That DIGC101 Blog

Outline the deceptive communication practices that take place in online public cultures. Consider the ethical concerns of such deception in virtual communities.

“You can be fooled about people in cyberspace, behind the cloak of words”, argues Rheingold (2000, p12). Indeed, online technologies can greatly facilitate deceptive communication practices with “cloaks” of anonymity and pseudonymity. Removed from the identity-anchoring constraints of the physical world and with an increasing potential for reaching large audiences, virtual environments have become a fitting home for dishonesty (Wagner, Ip, Cheung & Lee 2006). Although the extent to which this deception pervades online interactions is somewhat contested (Caspi & Gorksy 2006), one must question its ethical impact on virtual communities. In my adoption of a fictitious persona on numerous online platforms, namely blogs, forums and social networking sites, I was able to personally observe the consequences of deception in digitally mediated communication.

Before considering the influence of fallacious identities on communication in digital environments, it is imperative to have an understanding of the term ‘deception’. Buller and Burgoon (1996, p205) define deception as “a message knowingly transmitted by a sender to foster a false belief or conclusion by the receiver”. They further add that in this process, communicators transmit a meaning that is divergent from their believed truth through controlling the information they contain within their messages. Thus, acts of deceit are to be considered intentional and not inclusive of accidental falsehoods. It then follows that identity deception “occurs when such messages contain [deliberately] misleading information regarding the sender’s identity” (Caspi & Gorksy 2006, p54).

Buller and Burgoon (1996) calculate that in at least one quarter of communicative exchanges, deception or suspected deception occurs. However, the publication date of this approximation suggests that it fails to consider the increasing presence of new online technologies and their impact on dishonest interactions. These technologies have been presented as both empowering tools for identity play (Caspi & Gorsky 2006) and as mediums which are inherently vulnerable to and easily abused by deceivers (Wagner et al 2006). Regardless, it can be assured that digitally mediated communication greatly facilitates deception and identity manipulation.

Perhaps most significantly, online technologies are able to facilitate deception through their common reliance on disembodiment in communicative exchanges (Donath 1999; Wagner et al 2006). Donath (1999) argues that this disembodied nature of the virtual world means that identities can inherit ambiguity. This is because, unlike the matter-based physical world, the virtual world is primarily comprised of information. Although matter is generally accompanied by a state of fixity, information, on the other hand, is inherently mutable and constantly in flux. Thus, whereas an individual’s physical body has traditionally remained a constant definition of identity, digitally mediated communication allows for the emancipation “from the body’s unifying anchor” (Donath 1999, p29). Coupled with this separation from the physical body is a divergence from conventional social cues for identity. With limited visual and aural signifiers available in many virtual environments, identity deception is comparatively less challenging on online platforms than in the physical world (Rowe 2005).

Such a transcendence of the corporeal provides not only the potential for pseudonymity, but often even complete anonymity. Inhabitants of the virtual world can “self-select” their preferred identity traits and, hence, “one’s gender, age and ethnicity, become negotiable” (Chester & Bretherton 2007). Therefore, it is easy to suggest that the deceptive allowances of disembodied online technologies empower individuals. Donath’s (1999) above descriptions of unanchored identities are certainly congruent with Turkle’s (1995, cited in Caspi & Gorsky 2006, p58) conception of the Web as a “safe playground” for transitioning between identities and exploring the self.

Wagner et al (2006) put forward that, because of the absence of the aforementioned social cues of the physical world, identity construction is pivotal in the disembodied virtual world. These findings mirror the results of the primary research I conducted over a period of approximately three months. During this time I created and implemented a fictional character, Morris Thatcher, within various online platforms. Of particular pertinence were my deceptive activities under this pseudonym on Tumblr, a blogging site, social networking sites MySpace, Facebook and Twitter and, perhaps most significantly, the BowlsWorld forums. Progressively, the affordances for deception of these platforms allowed me to impart the character of Morris Thatcher with a distinct and seemingly authentic identity. This was complete with false information on his personality, demographics and even background information on subjects such as his familial connections.

The importance of such acts of constructing an identity means it can often operate as an indicator of the reliability and trustworthiness of communicative exchanges. Consequently, the limited identity cues of some online platforms may result in the credibility of users and the information they share being believed at face value (Donath 1999). Consider my interactions under the Morris pseudonym on the BowlsWorld forums, for example. The introductory thread I created, in which I offered a brief description of my false identity, received multiple welcoming responses from established members of the tight-knit virtual community. Members readily accepted the information I presented with no apparent suspicion. Some even drew their own conclusions about the knowledge and ‘real life’ activities of my pseudonym. After deceiving my audience to believe that my geographical location was in Young, a particular BowlsWorld member detailed his recent visit to the town’s bakery. This suggests he not only accepted my postings as factual but also extrapolated his knowledge in believing my pseudonym would be able to relate to his anecdote.

However, whereas my exploits under the pseudonym of Morris Thatcher could be considered indisputable and outright identity deception, there is an increasing presence of misleadingly manipulated presentations of the self. Sessions (2009) states that while the term ‘deceptive’ was once exclusive to those “users who lied about their identity in fundamental ways [by] pretending they were someone they were not”, it can now be applied to “users whose online self does not closely approximate their “actual self””.

To understand this, an examination of Higgins’ (1987) conceptions of ‘the self’ is essential. Higgins puts forward that there are three fundamental and distinct domains of the self: the “actual”, the “ideal” and the “ought” selves. His first suggested domain, the actual self, regards an individual’s representation of the characteristics that they, or someone else, perceives them to have. This is in contrast to the ideal self, which concerns an individual’s “representation of the attributes that someone ([themselves] or another) would like [that individual], ideally, to possess” (Higgins 1987, p320). Similarly, the ought self refers to an individual’s representation of the characteristics that they, or someone else, believe they ought to have.

Pearson (2009) argues that online environments are accompanied by a heightened self-consciousness. It follows, then, that involvement with the domains of self put forth by Higgins (1987) is intensified with interactions in virtual worlds. Through the asynchronicity and disembodiment bestowed by digitally mediated communication, individuals inherit the ability to purposefully “project, renegotiate, and continuously revise” their presentations of the self (Pearson 2009). Users of online platforms can highlight desirable attributes of their identity whilst deemphasising or concealing others. Thus, such acts of deliberate sign construction can allow users to more successfully convey depictions of their “ideal” or “ought” selves, as opposed to their “actual” self (Sessions 2009).

The process of projecting a deceptively ideal self is reflective of Goffman’s (1959, cited in van Doorn, van Zoonen & Wyatt 2007) understanding of communicators as ‘performers’ of identity. Despite his focus of face-to-face interactions, Goffman’s conceptions are translatable to the continual deliberate construction of the self that is evident on online platforms. Adopting Goffman’s terms, van Doorn et al (2007, p144) envision online personas as “characters” being performed by “the person behind the keyboard”.

In fact, it is reasonable to state that concepts of ‘performers’ and ‘characters’ are even more so applicable to computer mediated communication than face to face interaction. Ellison, Heino and Gibbs (2006, p417) agree, arguing that the “strategic activities” for impression management that are afforded by digital mediation are congruent with Goffman’s (1959, cited in Ellison et al 2006) terms. This is particularly evident when considering intentional and involuntary communicative exchanges.  According to Goffman, traditionally mediated communication consists of both expressions that are ‘given’ (intentional exchanges such as speech) and ‘given off’ (inadvertent interactions such as non-verbal cues). However, the disembodied nature of computer mediated communication requires that users largely depend upon verbal cues to interact. That is to say, “more expressions of self are “given” [than] “given off”” in the virtual world (Ellison et al 2006, p18). Consequently, individuals have greater potential for self-censorship and, through this, misleading projections of the ideal self are made easier.

However, one must question whether such deceptive presentations of the self are equivalent to fundamental (outright) deception. As aforementioned, the term deceptive has traditionally been tied solely to those who created entirely fictitious identities. However, there has been a shift in societal opinion to redefine deception as to include acts of partial misrepresentation (Sessions 2009). Indeed, such acts appear compatible with the definition of deception provided above. The aggressive response to the increasing ubiquity of misleading self presentations, as observed by Sessions (2009), suggests that on “Web 2.0…users must be authentic, that is to say, their online self must approximate the off–line self to the best of their abilities” to avoid accusations of deception. Nevertheless, if we are to accept Goffman’s (1959, cited in van Dorn et al 2007) conception of identity as a product of performance in both mediated and unmediated communication, it is arguable that online presentations of the ideal self are no more deceptive than traditional face to face interactions.

To examine the differences between these types of misrepresentation is also to bring into question the matter of ethics in deceptive online communication. To do this, Donath (1999) provides a useful description to discern between acts of deception. She suggests that there are two major trends observable in dishonest computer mediated communication: those which are damaging and those which harmlessly serve the deceiver without detrimental effects to other individuals or the community (Donath 1999). For the most part, I identify my activities as Morris Thatcher to be of the latter innocuous variety. Consider the Tumblr blog I created, for example. Here, the monologue based form of exchange has lessened the possibility for harmfully deceiving the audience. However, similar cannot be said for my activities within the BowlsWorld forums. This platform’s multilogue basis and the potential for developing direct interpersonal relationships could have resulted in unethical practices.

The varying degrees of ethicality between these platforms reflects Donath’s (1999, p55) belief that “in the electronic domain, the design of the environment is everything”. The structure of this environment, she argues, dictates the nature of the communication that takes place within it. Consequently, so too does the environment’s design determine what is and what is not ethical. Consider again the differences between my pseudonymous activities on Tumblr and the BowlsWorld forums. Much like Donath’s (1999) experiences with the Usenet newsgroups, interaction within the BowlsWorld forums is largely formed around the premise that users are portraying themselves authentically. On the other hand, identity manipulation and experimentation are often looked upon more optimistically (and, in turn, viewed as ethically acceptable) within the design of blogging environments such as Tumblr (van Dorn et al 2007).

Regardless of these considerations, Caspi and Gorksy (2006, p58) propose that the ethical concerns of deception in digitally mediated communication may be somewhat removed from those traditionally associated with face to face interactions. For instance, they note that deceivers rarely experience the “negative emotions, like guilt, shame and fear” that are conventionally associated with unmediated communication. Crowell et al (2005, cited in Caspi & Gorksy 2006) explain this phenomenon as being a result of the intangibility of digitally mediated matter. Due to the perception of the digital as distinct and separate from the ‘real’, online communication is often subject to a distorted ethical sensitivity. That is to say, although certain moral concerns may present themselves in face to face communication, they are commonly lost through computer mediated environments.

A major ethical issue for online deception is the impact it has on virtual communities and the integrity of the communication that takes place within them. Like all interaction, online communication “is founded on a presumption of truth” (Buller & Burgoon 1996, p203). Thus, when this truth is compromised by deceptive acts, there can be considerable negative impacts on virtual communities. Perhaps most significant of these consequences is the potential for degradation of trust amongst members. When such groups lose trust, observes Wagner et al (2006), there is often an accompanying decrease of interaction between members and, subsequently, a loss of social capital.

Online technologies greatly facilitate deception. The asynchronous nature of digitally mediated communication grants individuals the tools to self-censor and more successfully present their “ideal” selves online. Furthermore, the disembodiment of this communication provides individuals with a “cloak of words” behind which they can easily portray identities separate from those that are anchored to the physical world (Rheingold 2000). However, fallacious identities, like that of Morris Thatcher, are inextricably linked to a number of ethical concerns, not least of which is the impact they have on virtual communities. Indeed, whether innocuously or maliciously motivated, deception remains a substantial influence in online public cultures.

References

BowlsWorld 2009a, BowlsWorld.com.au Forum – Index Page, accessed 27/08/2009, http://forums.bowlsworld.com.au/

BowlsWorld 2009b, BowlsWorld.com.au – View Topic – This is all new to me…, accessed 03/11/2009, http://forums.bowlsworld.com.au/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=5657

Buller, DB & Burgoon, JK 1996, ‘Interpersonal Deception Theory’, Communication Theory, vol.6, no.3, pp203-242.

Caspi, A & Gorksy P 2006, ‘Online Deception: Prevalence, Motivation, and Emotion’, CyberPsychology & Behaviour, vol.9, no.1, pp54-59.

Chester, A & Bretherton, D 2007, ‘Impression management and identity online’, in AN Joinson, K McKenna & T Postmes (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Internet Psychology, Oxford University Press, New York, pp223-236.

Donath, JS 1999, ‘Identity and deception in the virtual community’, in A Mark & P Kollock (eds.), Communities in Cyberspace, Routledge, London., pp29-59.

Ellison, N, Heino, R & Gibbs, J 2006, ‘Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol.11, no.2.

Higgins, ET 1987, ‘Self-Discrepancy: A Theory Relating Self and Effect’, Psychological Review, vol.94, no.3, pp319-340.

Official Dating Resource 2007, Beware the dreaded “MySpace Angles”! (PICS), accessed 03/11/2009, http://www.officialdatingresource.com/beware-the-dreaded-myspace-angles-pics/

Pearson, E 2009, ‘All the World Wide Web’s a stage: The performance of identity in online social networks’, First Monday, vol.14, no.3.

Purnell, N 2009a, DIGC101 Webification Project, accessed 03/11/2009, http://sites.google.com/site/nathanpurnell367/home/digc101-webification-project

Purnell, N 2009b, Morris (Morris Thatcher) | MySpace, accessed 03/11/2009, http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=492418483

Purnell, N 2009c, Facebook | Morris Thatcher, accessed 03/11/2009, http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000169013293&ref=ts

Purnell, N 2009d, Morris Thatcher (morristhatcher) on Twitter, accessed 03/11/2009, http://twitter.com/morristhatcher

Purnell, N 2009e, Greying Grumblings, weblog, accessed 02/11/2009, http://morristhatcher.tumblr.com/

Rheingold, H 2000, Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier, The MIT Press, USA.

Rowe, NC 2005, Types of Online Deception, accessed 01/11/2009, http://faculty.nps.edu/ncrowe/virtcomm160.htm

Sessions, LF 2009, ‘“You Looked Better on MySpace”: Deception and authenticity on Web 2.0’, First Monday, vol.14, no.7.

van Doorn, N, van Zoonen, L & Wyatt, S 2007, ‘Writing from Experience: Presentations of Gender Identity on Weblogs’, European Journal of Women’s Studies, vol.14, no.2, pp.143-159.

Wagner C, Ip RKF, Cheung KSK & Lee, FSL 2006, ‘Deceptive Communication in Virtual Communities’ in Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’05), Big Island, Hawaii, 3 January 2006, accessed 15/10/2009, http://www.computer.org/plugins/dl/pdf/proceedings/hicss/2005/2268/01/22680021c.pdf?template=1&loginState=1&userData=anonymous-IP%253A%253A121.79.11.39

As you may have seen in my earlier post, I recently created a video about Morris as a contribution to my webification project. Aside from my creative and acting roles in the academic integrity video earlier in the session, the production of film  has been an essentially unexplored territory for me. However, through my previous personal use and my webification project, I had already become quite familiar with YouTube as an audience member (and I use this term very loosely).

I signed Morris up for YouTube quite some time ago, under the account name morrislovesbowls. My experiences with YouTube through this account were quite reminiscent of my identity bulding activities mediated by social networking sites. boyd & Ellison (2007) define SNSs “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.” Moore (2009) puts forwards that these requirements are evidenced in the structure of YouTube.

Not unlike my findings with Facebook and MySpace, the profile I created for Morris is highly emblematic of his identity. Furthermore, the profile also similarly draws upon the aggregation of third-party developed content to express concepts of the self. Through visible connections to videos and even other users, I was able present and extend Morris’ online identity. This type of identity development is afforded by YouTube’s Favouriting and Subscription functions. Moore (2009) questions whether such maintenance of relationships through media exchanges are a throw back to ‘old media’ communication such as mix tapes.

However, approaching the social networking features of YouTube as a creator of content (as opposed to an aggregator of content), was different. At very least, the task was more complex and required much more technical information than the more user-friendly functions previously mentioned. The creation of this video required me to understand filming and editing techniques as well as research technical processes such as rendering for YouTube uploading. With little experience, I found some of these tasks relatively difficult.

Furthermore, creating a video to upload to YouTube forced me to consider Lange’s (2007) dichotomous concepts of “public” and “private”. These concepts were particularly pertinent to this project as the fictional nature of Morris’ character required more non-conventional means of expressing identity. As explained in an earlier blog post, I decided to frame the video as a birthday video message from Morris’ granddaughter which Morris would then share on his youtube account. This form of communication embraced both concepts of public and private. Whilst the content of the video was private (framed as a personal present and dealing with the private relationship of grandparent and grandchild) it has been broadcast on YouTube in a public way.

References

boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. 2007, Social Networking Sites: Definition, history, and scholarship, Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, vol.13, no.1.

Lange, PG 2007, Publicly private and pirvately public: Social networking on YouTube, Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, vol.13, no.1.

Moore, C 2009, DIGC101 Week 7, DIGC101, New Media Communication, University of Wollongong, delivered September 9

Recently, I turned to Delicious to expand the online presence of Morris. The website is based around a folksonomy. That is to say, Delicious utilises a system for classifying and categorising content that relies on the collaborative production of tags. Thus, unlike platforms that are based around taxonomies, content on Delicious is not structured in a ‘tree’ formation but rather entirely abitrarily (Moore 2009).

The account I created for Morris can be found here. There you will see a number of aggregated links to content pertinent to Morris’ interests. Through the production of tags and aggregation of ‘bookmarks’, Delicious has thus afforded me tools to further develop Morris’ online identity. The links I have chosen (or not chosen) to share and tag impart with viewers of this account some form of impression or understanding of Morris, his personality and his interests. Much like social networks and blogs, activities on Delicious can be inseperably connected with concepts of identity.

However, you may notice my activity on Delicious is somewhat limited. This is for a variety of reasons. Firstly, I introduced myself (and Morris) to this platform relatively late in the webification project. But secondly, and perhaps more significantly, I found several limitations with the Delicious format. I felt the identity building affordances of the platform are somewhat similar to those offered by the platforms I am already using. Tumblr, for example, allows the sharing of links and also enables tagging of posts. Moreover, I could identify with the shortcomings of folksonomies expressed by Moore (2009). Namely, the lack of controlled vocabularly and possibility for user error which often meant searches for certain tags procured few results.

References

Moore, C 2009, DIGC101 Week 9, DIGC101, New Media Communication, University of Wollongong, delivered 30 September.

Heading towards the end of the session, I’ve begun contemplating ways in which I can fully complete the online presence of Morris. Having already expanded Morris’ accounts across a seemingly endless list of online platforms, I struggled with what else I could do.

Throughout the session, Chris has made suggestions that I should expand my online presence to include some sort of video component. At first, I thought this would be a great idea. However, when I thought it through, I recognised to a fundamental hurdle. How could I make a video/multiple videos with Morris when he does not actually exist? To achieve this, I was going to have to be creative.

My first solution was to have my grandfather star as Morris’ bowling buddy. However, when I approached him with the idea he was less than enthusiastic. With this rejection, I turned more successfully to my friend. I planned to have her star as Morris’ geeky granddaughter who (bizarrely for a young person) shares the same interests as him.

The next step was to devise a plot. Initially, I was unsure how to frame the video. Why would Morris’ granddaughter be starring in a film about him? I came to the conclusion that perhaps the most logical decision would be to frame the video as a brithday message to Morris.

Having just completed the script, now all that is left is the actual filming and editing. Although the type of footage will be different to that which we used in our Academic Integrity video (see earlier posts), I plan to draw upon the experience I gained during that exercise.

Filming will begin tomorrow so stay tuned!

Blog Post, Week 12 (group assignment, question 1)

Our group’s idea was to choose an actual physical Australian theme park, such as Jamberoo and market it in the virtual world of Second Life. The virtual experiences in the park are meant to seem ‘authentic’- and participants in the SL Jamberoo Park will experience the park in the way which they would in the actual park.

We will create online incentive to visit the virtual theme park. Visitors will pay a small fee of $2 to visit the virtual Jamberoo. If users gather 4 friends or more and bring them to the park, they can get free entry. After you enter the park, a form will be sent to your account asking for personal details. On completion of the form, a ticket will be sent to your account which can be printed out with a barcode on it. When visiting the actual theme park, the ticket will be scanned for discount entry. The information that people enter will be stored in the Jamberoo database for further marketing information.

The theme park in SL will be identical to that of the actual theme park in Jamberoo. We will pay people in the game to work for us on the condition that they promote the park in SL and gather visitors. It is meant to be authentic so the rides and attractions which exist in the park will be mimicked on the site, so that avatars who visit in SL will know what to expect in Jamberoo. Jamberoo.com will appear on all rides and posters throughout the virtual park to encourage these people to visit the site.

We would also profit by tying in the virtual website to the actual park. Cross-promotion will occur; Second Life could promote Jamberoo extensively throughout the site, and feature it in tourism campaigns. Then, Jamberoo can promote Second Life by creating a new ride, such as a bungy swing, to represent the flying ability in the site. The ride would be named after Second Life, which will encourage visitors to sign up to the site, and in turn, enter the virtual Jamberoo Park and increase visits there.

Blog Post, Week 12 (individual assignment, question 1)

“It seems to me that the most significant social factor in MUDs is the perfect anonymity provided to the players” (Curtis1992, cited in Boellstorff 2008, p120). From my brief encounters with Second Life, it has become clear to me that Curtis’ sentiments are accurate. The world of Second Life seems to be almost entirely based upon the flexibility and manipulation of identity afforded by anonymity.

Largely because of this elasticity, I have opted to leave the descriptive section of my Second Life profile blank. To further this, I will also leave the “First Life” tab unfilled. Through such anonymity, I am able to easily embody a variety of characters and can afford my vitrual identity a high level of transience.  This was something I certainly capitalised on during only an hour in the Second Life world where I transitioned between four different avatars.

My initial ambitions for my SL character were humble and realistic. I chose the default avatar that was most analogous with my actual physical appearance (though with such few offered options, similarities were minimal at best). Even the name I chose, Nath Soup, somewhat resembles my real name (Nathan). However, once in the world I felt an urge to manipulate my identity into something more eccentric and absurd. I then made transitions between a comically overweight main dressed in a g-string and a santa hat, batman and, perhaps most bizarre, a murderous, blood splattered bunny. Of course, such personas are immeasurably different to my “real life” self. Indeed, I am no homicidal rabbit.

References

Boellstorff, T 2008, Coming of Age in Second Life: an Anthropologist Explores the Virtually Human, Princetion University Press, Princeton, NJ.

jomac:

What a crack up!  Sorry I should say how was online bowls world?  Didn’t know there was a space for online chats about bowls.  How was that experience?  Hey howd you go with SL - what name did you end up with - did you have to stick with Nath?

Hey Jo,

Bowls World was pretty bizarre. It is a surprisingly large online community, it has hundreds of members. Really interesting place, it’s a bit of a shame I had to leave it for ethical reasons.

Unfortunately, I was stuck with Nath for Second Life. Though I was able to get the last name Soup which I thought was pretty apt considering our Academic Integrity video.