A common topic of discussion throughout this course has been the impact that social media platforms, and their specific affordances,
have on identity construction. Much of our discussion has revolved around the idea that social media platforms require users to present one “authentic”
identity. As Andrea Brock discusses, the collection of social media data often
attempts to construct and assume users’ identities. Manovich discusses how
social media identity is not authentic, as it is carefully curated and systematically
managed, arguing that people perform identity through information technologies.
In alignment with Manovich, Gregg discusses the ways in which users attempt to “clean
up” there data in an attempt to create a “clean” and attractive picture of
themselves online.
In discussing the many ways in which social
media impacts the construction of online identity, much of our class discussion
has centred around concerns that social media requires the construction of a
singular and consistent identity. Platforms are structured to produce one very concise
version of oneself. As we discussed last week in relation to locative media,
these individual platforms fragment ones’ identity online, restricting user’s
agency in communicating and constructing their identity online. Affordances of the platform restrict users to constructing a singular concise sense of identity online for
the purposes of reliable and effective data collection.
While on Facebook earlier today
I came across an alternative platform that troubles some of my commonly
accepted understandings of social medias' role in the construction of online identities.
This platform is called Galaxia. Rather than deterring users from creating
multiple profiles, the platform requires users to create multiple "personas" to convey various aspects of their personalities. Each
persona enters a different social circle, which the site terms “worlds.” Each
persona is kept separate from one another so that information and photos are
not consolidated. Arguing that this site’s approach to identity construction is
more flexible and “freeing” for users than traditional platforms, the site explains, “Galaxia gives you the freedom to socially engage and create the content that will best express each side of your personality."
Although at first glance this platform may
appear to provide a solution to the restrictive affordances of other social
media platforms, the platform raised a variety of questions for me.These included:
- How might the existence of multiple “identities” within the same platform impact user’s understandings of themselves?
- How does the existence of multiple personas impact the algorithm of Galaxia?
- Does Galaxia give users more agency than traditional social media platforms in constructing their online identities, or is the site rather just generating a larger breadth of data to monetize?
- How does the existence of multiple personas impact the aggregation of data generated on Galaxia?
The first thing that came to mind was: how do I differentiate different aspects of my personality into particular articulations of myself? I applied Slack and Wise’s articulations and assemblages as a framework for understanding Galaxia. To compartmentalize myself into ridged, fragmented identities would be difficult. If I see my whole persona as an assemblage, I would argue that different articulations of myself are connected through different lines of tangential forces, so choosing what components of my identity fit in each “network” would be difficult.
ReplyDeleteI could also see there being a larger issue of creating separate networks in reinforcing stereotypical ideologies of personas. In Castel’s network theory he suggests that nodes and social actors are connected in webs rather than in a linear pattern. This would present social interactions between people in my different “networks” quite isolated. People who may be able to offer a different perspective and contribute to a topic at hand, would be disconnected from what appears to be a group of like-minded individuals with the same interests in a “network”. I understand that this may be a way to connect “experts” of different topics of interest in one social space; however, like my own field of study which encompass many different subject matters, I argue that inter-disciplinary work could evolve these threads of communication and develop different ways of thinking about the same topic. These isolated threads of communication would have very limited an analogous social interactions. People would be in bubbles of communication with other like-minded people.
I think the algorithms would be also quote skewed when taking this into account. For example, I may state in one network that I love cheese and in another than I love jam but without putting these two ideas together, the algorithm might combine these two likes and offer me a cheese and jelly sandwich. Yuck. Without having these two topics in direct discussion with one another, the algorithm may infer that I would like them in combination; yet, together they would make one gross product. I think there are many limitations in constructing my identity from the producers end of things – coming back to reverse engineering by Gahl -- because the constructions of my identity would be quote fragmented. With references to big data, the construction of my identity would be quite skewed if some of my separate conversations never come in contact.
This is supported by Fuchs’ rendering of users on multiple social media sites which they people are continually being forced to keep updating. Personally, I would be discouraged by creating an account on this site because it seems like a lot of work to keep track of multiple accounts on one social media platform!!
I could see the potential of several, targeted advertisements directed at the user through these different networks of more concentrated conversations (in each compartmentalized sense of self); however, I see this being a large issue for users to fully engage with and develop each component of the self on this site – and if each aspect is superficially updated or interacted on, without the user really engaging in conversation, the neglect and inability to fully contribute information to each conversation will make the big data less detailed and harder for producers to work with and assemble targeted advertisements. So I would argue that this was a bad idea for both users to create profiles on and for producers to sell and monetize on the big data users create on this platform.
Galaxia seems to offer an interesting way to develop an identity online. This site does not seem to offer a more or less “real” representation of the self, however, complicates the ways in which we know how to present ourselves through the affordances of the typical social media platform (such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram). I would not argue that this site offers more agency, but rather, a different agency from what we are used to.
ReplyDeleteLike Amara, I also immediately wondered how to differentiate the separate aspects of the self and how to represent them online. While online identities on Facebook/Instagram/Twitter are constructed, they also allow for certain information to be input to describe the self. Each profile offers a set of standard information and each profile, more or less, includes the same information about a user. It seems that for this site, the information needed per personality network would blend together, or even force one to separate aspects about oneself in order to fit the criteria for the network. In this way, Galaxia would create a “false” identity that Facebook/Instagram/Twitter might not necessarily force one to create.
I think this is a really interesting platform and I’m glad you raised the thought provoking questions that you did. I will speak to two of them:
ReplyDeleteHow might the existence of multiple “identities” within the same platform impact user’s understandings of themselves?
I think that this platform would be a really interesting way to articulate the complexities of the “self.” Often times platforms are framed in a way that makes one feels pressure to articulate a particular “self” via the platform (e.g. Linkedin and the “professional self,” Instagram and the “artistic self”). This platforms allows users to choose the self they would like to articulate, which may bring to their attention some interesting selves they they have never been able to express digitally.
Does Galaxia give users more agency than traditional social media platforms in constructing their online identities, or is the site rather just generating a larger breadth of data to monetize?
I will ignore the latter half of this question and address the former. I think that this could potentially give users more agency than traditional social media platforms, but given its lack of popularity, this is likely not the case. Drawing on Manuel Castells argument, that the power of the network depends on the size of the network, it is difficult to argue that users are given more agency from Galaxia provided it likely has a much smaller user base than traditional social media. The network itself is weak, and therefore, the ability to create multiple identities is useless with regards to constructing an online identity.
Although Galaxia might seem to afford users more agency, I agree with Maria that it doesn't and not just because of the size of the network. Considering Latour's Actor Network Theory, an individual using this site would perhaps be considered to be an articulation of several smaller nodes rather than one large node, and that fragmentation of the user as "node" would seem to mean that user would have less agency in the network.
ReplyDelete