performing the self: identity on facebook

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






5. Screenshot of the New York Times. Nytimes.com. 15-‐05-‐2011

<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/business/media/05adco.html>















68























performing the self: identity on facebook

Documents