Facebook, for most of my friends at least, is a place to keep in touch with old friends and occasionally meet someone new, so it is important that whatever information in their profile doesn't deviate too much from their personalities in "real life." As opposed to myspace, facebook requires a few assessment signals that can be too revealing to be anonymous. The network access needs valid e-mail addresses, and that confirms both the network and the e-mail addresses, so it's pretty hard to pretend to be from Cornell if you are not. The networks also confirm the information on education. Together these make up the main assessment signals on Facebook.
But on the other hand, an e-mail address doesn't really tell the specifics about the person. The person could be a student or professor or a staff member at Cornell, so there is still some room for lying. The other aspects of the profiles are basically all conventional signals, especially the personal info section. Those represent the attitude expressions (one of the self-presentational tactics), and we have a fair amount of freedom with what we say in there.
As I interviewed a friend about her profile, I was surprised to realize how little both of us lie in our facebook. Facebook would be a lean medium, but contrary to the Social Distance Theory, we do not take advantage of the distance to lie. But it isn't exactly Media Richness Theory either, because the reason we don't lie is not that lies are equivocal and need richer media. Facebook is a unique internet social network where elements of FtF and CMC are combined. It's definitely over a leaner medium (the Internet), but it has pictures of the person and of his/her friends, categorized by their respective networks. There is a strong sense of social association (another self-presentational tactic) here, and we don't want to blur that association by lying to our friends, many of whom we know FtF.
Below is her evaluation of her profile:
Name: 5
Photos: 4
Networks: 3
Sex: 5
Interested In: 5
Relationship Status: 5
Birthday: 5
Hometown: 3
Political Views: 4
Contact Info: 5
Work Info: 3
Causes: 5
Groups: 4
She rated that her profile is fairly accurate, and the aspects that got a "3" were more because she withheld information rather than actively lying. Overall, I believe it's a fair portrait of her, except of course there is information missing here that you would be able to receive in the FtF situation. She also doesn't have a personal info section at all, so this evaluation is not that accurate because it doesn't take into account the information she doesn't reveal in her profile.
Since most of her friends know her FtF, she can't lie about most things. But she also has higher inhibitions for the same reason. Perhaps she doesn't have a person info section precisely because she doesn't want us to know what band she loves the most. Trying to keep the distance, you know.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I disagree that Facebook is an entirely lean media. Though it lacks the synchronous features of face to face contact, its asynchronicity is not the sole determining factor. I would argue that Facebook provides more cues than does, for instance, instant messaging. When using Facebook (as you stated) it is difficult to lie about many aspects of yourself. Instant messaging, on the other hand, provides a mask in that it does not require you to assign yourself to a network, or even your real name. While it is possible to lie about these facts on Facebook, it is not very common. Facebook and instant messaging were both created as a way to keep in touch with old friends, and possibly make new ones. When they are in a common light such as that, it is very easy to say that Facebook is richer than other alternative forms of online contact.
Post a Comment