Human identities, even ones that are formed online, are dominated by numerous key factors. According to Turkle’s notes, new images of multiplicity, heterogeneity, flexibility, and fragmentation often influence the way in which human identities are formed. This allows for anyone to be able to change their personalities and/or profiles online. According to Baym, this could result in an untrustworthy, or possibly even dangerous, person posing as a respectable person, all the while just waiting for someone to fall into their trap. While Turkle and Baym show differing aspects and results of changing identities online, they prove one similar point: online identity can easily be altered, whether for good, bad, or experimental purposes.
While Turkle and Baym both make convincing points about online identity, it is difficult to accurately determine whether the blogger I am following is legitimate or a fraud. However, I can determine that Turkle’s studies reflect my understanding of online communications. Unlike role-playing games, such as Dungeons and Dragons, which are played by people you know are pretending to be someone else, online communication can not be proven as true or false that easily. By the time someone figures out the truth of someone’s identity outside of cyberspace, it could prove too late for any victims of the potential internet stalkers in today’s world. This is a horrifying reality that must be taken into consideration before offering your identity online for anyone to see.
Deception certainly isn’t unique to CMC, but I think you’re right that it provides more opportunities to be dishonest and fool others. The lack of a phsyical presence affords CMC users the chance to become something that would be exteremly hard for them to portray offline.
You say it’s difficult to determine whether the blogger you are following is legit or a fraud. How is it different than if you heard this person speak face-to-face to a group at a seminar? Also, if you’ve ever seen the movie Catch Me If You Can, Frank Abignale was notorious for defrauding tons of people face-to-face. But I’ll grant you that it takes more talent to do what he did then to fool someone online.
I think risks like identity theft have a lot more validity than stalking. Most of us have profiles and Facebook with our real name and a photo of ourselves, but I don’t know anyone naive enough to give their SSN online but identity theft continues to plague many. My point is that most of us are putting out truthful content about ourselves in our online profiles, and we are far more likely to be taken advantage of financially than we are to be fooled into a relationship with an imposter. I’m also interested to know why you think the blogger you are following may a fraud? Do you have a reason for suspicion or are you making the point that we can’t really know who anyone is online?
You bring up a really good point about making sure we don’t put too much information online. As an example, one of my Facebook friends has checked in several times to his house, showing the address. He is also an Instagram addict, meaning that whenever he is on vacation, etc, we all get a ton of pictures of where he’s staying. AND, if his vacation is over the weekend, someone will often post something like, “We’ll miss you on Sunday!” …did I mention that he posted a status about how excited he was that his wife bought him a huge TV for Christmas?
Maybe I’m paranoid, but everybody posts stuff like that, and I think it’s a huge sign saying “I’m gone for a week, come rob me!”
I’d like to hear more about the blogger you are following. What identity is being presented? Does it matter, really, if it is a “real” identity?
If you think about identity as a performance, then we all play different roles. My identity as a college professor is different from the role I play at home with my husband, or with my parents, or my friends. All of these performances are part of my “real” identity, because they represent different aspects of who I am. Online, we have the option to be very selective and strategic about the identities we perform. On Twitter, for example, I probably come across as a lot more formal and reserved than I would face-to-face.
The identity presented in this blog seems informal. It seems like the writer, Matt Gander, is trying to talk to people rather than give them straight information. However, it appears that the blogger is still trying to be on the “more formal end of informal conversation,” for lack of a better term. This seems to slightly mimic modern society, due to the fact that the most formal speech in the modern day is simply a more “uppity” form of informal speech. It seems as though the writer is trying to present himself as “caught up” to today’s society. Whether or not this is a “real” identity can only be guessed. I feel that it does matter whether this is a real identity due to the fact that the writer is influencing the purchasing or entertainment decisions of consumers, serving as a sort of security system which protects the consumer from bad choices.