Web206: Web Publishing: Has the division between public and private writing been influenced by the rise of social media?

Has the division between public and private writingbeen influenced by the rise of social media?

How has the division between public and private writing been influenced by the rise of social media? Do we write differently depending on the social networking site? Do we use both private and public voice separately? Or are they interchanged? Is it difficult to switch between colloquial private voice one minute to professional, academic voice the next. Do people make several accounts on the same platforms so they can publish in their different voices? In this essay I will address this division between public and private voice and the way people use their voices while communicating over the Internet.

What is the voice? The voice is our personal representation in all forms of communication. Rheinhold explains: “the 'voice' is the unique style of personal expression that distinguishes one’s communications from those of others, can be called upon to help connect young people’s energetic involvement in identity-formation with their potential engagement with society as citizens” (Rheingold, 2008). So when we speak or write text online we are using our voice. Initially we use our normal everyday private voice until we learn about the importance of using a more acceptable voice for online communication – the public voice.

Rheingold states: “Moving from a private to a public voice can help students turn their self-expression into a form of public participation. Public voice is learnable, a matter of consciously engaging with an active public rather than broadcasting to a passive audience” (Rheingold, 2008). When people use their voice on social media they need to consider that it is a public space where anybody can see what they have published. Social media is a powerful tool for communication and can sway readers to form an opinion. The power of social media is not simply about the size of the audience, but from the power of linking to each other to form a public. This is a psychological and social characteristic of the media (Rheingold, 2008).

The act of blogging can be highly interactive. However it can take some time for the blogger with no formal journalistic training to develop their blogging, and creative writing skills, enough to attract an audience. Van House claims: “The author's thinking and writing develop under public scrutiny. Some journalists-turned-blogger cite the immediate response that their blogging work receives as one of blogging's advantages over journalism” (Van House, 2004). Where traditional media has gatekeepers and content is controlled, blogging has no gatekeepers so there is no screening in place for the content that bloggers publish. Some blogs are academic, some professional, and others are very personal. Van House explains: “I have found that bloggers tend to be highly self revealing, not only about their work but about their whole self” (Van House, 2004).

As a blogger becomes successful and their audience grows, it is possible the blogger will not be able to keep up with the demand, the comments from readers and replies to emails. Shirky claims the more people read a blogger's work than the blogger can actually read and link to, makes it impossible for the blogger to answer all incoming mail or follow up to the comments on their site. The result of these pressures is that the blogger becomes a broadcast outlet, distributing material without participating in conversations about it (Shirky, 2003).

Some bloggers use their real names and private voice while others choose to use different names and a public voice to protect their real identities. Gumbrecht, Nardi and Schiano claim: “Some bloggers create pseudonyms if they wish to blog about topics which are political or considered controversial, to be kept separate from their everyday blogs. Some people blog about topics they feel uncomfortable about confronting a person with face to face. A large percentage of bloggers keep a blog simply to keep distant relatives informed of what's happening in their lives” (Gumbrecht, Nardi and Schiano 2004). They go on to report: “Some bloggers find their voice once they become aware that others are reading their blogs. They feed off positive comments and encouragement from their readers and hence write more” (Gumbrecht, Nardi and Schiano 2004). As a blogger myself, I can relate to this claim. I've been blogging for many years, however it took about two years for my blog to develop an audience. Their feedback and encouragement keep me writing, and hopefully in turn – I keep them entertained.

Social media is like a broadcasting service. What you publish can reach the other side of the world instantly and in most cases you have no idea who is reading your content. It is therefore advisable to use a public voice rather than your own, especially if you are using your real name. Hogan and Quan-Haase state: “Social media combines features of one-way media and two-way media. Like one-way media, information is broadcast from one source to a (potentially unknown) audience. But like two-way media, individuals can react and respond

to this communication through the same channels” (Hogan & Quan-Haase, 2010).

Protecting identity can be a concern for many people using social media. Some create pseudonyms or multiple accounts on social networking sites. Whereas traditional media needs to cover their own backs, on social media the writer needs protection. Snapper explains: “From the writer's perspective, it has been argued that the Web opportunity for more self publication by writers on their works shifts copyright concern away from protections for publishers to the need to protect writers” (Snapper, 1999). The social media landscape is changing so rapidly that it is hard to keep up. As soon as we become familiar with a social networking site's security settings, they change them without consultation. For the average user who doesn't post updates often, this can be problematic. Their privacy settings may be tight one day, and the next time they log in, things have changed, their settings are now lax and without knowing it – they are making public posts.

When Sandry declared: “The popularity of sharing, re-blogging and pinning is becoming more and more noticeable as a form of web publishing” (Sandry, 2012), it made me believe that it is becoming more and more difficult to find content on the Internet which can be trusted. When sourcing information to back up a web publisher's claims it can be problematic obtaining reliable sources. Warnick states: “Only 29% of people trust commercial websites and only 33% trust the advice. People want the sites to provide clear information on who runs the site, how to reach those people, the site's privacy policy and other factors related to site authorship and sponsorship” (Warnick, 2004). With the abundance of websites available on various topics and the number of domain extensions now seen, it is impossible to know if the information you are reading has come from a dependable source. “Domain names are proliferating; we can no longer rely on .com, .net, .org, .edu, .gov and so forth. Now .info, .biz and others have added to the mix, and the URL becomes less and less a reliable marker of what type of site it is” (Warnick, 2004).

Social media is a strong avenue for people to share information, images and personal details with their friends. And there are hundreds of social networking sites out there which people can join for networking. There are many advantages to sharing on social media – you can keep in touch with friends overseas, family who live interstate, or you can even be friends with your next door neighbour who you see every day. Shirky states: “Publishing an essay and having 3 random people read it is a recipe for disappointment, but publishing an account of your Saturday night and having your 3 closest friends read it feels like a conversation, especially if they follow up with their own accounts” (Shirky, 2003). I'm constantly amazed at the content which people share online. In fact I am sometimes disgusted when I see inappropriate images of people in compromising positions, or those who are regularly checking in at pubs and clubs and uploading images of themselves drinking cocktails every weekend. Is this expected to start a conversation? I wonder what conversation they are attempting to start with this form of communication. Are they not concerned with how this portrays them? And these people are using their real identities and are friends with their employer on Facebook.

Why do so many people share their most intimate thoughts over the Internet in public spaces? Do they think nobody is reading? Some people make aliases for publishing online, in fact it is probably best to do so. Maybe it's important to keep your private live and your professional life separate. However some social media sites require your real identity. Whereas it is acceptable to have more than one Twitter account, Facebook frowns upon this. Sengupta states: “Facebook has sought to distinguish itself as a place for real identity on the Web. As the company tells it's users: 'Facebook is a community where people use their real identities...the name you use should be your real name as it would be listed on your credit card, student ID, etc'” (Sengupta, 2012). However how do we know people are abiding by Facebook's rules? It is still possible to create fake accounts on Facebook.

Online behaviours and our voice make us the communicator that we are. When submitting content online are we looking for reassurance? Are we looking for fans? Or are we simply writing to get things off our chest? Kendall did a study on LiveJournal participants, about their online behaviours. He states: “Privacy concerns thus govern some of how LiveJournal participants use their journals. However there are also pleasures to be found in the public performance aspects of blogging. Private expressions risk exposure to the public world of the Internet”. He goes on to explain: “Attention to audience desires can make self–expression feel less genuine. The desire for autonomy and the belief in discrete, individual selves conflicts with the desire for feedback and approval from others” (Kendall, 2007).

The parameters of relationships has changed since social media became a form of communication and sharing. Prior to the Internet we could only have relationships with people whom we had met. Now we can have relationships with total strangers, friends of friends and fellow gamers on the other side of the world. On Twitter we can feel connected to celebrities if we follow their Twitter feed or Like their Page on Facebook. If a celebrity we are following retweets us personally, or sends us a direct message – we get excited because that tightens the bond we have with them. Johnson tells a story about TV queen Oprah tweeting about her dog having a tick. She asked her followers the best way of removing the tick. Her Twitter feed was overwhelmed with replies as Oprah has more than a million followers. However as Johnson states: “That isolated query probably elicited thousands of responses. Who knows what small fraction of her @ replies she has time to read? But from the fan's perspective, it feels refreshingly intimate” (Johnson, 2009).

In conclusion, in my opinion the division between public and private writing has been influenced by social media. Although it can be difficult to switch between colloquial private voice to professional, academic, public voice - it can be done. The more people use social media and learn to develop their writing and 'find their voice', the better understanding they will have about which voice to use within with the platform or website. The more they share, the more connected they will feel to an audience. The more mistakes they make, the more they learn what is acceptable in public spaces like the Internet.

References:

Gumbrecht, M., Nardi, B., & Schiano, D., (2004, November 6-10). Blogging as social activity, or, would you let 900 people read your diary? CSCW ’04 (6–10 November). Retrieved from http://home.comcast.net/~diane.schiano/CSCW04.Blog.pdf

Hogan, B & Quan-Haase, A. (2010). Persistence and Change in Social Media. Bulletin of Science Technology & Society 2010 30: 309 DOI: 10.1177/0270467610380012

Johnson, S. (2009, June 5). How Twitter Will Change The Way We Live. Time Magazine Online. Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1902818-3,00.html

Kendall, L. (2007). Shout Into The Wind And It Shouts Back: Identity and Interactional Tensions on LiveJournal. First Monday, Vol 12. 9. 3 September, 2007. Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2004/1879

Rheingold, H. (2008). Using Participatory Media and Public Voice to encourage Civic Engagement. Civic Life Online: Learning how Digital Media can engage with Youth. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2008. 97–118. doi: 10.1162/dmal.9780262524827.097

Sandry, E. (2012) The Future of Web Publishing [Lecture]. Retrieved from http://echo.ilecture.curtin.edu.au:8080/ess/echo/presentation/f0e29969-3561-4de9-b975-fbf94696ec74

Sengupta, S. (2012, November 12). Facebook's False Faces Undermine Its Credibility. New York Times Online: Technology. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/technology/false-posts-on-facebook-undermine-its-credibility.html

Shirky, C. (2003, February 8). Clay Shirky's Writings About The Internet: Economics & Culture, Media & Community, Open Source. Retrieved from http://www.shirky.com/writings/powerlaw_weblog.html

Snapper, J. (1999). On the Web, plagiarism matters more than copyright piracy. Ethics and Information Technology, 1, 127-136.

Retrieved from: http://www.springerlink.com/index/L215064QJ8KK1331.pdf

Van House, N. (2004). Weblogs: Credibility and collaboration in an online world. Retrieved from :http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~vanhouse/Van%20House%20trust%20workshop.pdf

Warnick, B. (2004). Online Ethos: Source credibility in an "author-less" environment. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(2), 256-265. Available through the Library Database