Intimacy in an Online World

Intimacy in an Online World

A Venture into Online Ambient Intamacy

By Shane M Jagow, Mike Neri, Julie T Nguyen, Katie Franz, Leticia Sanchez, Michael Lopez, and Alice Shin

Introduction

Technology and innovation correspond with need. As people become more associated (or entangled) in an internet connected world, their needs and wants for social interaction have evolved. To meet those needs great innovators and thinkers have merged technology and conversation to create a platform for communication that the modern citizen would find palatable. The invention of social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter have come as a result. This paper will explore the result of this adaptation with an emphasis on exploring the varying levels of intimacy and interactions that can be obtained while engaging in this World Wide Web using social networking sites as the prime facilitator.

Our paper is divided into three divisions. The first division is the history and development of social networking sites. This is to give the reader some insight (or a foundation) into what a social networking site is and how it performs in our society.

The second division in our paper is the framework. This is where we use the history and development of a social networking site as a foundation to build an outline, so that we could research with definitive purpose rather than the lesser (and confusing) alternative. Furthermore, we broke down this framework into 3 easily digestible forms. This was done so that we can further understand the relation a user has to a social networking site and how one hopes to express oneself in a communicative manner.

The third division is the portion of the paper where we used the foundation and framework to finish the rest of the construction. We created 3 unique and independent projects that used varying formats of research that included participant observation, open-ended surveys, and personal interviews to create an understanding of the level and degree of intimacy that can come as a result of communication on a social networking site. Basically we tried to ask this simple question, “What is intimacy on a social networking site?”

History and Development

Since the inception of the human race, mankind has been driven by a need to communicate with one another. For the purposes of this paper, let’s ignore the reasons why they are driven, but rather focus on the “how” of the matter. The need for communication has developed a vast assortment of methods (such as verbal and written languages) that over time have been adapted to suit our purposes. As we have moved from writing on cavern walls (in our more primitive days) to typing research projects, we have shown an insatiable urge to express ourselves. This being said, our modes of expression have also continued to evolve as we have moved into this internet age. A hundred years ago it would have been commonplace to express your-self in witty detail through a verbose letter to a friend and while the same might be true today, it would come as a result of a series of well placed key strokes rather than posted through the mail. In fact, we are not even limited to writing to our friends; with one keystroke we can post whatever we desire to the world. This, in part, has come as a result of the development of social networking sites.

Social networking sites are innovations that let people connect to other people online. They are both a radically new idea and at the same time just a re-visioning of conversations that we might have had in our daily lives, aka face-to-face. For example, for hundreds of years people have been congregating at places such as “watering holes,” “pubs,” and “coffee houses,” to perform similar activities as you would on a social networking sites. However, as people become more and more saturated in the online world, so does the relevancy of social networking sites increase. However, there is also some suggestion that it can have the opposite effect. It could leave you all alone at a bar with, “…seven hundred friends….and drinking [all] alone,” (Niedzviecki 2008:1) as some have bitterly commentated. Whether or not social networking sites are a positive or negative good they are becoming more and more relevant to our common social interactions because they represent a medium of conversation that offers the best adaptation to our current daily mode of living.

It then becomes very important to understand the development and history behind such social networking sites in order to better obtain a clear vision of their effect on intimacy and the personal relationships that are facilitated through them. For the purposes of this discussion, we have chosen the most popular social networking site, Facebook, to use as our example. By examining the history of Facebook and its relevance in our society we hope to build a foundation by which to further elucidate our research. However, being that Facebook is just one of many social networking sites (and understanding that each site has a plethora of unique methods to facilitate communication) we would like to emphasize that this is merely a beginning and not a definitive application to understanding the merits of our research.

Facebook was created for the simple purpose of bringing people together and has grown over time to do just that. It is the second most visited site in the US and is the number one social networking site in the world. It is a multi-faceted social networking site that connects well over 400 million users from around the world. Facebook, however, has not always been a world of virtual socializing and shenanigans. In fact, its beginnings are much humbler. The site was inspired by publications that are often distributed to incoming freshman by university administrators to help build a profile of students and staff. These “facebooks” included pictures and basic information of students- such as their majors and hometowns. These publications were meant to connect students and to give rise to greater social connections. The unavailability of such a student directory at Harvard motivated Mark Zuckerberg (the creator of Facebook) to develop a free online facebook service for Harvard students. Within the first few hours of launching his initial site “theFacebook,” more than 1000 members had joined. Over the next few months the popularity of “theFacebook” prompted the service to be extended over much of the east coast’s educational establishments. The initial successes of “theFacebook” on the east coast allowed it to quickly envelop the rest of the nation’s educational institutions. Soon, thereafter, Facebook’s surging popularity (Zuckerberg dropped the “the” from the name) could not be contained within merely our nation’s educational establishments. It was opened up to anyone in the world over the age of 13 with a valid email address.

In just a few short years, social networking sites such as Facebook have come to represent a convenient and efficient form of communication within our global community. Users have become enamored with, “the idea of a world where everybody has a say and nobody goes unheard…” (Lanier 2010:1.) Although a large part of this rapid transformation is accredited to social necessity, Mark Zuckerberg has had a guiding hand in his manipulation of Facebooks’s privacy policy. His philosophy is to promote the maximum amount of openness between Facebook users and he designed his privacy policy to do just that. Mark Zuckerberg suggests that it is Facebook’s goal to predict and understand the changing of social norms especially in relation to their idea of exhibition and openness in order to remain dynamic and relevant to its users. In keeping with this ideology, Facebook began with privacy settings that catered to the user’s control and preference of personal information displayed. It has now become more and more simplified to controlling information on a “per-post” basis. In the beginning, members were given the privilege of choosing and personalizing the information that they shared, with the statement:

“We understand you may not want everyone in the world to have the information you share on Facebook; that is why we give you control of your information. ... You choose what information you put in your profile, including contact and personal information, pictures, interests and groups you join. And you control the users with whom you share that information through the privacy settings on the Privacy page.”

In the amount of time that Facebook has been active, the social trend for openness and availability has increased. Therefore, in response, Zuckerberg has simplified the number of overall settings limiting the ability to define privacy of content to a “per-post” basis--where one does not have the ability to hide the overall profile activity, but rather only the ability to define that certain piece of content. Furthermore, with the intention of getting people to open up even more data on their profiles, you get to display or express what you feel to certain networks on your page. All in all, the controls of these privacy settings have become favorable to openness.

3 Parts of a Social Networking Site

During the course of our research we were able to identify three important factors within a social networking site, such as Facebook, that would play a pivotal role in our understanding of intimacy and personal relations in our chosen context. The three forces that we came up with were the layers, tools, and behaviors driving communication.

Layers of Communication

There are many ways that users on Facebook can identify themselves in groups. The primary way that users are associated and organized is through their “Network.” A “Network” on Facebook is a method of organization that attempts to create the largest pool of individuals who share a common element. A common form of “Network” organization is by school or general location. This type of organization relies upon associations that are defined in planar terms and represent a very large population; which often times results in a great majority of members not knowing one another. A member of Facebook must pick their primary “Network,” but they have the option of belonging to multiple secondary “Networks.” With over 400 million users all over the world, the number and possibility of “Networks”is perpetually increasing.

Associating yourself with a particular network group over another on Facebook is also pertinent to inclusion and exclusion via privacy settings. Though you may be a member of the San Diego, California network and the University of California, Irvine network, if you choose your main association to be San Diego over the University of California, Irvine this will make your Facebook profile information more available to other users in the San Diego, California network. Facebook’s default privacy settings will allow other members in your network to not only search for you, but also view your personal information and pictures. So, by associating yourself with a network on Facebook you are not only digitally labeling yourself with the associations of that group, but you are also including yourself and making yourself more available to the other members of this group. In some networking groups, such as state universities or large cities this can mean including yourself in large groups of people that you do not even know, and your choice to include yourself in these groups may cause unwanted sharing between group members. Often membership in large groups, especially online groups where there is less face to face interaction, can lead to unwanted attention between its members because not all members know each other personally. This attention may take the form of unwanted solicitations between members of the group, in both personal and business respects. For example, if you are a member of a university social network, you may receive solicitations from businesses that are looking to attract students, such as office supply stores, or even bars and clubs. Because you have associated yourself with a student-aged social group, businesses know that you are in their target demographic and your digital inclusion in this group makes it easier for them to reach out and connect with you.

The “Networks” that a Facebook user belongs too, however, are only the initial layers of association that a user is defined by. Once a user has selected the “Networks” that they will belong to they then can choose who they want to associate with, in the form of adding “friends” (namely other users of the site) or adding “groups,” (a collection of the sites users with a specific interest). While these three identifiers are the main forces in building your Facebook persona there are also a number of subsidiary functions that help enhance or make your image more vibrant. These can include but are not limited to applications such as “bumper stickers” (a small icon in the shape of a bumper sticker) or buttons (a similar small icon in the shape of a button) that can reflect things of interest or a possible political affiliation.

The layers of association within the Facebook site can be likened to that of an onion that can be slowly peeled back to reveal an ever increasing amount of complexity beneath the surface. However, all these layers of association give us a much clearer picture of an individual using Facebook. Furthermore, by revealing the complexity of layers creating an individual user we also identify the need to understand the numerous amount of tools that are used within this contextual frame; all of which are important in understanding the idea of intimacy within a social networking site.

Tools of Communication

While it is important to understand the layers of communication, it is equally important to understand what tools of communication are available to a Facebook user that enables them to communicate with other users. We were able to develop a list below that highlights a majority of the common features of communication within Facebook:

Status Updates- Minimally worded messages that appear on a rolling log of all your Friend’s personal pages. It is literally meant to update your friends on your feelings, doings, or whatever else one might be able to express or imagine.

Wall Posts- These are messages that can be posted on a Friends personal Wall or site that create a threaded conversation or channel between the two conversing users.

Friend-to Friend Messages- Personal letters that are sent to a Friends in-site mail box. These messages are private, and can only be seen by sender and/or receiver.

Group Comments- Messages that are posted to a group’s wall. This message is generally only available to current members of that particular group.

Notes- These are letters that a user can post on their personal site and have other Friends read them and comment on them.

Photos- Pictures that a User can either upload or have other Users upload and “tag” (identify the User) that can be used to express whatever they feel in image form. A common example might include a “fun night out” with the buds.

Photo Posts- These are remarks that can be made about a specific photo that a User has uploaded. Your privacy settings decide who is allowed to make comments or see photos.

Page Followings- This is similar to a group comment but is another form that is suppose to highlight a particular association within a common group. An example of this would be a Page that is connected to the Democratic Party but as it relates to a specific example, like healthcare.

Applications- Small programs inter-connected within the main site that can facilitate various forms of communication or association. An example would be Familylink.com which highlights family members on Facebook.

Facebook Chat- an instant form of in-site communication that enables a user to chat directly with other “friended” users who are currently on the site.

Behaviors Driving Communication

Now that we understand the tools and layers of communication on Facebook, let us now consider how people are participating on the site. Looking at behavior is a very important part to understanding how users interact in this online world we agree with the idea that, “self representation has a significant and instantaneous impact on our behavior.” (Yee et al 2007:284)

There are a few ways to participate in a social networking site. We were able to hypothesize two main ways of participation: interactive and observational. An interactive behavior would consist mostly of participating in the different venues of the social networking site. An example of this would be posting wall posts and updating one’s status. An alternative to this type of behavior would be observational behavior. We were able to further divide this behavior into two categories: relaxed and aggressive. A relaxed-observational behavior would consist of logging in and merely maintaining one’s account; perhaps reading a few statuses as they appear on your rolling log. An aggressive-observational behavior, however, would be to take further action. Not only reading the status updates, but threading (clicking on hyperlinks to connect to various other parts of the inner sites including other users pages (sometimes known as surfing)) around the site. What distinguishes an aggressive observer from an interactive user is that they do not add content to the site. They just look around or “creep” on other sites. “Creeping” is an immensely popular ritual on Facebook, and is seen as widely accepted. We have found that most users maintain a dynamic mix of these behaviors as they navigate the site.

By establishing the layers, tools, and behaviors of users in there communicative processes on Facebook we hope to have laid a solid groundwork for developing our research.

Project A: Efficacy of Intimate Communication on Facebook

In this portion of our Research we conducted 8 personal interviews that included 21 open ended questions in to order to gauge or illustrate the degree of efficacy of social networking sites in promoting communication. Furthermore, we also hoped to further delineate the parameters for a working definition of online intimacy as it pertains to social networking sites.

We asked numerous questions in the interviews including “Do you engage in more personal conversations in person or on Facebook?,” and “Do you share something important that happened in your life on Facebook, or wait to tell them in person?.” By asking these types of questions we hoped to better understand if people use social networking sites like Facebook for a purpose other than superficial contact with people, and does this site bring people closer together? We believed that if people were willing to share important, personal information on Facebook then perhaps it’s possible that they are achieving a degree of intimacy on Facebook.

As it turns out we got back responses like “In person, that’s it. I don’t really do that on Facebook.” and “I engage in more personal conversations.” Facebook is more on the general level, if there’s something I want to share or if there’s anything my friends want to share publically.” These responses were typical for this question. It appears that from these results Facebook is generally looked upon as a device for communication. The same degree of privacy is used as would be used when talking to a friend in a crowded room. If the information is considered too personal it won’t be said for fear that others might overhear.

As for the next question about sharing personal conversation on Facebook or in person. We received back answers like “Depends. If it isn’t something personal, like the death of a relative, then I probably won’t post it on face book if they’re really close and I want to keep their memory sacred. But if it’s something like a job interview, then I most likely will.” We also received answers like “I usually tell them in person. This feels more personal,” and “I usually wait to tell them in person or if I won’t see them in a while. I will just tell them on Facebook.” This last answer was a common one. It seems that by analyzing these answers this supports the idea that Facebook functions as a normal medium for communication. People will share personal information on it only as necessary. They will only share important information if they have to, or it is the most convenient way to get in contact with a person.

But we also need to examine if Facebook facilitates friendship making. We asked interviewees “Do you use Facebook to meet people?,” and “Has Facebook helped to develop your relationships with friends?.” Generally we got answers like “Not really,” “Not very much. To really develop a relationship with someone you need to talk to them face,” and “I wouldn’t say so. I would say my most meaningful friendships are made in person.” The only response that did say Facebook helped develop their relationships said it did only slightly. “It has slightly. It’s kept me talking to them even if we moved on to different colleges, which has consequently probably lead to different lives.” From these answers we can gather that personal contact is preferred over Facebook in building friendships.

But perhaps Facebook can be a good means of meeting people? This is certainly possible considering the amount of people on Facebook and how easy it is to contact them. We asked the questions “Do you use Facebook to meet people?” and “Have you made any close friends through Facebook?” For the first question we got back answers like “Not really,” “No I usually try to meet people in person,” and “I used to, when I felt the need to be more social. Nowadays I have a good network of friends and I have enough confidence that I don’t need to hide beyond the computer to introduce myself to someone.” So perhaps people don’t generally use Facebook to try to meet people. But perhaps they do anyway?

For the question about if they have made any close friends on Facebook we got back answers like “Actually, once. I met her in chemistry class, and she gave me her face book so that she would have someone to ask about chemistry. We just became friends after that,” and “I don’t think I have. Most of my friends on face book are people I already knew,” and “Yes I’ve made many. I also dated many women through it; recently I haven’t had the time to establish firm relationships.” So even though the majority of respondents haven’t aimed to make friends on Facebook, some of them have.

Perhaps face book does allow people to establish relationships with people. As a follow up question we asked “Does you think face book allows you to better connect with people?” We got answers like “Yes, in a way where I can be able to keep in touch with others,” “Not really it’s mostly just small talk on face book,” “When it comes to socializing on Facebook, I don’t believe it allows me to better connect; I see it as a way of keeping in contact and arranging a formal meet up,” and I think the most telling is “I don’t think it connects you to people on a deeper level, but it connects you nonetheless.” That seems to sum up the way that face book is used. It does bring people together, but generally in just a superficial way.

Therefore, in accordance with the data we were able to collect during this portion of our research we can surmise that Facebook is a great tool for creating surface or “skin-deep” relationships. However, there is a possibility for deeper relationships to develop. Now that we have established the relative idea of how Facebook is used, we need to understand what kind of information is shared within these relationships.

Project B: Intimacy Thresholds

The purpose of this portion of our Research was to develop the parameters of how intimate people are willing to be in there communications on Facebook. We hoped to answer this question, “What is the threshold or level of personal intimacy that people are willing to share of themselves on Facebook?” Our research demographics include 27 interviews with Facebook users. 70% of those interviewed were college students. 70% of respondents were family and 30% were male. 23% were working adults with families, including one senior citizen. All interviewees represented a variety of beliefs and cultures.

Research Q&A

1. Why do you use facebook? Majority responded it was an easy way to stay in touch with friends and family. One fraternity guy said he first got it to stay in touch with his frat brothers and that is its main purpose, but he also stays in touch with others as well. The senior citizen said it made it easier to stay in touch with relatives that don’t live nearby and the younger generations in her family. One housewife said it was her best way of reuniting and staying in touch with high school friends.

2. What topics do you/ friends discuss on facebook? Majority responded that topics were superficial updates on their lives, such as facts on what they have done or to agree on a time and place to meet with others.

3. What topics do you/ friends consider intimate/ personal? Most responded that these topics are: fights, politics, sexual topics, delinquent behavior, romantic relationships, and family dynamics. Some of the adults seemed to consider most things personal.

4. In general, how do you/ friends discuss intimate/ personal topics? Majority responded that they rather talk about it in person, if that’s not possible telephone, if that’s not possible email or facebook message.

5. How do you/ friends discuss intimate/ personal topics on facebook, if at all? The majority of adults responded that they had rather not talk about intimate things online, that they left it to face to face or phone. College students said they would either send someone a message or talk about it on Facebook chat. The rule overall seems to be not to post these topics on someone’s wall or comment on them because this is public space, so people avoid the public spaces. There is one case that stood out of this housewife Bella Salazar who did most of her intimate talking on Facebook chat. She didn’t like texting because she wasn’t sure about the privacy and feared someone else might see what she wrote. She didn’t like talking about these things in person or on the phone because she found it too difficult to do emotionally. She felt chat made it easier for her to express how she felt and felt secure about the privacy. There was also the case of a college student Just Kidding who used almost any means except the phone, because he doesn’t like talking on the phone, and posting on someone’s wall.

6. What topics do you/ friends consider inappropriate to discuss on Facebook? There were a few cases that did not believe any topic would be inappropriate. The majority who did believe that inappropriate topics were: delinquent/ illegal behavior, infidelity, relationship problems, sexual behavior. Most college students also believed that posting anything on someone’s Facebook, including their own, that their family would not approve of to be inappropriate.

7. How intimate do you consider Facebook correspondence? 100% of responders said that facebook was not intimate at all, but rather a convenient way to know what is happening in people’s lives

8. Do you believe real intimacy can be achieved on Facebook? All adults responded no, they didn’t believe it possible. Majority of college students didn’t believe real intimacy was possible, that you needed to see a person face to face. Some believed that a type of intimacy may be achieved but not at a very deep level. This answer can best be summed up by a female college student’s response, “I think people may try to achieve real intimacy on Facebook, but I don't think it is possible. There isn't any face-to-face interaction (even online daters have to finally meet to finalize their feelings) and there seems to be quite a large amount of narcissism involved. We like to report our daily goings-on, even if it's something simple like what we had for dinner. We expect people to be interested and we tend to document our every move so others can participate in our mundane activities. It's a science project, for sure. It's hard to create intimacy when it feels like you're always on stage - it certainly can't be legitimate.”

Our research for this portion of our projects caused us to conclude that the connections being created or facilitated through Facebook are generally not deepened through the use of the site. They may be sustained, but it seems that people have an aversion to sharing intimate knowledge of themselves. They would prefer to share general or public info to other users.

Project C: Expression and Intimacy

This portion of our research shall be considered "selective intimacy." This term is used to describe what type of information people choose to share within their selective networks on social networking sites. Besides looking at what kind of intimacy can be expressed we wanted to look at “the verbal wall statements within wall postings [as they] may describe behavior of the profile owner more directly,” (Walther et al 2008:33) The type of information that a user chooses to display can be an important factor in distinguishing what forms or degrees of intimacy being portrayed. Furthermore, there is a relationship between what a user chooses to display and how other users interpret the content. When thinking about how new relationships of intimate ambiance form, we wanted to try to see if there's a link between the type of updates/tweets posted and the success or failure rate of the formation of these online co-existences.

We drafted this questionnaire to help us focus our research:

1) How often do you update your status? Would you consider you update it a lot or not much at all? What do you usually update? Which of your updates do you wish to be read the most?

2) What status updates catch your attention the most? How does it catch your attention and how do you respond (both online and mentally)?

3) Is there anything you would never put in your status?

4) What status updates do you find:

- annoying/spam

- offensive

- inappropriate

Please list examples if possible. Why do you feel the way you do about these?

We were able to receive 43 responses to this questionnaire. Furthermore, we held 4 personal interviews to help provide focus for our data. From our results and additional research on public forums we were able to identify 8 distinct styles of responses that we categorized below. As a matter of note- All people in our study had over 700 friends on Facebook and at least 100 followers on Twitter. They are all of college age (from 18-24) and are attending four year universities. Below is the list we were able to compile:

Types of Facebook Status Updates/Tweets:

1) The Mundane aka "The Let-Me-Tell-You-Every-Detail-of-My-Day Bore"

- Another term for these types of updates is "spam." They are considered useless and redundant, unless the receivers of such “spam" are as bored as the user. Usually if a friend posts one of these, it's considered an open invitation to make small talk back or poke fun. However, this type of update can also spark a mutual interest in a mere acquaintance if some mundane detail were to catch their eye- aka a conversation starter. This provides motivation to get to know the person better and upgrade them from acquaintance to friend.

Once that first interest spark is ignited, these types of updates are more accepted, tolerated, and even looked forward to. This last step is when the intimate ambient and sense and comfort of co-existence strike.

2) The Communicator

- These are directed at certain people. A few examples include, "Had the best night with my girls." which recap current or past events, or "I love sea stars... Michael knows what I'm talking about ;)," which enclose inside jokes. These usually only get responses from the group of friends to which the message is directed at but outsiders can also comment with friendly remarks such as, "Wow, sounds like you guys had fun" or inquires such as, "Oh really? where did you guys go? I want to have a girls' night out with my lovely ladies too!" As with "The Mundane," the mental consequences for these types of updates are more noteworthy. There's an indirect judgement formed through learning of a person's daily events and how they go about their day to day life. Readers form opinions on whether a person is their type because of the things they update their status about doing or enjoying doing or whether a person is boring or kind or evil, etc.

3) The Inquistor

- These status updates are the ones asking for help/tips. Most people usually don't mind these unless they are too frequent and the questions are either too unbelievably dumb or obviously impossible to answer.

Otherwise, people are generally open to lend a helping hand and help their Facebook friend or Twitter buddy out.

4) The Sage/The Obscurist

- These include things such as quotes and lyrics but can also be original writing. Their main make is that they are vague with many possible implications. They could mean a vast amount of things which is the part that bothers many of the people we talked to. The ones that imply a specific idea or seem to be directed towards a specifc aspect of a person's life are much more appreciated than the ones that tease its readers. Our research subjects claimed to be curious by nature and can easily get paranoid if they are unsure what or who an update is referring to when it packs a lot of emotional or intense weight. But also, on the other hand are the other people who find these open-for-interpretation posts interesting and see it as a way to figure out a person. Depending on their interpretation, they could potentially form great interest for the original poster or start seeing them in a new light as: artistic, deep, mindfully beautiful and intelligent. This is keeping in mind that the quotes, lyrics or original thought posted is deemed impressive by the reader. It could go the completely opposite direction and the poster can be judged as naive, stupid (who tries to sound smart), oblivious, immature, fake or just plain-right annoying.

5) The Reporter aka "The Town Crier"

- Many of the participants in this portion of our research found updates about current news or celebrity gossip to be helpful and were grateful to receive the bulk of them. However, when a news update is too late or about every mininsual thing, it becomes annoying and worthy of placing that person on the dreaded and offensive "block list." Technology has become all about the quickness and consistent onflow of information so if you can't keep up with it, you might as well just sit out. For example, a Lakers' lost is of great interest and something fun to read about in updates within the first half an hour after the game is over because Facebook and Twitter then become sort of like a forum to joke around or share condolenses. Any time after then is risky of sounding repetitive.

6) The Linker

- Updates with links usually share a lot about the person's interests and hobbies and will catch attention and stir up conversation accordingly.

7) The Complainer/The Crank

- Updates complaining or whinning about things are acceptable when the rant is universal. One example is, "I hate finals! Ready to dieeee."

Otherwise, the complainer is considered annoying and mental notes to stay away are made about them because a general consensus we received was that whinny people are no fun to be around especially since we are all adults now.

8) Sympathy-Baiter/The Emo

- Updates expressing extremely sad and depressed feelings can usually be (mistakenly or not) as asking for pity-parties. It all depends on the poster. If the opinion of the person was already skewed to be negative and not someone the reader really cared for, a sad update from them won't warrant much empathy. Yet if the reader sees the person in a positive light and cares about them or cares about being liked by this person, greater interest to the person's feelings will be shown. This compassion can wear thin though and the reputation of the poster can easily change to be "Negative Nancy." On top of all that, messages packed with a lot of emotional baggage put the reader in a difficult position and are the hardest to respond to.

Some of our additional findings were:

J1-2 updates a day is okay, more than that and especially multiple within a short span of time (one Facebook session) perceived as "spamming" and consequently considered annoying.

J Following this same reasoning, those who rarely update (once every few weeks or months) will often receive more notice once they do.

J Friendship first is the rule. It doesn't matter what the update/tweet is, people will usually always be Iinterested in what their close friends post. Most people even feel that their close friends' statuses are often times directed at them (whether inside jokes are included or not) and a means to start conversation.

J This same level of interest and urgency applies to people of (romantic) interest or just people admired/wanting to get close to. This is why celebrities have hundreds of thousands of followers regardless of updates that state something profound and original or something as simple as, "At the grocery store." Another thing of note about "desired" people's updates is they receive a lot of genuine feedback that isn't sarcastic and meant to patronize, even if they ask something so basic such as, "What day of the week is it?"

JRelationship changes are also usually of high interest. The written responses can be congratulatory, sympathetic, mocking, or a mixture of all but it goes beyond just what is publically shared back. Myriads of mental notes are taken and the perception of that person is altered.

Bibliography and Additional Relevant Readings:

1.

Title: The Internet

Author(s): Andrew L. Shapiro

Source: Foreign Policy, No. 115 (Summer, 1999), pp. 14-27

Publisher(s): Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1149490

2.

Title: Simple Competitive Internet Pricing

Author(s): Robin A. Mason

Source: Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering

Sciences, Vol. 358, No. 1773, Network Modelling in the 21st Century (Aug. 15,

2000), pp. 2309-2318

Publisher(s): The Royal Society

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2666852

3.

Title: Sex and the Internet: Gay Men, Risk Reduction and Serostatus

Author(s): Mark Davis; Graham Hart; Graham Bolding; Lorraine Sherr; Jonathan Elford

Source: Culture, Health & Sexuality, Vol. 8, No. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 2006), pp. 161-174

Publisher(s): Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4005506

4.

Title: Misrepresentation on the Internet and in Real Life about Sex and HIV: A

Study of Latino Men Who Have Sex with Men

Author(s): Michael W. Ross; B. R. Simon Rosser; Eli Coleman; Rafael Mazin

Source: Culture, Health & Sexuality, Vol. 8, No. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 2006), pp. 133-144

Publisher(s): Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4005504

5.

Title: Caregivers of Older Adults: Advantages and Disadvantages of Internet-Based

Social Support

Author(s): Jan Colvin; Lillian Chenoweth; Mary Bold; Cheryl Harding

Source: Family Relations, Vol. 53, No. 1 (Jan., 2004), pp. 49-57

Publisher(s): National Council on Family Relations

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3700237

6.

Title: The Internet: A Modern Pandora's Box?

Author(s): M. Mayer; J. E. Till

Source: Quality of Life Research, Vol. 5, No. 6 (Dec., 1996), pp. 568-571

Publisher(s): Springer

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4034701

7.

Title: The "Robust Yet Fragile" Nature of the Internet

Author(s): John C. Doyle; David L. Alderson; Lun Li; Steven Low; Matthew Roughan;

Stanislav Shalunov; Reiko Tanaka; Walter Willinger

Source: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of

America, Vol. 102, No. 41, Clonogenicity of Hair Follicle Stem Cells (Oct. 11,

2005), pp. 14497-14502

Publisher(s): National Academy of Sciences

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4143346

8.

Title: Generation Y Attitudes towards E-Ethics and Internet-Related Misbehaviours

Author(s): O. Freestone; V.-W. Mitchell

Source: Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 54, No. 2 (Oct., 2004), pp. 121-128

Publisher(s): Springer

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25123331

9.

Title: Counterhegemonic Discourses and the Internet

Author(s): Barney Warf; John Grimes

Source: Geographical Review, Vol. 87, No. 2, Cyberspace and Geographical Space

(Apr., 1997), pp. 259-274

Publisher(s): American Geographical Society

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/216008

10.

Title: The Economic Geography of the Internet's Infrastructure

Author(s): Edward J. Malecki

Source: Economic Geography, Vol. 78, No. 4 (Oct., 2002), pp. 399-424

Publisher(s): Clark University

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4140796

11.

Title: The Corporate Digital Divide: Determinants of Internet Adoption

Author(s): Chris Forman

Source: Management Science, Vol. 51, No. 4 (Apr., 2005), pp. 641-654

Publisher(s): INFORMS

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20110358

12.

Title: Is eCommerce Boundary-Less? Effects of Individualism-Collectivism and

Uncertainty Avoidance on Internet Shopping

Author(s): Kai H. Lim; Kwok Leung; Choon Ling Sia; Matthew K. O. Lee

Source: Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 35, No. 6 (Nov., 2004),

pp. 545-559

Publisher(s): Palgrave Macmillan Journals

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3875238

13.

Title: Developing a Measure of Internet Well-Being: Nomological (Predictive)

Validation

Author(s): M. Joseph Sirgy; Dong-Jin Lee; Jeannie Bae

Source: Social Indicators Research, Vol. 78, No. 2 (Sep., 2006), pp. 205-249

Publisher(s): Springer

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27522606

14.

Title: The Families of Man: Gay Male Intimacy and Kinship in a Global Metropolis

Author(s): Judith Stacey

Source: Signs, Vol. 30, No. 3 (Spring, 2005), pp. 1911-1935

Publisher(s): The University of Chicago Press

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3488295

15.

Title: Computer Conferencing: A New Medium for Investigating Issues in Gender and

Learning

Author(s): Virginia Hardy; Vivien Hodgson; David McConnell

Source: Higher Education, Vol. 28, No. 3 (Oct., 1994), pp. 403-418

Publisher(s): Springer

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3447779

16.

Title: A Typology of Communicative Strategies in Online Privacy Policies: Ethics,

Power and Informed Consent

Author(s): Irene Pollach

Source: Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 62, No. 3 (Dec., 2005), pp. 221-235

Publisher(s): Springer

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25123662

17.

Title: "Hookups": Characteristics and Correlates of College Students' Spontaneous

and Anonymous Sexual Experiences

Author(s): Elizabeth L. Paul; Brian McManus; Allison Hayes

Source: The Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 37, No. 1 (Feb., 2000), pp. 76-88

Publisher(s): Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3813373

18.

Title: Globalizing Intimacy: The Role of Information and Communication Technologies

in Maintaining and Creating Relationships

Author(s): Gill Valentine

Source: Women's Studies Quarterly, Vol. 34, No. 1/2, The Global & the Intimate

(Spring - Summer, 2006), pp. 365-393

Publisher(s): The Feminist Press at the City University of New York

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40004765

19.

Title: Research Note: Customer Intimacy and Cross-Selling Strategy

Author(s): M. Tolga Akçura; Kannan Srinivasan

Source: Management Science, Vol. 51, No. 6 (Jun., 2005), pp. 1007-1012

Publisher(s): INFORMS

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20110391

20.

Title: Constructing Our Identities through Online Images

Author(s): Gail E. Hawisher

Source: Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, Vol. 43, No. 6 (Mar., 2000), pp.

544-552

Publisher(s): International Reading Association

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40016832

21.

Title: Breaking the Speed of the Sound of Loneliness: Sexual Partner Change and the

Fear of Intimacy

Author(s): Bente Træen; Dagfinn Sørensen

Source: Culture, Health & Sexuality, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 2000), pp. 287-301

Publisher(s): Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3986665

22.

Title: Online Communication and Adolescent Relationships

Author(s): Kaveri Subrahmanyam; Patricia Greenfield

Source: The Future of Children, Vol. 18, No. 1, Children and Electronic Media

(Spring, 2008), pp. 119-146

Publisher(s): Princeton University

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20053122

23.

Title: Consumer Online Privacy: Legal and Ethical Issues

Author(s): Eve M. Caudill; Patrick E. Murphy

Source: Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 19, No. 1, Privacy and Ethical

Issues in Database/Interactive Marketing and Public Policy (Spring, 2000), pp. 7-19

Publisher(s): American Marketing Association

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30000483

24.

Title: "Oh No! I'm a Nerd!": Hegemonic Masculinity on an Online Forum

Author(s): Lori Kendall

Source: Gender and Society, Vol. 14, No. 2 (Apr., 2000), pp. 256-274

Publisher(s): Sage Publications, Inc.

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/190274

25.

Title: Growing up Online

Author(s): Bruce Bower

Source: Science News, Vol. 169, No. 24 (Jun. 17, 2006), pp. 376-378

Publisher(s): Society for Science & the Public

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4019266

26.

Title: Friend Me If You Facebook: Generation Y and Performative Surveillance

Author(s): E. J. Westlake

Source: TDR (1988-), Vol. 52, No. 4 (Winter, 2008), pp. 21-40

Publisher(s): The MIT Press

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25145553

27.

Title: Email My Heart: Remediation and Romantic Break-Ups

Author(s): Ilana Gershon

Source: Anthropology Today, Vol. 24, No. 6 (Dec., 2008), pp. 13-15

Publisher(s): Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20179964

28.

Title: Internet Seduction: Online Sex Offenders Prey on At-Risk Teens

Author(s): Bruce Bower

Source: Science News, Vol. 173, No. 8 (Feb. 23, 2008), p. 118

Publisher(s): Society for Science & the Public

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20465238

29.

Title: Facework on Facebook: The Presentation of Self in Virtual Life and Its Role

in the US Elections

Author(s): Steffen Dalsgaard

Source: Anthropology Today, Vol. 24, No. 6 (Dec., 2008), pp. 8-12

Publisher(s): Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20179963

30.

Title: "I Gave Up MySpace for Lent": New Teachers and Social Networking Sites

Author(s): William Kist

Source: Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, Vol. 52, No. 3 (Nov., 2008), pp.

245-247

Publisher(s): International Reading Association

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30250087

31.

Title: Review: Everybody's Business

Author(s): Gary Alan Fine

Source: The Wilson Quarterly (1976-), Vol. 32, No. 1 (Winter, 2008), pp. 92-94

Publisher(s): Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40262347

32.

Title: Facebook in a Crowd

Author(s): Hal Niedzviecki

Source: NYTimes.com

Publisher: New York Times

Stable URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/magazine/26lives-t.html

33.

Title: World Wide Mush

Author(s): Jaron Lanier

Source: WSJ.com

Publisher: Wall Street Journal

Stable URL: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703481004574646402192953052.html

34.

Title: The Proteus Effect: The Effect of Transformed Self-Representation on Behavior

Author(s): Nick Yee and Jeremy Bailenson

Source: WileyInterscience.com

Publisher: Human Communication Research

Stable URL: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118533557

35.

Title: The Role of Friends’ Appearance and Behavior on Evaluations of Individuals on Facebook: Are we Known by the Company we Keep?

Author(s): Joseph B Walther, Brandon Van Der Heide, Sang-Yeon Kim, David Westerman, Stephanie Tom Tong

Source: Wiley Interscience.com

Publisher: Human Communications Research

Stable URL: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/119404132