ik gewoon voorbij. Het is niet dat je daardoor een slechte identiteit hebt of
zo, maar je creëert wel het idee dat je wat negatiever in het leven staat. Dan kom
je dus niet zo positief over. Tuurlijk zijn er geen mensen die hun best doen om
een zo slecht mogelijk beeld te creëren. Dat zou best een leuke opdracht zijn!’
Ik: ‘En de laatste vraag die ik je wil stellen: wat zijn de gevolgen van de overvloed
aan positieve identiteiten op Facebook?’
Mark: ‘Onzekerheid en jaloezie denk ik’
Ik: ‘Dank je wel voor je mening! Hopelijk vond jij het ook leuk.’
Mark: ‘Graag gedaan. Door jouw interview ben ik bewust over Facebook gaan
nadenken, wat ik eigenlijk nooit zo deed.’
52
2. Oral Interview with Sanne Kersenboom and Maartje Stierenburg,
Amsterdam: 27-‐04-‐2011.
Ik: ‘Hoe gebruik je Facebook? Kun je er wat algemeens over vertellen?’
Maartje: ‘Eigenlijk gebruik ik het teveel. Het eerste wat ik doe als ik achter de
computer zit is op Facebook kijken, vooral om doelloos te kijken wat andere
mensen doen. En daarnaast gebruik ik het om contact te houden met mensen die
ik in het dagelijks leven zie. Nieuwe vrienden maak ik niet echt op Facebook; ik
praat eigenlijk alleen met vrienden die ik al ken uit het dagelijks leven.’
Sanne: ‘Ik gebruik het vooral om te kijken wat andere mensen doen, niet zozeer
om mijn eigen identiteit te representeren. Ik post ook niet echt veel foto’s of
status updates. Behalve als ik iets echt kwijt wil. Het is niet mijn hoofddoel om
mijzelf uit te drukken op Facebook, ik kijk meer naar anderen, wat voor feestjes
er zijn, wie er naar bepaalde events gaan. Ik kijk ook vaak op de Facebook site
van mijn werk voor de werktijden.’
Ik: ‘Wat zet je op je profiel en wat laat je weg?’
Maartje: ‘Bijvoorbeeld wat voor talen je spreekt heb ik weggelaten. Wat hebben
andere mensen daar nou aan? Dat zien ze vanzelf wel aan mijn ‘posts’, dus dat
heb ik weggelaten. Ik zet er niet zo veel foto’s op. Ik had mijn e-‐mail aders erop
staan, maar dat heb ik weggehaald omdat ik rare mailtjes kreeg voor
vriendschapsverzoeken voor Facebook via mail. Er staat wel op waar ik werk,
wat voor opleiding ik doe, waar ik woon, en waar ik geboren ben. Mijn
verjaardag staat er volgens mij ook op, maar misschien niet mijn geboorte jaar.
Ik ga er geen hele rare dingen opzetten, zoals feestjes waar je niet al te helder op
staat. Vroeger stonden die wel op mijn Hyves, maar nu ben ik wel zo slim om die
er helemaal niet op te zetten. Toekomstige werkgevers zullen je waarschijnlijk
toch even gaan opzoeken.’
Ik: ‘Is alle informatie op je profiel echt, of heb je bepaalde dingen mooier
gemaakt dan ze eigenlijk zijn?’
53
Maartje: ‘Alle informatie die erop staat is wel echt, ja. Dingen die ik verzwegen
heb zijn mijn e-‐mail adres en ik had eerst ook niet de ‘dag van mijn relatie’ erop
staan, mijn nu wel omdat mijn vriendje dat wil. De dingen die ik er niet opzet zijn
vooral uit privacy. Het is niet zozeer dat ik mijn identiteit wil beschermen, het
zijn meer dingen die niet iedereen hoeft te weten.’
Ik: ‘Sanne, wat zet jij op je profiel en wat niet? Probeer je jezelf beter voor te
doen?’
Sanne: ‘Ik zet de dingen die ik relevant acht op Facebook, zoals mijn naam en
verjaardag omdat mensen je dan kunnen feliciteren. Net als Maartje niet mijn
talenkennis. Eigenlijk zet ik alleen dingen erop die speciaal zijn, ik vind mijn
talenkennis is niet echt interessant. Misschien probeer je jezelf dan toch een
beetje in goed daglicht te stellen. Ik zet er niet op dat ik uit een klein dorp kom.
Of dat ik op mannen val, dat vind ik vrij voor de hand liggend.’
Ik: ‘Waarom zet je die dingen er dan niet op?’
Sanne: ‘Omdat ze daar zelf achter moeten zien te komen. Ik vind het niet nodig
om teveel informatie te geven. Mijn werkervaring zet ik er wel op omdat dat voor
mensen handig kan zijn om te weten, maar ook omdat ik het leuk vind. Ik zet
dingen erop omdat ik ze er zelf op wil, maar ook omdat andere mensen die
bepaalde informatie dan van mij weten. Het is toch een soort van uitdrukken van
wat je doet in het dagelijks leven in algemene zin. Ik zet geen details van mijzelf
op Facebook, dat vind ik niet nodig. Alleen de mensen met wie ik afspreek
hoeven dat te weten, Facebook is toch een vrij oppervlakkig platform waarop je
kan zien wat andere mensen doen en wat jij doet. Ik denk dat niet veel mensen
heel erg in detail gaan in wat ze doen of wat ze voelen; dat hou je toch meer bij
jezelf.’
54
Maartje: ‘Er zijn mensen die dat wel doen, alles erop zetten. Ik ken iemand die
heel erg persoonlijke details op Facebook zet, en dan denk ik: Dat zet je toch niet
op Facebook? Dat is toch beschamend?’
Sanne: ‘Ja, ik heb toch een beetje het gevoel dat de scherpe kantjes ervan af zijn.’
Ik: ‘Heb je het gevoel dat je op Facebook jezelf bent, of dat je een toneelstukje op
voert? Ben je wel jezelf?’
Sanne: ‘Dat is misschien een beetje zwart wit. Ik ben echt niet helemaal mijn zelf,
met alle gênante dingen, maar aan de andere kant ga ik niet mijzelf beter voor
doen. Daarom zet ik er ook niet zoveel op en blijft het een beetje oppervlakkig.
Aan de ene kant speel je dus wel, je zet vooral de positieve dingen neer. Ik zeur
wel tegen mijn moeder, maar niet op Facebook. Ik zet de leuke dingen erop. Ik
vind het niet nodig om mijzelf er expliciet op te zetten en dat hoeft ook niet want
ik gebruik het voornamelijk om andere mensen te bekijken. Het zit ook niet echt
in mijn systeem om mij daar volledig uit te drukken, het is meer iets voor erbij
om contact te hebben met mensen die je niet zo vaak ziet. Ik voel mij dus ook niet
nep op Facebook, omdat het voor mij niet per se daar voor bedoeld is.’
Maartje: ‘Aan de ene kant kan je het wel zien als jezelf spelen op Facebook. Als je
echt jezelf zou zijn zou je ook alles erop moeten zetten wat je zou doen. Ik zet
alleen dingen erop die voor andere mensen interessant zijn om te weten. Aan de
andere kant ben je wel jezelf. Ik zet er wel op dat ik verkoopmedewerker ben bij
de Hema, dat is niet echt cool. Maar toch is het wel interessant omdat je er dan
sarcastisch over kan zijn. Het is natuurlijk wel een beetje een dom baantje, ik ben
er ook niet heel serieus over op Facebook. Ik plaats sowieso niet zulke serieuze
dingen. Ik zet alleen interessante dingen erop. Eigenlijk om reacties uit te
lokken.’
Ik: ‘Dus wat is nou precies je antwoord? Maak je jezelf leuker dan je bent op
Facebook?’
55
Maartje: ‘Ik zet er alleen dingen op die andere mensen ook interessant zouden
vinden, dus eigenlijk maak je je leuker dan je bent. Maar ik ben wel mijzelf in de
zin dat ik er geen onzin dingen op ga zetten.’
Ik: ‘Ok. En hoe denken jullie over Facebook in het algemeen?’
Sanne: ‘Ik zie het als een extraatje naast je real life/echte leven.’
Maartje: ‘Ik denk dat heel veel mensen niet meer zonder Facebook kunnen. Ik
was laatst bijvoorbeeld de hele middag weg zonder telefoon, en toen had ik de
hele tijd de neiging om toch op Facebook te kijken!’
Sanne: ‘Ik vind Facebook heel handig en leuk omdat je kan zien en meedoen met
activiteit van andere, maar aan de andere kant zie je ook leuke dingen van
andere waar je niet altijd aan mee doet. Die informatie hoef je eigenlijk niet te
weten. Je weet eigenlijk te veel. Wat moet je met al die info doen? Je kan niet
meer zelf nadenken wat je nou wil en wat belangrijk is. Je kan je er best slecht
van voelen. Waar is de essentie? Wat doe je nou eigenlijk als je de hele dag op
Facebook zit?’
Ik: ‘Dat is niet erg positief. Maartje, ben jij ook negatief over Facebook?’
Maartje: ‘Ik denk dat het vooral heel slecht is voor oude kinderen, omdat zij geen
idee hebben dat foto’s nog jaren lang op Facebook kunnen blijven zweven. Ik
vind dat het slecht is voor jongere mensen. Ze weten nog niet dat je niet alles van
jezelf op internet moet zetten. Eigenlijk zouden ze een soort van les moeten
krijgen in het gebruik van Facebook.’
Ik: ‘Dus jullie zeggen dat Facebook best veel invloed heeft op het dagelijks leven,
toch?’
Sanne: ‘Ook als je dagelijks een uur op Facebook zit, het bepaald een te groot deel
van je dag, van je leven. Wat heb je er eigenlijk aan?’
56
Maartje: ‘Vroeger wisten mensen ook niet alles.’
Ik: ‘Hoe heeft Facebook het contact met vrienden en je sociale leven beïnvloed?’
Sanne: ‘Facebook verbrokkelt een beetje het echte leven. Sociale contacten
worden nu op internet onderhouden, en dat vind ik toch minder. Vroeger belde
ik nog mensen, nu alleen nog maar als het nodig is.’
Maartje: ‘Als ik wil weten hoe het met iemand gaat, ga ik niet meer bellen. Dat is
echt in een jaar tijd veranderd.’
Sanne: ‘Het word toch iets kunstmatiger, iets minder echt. Dat vind ik wel
jammer. Iedereen heeft toch behoefte aan sociale contacten. Dit word dan voor
een deel bevredigd door Facebook, maar eigenlijk is dit veel minder dan vroeger
was via afspreken of bellen. Je weet dingen van elkaar, maar je weet niet van
elkaar dat je het weet. Je deelt het wel, maar je praat er niet over. Alleen soms in
reacties, maar dat is dan toch anders dan in echte interactie want nu zie je ook
geen expressies bijvoorbeeld. Het is niet meer de natuurlijke interactie tussen
mensen. Je leest iets, je praat niet meer. Het is eigenlijk halve communicatie.
Terwijl je toch weer blij bent dat je dingen weet, terwijl je er achter bent
gekomen op een a-‐sociale, onnatuurlijke manier. Het is niet sociaal, want je bent
toch individueel met iets bezig. Je plaatst het individueel en leest het individueel,
er is geen persoonlijk contact.’
Ik: ‘Heb je dan wel een echte identiteit op Facebook?’
Maartje: ‘Ik denk wel dat je een echte identiteit hebt op Facebook, maar alleen
voor de mensen die je kent want zij zijn de gene die weten wie er achter de
Facebook pagina zit. Je kijkt heel anders naar een Facebook pagina als je iemand
kent, dat maakt het veel echter. Ze hebben voor mij dus wel een echte identiteit,
ik ken al mijn Facebook vrienden in het echt. Als mens, niet alleen als pagina. Als
je iemand alleen via Facebook kent, ken je niet iemands identiteit. Je weet dan
57
alleen de dingen van iemand die dat persoon op Facebook zet. Vaak is
achtergrond nodig voor het gevoel van identiteit op Facebook. Anders blijft het
oppervlakkig. Als iemand die mij niet kent mij zou zien op Facebook, zou die er
niet echt wijs uit worden.’
Ik: ‘Dus wat is nu jouw conclusie?’
Maartje: ‘Je bent jezelf voor de mensen die je kennen, en speelt jezelf voor
mensen die je niet kennen. Maar je kan maar tot zeker hoogte jezelf spelen
omdat je niet dingen kan verzinnen door de sociale controle van vrienden.’
58
3. Oral Interview with Sara de Boer, Annemiek van Eelst, Robin Zuiderzee
and Vera Dutter, Amstelveen: 02-‐05-‐2011
Ik: ‘Hoe gebruiken jullie Facebook? Wat hebben jullie er op staan en wat niet?’
Sara: ‘Ik zet er minder op dan dat ik lees. Ik heb bijna niets aan informatie op
mijn profiel staan. Geen hobby’s, maar wel welke bands ik leuk vind. Ik vind het
niet nodig om alles op mijn profiel te zetten.’
Robin: ‘Ik ben er ook selectief in. Ik let op wat ik erop zet vanwege mijn werk in
de politiek. Ik heb geen dingen te verbergen, maar behaalde party foto’s wil ik
niet openbaar hebben. Die foto’s kunnen tegen je werken aangezien mensen zo
een bepaald beeld van je krijgen. Ik bepaal wat mensen kunnen zien. Ik ben
mijzelf, maar selectief in wat mensen mogen weten. Het is niet zo dat mensen
alleen de mooie dingen mogen weten, maar ik ben gewoon selectief. Ook in
hoever ik iets deelbaar maak, zoals voor vrienden voor vrienden of alleen voor
mijn vrienden.’
Ik: ‘Hoe gebruiken jullie status updates en wat staat er in?’
Robin: ‘Ik gebruik mijn status updates maar soms, dat ligt eraan wat ik aan het
doen ben. Ik gebruik het niet om te zeggen ‘nu aan het slapen, straks lekker
wijntje’. Ik vind dat niet nuttig om te delen. Er staan niet alleen vrienden in mijn
Facebook, die andere mensen hoeven niet te weten dat ik op een terras zit. En
mijn vrienden weten het dan toch wel.’
Annemiek: ‘Bij een post gaat het om het creëren van een beeld van jezelf.’
Vera: ‘Ik hou meer van abstracte posts. Ik wil niet weten dat je nu naar de WC
gaat.’
Annemiek: ‘Ja, je wilt nog een beetje ruimte krijgen om je eigen invulling te
geven. Ik gebruik daarom liever plaatjes dan woorden. Het is vooral voor
muziekkanten leuk. Zo kan je heel makkelijk een groot netwerk maken, of flirten.
59
Het is alleen beetje jammer dat het openbaar is. Ik stuur niet zomaar een privé
bericht als ik iemand nauwelijks kent, net als dat je ook niet gelijk iemands
telefoonnummer vraagt. Dat is ongeveer hetzelfde. Je moet eerst iemand wat
beter leren kennen.’
Vera: ‘Ik vind het leuker om dingen te zien, dan om statussen te lezen van wat
mensen aan het doen zijn. Dan denk ik, die mensen ken ik niet eens, waarom
moet ik dit weten?’
Annemiek: ‘Op Facebook geef je antwoord op dingen, zonder dat er antwoorden
zijn, het is improvisatie.’
Ik: ‘Hoe gaan jullie om met vriendschapsverzoeken en wie heb je allemaal
toegevoegd als vriend op Facebook?’
Robin: ‘Ik accepteer niet alle vriendschapsverzoeken. Het moeten wel echt
mensen zijn die ik ken. Het moeten niet mensen zijn waarvan ik niet weet wie
het is. Ik voeg geen vrienden toe om vrienden te hebben.’
Ik: ‘Hoe denken jullie over Facebook in het algemeen?’
Annemiek: ‘Facebook voegt echts iets toe aan je leven. Je kan er je ei kwijt.’
Robin: ‘Ik denk er anders over en ik gebruik het anders dan Annemiek, aangezien
zij een zangeres is. Maar Facebook kan nuttig zijn om makkelijk contact te maken
of om contact te hebben. Helemaal bij mensen die je anders nooit meer zou zien.
Het is ook lastig soms om je vrienden te spreken als je heel druk bent, maar als je
dan een berichtje op Facebook plaats kan je toch een beetje weten waar iedereen
mee bezig is. En de deel functie vind ik heel handig, zoals het ‘taggen’ en dingen
delen. Hyves was een voorloper, maar is echt stil blijven staan. Dat was heel
rommelig.’
60
Annemiek: ‘Facebook is leuk, maar ze kunnen zo alles van je weten en het
misbruiken, zoals bij Twitterfitties.’
Ik: ‘Hoe denken jullie over het delen van content of over het plaatsen van
filmpjes en video’s?’
Vera: ‘Je kan heel makkelijk een event regelen. Dat is een tool om sociale dingen
te regelen.’
Annemiek: ‘Op Facebook ben ik een chaotische ADHD’er omdat ik alles wil delen
met iedereen. Foto’s en filmpjes delen vind ik heel leuk. Ik vind het ook heel leuk
om dat tegen te komen, en dat vinden mijn vrienden ook leuk. Ik ben een
verzamelaar. En ik dring dingen aan mensen op. Ik hoop dat ze dat waarderen,
en anders ont-‐vrienden ze mij maar!’
Ik: ‘Zetten jullie veel informatie op Facebook, of alleen de dingen die een goed
beeld van jezelf geven?’
Annemiek: ‘Ik laat mijn verdrietige momenten achterwege op Facebook. Het is
een beetje mijn wegdroom wereld. Niet zozeer dat je jezelf mooier maakt, dat
doe je natuurlijk wel, maar vooral de wereld om je heen maak je mooier. Maar op
een gegeven moment moet je wel de echte wereld in, om dingen te gaan zien.
Alles op Facebook plaatsen, ook de stomme dingen, vind ik een beetje gênant,
echt om aandacht vragen.’
Ik: ‘Hoe kijken jullie naar Facebook vergelen met Twitter?’
Annemiek: ‘Op twitter leer je mensen makkelijker kennen dan op Facebook, op
Facebook voeg je mensen toe die je via Twitter kent. Daarnaast kun je bij
Facebook meer delen, je kan iemand iets geven. Bij Twitter niet. Twitter is
vluchtig en Facebook blijft.’
Ik: ‘Gebruiken jullie veel Facebook applicaties?’
61
Annemiek: ‘Vroeger speelde ik CafeWorld, Farmville en Bingo, maar daar ben ik
nu een beetje klaar mee. Na een level of 10 wordt het saai. Mijn tante ging haar
hele dag plannen rondom Farmville, bijvoorbeeld: ‘ik kan geen boodschappen
doen nu omdat ik in Farmville de sla moet plukken’. Maar dat is wel een beetje
gek hoor!’
Ik: ‘Hoe denk jij over die applicaties en privacy?’
Annemiek: ‘Ik snap er zo weinig van, hoe applicaties werken en wie bij je
gegevens kunnen. Daarom heb ik al aardig wat informatie weggehaald, maar
foto’s niet. Zoals mijn middelbare school staat er niet meer op. We interesseren
ons alleen in de dingen die we leuk vinden, zoals hoe je filmpjes kan delen, maar
niet hoe het staat met de privacy.’
62
4. Screenshots of Facebook, 14-‐05-‐2011.
Figure 20: Screenshot of a profile page of Facebook
Figure 21: Screenshot of a News Feed on Facebook
63
Figure 22: Tagging a photo on Facebook
Figure 23: Actions shown in a News Feed
64
References Interviews
Mark Jennings (Utrecht, 18-‐04-‐2011), Sanne Kersenboom (Amsterdam,
27-‐04-‐2011), Maartje Stierenburg (Amsterdam, 27-‐04-‐2011), Sara de Boer
(Amstelveen, 02-‐05-‐2011), Annemiek van Eelst (Amstelveen, 02-‐05-‐2011),
Robin Zuiderzee (Amstelveen, 02-‐05-‐2011), Vera Dutter (Amstelveen, 02-‐05-‐
2011).
Literature
Allen, Robert (consulting editor). The Penguin Student Dictionary. London:
Penguin Books, 2006.
Alsop, Ronald. The Trophy Kids Grow Up: How the Millennial Genration is Shaking
Up the Workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-‐Bass, 2008.
Arrington, Michael. ‘Facebook To Release A “Like” Button For The Whole Darn
Internet.’ Tech Crunch. (March 25, 201). 08-‐05-‐2011 < http://techcrunch
.com/2010/03/25/facebook-‐to-‐release-‐a-‐like-‐button-‐for-‐the-‐whole-‐
darn-‐internet/>
Bezzi, Michelle. Privacy and Identity Management for Life. Berlin: Springer, 2010.
boyd, danah. ‘Facebook and “Radical Rransparency”’. Zephoria (March 14, 2010).
12-‐04-‐2011 <http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2010/05/14/
facebook-‐and-‐radical-‐transparency-‐a-‐rant.html>
boyd, danah and Nicole Ellison. ‘Social Networking Sites: Definition,
History, and Scholarschip.’ Journal of Computer-‐Mediated Communication,
volume 13, issue 11 (2007).
Damhuis, Koen. ‘Facebook laat ons zien wat we niet bereikten.’ De Volkskrant,
Januari 15, 2011: p. 29.
Donathan, Judith, danah boyd. ‘Public Displays of Connection’. BT Technology
Journal, volume 22, issue 4 (2004).
Dunay, Paul, Richard Kreuger. Facebook Markteting for Dummies. Indianapolis:
Wiley Publishing Inc, 2010.
Ellis, Katie. ‘Be who you want to be: The philosophy of Facebook and the
construction of identity’. Australian Screen Education, volume 58 (2010).
Fraser, Matthew, Soumitra Dutta. Throwing Sheep in the Boardroom: How
65
Online Social Networking Will Transform Your Life, Work, and Worlds.
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2008.
Fuller, Matthew. Software Studies: a Lexicon. Camebridge: MIT Press, 2008.
Goffman, Erving. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Double Day,
1959.
-‐-‐-‐ ‘The interaction Order.’ American Sociological Review. Volume 48
(Febuary 1983)
Gunelius, Susan. 30-‐Minute Social Media Marketing: Step-‐by-‐Step Techniques to
Spread the Word About Your Business Fast and Free. s.l.: McGraw-‐Hill,
2011.
Huntley, Rebecca. The World According to Y: Inside the New Adult Generation.
Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin, 2006.
Kendall, Diana. Sociology in Out Times: The Essetials. Wadsworth: Cengage
Learning, 2010.
Kenney, Keith. Visual Communications Researchs Designs. New York:
Routledge, 2009.
Kirchner, Paul, Aryn Karpinksi. ‘Facebook and Academic Performance.’
Computers in Human Behavior, Volume 26, issue 6 (November 2010).
Manovich, Lev. ‘Software Takes Command.’ (November 20, 2008). 14-‐05-‐2011
<http://lab.softwarestudies.com/2008/11/softbook.html>
Neervis, Annewil. ‘(Re-‐) constructing Social Networking Sites: Examining
Software Relations and its Influence on Users.’ Master Thesis University
of Amsterdam, 2009.
Rogers, Richard. ‘Post-‐Demographic Machines: Studying Social Network Sites.’
(2009). 15-‐05-‐2011 <http://govcom.org/publications/full_list/Walled
Garden_ch04_RR.pdf>
Sedgewick, Robert, Kevin Wayne. Algorithms. Fourth Edition. Boston: Pearson
Education Inc., 2011.
Shah, Devavrat. ‘Gossip Algorithms’. Foundations and Trends in Networking.
Volume 3, issue 1 (2008): P.1 – 125.
Shih, Clara. The Facebook Era. Tapping Online Social Networks to Build Better
Products, Research New Audiences, and Sell More Stuff. Boston: Pearson
Education Inc., 2009.
66
Stumpel, Marc. ‘The Politics of Social Media. Facebook: Control and Resistance.’
Master Thesis University of Amsterdam, 2010.
Turow, Joseph. Niche Envy: Marketing Discrimination in the Digital Age.
Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2006.
Wallace, Ruth, Alison Wolf. Contemporary Sociological Theory: Expanding
the Classical Tradition. Sixth Edition. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall,
2006.
Walther, J.B. ‘Computer-‐Mediated Communication: Impersonal, interpersonal,
and Hyperpersonal Interactions.’ Communication Research. Volume 23.
(1996): P. 1-‐43
West, Anne, Jane Lewis, Peter Currie. ‘Students Facebook Friends: Public and
Private Spheres’. Journal of Youth Studies. Volume 12, issue 6 (2009): P.
615 – 627.
Zhao, Shanyang, Sherri Grasmucka, Jason Martina. ‘Identity construction on
Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships’ Computers in
Human Behavior. Volume 24, Issue 5 (2008). P. 1816-‐1836.
Websites
‘3DOC: Alles wat we wilden’. Hollanddoc.nl. August 11, 2010. Daily
revision. 15-‐05-‐2011. < http://www.hollanddoc.nl/kijkluister/
documentaire/a/alles-‐wat-‐we-‐wilden.html>
‘Facebook Statistics Netherlands’. SocialBakers.com. Daily revision. 05-‐05-‐2011.
<http://www.socialbakers.com/facebook-‐statistics/netherlands>
‘Facebook’. Wikipedia.org. Daily revision. 14-‐03-‐2011
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook>
Friendster. Daily revision. 06-‐04-‐11 <http://www.friendster.com/>
‘Tracking Facebook and the Facebook Platform for Developers and Marketers’.
Insidefacebook.com. Daily revision. 14-‐03-‐2011
<http://www.Insidefacebook.com>
‘The Tupperware Party Moves to Social Media’. New York Times. 05-‐05-‐2011.
Nytimes.com. 15-‐05-‐2011 <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/
67
05/business/media/05adco.html>
‘Welcome to Facebook’. Facebook.com. Daily revision. 14-‐03-‐2011
<http://www.Facebook.com>
Documentary
Alles wat we wilden [Everything we wanted]. Dir. Sarah Domogala.
3Doc, 2010.
Figures
1. Screenshot of Facebook. Facebook.com. 10-‐04-‐2011
<http://www.facebook.com/>
2. Screenshot of Facebook. Facebook.com.10-‐04-‐2011
<http://www.facebook.com/>
3. Screenshot of Facebook. Facebook.com. 07-‐05-‐2011
<http://www.facebook.com/>
4. Screenshot of Facebook. Facebook.com. 15-‐05-‐2011
<http://www.facebook.com/>
5. Screenshot of the New York Times. Nytimes.com. 15-‐05-‐2011
<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/business/media/05adco.html>
6. Screenshot of Facebook. Facebook.com. 08-‐04-‐2011
<http://www.facebook.com/>
7. Screenshot of Facebook. Facebook.com. 08-‐04-‐2011
<http://www.facebook.com/>
8. Screenshot of Facebook. Facebook.com. 08-‐04-‐2011
<http://www.facebook.com/>
9. Screenshot of Facebook. Facebook.com. 08-‐04-‐2011
<http://www.facebook.com/>
10. Screenshot of Facebook. Facebook.com. 11-‐04-‐2011
<http://www.facebook.com/>
11. Screenshot of Facebook. Facebook.com. 10-‐04-‐2011
<http://www.facebook.com/>
12. Screenshot of Facebook. Facebook.com. 10-‐04-‐2011
<http://www.facebook.com/>
68
13. Screenshot of Facebook. Facebook.com. 10-‐04-‐2011
<http://www.facebook.com/>
14. Screenshot of Facebook. Facebook.com. 11-‐04-‐2011
<http://www.facebook.com/>
15. Screenshot of Facebook. Facebook.com. 10-‐04-‐2011
<http://www.facebook.com/>
16. Screenshot of Facebook. Facebook.com. 10-‐04-‐2011
<http://www.facebook.com/>
17. Screenshot of Facebook. Facebook.com. 10-‐04-‐2011
<http://www.facebook.com/>
18. Screenshot of Facebook. Facebook.com. 07-‐05-‐2011
<http://www.facebook.com/>
19. Screenshot of Facebook. Facebook.com. 07-‐05-‐2011
<http://www.facebook.com/>
20. Screenshot of Facebook. Facebook.com. 14-‐05-‐2011
<http://www.facebook.com/>
21. Screenshot of Facebook. Facebook.com. 14-‐05-‐2011
<http://www.facebook.com/>
22. Screenshot of Facebook. Facebook.com. 14-‐05-‐2011
<http://www.facebook.com/>
23. Screenshot of Facebook. Facebook.com. 14-‐05-‐2011
<http://www.facebook.com/>