The Cyber Generation: Today's Children and Adolescents on the Internet

The Cyber Generation: Today's Children and Adolescents on the Internet

Jessica Cha
Kelly Forster
Miko Hoshino
Merusha Nasoordeen

Introduction

Since its inception, the Internet has been a realm for those seeking possibilities. It was originally a space for wealthy adults, based mostly on text, but now has been transformed into the hip new place to be for the younger generations. For the past five years, there has been a large influx in the number of children and adolescents interacting with cyberspace as the graphics became better and a large number of services became available to the general public. This has made for a growing business market in developing online games, virtual worlds, and social networking sites. There has been a niche for online games for children as children as young as six are on the Internet playing games. In essence, the adolescents and children of this day and age are the “cyber-generation” as they are more savvy about online technology than many young adults.
This paper will seek to address the issue of how children and adolescents in the new “cyber-generation” use the Internet and for what purposes they use it for. The paper will proceed by explaining the methods used to obtain information on the usage of the Internet by the “cyber-generation.” It will then go into detail of one of the most popular children and pre-teen online spaces, Club Penguin. Then, in sum, a discussion will be held on how children’s and adolescents’ differing races and genders affect their use of the Internet.

Methods

To obtain information on children and adolescents on the Internet, personal and group interviews were used. In an effort to address issues of race and gender, children and adolescents from a minority church youth group and a predominately Caucasian San Diego middle school were interviewed. In an effort to protect all the children involved in the interviews, their names are changed for the purposes of this paper and all had parental consent to participate in the study.

Interviews: San Diego Middle School

In order to get a strong grasp of how pre-teens use the Internet a group of four girls and one group of five boys, all between the ages of eleven and twelve, were interviewed. The majority of the students were white and came from an upper-middle class background, which reflected the surrounding neighborhood. It came as a surprise that the children were willing to speak about the Internet and were enthusiastic about sharing their experiences of the Internet.
The girls started using the Internet around the age of seven or eight with their first website being Webkinz and Club Penguin. The two girls who had used these sites said they had out grown Webkins, which both girls described as a place only really little kids go, but continued to play Club Penguin. One of the girls described how, when she was using Webkinz, she had used Google to do research on what pet she might be able to own. In addition to using virtual worlds, some of the children used messaging systems. At least two of the girls said they used AIM (AOL Instant Messaging) on a regular basis. Normally, the girls chatted with people they already knew, but one of the girls mentioned that she once had a conversation with another girl from England.
When asked what they thought about their Internet activity, the girls gave extremely interesting and varied answers. One girl claimed to have “outgrown email.” And a few stated, quite dramatically, that they would “die without the Internet.” Universally, all of the girls were concerned with their safety when engaged with the interview. Each girl was terrified that if they chatted to an unknown person, the person may end up being a forty-year-old perverted man. They all brought up the possibility of abduction and rape if they engaged in dangerous behaviors on the Internet and, as a result, did not talk to strangers. When asked where they had acquired their fear of old, perverted men, they identified their parents as the source for the idea and saw these stalkers as serious threats.
How their relationships had changed with the Internet was harder to gauge because they themselves were not sure about how their relationships had changed at all. The Internet had been a part of their lives for a long time and it was hard for them to imagine a life without it. However, many of the children had mixed feelings about the Internet and how it affected their relationships with others. Some claimed that they had been able to form friendships with individuals from school that they would have never considered talking with in the physical world. However, some claimed that the Internet had exactly the opposite effect. She said that “there are people that I don’t know that I hate now because they were mean to me on the Internet” (Interview with Sixth Grader: 2009). It appears that the Internet is a place for children and teenagers to expand their social circles, break up cliques, make cliques, and bully.
However, because these children are minors, there was strong parental supervision of the girls on the Internet. The parents of these girls used interesting methods to regulate their child’s Internet use. One of the fathers worked with computers for a living and had set up a program that monitored what sites his daughter visited. Another parent made a MySpace account to regulate how their daughter used MySpace and who she could become friends with. Oddly enough, the parent had allowed their daughter to lie about her age in order to get an account in the first place. Still other parents refused to allow their children to engage with social networking sites, such as MySpace or Facebook, until they were sixteen. Furthermore, there was one extreme case where the father did not allow computers in the home at all.
The boys’ experiences of the Internet were different from the girls in distinct ways. All of the boys interviewed were between ages eleven and twelve and had started exploring the Internet from the ages of five to eight. In the beginning, all of them used “little kid games” that featured a prominent main character, such as Arthur or Barney. Only one of the boys interviewed said they played multiplayer online games, such as Poptropica and Runescape, and the rest played single player PC games, such as Legos and Indiana Jones. However, despite the differences in gaming, they all watched Youtube regularly. When asked how they had initially started exploring the Internet or games, many of them could not remember. They said that they felt as if they had always been on the Internet. Others identified a friend or brother that introduced the game or Internet to them, though it was more common in games than for the Internet.
When it came to social networking sites there was only one boy who had a MySpace profile. Though he had lied about his age to obtain one, his parents knew about his page and monitored it regularly. The other boys did not have one and mentioned that their parents found social networking sites inappropriate. It seemed, though that parents had given much of the control of viewing websites to the boys as their only stipulation to the boys’ use of the Internet was to not look up or look at porn. Every one of the boys stated that, at one point or another, their parents had made this a prerequisite for their continued perusal of the Internet.
However, despite the increased leniency given to boys, the boys were still preoccupied with their safety on the Internet. They worried about sex offenders finding them online and engaging in inappropriate behaviors. As such, they said that they never made friends with people that they did not know. Similar to the case with the girls, the main source for this behavior and anxiety was the parents. Because the boys did not talk to strangers or people that they did not normally converse with, boys did not find that the Internet changed their relationship with their peers or family members. They felt strongly that they would have been friends with the people they spoke with online, regardless of the online connection.

Interviews: A Church Youth Group in Torrance, California

The group of children and adolescents interviewed at a small church in Torrance was mainly comprised of ethnic minorities; more specifically, of first generation Asian-Americans. Many of the children interviewed live with a single parent, though not due to a divorce, and reside in a low socio-economic neighborhood. Conversely, many of them attend private schools due to student visa issues. The participants of this study were between the ages of eleven and fourteen.
Girls in this group were mainly preoccupied on the Internet with Club Penguin, if they were under thirteen, and social networking sites along with a chat service, usually ages thirteen to fourteen. All age groups visited Youtube, though they did not post up videos or comment on others’ videos. The girls felt that the Internet enhanced their relationships and enabled them to be social at a level that they deemed to be optimal. With the Internet, they could stay connected to their friends, make new friendships, and talk to their peers without using having their parents monitor their talk time. Since many of them had immigrated to America, they used the sites to stay in touch with friends that they had left in their previous country of residence. Girls used social networking sites mainly to discuss their social activities and look at pictures of each other that they posted.
Boys, on the other hand, used the Internet mainly to game, usually on massively multiplayer online games (MMOGs). They often visited and played World of Warcraft. Though a majority of them had profiles on a social networking site, they did not use it for their main social activities. In fact, they barely used it at all. W stated that he used them only because everyone else used them and he would feel like “a loser” if he didn’t have one. Like girls, the sites were mainly used to stay in touch with friends that they could not physically meet otherwise or talk to people, usually girls, that they could not normally speak with in the physical world.
In terms of social relationships, girls felt that the Internet did not impact their relationships detrimentally. If anything, it enhanced their social relationships. Because of the lack of gaming, the girls used social networking sites and chat services to gossip and talk to friends. With the improved ability to socialize, girls liked the fact that they could carry on multiple conversations at once and inform a large crowd of friends as to what they were doing or what they wanted to say without talking to each one individually. Though they did say that there was more drama because they gossip could spread quickly, some did admit to a sort of enjoyment of a constant, upbeat social world. Furthermore, they felt that boys were more willing to speak with them online because they could not actually “see” the person face to face.
Boys felt that the Internet impacted their social relationships in very specific ways, especially in regards to speaking with girls. Gaming allowed them to connect with their peers and set a common interest that they could talk about. A majority of the boys agreed that games allowed them to overcome language and cultural barriers when around their peers at school. This allowed them to make friends easier and fit in with the cultural norm. In terms of social networking, the boys acknowledged that it greatly uninhibited them around girls. Because they could premeditate what they wanted to say and play off bad comments or rejections, they felt that it made them bolder. They also felt that girls were more willing to talk to them online because they were able to keep their conversations separate. Furthermore, they felt that the Internet allowed them to keep up on the friendships that that they had left in their home country.
Parental control, for both genders in this study group, was relatively lax, possibly due to the technological and language barriers between the parents and the child or adolescent. A small minority of the participants, only about two, admitted that their parents knew about their online activities. There was a general feeling of consensus between the children and the parents that as long as their grades remained high and they were not partaking in dangerous activity, such as porn or chatting with strangers. Every single one of the participants had access to a computer and the Internet at home, though none of them had parental control software to limit their experience of the Internet. None of the participants expressed concern over online activities and when asked whether they worried about their safety on the Internet , they were puzzled. They felt that the Internet was a relatively safe place because they could be anonymous towards strangers. Furthermore, they did not believe that there was a high probability of being approached by a sexual predator on the Internet as long as they were not engaging in dangerous activities.

An Analysis of Virtual Spaces for Children: Club Penguin

Imagine the winter wonderland of Antarctica. The continent is frigid but beautiful, there are massive glaciers jutting up from the ocean, pristine snow, and, of course, all those multicolored penguins. Though Club Penguin never states that it is set in Antarctica, it is clear that this is were the virtual world takes place. That is where most penguins live after all. There are a few discrepancies between the icy country/continent and the world of Club Penguin. The whole world is covered in snow but there are trees, ski lifts, a pirate ship, as well as a downtown area. In this virtual world there are mini games to play against other penguins. By playing these games the penguins receive coins. The coins can then be used to buy an igloo to live in or clothing and there is no shortage of variety. There are clothing stores all over Club Penguin that have quite a rage of themes. One could dress as a pirate or a ninja or choose from a huge assortment of different styles of regular clothes and accessories. The other incentive for getting coins is so that you can buy a “puffle”. A puffle is a kind of pet that is basically a small round ball of fur that comes in various colors and follows you around. In order to buy anything however, one must be a paying member. Access to the world and playing the games are free but in order to buy an igloo, clothes, or a puffle Club Penguin requires a monthly fee of around six dollars. Between the bright colors and the cute graphics it is not surprising that this game is extremely popular with the preteen and younger age groups and was bought by Disney for 700 million dollars.
What seems to be Club Penguin’s biggest strength is the protection it claims to provide for the children using it. There are two kinds of chat that kids and parents can chose from “Standard Safe Chat” and “Ultimate Safe Chat”. According to the Club Penguin privacy site Standard Safe Chat “allows players to type their own messages to other users. Every message is filtered to allow only pre-approved words and phrases, and block attempts to communicate a phone number or other personally identifiable information” (Club Penguin Parent’s site). To go even safer there is Ultimate Safe Chat which “limits what users can say to a predefined menu of greetings, questions and statements, as well as emotes, actions and greeting cards. When it comes to chatting, these users can only see other Ultimate Safe Chat messages” (Club Penguin Parent’s site). There is also an area for parents to check on their children’s accounts and see what they are up to and even set up how many hours their children can play in one day. What we found strange was that when one member of our group signed up for an account Club Penguin never asked for age verification. The site states that Club Penguin was created for 6-14 year olds but is open to all ages. One would think that people over eightteen would be discouraged from playing.
Though Club Penguin at first glace may seem like a silly little game for children, it is in fact a pretty complete world. It has its own time zone, Penguin Standard Time, so that children playing around the world will have an uncomplicated way to figure out when to meet. There is a newspaper that is almost entirely based on user submissions of original poetry, comics and advice columns. There are events that take place throughout the day such as dance parties and sporting events. The penguins even have a place to live, their igloo, that they can decorate themselves. Do not be fooled by the colorful cartoonish world; twelve million children live in this world daily and some take it fairly seriously.

Discussion and Analysis

Gender

In just a matter of a few years, there has been a great change in entertainment available for children and young teenagers. The 1990s had Barbies for girls and Legos for boys as the main sources of entertainment. However, as the late 1990s came about, technology changed the types and expenses of entertainment that were available to the youth. Computers and technology went from being a “relatively hard to use, almost esoteric technology, to an everyday domesticated tool.” (Tufekci, 3)In the 90s, there were very limited options as to how one could engage with technology or the Internet . Nintendo, the square, gray box that connected to the TV set, was the game system of the 1990’s time. The graphics available on Nintendo, the sole gaming device, were nowhere near “high tech” as those that can be found today. AOL (America Online) and the instant messenger service were the only sources of communication, which quickly became the “must be on” website. What the 90’s offered was nothing fancy, but in those days, what was available was something incredible, and what we have available now was unthinkable back then. Slowly but surely, children have had access to a variety of new things to keep them entertained. New computer games, online social networking sites, and virtual worlds are far more popular than ever before. Children are now spending more time on computers playing games, socializing, and networking with others, rather than the old fashioned way of actually “playing” in the physical world.Although the activities that children are partaking in today are different from those from a few years ago, it is interesting to see that the hegemonic gender order ideology is still being structured and shaped by our society. It has been shown that “from early on, research found consistent differences in types of use, with girls being less represented in programming and game playing.” (Tufekci 2008:3). From our interviews and data, we were also able to see that most boys (that spent time on computers) enjoyed playing games (such as World of Warcraft) more than spending time on social networking sites. On the other hand, it was evident that girls spent more time on social networking sites (such as Myspace and Facebook) and virtual worlds (such as Club Penguin and Poptropica) than online games. It has been also been proven in other studies that “girls game less often than boys and may be less interested, knowledgeable, and comfortable with STEM than…boys.” (DiSalvo, 131) [STEM: Science, technology, engineering and math] True to their gender roles, the passivity of girls and aggressiveness of boys are reflected strongly in the uses of the Internet they partake in. Perhaps this is due to the purity of their gender characteristics in the early stages of their life. Social gender order is something that is learned, not something that is natural. Boys are taught to be tough and strong, while girls are taught to be gentle, and nurturing. Stereotypically, boys are the ones that are powerful, aggressive and adventurous; girls are the passive, emotional ones that enjoy talking, and sharing gossip. As one can see from the data that has been gathered from the study, boys and girls are still participating in activities that are “fit” for their gender. They are engaging in activities that are appropriate for their gender to identify themselves with what society defines as appropriate. This shows that technology has changed the activities that children participate in, but our society still teaches children the same lessons about gender order generation after generation.After analyzing data that has been gathered, we found that girls and boys used the web for different purposes. Though the differences in online activity was clearly evident between the genders, “most youth use online networks to extend the friendships that they navigate in the familiar contexts of school, religion, organizations, sports, and other activities.” (Ito 2008:1) Girls enjoyed using the sites as another means of socializing, as they liked to communicate (via comments and messages), share “gossip”, and look at pictures. Boys also used the Internet to form relationship with fellow boys, but they did this by bonding over the web and playing games. Today, “gaming has become a pervasive social activity” where boys can “casually share technical and media-related knowledge.” (Ito 2008:26) This shows that boys form this sort of “relationship” with one another, but do so in an acceptable manner because they are often performing acts that are considered acceptable. They use gaming as a means to form bonds with other boys without crossing boundaries, where they can have close relationships but avoid any sort of social labels.
It can be concluded that behaviors and gender norms are still the same as decades ago. The only real difference is the kind of activities the children are engaging in today. Culture still shapes these meanings and sets a concrete standard of what is considered suitable for both genders, but it is with the use of our modern day technology. There is no right way to act like a boy, or a right way to act like a girl, but media and culture plays such a big part in structuring what is considered normal, that it makes it seem to be almost natural. It is evident that there have been a lot of changes in children’s activities in the past few decades, but it is clear that the hegemonic ideologies have remained the same.

Race

In our research on children and the level of their interaction with cyberspace, we looked at two groups of children. One focus group was chosen from a mostly White middle class school. The other was a group of Asian children who regularly attended a church. We could not however look at children of other racial groups. After interviewing the children, we noticed some differences in the answers we received. We speculate that these differences rise out of the different socio-economic conditions of the children.
Most of the Asian children Jessica (one member of our group) interviewed, both boys and girls, expressed that their parents or guardians monitored their Internet usage very little. Their parents either did not know English and could not therefore understand what their children were doing on the Internet or, they understood what the Internet is about but trusted their children to be doing the right thing. Many of the parents enjoyed certain aspects of the Internet that enable them to stay connected with family and friends, but at the same time were unaware of their childrens’’ activities.
Most of the White children Kelly (one member of our group) interviewed, both boys and girls, mentioned that their parents ’didn’t stop them directly from using certain sites. They do have programs on their home computers that monitor Internet usage. All their parents know and use the Internet themselves. The father of one girl has a Myspace to protect her Myspace. Both girls and boys mentioned that their parents had warned them against sex offenders. Even the boys were extremely aware of the potential danger of an online predator.
Comparing the results from both focus groups, we find that the differences in the children’s usage of the Internet can be tied to their parents level of Internet awareness. The parents of the Asian children were less aware of their children’’s activities on the Internet. Most of them hail from another country and therefore their understanding of a lot of American popular media is minimal. Their major concerns are that their children are doing well in school and are not getting into trouble. While the parents of the White children are all English speaking, native born Americans. They have lived longer in America and know more about the potential dangers that are lurking about, and therefore are able to take more precautionary measures with their children.
Surprisingly, when the topic of talking to the opposite gender was brought up with both groups, it was Jessica’s group of Asian children that mentioned how they use the Internet to talk with the opposite gender. This may be due to the fact that ’Kelly’s group ranged from ages five to ten whereas Jessica’s group of children were thirteen or fourteen years of age. This might contribute to the awareness of how the Internet could be used to interact with the opposite gender. The boys mentioned how they use Facebook “to network with girls,” and that it is “easier to talk to girls on SNS sites because they are more willing to talk”, and that it is “sort of less personal than calling.” They use sites such as Facebook, Myspace, Gchat, MSN messenger, and AIM to scope out whether a girl likes them or not. One boy even mentioned that it was “very cheap” and that with the Internet there was “no need to go out and hang out” and that they could “talk for a long time without parental intervention.” When speaking with the girls, they mentioned how it was “easier to talk to boys here and get them to talk,” and that they think “it is because boys are shy.”
Across the board, however, both groups used social networking sites such as Facebook and Myspace to network with people they already knew, either close friends or people they had seen at school or church and wanted to get to know more about. They have become closer friends with people they would not have talked to otherwise. “People already know many of the individuals they view on Facebook. More than 90% of Facebook users employ Facebook to stay in touch with or stay abreast of the activities of longtime acquaintances...” (Walther 2008:30). The children also use the Internet “to build friendships and romantic relationships as well as to hang out with each other as much and as often as possible” (Ito 2008:15). Social networking sites are an extension of the interactions that children engage in while at school.

Conclusion

The Internet has allowed children from all ages and a wide array of racial backgrounds to expand their social networks, to experiment with online gaming, and approach potential romantic interests. In an age where parents believe their children’s safety is continuously at a decline, more and more children are spending time at home, and not outside playing with the neighbors, as was common in the past. In times like these, children are turning to alternate methods of play and socializing. The Internet offers them a place where they can enhance their world experiences. However, the same dangers that faced children in the physical world also exist in cyberspace. Protecting our children requires knowledge, awareness, and open-mindedness. We want our children to capitalize on what the Internet has to offer while at the same time maintaining a safe space where they can grow and learn. It must be established that children’s experience of the Internet is vastly different from how the older generations experience it. Their early exposure to the Internet allows them to be increasingly complex in their usage of it. However, gender and racial influences still influence and create distinctions on how certain groups of children use the Internet. Almost stereotypically, girls and boys use the Internet for different purposes. How much of this is due to parental influence and personal preference is still up for debate. However, it is certain that regardless of how much has changed in children’s entertainment, the gender roles and race determine any child’s interactions with cyberspace.

Works Cited

"Club Penguin - Parents: Parent’s Guide." Club Penguin - Waddle around and meet new friends!
09 Mar. 2009 .
DiSalvo, Betsey J., Kevin Crowley, and Roy Norwood. Learning in Context: Digital Games
and Young Black Men. Games and Culture 3(2):131–41, 2008.
"Interview with 6th Graders." Personal interview. 13 Feb. 2009.
“Interview with SSEC Youth Group.” Personal Interview. 10 Feb. 2009.
Mimi Ito et al. Living and Learning with New Media: Summary of Findings from the Digital
Youth Project, 2008.
Tufekci, Zeynep., Cotten, Shelia. and Flow-Delwiche, Elizabeth. "Internet Use and Gender, Race
and Class: The Digital Divide in the Era of Youtube and Facebook" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association Annual Meeting, Sheraton Boston and the Boston Marriott Copley Place, Boston, MA, Jul 31, 2008. 2009-03-04
Joseph B. Walther, Brandon Van Der Heide, Sang-Yeon Kim, David Westerman, & Stephanie Tom Tong, The Role of Friends’ Appearance and Behavior on Evaluations of Individuals on Facebook: Are We Known by the Company We Keep? Human Communication Research 34(1):28-49, 2008.

Family Intimacy on Facebook

Family Intimacy on Facebook

Ali Cresap
Melissa Flores
Stephanie Lewis
Cynthia Lopez


For many college students, the routine is the same when accessing the Internet. If checking your Facebook profile isn’t the first priority, it is safe to say it is the second priority next to email. However, as the popular social networking site continues to evolve, new issues arise for its users. Originally targeted toward college campuses, Facebook attracted thousands of students as a means to connect with their peers and create an online identity. Two years after its creation, Facebook opened its network to anyone over the age of thirteen with an email address. This greatly impacted the dynamics of Facebook; not only could a college peer ask to be your friend but so could your professor. An even more controversial friend request is one coming from your parent, a common phenomenon with the growth of older users. As Facebook evolved into an open social networking site, it has raised issues of identity and intimacy for users who have parents using Facebook.
Inspired by a book of headshots with basic biographical data distributed at Harvard every year, ambitious undergraduate Mark Zuckerberg created the social network site ““Facebook”” in his dorm room in February of 2004. Initially open to Harvard undergraduates, Facebook spread like wild fire: “within a day it had signed up 1,200 students; within a month half of the undergraduate population…by September 2005, Facebook was claiming that 85% of all students at the 882 colleges it supported had Facebook profiles, 60% of whom logged in daily” (Grimmelmann 2008:6). Facebook was an undeniable hit among college students. As students registered for a Facebook profile they uploaded heaps of personal information and pictures. In this way students created an online identity. In addition to creating their own identity, students were able to explore the identities of their friends or others in their school’s network. Facebook was the “way students found out what everyone around them was like and what he or she was doing” (Thompson 2006). In this way, through the database of online depictions of oneself Facebook began to form an intimate community of users. As Facebook evolved, the mini-feed was created in September of 2006. This altered Facebook in a way that allowed users more recent information about their friends without need to search for it as it was displayed on the user’s homepage. In his article, “Brave New World of Digital Intimacy,” author Clive Thompson illustrates how such immediate, personal, incessant online contact has created “ambient awareness.” Ambient awareness is described as the feeling of being physically near someone and the ability to pick up on their current mood, while not being physically near them at all. As the mini-feed altered the intimacy of the networking site, another change sparked who one could be intimate with on Facebook.
Simultaneous with the creation of the mini-feed was Facebook’s movement in September 2006: registration for anyone. This created the opportunity for parents and their college children to become friends on Facebook. As youth, members of the digital generation, join social networking sites they are “coming of age and struggling
for autonomy and identity as did their predecessors, but they are doing so amid reconfigured contexts for communication, friendship, play, and self-expression” (Mimi Ito et al. 2008:5). Social networking sites for younger generations create an opportunity to create an identity online and socialize with increased intimacy of ambient awareness. However, the tables turn with the possibility that your mother and father can view this online identity. Where do parents find their place within the social networking site? Why are they interested in it? And how do they feel about viewing their child’s personal information if allowed to? With 175 million users on Facebook and the fasting growing demographic being users over 30, issues of intimacy and identity within nuclear family members are continuing to occur. This paper will attempt to outline the way in which parents and children interact on Facebook. It will demonstrate how the expansion of Facebook to a network that allows anyone to register alters issues of identity and intimacy between children and their parents.
Within this research paper are the outlined methods we used to gather our data. These methods led us to results which could be categorized into three groups: parents who rejected their parent’s friendship request on Facebook, children who left their parent’s friend requests pending, and children who accepted their parent’s occasionally modifying their profile. It should be noted that within this research paper the term “child” or “children” does not refer to users in their adolescence rather users who are out of high school who have parents on the social networking site.

Methods

The foundation for the methods was rooted in two Facebook groups called Facebook and family and Have your parents friended you on Facebook? Group invites were sent to all of our friends but specifically targeted those who we felt might be able to contribute to our research, i.e., friends who have accepted relatives. A message was sent with the group invite asking people politely not to delete or reject our invite without first reading it. In the basic info section of the group page we specified that we were UCI students conducting research on social networking sites, specifically Facebook, and the effects it had on family relationships. We also specified that all posts made on the group wall or discussion board could be used in our research project unless they specifically asked us not to use the information they provided. Group members were also encouraged to notify us if they had any questions or concerns.
To get a discussion going, we posted a set of questions on the wall of each group. The questions were straightforward and kept simple to encourage group members to participate:
Facebook and family
1. Have you been friend requested by relatives, e.g., mom, dad, child, grandparents, aunts, uncle, etc.? Did you add them? Why or why not?2. Was there any hesitation in adding relatives to your Facebook accounts?3. Have you modified your Facebook so that they only have access to certain things on your account?
Have your parents friended you on Facebook?
Student survey:
1) Have your parents/family members “friended” you on Facebook? Did you add them right away or are they still pending? Why?2) Did you block any part of your profile page in order to hide information from your parents? Why?3) Why do you think your parents have a Facebook page? Do you think they want to spy on you? Do you think they have it just to network and communicate with their friends?4) If they are still pending or you denied them, do you think it hurts their feelings?5) Do you think parents should be allowed to have a Facebook?
Parent Survey:
1) What motivated you to create a Facebook profile?2) Do you use it to keep in touch with your kids or to network and communicate with friends and co-workers?3) Do you feel you are spying on your kids/checking up on them? Why or why not?4) If you have not been accepted as a friend yet or your child denied you, did it hurt your feelings?5) Do you feel that you know your child better after seeing their profiles and pictures? Did you become closer?6) How do you think your children feel about you having a Facebook?
During our fieldwork, we found that we had to modify our methods for gaining information on more than one occasion. People were not as compliant as we had hoped, or expected them to be. Our strategy of forming a group that our friends could join was off to a great start. However, we found that although people were adding to the groups, many were not participating in the discussions, and the ones who were kept their answers pretty concise. We modified the questions a few times and sent out messages to our friends asking them to please help us out, reminding them that this was an actual assignment. Of course the majority said they would participate, but not many of them did. We did get a few great responses that contributed to our findings but we felt we needed to try a different strategy to obtain better results. We turned to interviews and online chatting. We found this method to be more useful, as people were more open and elaborated on their answers in a one on one conversation. In addition to the online groups and interviews, research through literature about social networking sites and family relations were found through article databases like Jstor, new websites, (specifically The Washington Post), and Facebook groups who protested parents accounts.

Results

As previously mentioned, the results our methods uncovered were placed into three categories: parents and children who decided not to be friends on Facebook, children who left their parents pending, and children who accepted the friend request and sometimes modified their profile while doing so. Through the results it became apparent that when asked to be a friend by their parent on Facebook the issue of their online identity was questioned. This is interesting given the fact that most often a parent is a relationship considered more intimate than some of the friends users add.

Parents and Children who are not friends on Facebook

This category of results describes parents and their children who both have Facebook accounts but have chosen not to be friends. Of the research we collected through our Facebook group there were two sets of parents and children who had chosen to not be friends. One set of participants in this category was a mom and a daughter, the daughter stating, “I wouldn’t want my mom to see my partying pictures, my account is personal, kind of like a diary, it’s for the world to see but not my mom.” The mom made no comment in response to her daughter rejecting the friend request. The daughters opinion of strangers being able to see her profile is illustrated by the fact that, “approximately 80% of one college’s Facebook using sample indicated that total strangers on their own campus view their Facebook profiles, and nearly 40% believe that total strangers from other universities view their profiles as well” (Walther et al. 2008:31). While the daughter was comfortable with strangers seeing her online identity, that relationship with her mother was unacceptable. The second set of participants in this category was a mother and a son. The son commented that, “I rejected my mom because I feel like she’s too old to be on Facebook…I told her she’s not allowed to add any of my friends either.” In response to her son’s rejected friend request the mom stated that, “I wasn’t sure if he would add me but I didn’t realize he would be so weirded out by it.” While both children were uncomfortable with the invasion of privacy, an interesting point can be made about the second participant’s desire for his mom not to add his friends. As illustrated in the article, “The Role of Friends’ Appearance and Behavior on Evaluations of Individuals on Facebook: Are We Known by the Company We Keep?“ users on Facebook can use other user’s profiles to seek information about a third party. Further information gained on another’s site is, “considered more reliable than self-disclosed claims of the same nature. Thus, in a Facebook profile, things that others say about a target may be more compelling than things an individual says about his- or herself.” Attempting to keep his online identity private from his mother, the son was smart in asking his mom not to add his friends, as they could lead to more valid information of the son’s online characteristics.
Further data on this category was collected through the news website Washington Post and Facebook groups protesting parent’s access. As demonstrated in a Washington Post article, “When Mom or Dad Asks To Be a Facebook Friend” many children who rejected their parent’s friend requests did so because they felt it was an invasion of privacy. However, Facebook groups banning parents were a bit more ruthless. Such group opinions varied from it being hilarious, to parents being too old, to it being nosy, intrusive and outrageous. As illustrated the main point within this results category was the fact that it was an invasion of privacy, users didn’t feel their parents needed to see the life they conducted online.

When Parents Were Left Pending

When someone is “friended” they must either accept the request or deny it, otherwise the request is left pending. In analyzing the relationship between parents and children on Facebook, we wanted to uncover how many students hesitated before adding or denying their parents, and the reasons for doing so. A few informants left their parents pending for a few days before deciding to add them, while another child left his mom pending indefinitely and with no intention of accepting her request. The majority had the same reason for hesitation: they needed to modify their profiles first. One informant elaborated on this fact in the student survey by stating, “Yes, my mom did friend me and no I did not accept it right away. There are a lot of pictures that I felt she would not like to see. I don’t hide anything from her and she knows that I’m a little bit of a wild child, but there’s a difference from knowing and then actually seeing. So I actually added her to my limited profile!” Another informant similarly mentioned that she “blocked any drunken pictures, etc.” from her mom. Surprisingly, one child did not have any embarrassing pictures to hide. His reasoning for leaving his mother pending was strictly a matter of privacy: “I’d rather her not view my pics/comments. She trusts me and all but I don’t like it when she asks me questions about my personal life; it kind of weirds me out.” He felt that leaving her pending was not as harsh or extreme as completely rejecting her friend request, but did not plan on ever accepting the request.
For the most part, children left their parents pending in order to hide pictures that might get them into trouble, but this decision also had to do with profile comments. Facebook allows users to control every aspect of their profiles in terms of what other users are allowed to see, but it is impossible to control what comments are written. These comments or “wall posts” as they are referred to on Facebook, can be just as incriminating as photos depending on what people write. “Postings by other people on one’s own profile reflect the character of the individuals who made the postings, [but] it is also possible that observers’ reactions of those others may affect perceptions of the target profile maker as well, even though the profile maker his- or herself did not initiate or condone the postings” (Walther et al. 2008:29). In other words, comments contribute to the overall image of the Facebook user. The male informant previously mentioned did not want his mother scrutinizing the comments posted on his profile for two reasons: he could not control their content and they could be easily misunderstood. Facebook does allow users to privatize the entire “wall,” but in his case it was easier to leave his mother pending, thereby keeping his profile unchanged and inaccessible. As members in this group also felt the need to protect their privacy they also unveiled the need to hide the way others create their online identity from the intimate real life relationship with their parent.

People Who Accepted and Sometimes Modified Profiles for Parents

Much to our surprise we found that the majority of people that had accepted relatives as friends didn’t modify their profiles. Of the 20 responses we used for this part of our research, 14 responded as having nothing to hide from their family. Some of the responses were:
“I’m not forced to put anything I don’t want to on Facebook or MySpace. I can choose to put whatever I want on my profile, if there was something I felt was better left unknown by certain people, I would leave it out all together. Why risk the chance of information you don’t want people to know getting out.”
“I didn’t find a need to modify. It’s a great way to keep in touch.”
“I keep no secrets from my mom, she’s my best friend. I have no problem giving her access to my college life. But she has mentioned that there are some things she wishes she hadn’t seen, like pictures of me wasted with a drawing of big cock on my face that my buddy drew. That was a crazy night.”
“I know my parents use Facebook to keep tabs on me and I am ok with that. I think it’s cute. I don’t restrict them from anything. I figure they might as well know what I’m doing…which sadly isn’t much.”
“None of my relatives on Facebook have limited access to my info. Most of them are cousins, around my age so we have this unwritten rule that we don’t rat each other out.”
The remaining six responses stated that they had modified their profiles a bit but gave different reasons why:
“Initially I had gave my mom open access to my profile so that she could feel as close to me as possible being that she’s in Chile. But that changed quickly after she began punishing me for things she would see on my Facebook profile, specifically my pictures. She would leave comments in caps followed by exclamation points under certain pictures. She was doing it so much that I became nervous when I’d log on. I put a stop to that quick style. I felt bad because my dad’s cool but I had to restrict him because my mom would over power him.”
“Haha yesss! I have her on my limited profile that way her and I can still chat amongst one another, but also so she doesn’t see my whole life at school.”
“I’m trying to get my sister to join Facebook; she lives in Honduras with my mom. Once she joins I will probably modify some things on my profile. Mainly my pictures just because I don’t want my mom to worry about me or the things I do.”
From our research we found that most of the students who had relatives on Facebook didn’t modify their profiles. A popular response among them was that they felt it was a great way to keep in touch with family. They saw Facebook as a great way to share their experiences with relatives who may be spread out across the globe. From the users who did modify, we found that the main feature they were keeping their relatives from was their photo albums. Most of these users felt that their pictures said more to their relatives than anything they could write on their profiles. A fundamental aspect of identity in a social networking site is, “the mutability of our self-representation in online environments” (Yee & Bailenson 2007:272). The ability to change your identity in an online environment and as a result change your behavior is described as the Proteus Effect. This is useful in understanding why children might modify their profile when allowing an intimate relative like a parent to view it. Since the parent knows their identity in the real world, the online identity might not match up and for this reason might create the need for modification. Some said they modified out of respect for their parents while others said that their parents didn’t need to know everything about them. As for who were the relatives who were restricted to limited access, in our small sample we found parents to be the ones who were the most restricted. Most of the users felt comfortable with aunts, uncles, cousins and siblings having unlimited access but not parents.

Conclusion

In the opinion of many undergraduates, it may seem unreal to imagine parents having any kind of social life. Some assume the reason behind a parent creating a Facebook account is simply for the spying privileges that they will receive. This fact may be true in some cases but does not seem to be proving true in all. Among the many that were interviewed, most parents admitted to liking Facebook as a social network and using it for the same reasons students stated. As is the slogan on the homepage of the Facebook network, “Facebook helps you connect and share with the people in your life.” Parents can use Facebook as a great way to advertise for business, create awareness of a problem, and reconnect with old friends and classmates. Indeed Facebook has an eager and growing community in the 30-year-old and older user. One interviewee remarked, “Yea, my dad and his co-worker were having a bet to see who could have the most friends on here. My dad’s winning so far.” Overall it has become apparent that parents enjoy Facebook for the same reasons that their children are attracted to it: to connect socially. A contrast noticed within the research was the students desire to branch out to find new friends and acquaintances, especially within a college environment for which the site was originally created. It is important here to note that although the patterns of the parents and their kids may differ slightly, the idea is still the same, and both choose to utilize the site in similar ways.
A last detail to mention is the fact that a lot of parents do create Facebook accounts in order to become friends with their children, but it’s not for the reason many kids assume. With a lot of child-parent relationships now being separated and strained by the rigors of college life, Facebook provides a quick and easy way for parents and their children to stay connected. One parent wrote, “Sometimes seeing what pics or videos or quotes they choose to post helps me feel I know them better. Being able to post quick updates sometimes brings our far flung kids and me closer.” It is in this sense that we again see the reality of ‘ambient awareness’ in the fact that while parents may not necessarily be in physical proximity to their kids they can still keep updated and maintain close ties, as well as kids staying updated about what’s going on in their parent’s lives. However while parents seek to maintain this close relationship with their children, children are presented with the task to allow or reject their parents from their online identity.
In the end this study yielded many fascinating results and brings up even more questions for future studies. If this study were to be redone some things that may have been overlooked would be brought to light. One of the corrections we would choose to make is changing our methods of research, more importantly our interviewing techniques. While we found the Facebook groups that were created to be very helpful, one thing we would have changed was the fact that both parents and their kids were invited to the same group. A separate group for each would have been more helpful in getting honest answers from each party. The way in which the questions were set up allowed both the parents and kids to view each others’ answers. Also we would have liked to do more face-to-face interviews and collect a broader scope of both parents and their kids to interview. The results of our findings showed that there were many different responses to parents and kids “friending” each other. We found responses such as flat out rejection, holding an invitation as “pending”, the alteration or limitation of profiles, as well as genuine friend acceptance. Through all the varying responses we found that in some way or another, the relationship between a parent and child did play an important role, especially in relation to the child’s online identity created through their pictures, “about me” and wall. Further research has pointed out the different uses that parents and their kids have on social networking sites, but when it comes to Facebook, children and parents have a lot more in common than they think.

Bibliography

Digital Learning
2008 Living and Learning with New Media: Summary of Findings from the Digital Youth Project. Electronic document, http://digitalyouth.ischool.berkeley.edu/files/report/digitalyouth-WhitePaper.pdf, accessed March 1, 2009.
Grimmelmann, James
2008 Facebook and the Social Dynamics of Privacy. Iowa Law Review 95(4).
New York Times
2008 Brave New World of Digital Intimacy. Electronic document, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/magazine/07awareness-t.html?_r=3&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin, accessed March 3, 2009.
Walther, Joseph B., with Brandon Van Der Heide, Sang-Yeon Kim, David Westerman, and Stephanie Tom Tong
2008 The Role of Friends’ Appearance and Behavior on Evaluations of Individuals on Facebook: Are We Known by the Company We Keep? Human Communication Research 34(1):28-49.
Yee, Nick and Jeremy Bailenson
2007 The Proteus Effect: The Effect of Transformed Self-representation on Behavior. Human Communication Research 33(3):271–90.

Facebook.relationships

Facebook.relationships

A research article for Anthropology 128C: Cyberspace, Power, and Culture

Introduction 2-3
(The Abstract. AEMEA formation, research background, data methods)
Broad Relationships 3-5
(presented by Ms. Ej Cruz)
Professional Relationships 5-7
(presented by Mr. Emmanuel Arreola)
Friendships 7-8
(presented by Ms. Avi Jayasekara)
Family Relationships 8-10
(presented by Mr. Anton Sisante)
Romantic Relationships 10-12
(presented by Ms. Melissa Obregon)
Citations 13
Data 14-24
(some of the ethnographic data attached)

INTRODUCTION

Unlike the days of the telegraph, as described in The Victorian Internet by Tom Standage, Facebook allows a means of extension to the individual’s network so that it spans out to far regions of the world. With the telegraph, individuals were only able to express their communication through beeps, dots, and dashes1. The relationships that stemmed between individuals during these days were only familial, professional, or romantic. There wasn’t much room to expand to a network of relationships. Now that we have Facebook, individuals have the ability to network with people on the other side of the world using many different forms of communication, and create a vast array of relationships.
Facebook is an online social-networking medium developed by Harvard student Mark Zuckerberg and his classmates in 20042. These people made it possible for internet-users from any part of the world to rekindle and connect with old friends and/or family, find love/continue love through an online medium, get a fresh update on a co-worker, or randomly meet people in and/or out of a network. The user of Facebook is represented through a user profile and the individual may choose to “add a friend” from anywhere they wish on Facebook…so long as the other individual accepts the friend request. This commutation is of great importance; because of this distinctive feature, individuals now have a mode of classification as to what type of relationship has been developed between one individual to another. In a sense, the “Facebook relationship” has emerged.
The AEMEA group chose to conduct research specifically on these distinguished “Facebook relationships.” The group rigorously researched, conducted work, and theorized upon whether these Facebook relationships contribute to the strengthening or weakening of the relationship because of the usage of the Facebook platform. AEMEA’s strategy to collect data consisted of the utilization of their individual Facebook networks. Interviews were sent to many individuals from their array of Facebook relationships as well as joining groups that have had conducted Facebook research in the past. Personal face-to-face interviews were also sought out. “Survey Monkey” was the model for statistical data, and some members of the group exploited synchronous forms of online communication such as AIM to gather information. A Facebook Group was created between members to share data with one another.
AEMEA decided that Facebook relationships can be sliced into five categories: broad relationships, professional relationships, friendships, family relationships, and romantic relationships. From this point on, it can be understood that the relationships mentioned in this article are part of the observed Facebook platform3. The regional range of the Facebook users that AEMEA observed consisted of networks such as: Orange County, Saddleback College, and UC Irvine. The people observed were between 11 to 60 years of age. We shall start with broad relationships as the first topic, since it is the most general and branches off to more localized relationships.

BROAD RELATIONSHIPS

The AEMEA group based broad relationships upon the following characteristics:
Individuals have no ongoing communication history of friendship
Individuals aren’t particularly self-disclosed with one another, but share a mutual network
Individuals have shared a past friendship, but have lost touch
Individuals may have met once or have never met the other in the corporeal world
There are two ways these broad relationships can be strengthened or weakened. The first way is through a mode of observable preconceptions between the mutual friends. These preconceptions are the public information the individual chooses to disclose to their public, their network of mutual friends. Through this, the mutual friend has the ability to do a “background check” on their broad relationship networks. These observable preconceptions are quantified by the amount of activity the individual spends on Facebook. The most ubiquitous of these preconceptions is the Facebook status updates. The choice of this feature was obtained through the Facebook research group portal4 and a YouTube video called “Facebook Fever,” through a user known as Zippy5. Through this exclusive feature, the mutual friend can view preliminary sketches of their broad relationships and form an implicit bias in the broad relationship.
The status updates feature on Facebook are simple sentence boxes where users constantly express their thoughts or what they’re feeling to their public at a certain point in time. The AEMEA group researched the effects of status updates on broad relationships. An interview that was conducted by one AEMEA member through AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) group chat questioned three of their friends who used Facebook often and kept a numerous network of broad relationships. The three individuals had a total of at least fifty added friends to their account. They expressed mixed emotions when asked about status updates. “Some [status updates] end up being funny, so funny that I laugh my pants off… but most of the time—these people’s updates are all about fml, fml, FML!6 It just gets played out, I don’t need to know if your life sucks. Tell me something I don’t know already, like…who’s your new boo!7”
These findings show the impact an individual can create without initially speaking with their mutual friend beforehand. When the mutual friend updates their status, mutual peers can become turned off with their personality just by reading the sentence box. This is especially true when the individual updates their status in a negative notion. One of the three peers who were interviewed on AIM group chat added, “You really get a feel of what the person is like through their status updates. From the news feed, I’ve received status updates every hour by one person updating things like ‘text me,’ ‘I’m bored,’ ‘who wants to hang out tonight,’ My reaction?...l0ner!8” The mutual friend who views these status updates internalizes an etic perspective about their mutual friend due to these Facebook status updates. What is fascinating about the status updates feature is the underlying biases that can lead to the strengthening or weakening of the relationship before actual interaction!
The second way a broad relationship can determine strength or weakness is through the asynchronous communication features between mutual friends on Facebook. Data was derived from Facebook groups that had already done Facebook research in the past through questionnaires and surveys. AEMEA found that the most common type of communication used in Facebook was the wall post.
Wall posts are sentence boxes that enable the mutual friend to write a message to the other while it is viewable to the public. Through wall posts, individuals that share a broad relationship can write a quick, “hello” to each other. Eighty percent of the interviewees from a Facebook note questionnaire have stated that their relationship with a mutual friend had strengthened through the continuous use of the wall post. They also informed AEMEA that although they had initial preconceptions about their mutual friend, it was the actual interaction that declared a strong or weak relationship. Sometimes, with frequent asynchronous communications, the broad relationship can be developed further if mutual attraction is present. As stated in Mimi Ito’s article, ­Living and Learning with New Media: Summary of Finding from the Digital Youth Project, these little hellos and emoticons can escalate into further relationships such as romantic relationships or close friendships 9. The remaining twenty percent suggested that Facebook neither strengthened nor weakened their relationship but acted as a supplement to their broad relationship. These twenty percent of users shied away from disclosing too much information on Facebook’s public portal. Users stated that they’d either use the Facebook platform for their mutual network if they had a question about school or if they were also going to an event that will be attended by their same network of peers. Facebook users asserted that the only way they would be bothered by their mutual friends on Facebook is if they constantly kept posting messages onto their wall and replied on the features through their Facebook even when they wouldn’t respond back. A Facebook user coined the term, “Facebook creeper,” for these types of friends.
AEMEA was able to define how to strengthen, weaken or keep a neutral basis between mutual friends on Facebook. We find that it is through observable preconceptions and asynchronous interaction. We will now move onto a more defined relationship on Facebook: Professionalism.

PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS

An interesting aspect of the social networking site known as Facebook has been its ability to attract users from different social networks and settings. Interestingly enough, it has found its way into the workplace as mode of communication between co-workers and supervisors. As stated in the Facebook’s press release, “Facebook is a social utility that helps people communicate more efficiently with their friends, family and coworkers”11. In regards to this statement, the AEMEA group questioned how has Facebook improved or strengthened the working relationship of others? Or has it had the very opposite effect and instead has negatively impacted these relationships?
AEMEA conducted personal interviews consisting of two past co-workers, a current co-worker, and a past and current supervisor of one of AEMEA’s group members. Each interviewee was “friends” on Facebook with their co-workers and supervisors. In discussing whether or not Facebook had improved the way they communicated and interacted, all had the general consensus that Facebook had a positive but not significant impact on their working relationship.
As Interviewer A stated, “it’s nice knowing and keeping in touch with what is going on in their personal lives, but I don’t think it changes our working relationship at all.” Interviewer D went further on to say that “what goes on in people’s personal lives online (i.e. status updates, wall posts, picture albums, etc.) really never becomes a topic of conversation at work.” When interviewing person C, interviewer C commented that Facebook “in my opinion, helps the working relationship because it’s another way to connect personally outside of the workplace.” In hindsight, there was a general conclusion that Facebook was positive on working relationships as it provided a venue into personal lives but all of them agreed that it did not significantly change the work setting. As Interviewer B elaborated, “it’s just nice seeing another side to my supervisor outside of work.”
An aspect where Facebook has had an impact on professional working relationships is the topic of privacy. How does ambient awareness and privacy affect the professional relationships in the work environment? It was interesting to note that though the interviewees appreciated the fact that they were able to communicate on another level through Facebook, many chose not to. As suggested by the data from the surveys, 75% of them agreed that a working relationship on Facebook differed significantly from other social networks seen. Respondent 1 commented further that “I’m not as active on my supervisor and co-workers profile as I am with my other friends where I comment on photos, make wall posts, etc.” An interesting note from the data collected was that 83% of those that agreed that working relationships on Facebook differed from other social networks also agreed that privacy was the major reason why. Respondent 4 said that “it’s awkward being friends with your boss on Facebook because you don’t know how it will affect your job.” The data collected and answers showed that while having access to one’s profile was one way to connect on a personal level outside of work, it did not significantly improve or weaken the working relationship.
So with this ambient awareness of co-workers and supervisors and the risk of no privacy, I posed the question to my survey respondents and interviewees: does having a working relationship on Facebook prove to be beneficial? The general consensus from my interviewees responded yes and surprisingly so did my survey respondents. Ambient awareness was found to be a positive outcome from Facebook because it helped gain a better understanding of those at the work place. Interviewer E provided more insight as she commented that “I understand why people are having bad days at the office or why they looked so stressed; Facebook sometimes helps me know how to act around them.” This comment is reminiscent of the Clive Thompson article in which he described ambient awareness as having an “omnipresent knowledge.12”
Though many of the interviewees agreed that Facebook has had no significant impact, the benefit of ambient awareness has had positive effect on the relationships seen at work. Thus, with data collected, Facebook has indeed helped improve the communication in the work environment as suggested by its press release statement.

FRIENDSHIP

While both broad and professional relationships have been affected through Facebook, a more personal relationship that has been impacted both negatively and positively is friendships. It is clear that as a social networking site, Facebook has opened many new avenues for new friendships to form and foster. Merriam-Webster defines a friend as “one attached to another by affection or esteem13”. With this definition of a friend, Facebook opened up a new world of opportunities for people to keep in touch with friends and make new ones. However, with all these changes and ways to make new friends, how has Facebook changed the way that we, as a society, interact with our pre-existing friends? Has our communication with these friends deteriorated or strengthened through Facebook?
AEMEA questioned interviewees if they felt facebook made a difference in the way their friendships are viewed. All 4 responded yes, they did in fact feel as if facebook had made a difference in this. One interviewee responded, “I have a broader definition of the term friends. Without Facebook I probably would only consistently speak with my family and one or two people on occasion. With Facebook I speak to people the same sparse amount but with a much larger base so it seems like a lot more. Basically Facebook allows me to have the ideal friend spread out through many people”14. From Survey Monkey, 70% of the respondents felt that Facebook had changed their relationships with their friends.
However, when AEMEA changed the question slightly and questioned interviewees as to whether Facebook has strengthened their friendships, only 40% said yes, 50% said sometimes, and the other 10% said no. One survey respondent says “If anything, I think that Facebook has weakened relationships. Sometimes it feels as though you reply to wall posts or messages simply to reciprocate, as if it were to ensure equal exchange rather than a message with an inherent purpose”15. Another suggests, “I am not naturally outgoing, so I do not keep friends that easily. Facebook allows me to keep in touch with people without all of the hassle that a phone or face-to-face conversation would require”16. In one of our class readings the authors suggest that “online social networking systems can help individuals to maintain a larger number of close ties than people can typically maintain without such technology, as the systems allow people to check one another’s sites for updates, reflect new activities, as well as to facilitate brief verbal exchanges through asynchronous wall postings”17. The ability to communicate so easily has both positive and negative outcomes. Like the author says its more than typically possible, so one has to think when does this kind of communication become too much.
AEMEA questioned Facebook users whether or not they preferred Facebook communication over physical gatherings and telecommunication devices. 40% of the respondents said yes, 50% said sometimes, while only 10% said no. From these findings, it is clear that Facebook has made face to face interactions a rare occasion. Interviewees responded “Phone calls and personal meetings in general are becoming obsolete in this generation, as there are many passive ways of communicating nowadays”18. When AEMEA surveyed the Facebook users as to whether they think this bothers their friends, 80% responded ’no,’ they do not tell me that they do it just as often, and so they probably prefer it [Facebook communication] themselves.”
While communication between friends is rising, face to face communication is falling dramatically. Staying in touch has become easier, but only through the words that appear on the computer screen. The survey respondents do not seem to feel, that this is a deterioration of their friendships; rather, they express that Facebook has created avenues for some to express themselves more due to shyness, personality trails or time constraints in real life. One respondent commented, “Asian's are not that open. They're very insecure. They will be much more comfortable when they don't see the face of the person”19. This ability to express themselves more openly crosses into other relationships, such as those with family, as will be further explained.

FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS

The easy accessibility of Facebook allows users an alternative approach to keeping in touch with family. In particular, there appears to be a significant increase in the amount of kinships maintaining interfamilial connections through Facebook. This has been revolutionizing the way communication between family members is established to build potentially stronger relationships.
To demonstrate this, one of AEMEA’s group members obtained opinions on the idea of familial relationships on Facebook from several family members within his own kinship and compared this to the consensus held by a group of Facebook users who are not part of his own lineage. Using the participant-observation method, the AEMEA member was able to conduct seven open-ended interviews with various family members who have profiles on Facebook. Such members ranged from those that he regularly keeps in contact with to those that he has never even met in person. The open-ended questions were created on a Facebook Note that tagged 25 family members whose ages ranged anywhere from 14 to 68. Answers from this sample group represent this age range. Since the type and strength of familial bond he shared among those of interviewed family members on Facebook greatly varied, the information obtained can be used as a model for one type of kinship found in Facebook. For future reference, all family members cited will be given aliases to protect their identities.
For Facebook users that did not belong to his family, a survey was posted on a note that everyone within his Facebook networks would be able to view and access. The survey listed the same questions sent to family members albeit with pre-determined answer choices that survey takers would chose from. From this data, 16 anonymous surveys were collected whose collective answers represent a random population.
When asked whether Facebook was a useful tool in improving relationships between family members, 84% of his familial respondents believed that Facebook has generally strengthened such relationships. The other 16% believed that no significant change occurred between their relationships. Among those that felt Facebook has improved relations cite that the website acts as a convenient medium to keep in touch with family overseas. In particular, one family member, Teresa, explains that with Facebook, “You don’t have to pay for long-distance phone calls to know what is going on with your family members living far away from you.” Compared to the random group, 93% reported no significant change between them and their own family members while the other 7% reported a significant improvement.
A follow-up question asked whether there were significant communication differences between different networks (friends, family, coworkers, etc.) on Facebook. 84% of the interviewees explained that depending on the family member, communication can either be comparable to that seen among their own friends or conducted more respectfully if directed towards an older member. The remaining 16% felt there was no significant difference in communication between networks. Additionally, every member felt that in general, communication among kin did not differ between cyberspaces and physically in person. Similarly, 70% of survey participants thought communication among family members compared to other networks depended upon both age and closeness to that family member. On the other hand, 30% cited there is less intimacy with family members on Facebook compared to friends on other networks.
Another question that was asked considered the effect of ‘ambient awareness’ on familial relationships. Ambient awareness in this context is defined as the information a Facebook user indirectly obtains about another user – i.e. status updates, pictures, notes, etc.20 In this case, 71% of the interviewees as well as the general consensus among survey-takers believed that ambient awareness provides an opportunity to learn more interesting, intimate details about family members that may not have been learned otherwise. However, a couple of family members found the concept of ambient awareness creepy and voyeuristic to a certain extent. One respondent, Roger, reported, “To me ambient awareness is almost like stalking because people get to know everything that’s going on with me!! It’s almost scary.”
Despite this, Facebook is still highly regarded as a useful tool for maintaining and even strengthening familial relationships. 81% of survey respondents claim that the benefits for having family members as ‘Facebook-friends’ outweigh any negatives. Even censorship does not seem to be much of an issue affecting the decision to befriend any particular family member. 100% of family correspondents do not enable privacy restrictions for photos or profile content. Similarly, 50% of the survey takers leave their profile as is, free for any family member to view. Although it seems “young people tend to avoid their parents and other adults while using social network sites”21, such a generational gap seems to be closing as more people are starting to use Facebook to maintain a large multitude of contacts. Given enough time, it would be interesting to see whether having family connections in social networking sites becomes an expected norm. In the meantime, the trend of having romantic relationships on Facebook may even be closer to achieving that social norm.

ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

Facebook has had a large impact on various facets of our society. Not only has it impacted friendships, familial relationships, and relationships between employees but it has also played a large role in romantic relationships. Some of the roles it has played are enhancing long distance relationships, creating jealousy, and affecting the status of a relationship. The first area that it has impacted is the quality of a relationship. According to the survey, 85% of people in a long distance relationship believed that facebook had a positive influence on their relationship. During an interview, Boyfriend A stated “Facebook has enhanced my relationship with my girlfriend of 2 years and is part of the reason we are still together.” Throughout his interview, he explained that being able to see his girlfriend through pictures she had posted on her Facebook gave him a feeling of closeness. He stated, “I felt like I was able to be there with her through the past year because she would constantly update her photos of events that she had gone to and places she had visited.” In addition, Girlfriend K explained that being away from her boyfriend was made a little easier through Facebook because she was able to make posts throughout the day and see what he was doing during his year away at school through pictures. Overall, Facebook has been able to strengthen long distance relationships by providing another form of communication for individuals through wall posts and picture sharing.
However, not all participants in the survey and interviews agreed with Boyfriend A. Compared to those not in a long distance relationship, 60% believed that it did not enhance their relationship. In addition, 55% reported that Facebook had promoted distrust and jealousy. Girlfriend P explained throughout her interview that she monitored her boyfriend’s Facebook daily and would check what types of comments and private messages he was receiving and from whom he was receiving messages. 45% of females in a relationship accessed their boyfriends’ Facebook account at least twice a month. In addition, there were 15% of individuals in long distance relationships that felt like Facebook did not enhance their relationships. According to Boyfriend T, he felt that Facebook enhanced mistrust between his girlfriend and him. When asked about the effect facebook had on their relationship he stated, “it has made me paranoid and worried…I find myself constantly looking at her page, status changes and pictures to see if there is anything she may be lying about.” He went on to discuss that the distance between them has created problems within the relationship because he is able to see all the pictures that are posted from different parties and he questions some of the pictures where there are other men. Thus, data regarding whether or not facebook has strengthened or weakened romantic relationships reveals that it mostly strengthens long distance relationships and tends to create jealousy and mistrust among romantic relationships that are close in distance.
Facebook has also affected the status of one’s relationship. According to the survey, 62% of individuals reported that their relationship status on their Facebook accounts was changed within 48 hours of becoming an official couple. This reveals that in a way, people view Facebook as making a relationship official. Girlfriend C explained in her interview that her official anniversary with her boyfriend was the day he changed his status on facebook. In addition, 73% of surveyed individuals reported that they changed their profile pictures when they were in fights with their boyfriends and 50% reported changing their relationship status within 48 hours of breaking up. The status one has on Facebook is thus extremely important and defines, in many cases, one’s relationship.
Facebook has also created deception within relationships. According to the survey, 38% of individuals had multiple Facebook accounts. One individual in the interview stated that he had one account for his friends and another for his girlfriend and their mutual friends. Throughout this interview subject M revealed a very in depth scheme that he had going on. At the time of the interview he was in a relationship with two other girls and in order to keep them from finding out about each other he created multiple accounts. In one account he had girlfriend #1 and their mutual friends, and on another account he had girlfriend #2. Each account was set to private which disabled others from viewing their comments. When girlfriend #1 became suspicious he reassured her that nothing was going on and gave her the password to the account he had made specifically for her. Thus when she would check his account she never found anything suspicious because it was all on the other account she did not have access to. Although Facebook has strengthened relationships by creating new forms of communication, it has also increased jealously, distrust and deception within other relationships.

CONCLUSION

While each relationship within facebook has been impacted in its own unique way, it is safe to say that Facebook has had the ability to reach all social spheres. Thus, AEMEA’s findings have shown that relationships on Facebook find a strengthening and/or weakening of their relationship through the extent to which it is used. The Facebook platform can strengthen, weaken or have no significant effect on a relationship. Much of the effect that Facebook has had on relationships depended on the individuals themselves, and how they interacted with one another through facebook. While it is true that new technologies like facebook has opened new paths of communication, in the end it is how we as a society utilize these opportunities that make a difference in current standing of our daily relationships.

Footnotes:

Tom Standage, The Victorian Internet, Preface and Chapters 1–8 (pages vii–144).
Lev Grossman, Why Facebook Is for Old Fogies, Thursday February 12 , 2009. Time. www.time.com.
Consider in the Facebook platform only. Corporeal relationships can be defined in a multitude of ways.
Mutual Friends in this article are not to be mistaken for the “mutual friends in common” feature on Facebook.
Facebook.Com, Groups: “Facebook Status Research!” Stephen Pihlaja.
Christine Gambito, HappySlip, Youtube, January 15, 2009, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV4PNwpqsCc .
“FML” is the equivalence of “fxck my life” or “for my love.”
“Boo” is the equivalence of lover, sweetheart, boyfriend/girlfriend.
“l0ner” is the equivalence of outcast.
Mimi Ito et al, Living and Learning with New Media: Summary of Findings from the Digital Youth Project, 2008.
Facebook Press Release. http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?factsheet.
Clive Thompson, Brave New World of Digital Intimacy. New York Times, Sept. 7, 2008.
Merriam-Webster.com, Definition for “friend,” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/friend).
Avi Jayasekara, Personal Interview, AOL Instant Messenger, Chat, (February 27, 2009)
Survey Respondent, Survey Monkey, www.surveymonkey.com, (February 23, 2009
Survey Respondent, Survey Monkey, www.surveymonkey.com, (February 24, 2009)
Stephanie Tom Tong, Brandon Van Der Heide, Lindsey Langwell, Joseph B. Walther, Too Much of a Good Thing? The Relationship Between Number of Friends and Interpersonal Impressions on Facebook. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13(3):531–49, 2008.
Avi Jayasekara, Personal Interview, AOL Instant Messenger, Chat, (February 23, 2009)
Survey Respondent, Survey Monkey, www.surveymonkey.com, (February 27, 2009)
Clive Thompson, Brave New World of Digital Intimacy. New York Times, Sept. 7, 2008.
Mimi Ito et al, Living and Learning with New Media: Summary of Findings from the Digital Youth Project, 2008.

Enthnographic Data:

Answers from Facebook Users via Notes Questionnaire: (names have been changed)
Has the social network of facebook strengthen or improved your relationship? Has it weakened it? Give a brief story.2. Are there certain communication differences between how you communicate with the different networks (your relationships between people) you have within facebook? (ie: how do you communicate bff vs. friend vs. coworker vs. family vs. schoolmate)3. How does you communication change from facebook to the way you communicate with them in real world (ie are you more open, closed...)4. How does ambient awareness affect your relationships (ie status updates, pictures, wall posts, notes...)5. Do you have different types of censorship/restrictions for different people and what determines it?6. what kind of communication do you utilize the most within facebook (wall posts, msgs, graffiti, picture comments, status...) and how does that differ from real world?7. How do you feel when people you aren't as acquainted with (mutual friend, distant friend) leave you wall posts, respond to your status, and all forms of communication media on your Facebook? Why do you feel this way?8. What is your reaction when you add a family member (nuclear family, relatives) to your Facebook? Does it cause any conflicts?9. Can romantic relationships be strengthened through Facebook? Can it be weakened through Facebook? How and why?10. Why do you have a Facebook?

Lyle Forgenburger:
Facebook has yet to do anything towards my status in life. I haven't use it to it's full potential and I am sure it would have some rewards and consequences.2. I communicate to everyone on Facebook equally which is for fun. 3. I tried to synchronize my behavior exactly on the internet with real life: Cheezy easy!4. My relationship seems to be improving as I am using ambient awareness at a minimum level. I wonder what happens if I go max?5. You know the "Give happiness to others, and happiness is given back"?6. The Instant Message Feature, Inbox, and the Status Change.7. Depends what they leave me.8. No. They respect my privacy. We have the if you see it, "Don't ask, don't tell" policy.9. I have no idea. Never been in a romantic relationship online, so I really do not have a say here.10. Better than MySpace, and I can find my buds relatively easy.

Surge Smith:
1.I feel like I'm more in the loop with FB. People use it more often and give it a lot of input. Also, the Birthday function is pretty useful.2. Not so much. I type to them the same way that I would speak to them.3. Just about the same--if at all, less closed as there are some things that I wouldn't want everyone to read.4. Once again, I just feel like I'm more in the loop and know more about others.5. Nope--I should, but I don't have sensitive material on my FB, or at least I don't think I do.6. Wall posts definitely. It's less personal, not in real time, but just as convenient as a text message. It's like having a pause button for a conversation.7. It gives me a false sense that others are interested in the mundane things that I do. But it is appreciated that people take the time to comment. All in all, it feels good--seriously, like a drug.8. Haven't had an issue at all as it doesn't seem any different from adding friends.9. One phrase: Facebook stalking.

Riley Whittier:
If anything it's given me an easy way to communicate to other friends of mine in a widespread fashion. Such as the Apac mixer event is much easier to invite everybody to through creating an event. And many of the apac'ers use their facebook often. Definitely helps. Although the electronic nature of facebook weakens friendships and relationships; Through normal activity the relationships still build. Overall it strengthens more than weakens because I can reach people in a quick manner. leaving them comments and posting pictures giving us more conversation and things to talk about.
No there is not. I communicate the same amount through facebook that I would normally with the person. I could see why this question is of concern. The boundaries for me, because I'm an open person are disregarded.
I am not more open; but I may be more wordy than How i normally speak and I may type things wrong which I would not say that way. (internet slang) Otherwise there is no significant difference.
it keeps me updated on whats going on and shows me what people want to share with others via status updates. fills me in on what i can talk about with people next time I see them. etc. I can understand that it may have negative effects as well; for me Its strictly informational to conversational.
no
6. It used to be graffiti but its mostly just wall posts. Nothing different than in the real world. I.e. i just said happy b-day to Nate bone on facebook. but i also called him friday and will greet him to lunch when we go to eat.7. basically it's saying they'd like to know me better. no harm in that. It's filled with positive vibe and I encourage it.8. It could have conflicts if there are things people want to hide from family members. On my personal level with family members I do not mind. I may not want my mom to add me but luckily she doesn't have one. Then she'd know if I was really studying or was doing something she would not approve of.9. This is an extremely subjective question and they can do either. in my opinion it depends on outside of facebook interaction more than in facebook interaction that determines the strength of the relationship. Facebook is merely a minor factor in this equation.10. To do these sorts of things. converse; communicate, express and share.

Taylor Freeman:
1. Facebook hasn’t made too big of an impact on my life yet, only because I don’t use it often enough. However, because of the birthday reminders on the side I now don’t’ forget to greet my friends on their birthdays, if that counts as improving my relationship with the social network.2. yes, I think there is a big difference between how I communicate with the different networks. I think that I put more of my time and attention onto my best friends through facebook, rather than just a schoolmate. For example; a birthday, my best friends get A LONG comment but my schoolmate’s just get a simple “happy birthday! (:” or something small like that.3. I am more closed when it comes to communicating on facebook, because it gets broadcasted to at least a hundred people.4. My relationships improve when I use ambient awareness.5. I don’t have different types of censorship or restrictions for different people.6. I use wall posts and statuses most within facebook. I’m not really sure how it differs from the real world.7. I mean, I guess I feel somewhat good when people I’m not as acquainted with leave me stuff because that means that they go on my facebook and it shows that they somewhat care.8. Haha, adding family is really awkward. More than half of my friends on facebook ARE my family, including my mother and grandma. But it causes a little bit of conflict because that just means I can’t post some things I’d like to post afraid that they will read it. But other than that it’s fine.9. I’m not sure if romantic relationships can be strengthened through Facebook. It can be weakened if one of the people sees a tagged picture or a wall post that they do not approve of and it causes conflict. 10. I have a facebook because it gives me a way to communicate to everyone. Such as, my family in the Philippines, my friends that have moved away for college, and so on. It makes things a lot easier.sorry my answers are so long(: i hope this helps.

Alex Lipschitz:
1 It has strengthened the ones that I started it for. Most of my high school buddies are going to college out of state, and since no one writes letters anymore this is the only way to keep in touch.2. absolutely3. its hard to really communicate with them since body language and tone has so much to do with communication4. It does nothing for me.5. No6. whatever i feel like. I don't use one too much over another7. They leave. people come and go you just have to take what you get.8. I have like only two family members on facebook, and it has brought us a lot closer9. Can't really say. I don't think any of my relationships have be affected. 10. To keep in touch with close friends who have moved away.

Andre Von Swerve:
Facebook has definitely improved some of my friendships, mainly the long distance friends that I have lost touch with since high school or earlier. For example, my friend Simon has been stationed in Kuwait and Iraq for the past year and a half. I lost contact with him since graduating high school and through facebook I was able to keep tabs with him. I eventually met up with him and some friends during his holiday leave this past December.2. I communicate with different networks somewhat differently I would say. The only difference is I may be more rude or blunt to my closer friends just because they can take it and understand my intentions. However with someone I am just acquainted with I usually am a little more polite. For family members, it depends on age and generation. For example, I can talk to my 28 year old cousin Bill like he's my homeboy, but not with my 35 yr old brother.3. I communicate very similarly on facebook and in real life since it is a casual interface for social networks. One difference might be that I might sound more intelligent because every word typed online is just a rough draft of your brain... the words don't come out of your mouth until you click "POST"4. I think all the ambient awareness can have a positive effect on relationships. These are just additional ways to relate with one another. It's basically like a huge public yet private bulletin. My friend Warren and I, who I haven't kept in touch with for a few years, are now more connected all because of his status update saying "plays poker". Just like that I saw him the next week at a home poker game with 8 other people. Also, I never would have gotten into street art (wheatpasting, poster/sticker art) if it weren't for seeing my cousin's work on facebook. I rarely see him since he lives in Glendale, but through facebook I was inspired right away and am now closer to him because of it.5. I have censorships with different people, mainly people who are older than I that require more respect when spoken to. Not to say I don't speak respectfully to my normal peers, it's just that I speak more casually with slang. Some people may get offended but more commonly misunderstand what I am trying to convey. 6. The method of communication I use most on facebook is through private messages and wall posts. This differs from the real world because you can have a million different conversations at once without spending 3 hours on the phone with everyone. It is also different because you can comment about anything from anytime, but in real life comments may seem "random" or people may not relate right away because there is no photo or written record to base off of. It seems to me that it is just another form of digital communication which is prevalent in todays younger generation7. I may feel somewhat surprised only because I don't communicate with the person on a regular basis. However, I do take it kindly as an attempt to open or build a friendship in a way. It also depends if I see the person regularly or not. If someone doesn't say a word to me in the real world and they do on facebook, I figure they may just be shy or intimidated to speak with me directly. If it's someone that I have not met but have seen before, I would definitely feel surprised. There are a lot people in this generation that will have 1500 friends on myspace, and they won't even know half of them!8. My reaction is the same as adding anyone else. There are no conflicts because I don't post inebriated pictures of myself online.... not that I'm a party animal or anything, but I don't think some of my devout Christian/Catholic family members would appreciate a photo of me with a red face that isn't a sunburn!9. Romantic relationships can be strengthened through facebook in some ways because it is another method of communicating to your partner/spouse. Just like flowers and candy, text messaging sweet nothings, posting e-cards and personally edited photos are all different ways in communicating and showing affection to your loved one. Isn't communication supposedly the most important thing in a romantic relationship? However on the flip-side, depending on varying personality types, facebook can be a negative thing for a relationship. The main reason is obviously jealousy and insecurity. Because everything on facebook is public to your network of friends, every little word and detail is recorded and magnified since it can be read over and over. With this information available, some may feel inclined to play "detective" and question everything.10. I have a facebook so I can keep in touch with friends and family that I do not see nor come in contact with throughout the week. I'm more efficient in communicating through the computer since my schedule is pretty busy throughout the week. Facebook allows me to network with distant friends and relate with them in ways I never would have if I had done so through text and phone.

Estelle Rydorn:
2. Are there certain communication differences between how you communicate with the different networks (your relationships between people) you have within facebook? (ie: how do you communicate bff vs. friend vs. coworker vs. family vs. schoolmate)
Older family will call.
Younger relatives will email.
Some friends/family have stopped emailing me and just communicated through facebook.
They will still call.
3. How does you communication change from facebook to the way you communicate with them in real world (ie are you more open, closed...)
In FB, I will be vague.
5. Do you have different types of censorship/restrictions for different people and what determines it?
I opened an account for Micaela with the strictest privacy settings. Her account is through my email so I see who communicates with her.
7. How do you feel when people you aren't as acquainted with (mutual friend, distant friend) leave you wall posts, respond to your status, and all forms of communication media on your Facebook? Why do you feel this way?
That they’re actually paying attention.
I have a separate account for my real estate network. I decided to do that since I didn’t want them tohave access to my friends and family’s info and pictures.8. What is your reaction when you add a family member (nuclear family, relatives) to your Facebook? Does it cause any conflicts?
We’re still trying to get my daughter on [facebook]. 9. Can romantic relationships be strengthened through Facebook? Can it be weakened through Facebook? How and why? I don’t really communicate with my spouse through fb. He’ll use the instant messenger if he wants to catch me on. 
10. Why do you have a Facebook?
I was invited. Now I am glad to be in touch with friends I haven’t seen in decades.

Drake Johnston:
Has the social network of facebook strengthen or improved yourrelationship? Has it weakened it? Give a brief story.--Yes; it allows me to quickly communicate with people whose personalcontact information (phone number, email, address) I do not have and withpeople whom I don't normally have the chance to talk to (relatives wholive in a different state/country). Also, when there's a group project,it's friendlier and easier to plan out a meeting or event because of the"Groups" and "Calendar" features. I've recently been invited to ababyshower through Facebook. (lol)2. Are there certain communication differences between how you communicatewith the different networks (your relationships between people) you havewithin facebook? (ie: how do you communicate bff vs. friend vs. coworkervs. family vs. schoolmate)--Yes. Generally, I post a lot of (dirty and stupid) inside jokes on thewalls of close friends more often than people I meet through organizationsand classes. The information and comments that are posted on walls arethings which I wouldn't mind other people knowing. For family events, weall usually call or text each other instead of Facebook because it's alittle more private. I use messages and the chat feature for moreintimate, one-on-one conversations because there are certain informationwhich I'd like to keep between just me and the other person (usuallybecause I just want to get to know them better).3. How does you communication change from facebook to the way youcommunicate with them in real world (ie are you more open, closed...)--Facebook allows me to openly tease close friends while knowing that ourgroup of friends would probably see, comment and play along with theteasing, similar to when we tease each other in person. Honestly, I alsouse it as a tool to flirt with people I meet from class and it allows meto be a little bit more cautious; I have more time to think about what tosay so that I don't embarrass myself too badly.4. How does ambient awareness affect your relationships (ie statusupdates, pictures, wall posts, notes...)--It's an interesting and easy way to keep up with people's past, presentand future lives. The pictures are like puzzle pieces that lets me knowwhat a person's hobbies and interests are. Through the Status Updates, Ican figure out who would be available and willing to hang out overstudying. Through notes, I am able to experience the wisdom orridiculousness of a person's thoughts.5. Do you have different types of censorship/restrictions for differentpeople and what determines it?--Yes; it depends on how creepy the person is (seriously.. LOL). I set my"limited" profile for people (who really take on stalker status) I meet atrandom places (clubs, parties, etc.) whom I really wouldn't want to know.Also, there are family members and religious friends whose eyes I don'twant to taint and/or offend with my "party" side, so I limit the things Ipost (i.e. pictures, notes).6. what kind of communication do you utilize the most within facebook(wall posts, msgs, graffiti, picture comments, status...) and how doesthat differ from real world?--In order: wall posts, status update comments, picture comments andmessages. But it also varies depending on the person I'm communicatingwith. As mentioned, I often post lots of unnecessary jokes on walls anddo the same for pictures and status updates of close friends; I wouldprobably verbally communicate the same messages if we were in person. Icommunicate more on facebook with family members who are still in the PIthan email and the phone calls, but it's generally the same messages. When flirting, it's more strategic when using Facebook than in person;there's less of a need to improvise corny jokes or pick up lines or thingsto talk about.7. How do you feel when people you aren't as acquainted with (mutualfriend, distant friend) leave you wall posts, respond to your status, andall forms of communication media on your Facebook? Why do you feel thisway?--If it's just a mutual friend, I'd think it'd be a little weird butnothing more than that; I would probably just think of the person being ina friendly mood. If it were someone I met recently who seems to begetting too friendly, I'd get a bit creeped out (especially if the personis trying to flirt with me while I'm not).8. What is your reaction when you add a family member (nuclear family,relatives) to your Facebook? Does it cause any conflicts?--It doesn't start any familial conflicts or anything, but it puts a bitof a strain on me. I try to un-tag any scandalous pictures that would getmy parents or any other elder family member to lecture me about how I leadmy life during college.9. Can romantic relationships be strengthened through Facebook? Can it beweakened through Facebook? How and why?--Without a doubt, it's a great way to flirt and easily strengthensbudding romantic relationships. But it can also tear unstable romanticrelationships (by "unstable", I mean relationships which lack trust andcommunication). Any updates can evoke so much emotions, particularlyjealousy and anger, especially if the romantic relationship is longdistance and one significant other is socially active compared to theirpartner.10. Why do you have a Facebook?-- I have a facebook to communicate. lol. But specifically:(1) To keep up with old friends and family(2) To get to know new friends and acquaintances(3) To flirt (Hahaha... lame but true)(4) To be part of the social, virtual conformity/trend(5) To procrastinate on studying (like now)(6) To help friends out by doing surveys like these! =)