This is the Monograph for approximately 16 weeks of ethnographic research conducted Spring of 2012 on how people share information through Facebook.

1. Dan Gardner
The Act of Identity Expression Through Facebook.
Anth 318
Intro:
Social Networks, or Social Media, like Facebook, Twitter, Myspace and like are
becoming a major part of how we communicate with each other on a daily basis. These sites and
similar though are not merely tools for communication. Media is commonly defined as “means
of communication,” but Michael Wesch defines media as “mediating human relationships.” This
is a much more useful way to look at it, because it recognizes the influence the tools have on
their users.
To the left is a picture of the Internet.
At least, it is about as close to a physical
representation of it as you are likely to find.
Much like the Galaxy or Nebula it resembles
(or perhaps complete Universe), within it are
countless nodes, or individual locations. Any
connections between them are constructions
that we have created. In the physical world,
these lines may actually represent wires that
connect a home computer to an Internet
Service Provider (ISP), or a series of wires connecting two computers, one in California, the
other in Ghana. Even below the surface of the virtual universe that is the internet, the

2. connections may exist as routed activity of computers. But, when it comes to our experience
navigating this universe, this space, the direction we travel is almost never in accordance to the
lines in that picture. It would be more accurate to draw lines connecting all points to all other
points, then to represent it as it is. As we move from one node to another on the other side of the
universe by clicking a link, as far as we are concerned, we merely went from observing one node
in one corner, to another corner instantaneously without traveling the nebulous paths between.
So, we create our own paths all the time through our actions. If we created an image that
represented the path we have traveled with all of our activity through the internet in a similar
fashion as the one above, then no two people would have the same universe, but at the same time
their sheer complexity would likely render them indistinguishable barring close examination.
Continuing to use the above image as an aid, each small firework shaped branching
system within this universe represents a portion of the internet, or a “Domain.” Without getting
too technical, a Domain is constructed of designated addresses, or coordinates within the virtual
universe, but we can think of it as the name of an area. Facebook, for instance is a “Domain.”
Any internet address that starts with www.Facebook.com/ is part of the Facebook domain, no
matter what follows the / at the end. Facebook.com is the center of the firework shape, with all
more specific individual addresses branching from it in various directions. If we think in terms of
more simple imagery using circles, or more accurately it might be better to think of spheres, the
internet is a very large sphere, the domain exists within it, and within a given domain may exist a
myriad of individually defined spheres of influence. With Facebook, users create a sphere of
influence for themselves, and then begin to act upon it and upon other spheres as they are active
within the domain of Facebook. They may also create connections between their space and other
spaces outside the domain of Facebook.

3. Facebook claims to have 1 billion active monthly users as of October 2012. With
connections that can be made intra-domain between spheres of influence created by users, and
other spheres outside the domain of Facebook, one could create a representation of activity using
only Facebook users that would rival, if not surpass the complexity of the above picture of the
internet. I will discuss how this complex activity defines the Identity, or at least the perception of
the identity of these individual users. My field site, is this network of connections and spheres
within the domain of facebook.
For the purposes of this project, all of my observations and conclusions unless otherwise
specifically noted are in relation to Facebook.
Methods:
I have been a member of Facebook for a few years, but in order to obtain the data I was
seeking, I conducted a number of activities beyond simply participating within the Domain.
Observation played a key role early on. It was only through documenting observations
thoroughly that I was able critically analyze my own experiences within the spectrum of other
users, and use data from that experience to enhance my findings. Observation generally consisted
of documenting everything that occurred on a Facebook page over the course of a given period
of time. I closely observed 5 profiles, over a period of activity of 2 weeks, to a 2 months; I
observed more casually many more, over a total observation period spanning Spring-Fall 2012.
This observation was occurring asynchronously to the activity of producing the content. That is, I
would potentially observe an act minutes, hours, days or even weeks after it had actually
occurred. I began categorizing different kinds of acts, and documenting what kind of activity

4. users were involved in. I also chose only to observe those profiles which were not set to
“private” or, that could be seen by anyone with an internet connection.
I began seeing some of my most useful information when I began giving surveys and
interviews. I gave out some physical surveys and created an online survey as well. I received 37
responses between the two formats. I also conducted 8 interviews of people. Some of whom I
had observed their activity on Facebook, and others I just interviewed based on responses to the
survey.
By combining and correlating the data I obtained from Participatory Observation, Survey
and Interview I created the foundation on which my findings are resting. Most importantly,
finding in surveys and interviews the motivation behind observed activity.
Populations:
Recognizing various populations is an important step to categorizing and analyzing
activity. Within the context of this study, where a person comes from in the physical world is
only so relevant. A user of social media chooses many of the populations they are a part of. What
Social Networking Site (SNS) they choose to join is one. Many SNSs are created for the benefit
of specific physical world characteristics or goals such as ethnicity, interests, or profession.
Once a SNS is chosen, in this case Facebook, and a User creates their space, or sphere,
they begin to shape it, and fit it with indications of their membership in various populations or
sub-populations including gender, relationship status, or place or type of employment. They may

5. represent or express within the features of their sphere interests or hobbies that place them within
still more discernible populations.
Buttons and Boxes:
Many Objects exist within the realm of Facebook. While we will look primarily at
objects within the domain of Facebook, there are some that exist outside of it but that interact
with it directly that we will also address.
All objects within the scope of this project are tools through which interaction occurs.
Menus, entry boxes, “like” hands and similar buttons are all necessary for users/actors to
interface with and create their sphere, as well as connect to others. Some objects interact more
passively, like a profile picture. Users choose their profile picture, and upload it using Facebook
defined formatting and objects, and from then on, it is on display, in the same location (upper left
of a user profile) as everyone else within the same domain. This particular Object will
immediately identify an actor to others that visit their sphere; it is a first impression and the
choice of what the picture contains is an important act we will discuss later.
The personal computer, or phone, or similar interaction device is an essential object that
may not exist within the domain of Facebook, but which is essential for its success. What kind of
device someone uses to interact with their Facebook account determines to some extent their
choice of acts within the domain.
Actors must use objects to exist within a domain because objects are the means for them
to act within their sphere, and between other spheres. It is only through acts and activity, made
possible through objects, that the presence of an actor can be formed, or extended beyond the
scope of their own unconnected sphere.

6. Acts:
Above I said that Actors must use objects to exist within a domain. When an actor uses
an object, they are participating in an act. Acts include things like a “post,” a “like,” a “tag,” or
even making someone a “friend.” All acts have a time stamp indicating the date and time of day
the act occurred.
An Actor is born into a domain by creating a profile. This is the first significant act and it
is comprised of several smaller acts. A user or actor will sign up, and begin to populate fields of
information requested by the format of the Domain, Name (at least to be displayed), gender,
employment, whether the actor is in a relationship and if so, the option to link your profile, or
sphere, with an indicated companion immediately; they can also list interests such as specific
music, television and books they like. During this process is when they will be prompted to
choose a profile picture. The Profile picture is to a large extent the first thing that other
inhabitants of the domain will see. It may in fact be the reason someone decides to click on an
actor’s profile in the first place, if they find it displayed in another sphere somewhere, as the
profile pic in Facebook is attached to every act made by an actor. One of the first observations I
made was looking at categories of profile pictures. I looked at 153 profiles. Of them, 82% chose
to make their profile a picture of themselves. Interestingly though, of those, only 51% chose to
be in their profile picture alone. The other 49% either had a significant other, child(ren),
sibling(s), a friend, a group of friends, or the like in their picture. I was not able to fully explore
the nature of profile picture choice within the scope of data collection, but looking at the profile
pictures as a significant first act especially one that decides a focal of visual representation of self
within, and as a gateway to, people’s spheres is something that will need to be addressed in
continued work.

7. Once an actor feels their profile is complete, their born is born within the domain. Their
next act is generally to immediately start establishing connections to other spheres. The first and
most obvious act is to begin “friending.” They may search by email address or name (or even by
some of the populations that are available to be chosen during profile construction), and start
finding people that they know, or want to know. They can send the people they find a “friend
request,” and if accepted, a link is created. The two spheres become connected in a number of
reciprocal ways. Most simply, both people now exist within a sub-space of each other’s profile
sphere known as the friend list. It is effectively a directory of friend connections. But, much
more importantly is the connection these two spheres now share on the “feed.” The feed is both
an object and a space within the sphere that is a profile. It is what an actor is immediately
viewing upon logging into their own profile space; it displays the recent acts of those people who
are on their friend list, as well as acts created within spheres that have been “liked” which I will
return to in a minute. The feed is an important link between personal and friend spheres, because
it is the primary start point of communication between spheres/actors.
Liking comes in two categories. The first is what I enjoy calling “unrequited friendship.”
“Liking” in this manner involves an actor going to the profile of a famous band, performer,
company or some other creative or created entity, and merely pressing a like button where a
friend request button would be on a personal profile. Like friending, Liking a profile in this
manner adds all of the activity of the profile owner to the initial actor’s feed, creating a very
similar connection (as well as adding the liked sphere to a sub-space of the personal profile
similar to friend list that is in fact a directory of likes). Unlike friending though, Liking does not
require or demand any reciprocation on the part of the liked. A liked sphere may have Thousands
or even millions of Likers, but are never asked for their opinion or position on these near friend

8. equivalents. The Likers activity is also not visible on the Liked’s feed. I will address the other
form of liking just below.
From the point of view of an actor, at the top of their feed is a simple box, inside which
are the words: “What’s on your mind?” This simple invitation from the domain itself to every
member of its population is asked every time they log in, and look at their feed (above the box
are links that allow the adding of images or video, and also an option to create a “question”
which is effectively a mini poll). Through this simple box shaped object containing this question,
actors make the act of sharing their life. Once the box is filled with the details of this morning’s
breakfast, a picture of a cat with a silly caption, or a link to the latest campaign news, the user
posts it as their “status,” which also broadcasts it out to all of their friend’s feeds. Unaltered, this
is the way that most connect interconnect. As an actor browses other people’s statuses on their
feed, the extensions of other people’s spheres into their own, they have the option of
“commenting” on them, or liking them. Comments end up being amended to the status of the
other, as a reciprocal extension back to the original sphere. Status posts, while displayed on
friendly feeds, actually exist on the originator’s “wall.” The wall is effectively a feed dedicated
to the individual whose sphere it resides within. It contains all of their statuses, notes about their
activity in other sphere, and notes, links or other messages that people post to it. Though, the
“wall” as an element of Facebook and spheres is actually undergoing evolution into what is now
being called the “timeline.” The Timeline has effectively the same function as the wall, but while
the wall was, as the name implies, a fairly flat design feature, that merely listed activity from top
to bottom, the timeline organizes all activity and events along a chronological line descending to
Facebook birth, and actually even farther provided the user has supplied any information that

9. contains dates that extends beyond Facebook birth, up to and including actual birth at the very
bottom/end of the timeline.
Most acts resemble status posting in technological terms: boxes for text that are then
posted to an area of the personal sphere, or another sphere. But, the intent and content of the act
may vary significantly.
Actors can make a wall post on other people’s spheres, or simply “write something…” as
it actually says in the small box at the top of a wall or timeline. This, like a status, could be
nearly anything, from an exclamation of love, to invitations to a weekend event, birthday wishes
or a link to an article describing the most recent film ransacking of a beloved literary property.
While the Status and Wall Post/Timeline post may parallel quite a bit, even often in the content
department, where they vary is how their value may be perceived. A Status could be described
then as, “look what I care enough about to write about,” while the post to someone else’s sphere
would instead be “look what I think you would care enough about for me to write about.”
Although this doesn’t fit all cases, and there are additional considerations, particularly with posts
to other people’s sphere, it is a broadly accurate assessment. The only other broadly accurate
assessment that will become relevant later, particularly as I discuss “negativity” is that a post to
another sphere may also be described by, “Look what I thought should be seen by everyone that
visits your profile.”
Commenting, as an act is a reactionary or reciprocal action. It can occur within your own
sphere, on another’s or in third party neutral spheres, labeled “events.” Which usually are created
for, and revolve around, certain physical world events, or causes. Commenting is merely putting
in your two cents, so to speak, in response to someone’s post. Generally speaking, comments

10. will only consist of text, or perhaps a link, regardless of what they are reacting to, the default
functionality does not support inserting images or video at the push of a button like a status or a
wall post. Like commenting, the other form of Liking plays a reactionary/reciprocal role. An
actor may “like” a status post, or a comment for instance. This form of liking is merely a button
in the shape of a “thumbs up” hand at the bottom of posts. Pressing it relays a notion of approval
to the user, without committing opinions to words. There is no dislike button.
The act of “checking in” or, simply allowing the addition of “location tags” to other acts,
is an act itself that directly links areas of the physical world, to an actor’s personal sphere within
Facebook. Checking in functions and applications are ways of announcing activity in the
physical world, based on geographical location and/or cultural activity. Location tags add a
general location to the time stamp that is already attached to all acts. It is often a city and state
level distinction, and it rests at the end of the act. A “check in” on the other hand, either through
Facebook, or through applications (software enhancements that create additional functionality or
themed act choices to a Facebook account/sphere above and beyond what I have time to discuss
within the scope of this project) is an act that is at its core a specific location. This is often a
restaurant, a bar, or an event of some kind. It will also include a miniature map, with the location
highlighted, and with a click, another actor can follow an included link that generally provides
phone number, and address to the establishment.
There are other acts, but these are the primary acts around which most or all connections
I observed form. All acts have two elements, between the physical world and Facebook, and
from the actor to an object within the personal sphere, or between spheres within Facebook.
What device an actor uses to interact with their virtual sphere can often determine to a degree
how they interact. A mobile device like a smart phone allows for a broader range of possible

11. interactions between the physical world and network of Facebook and its network of spheres, for
instance.
The nature and quantity of acts vary with time, relevant to the condition of the actor over
time, and the way in which acts are allowed within a given domain may vary over time, as
formats change (as we already see with the wall vs. timeline). This determines to an extent the
ability of actors to manipulate their presence since acts are used to shape and define a profile
sphere, or to create interaction points between profile or event spaces through statuses, posts, and
comments. Despite time stamps implying a uniform chronological system, conversation within
or between these spheres do not always happen in a symmetrical timely fashion; reactions and
replies may take days or weeks or longer to occur.
As much as objects are what allow an actor to exist within a domain, it is through acts
that an actor makes their existence known. Acts through objects are used to create and extend a
presence within a domain.
Rules: “So people can see how awesome my life is”
Before every act, there is the decision to act. After categorizing the types of acts, I started
looking at the contents of these acts, repetition of acts, and intent. I asked actors what their
thoughts were on their own actions, and others.
People told me that they liked sharing all kinds of things. Like the explanation of statuses
included above, for instance, people told me they posted, quotes, news about themselves or the
world, funny or “pretty” images. They also told me the things they didn’t like to see, or that they
thought was inappropriate. Some people didn’t like when people discussed family matters in a
status, or attacked a family member by posting on another’s. Some people complained of others

12. “constant updates” about everything they do throughout the day. Politics was another big one.
Some people were offended merely by the liberal use of caps lock. One felt nothing was
inappropriate. When it came down to it, while many people had overlapping themes in their
categories of both what should and should not be posted everyone was a little different, which
shouldn’t come as a surprise. Interestingly though, aside from the one individual, unanimously,
all people felt that negativity was inappropriate, or uncalled for in one form or another.
This is really interesting though, since a solid majority also listed big personal news as
something that is status worthy. Did they really mean only big positive news? If Facebook
reflects the actor’s life, wouldn’t both be necessarily present? Does Facebook reflect an actor’s
life? If my surveys and interviews are representative of the Facebook population as a whole (they
very well may not be), then do all of the negative posts only come from less than 5% of the
population?
Lets look at another act in the context of content and intent: the “check-in.” It turned out,
that even if in the surveys, I got mostly a yes or no, when I moved on to interviews, most people
had a fairly developed reason to use or not use check-ins. Some people flatly refuse to use them,
citing reasons like, “I don’t want creepers,” or, that “everyone does not need to know exactly
where I am at any given time.” On the side of people who did choose to “check-in” regularly, or
even often, I also got relatively diverse responses. For instance, the title of this section is actually
one person’s reason for using check-ins, “so that people can see how awesome my life is.”
Someone else said that he had complicated rules for when he would and would not check in, but
in general, he only checked into restaurants and other public places where, should anyone see it,
he would welcome them to show up. I had another person who I interviewed who uses an
application addition to Facebook that tracks and posts a breakdown of their running workout,

13. complete with the path they took, and time. They said this was primarily for the benefit of their
sibling whom they rely on for motivation from time to time. I discussed with this person that
anyone can see this path, and they commented that it was unfortunate that the app worked that
way. If they had a choice, they would filter who was able to see the output of the application.
Filtering is an important element of defining the role that an actor plays within the
Domain of Facebook. There are many levels of filtering, both implicit and explicit. Actors can
obviously censor themselves before posting anything, on their sphere, or another’s. Generally
speaking, once a status is posted, it can be easily viewed by any friend, as it should be appearing
on their feed, and it can also be viewed by anyone else that comes across the actor’s sphere. This
provides a level of social censorship, as friends will be able to call out fallacious stories or
information. This also raised an interesting question based on the responses I got in surveys and
interviews about Friend list populations. The responses for total friends conservatively averaged
over 100, while the average “active” friends averaged below 50 (active being defined by me in
surveys and interviews as someone who they communicated with on a somewhat regular basis);
some having much more sizable ratios of incongruity. The question came up that, when they
make a status post for instance, who are they intending the audience to be, the <50, or the >100?
Speaking of this same actor who used the running app, something we discussed in our interview,
was using “groups” to define who is able to view a status. Something that I haven’t really
discussed is that any actor can make their sphere “private” which allows them to interact with
other spheres at will, but which restricts access to their sphere by others. A person may only
allow those people who are already their “friend” to view their page, and their pictures (although
the profile pic is always available). Groups are a way of making certain posts more private, or
focused in audience than others. This actor has defined a series of groups, like family, and

14. particular spheres of friends, or co-workers, that they could designate a post with, so that only
these groups can see it. Interestingly, this actor didn’t go through the trouble of creating these
groups in order to not allow people to view posts, but because they didn’t think that people in
one group would necessarily be interested in a post directed at another. They said that, “just
because I like to read random posts, doesn’t mean everyone else does.” They chose to create
filtering out of courtesy and consideration for others, rather than protection of themselves.
Most of the people I spoke to did not use these filters. When I spoke to them about when
they posted, who they were posting to, they generally admitted that they were posting to one or a
few of the “active” friends or with them in mind, rather than then the total population of their
friend list. So, above the “rules” they use for posting information, or links, etc. they are
additionally subject to, or performing for their perceived audience (whether or not they take the
time to functionally designate their acts toward these people). In the example above of the person
who has a rule about checking in where he would like people to show up, he is actually only
interested in his “active” friends showing up, and would likely be surprised if someone else,
admittedly on his friend list but not active, showed up.
Even if the flavor of these rules, and the qualitative “value” associated with various kinds
of content are different for each user, even in my limited amount of data there began to be an
emergence of what might be perceived as certain societal “norms.” They are not concrete, and
they are not fully enforced by the Domain. As I mentioned above, there was nearly unanimous
expression of dislike of “negative” posts (despite the domain not supporting an aforementioned
“dislike” button). There was also a fairly common theme of Too Much Information (TMI) within
my responses regarding what should not be posted. This might be referring to intimate accounts
of the evening’s romantic conquests, or bowel conquests or merely excessive posting in general,

15. “outlining their entire day.” The other hand though is that while this certainly may be outside the
realm of the relationship the recipient may have with the actor sharing this information, this
comes too back to the notion of the audience. So then, there is the impression of the recipient that
the initial actor is sharing with them, and the notion of the actor that they are sharing with
perhaps a small group of “active” friends, without thinking of everyone else, including the
recipient they may not have spoken to in years. Not only then, do we have asynchronous
temporal activity, but potentially asynchronous perception of the degree of reciprocity within an
inter-sphere connection.
Rules are created by the actors, even if they do not voice them, to represent the value
associated with certain kinds of acts, in certain contexts, and with certain content, directed at a
certain audience. They define the types of content they do not want to see, and at least make an
attempt to not present that kind of content themselves, regardless of whether or not the end result
in activity accurately represents events that are occurring within their life. These patterns are
observable within the space an actor creates.
Conclusion: “I am not as clever as the memes I post”
This quote that I received on a survey declares that the perception of the post being made
is not always an accurate representation of the person creating it. Memes are a common image
based humor associated with internet culture, the full detail of which I will omit. But, they are
often selective in their humor potency, based on social or recreational groupings. People will
post objects that they have not created themselves in order to create and associate with a
particular feeling, or to express their interest in a particular area or event. Just as they post things
that are not representative of their actual life, they may specifically, as discussed, neglect to

16. include things within their own life. Choosing instead to create a sphere devoid of elements they
feel do not belong within the context of Facebook. They may choose to enhance, or censor
personal representation within this technology that mediates human relationships. The rules they
create to govern what acts and content they express are the manual to the image they are
attempting to portray.
What’s Next?:
It would be very productive to look very specifically and extensively at status posts, and
wall/timeline posts. More specifically looking at the occurrence of “negativity,” and what it
means to different people and its prevalence.
It would also be productive to continue looking at profile pictures, as a first impression.

17. Works Cited
Interviews, Surveys (mostly Anonymous). Conducted over Period concluding on October 10
2012.
Journal of observations concluding 10 October 2012.
Boyd, Danah. "Social Network Sites: Public, Private, or What?." knowledge tree. N.p., n.d. Web.
8 May 2012. <kt.flexiblelearning.net.au/tkt2007/edition-13/social-network-sites-public-
private-or-what/>.
"Facebook's latest news, announcements and media resources - Key Facts - Facebook."
Facebook's latest news, announcements and media resources - Facebook. Facebook,
n.d. Web. 9 May 2012.
<http://newsroom.fb.com/content/default.aspx?NewsAreaId=22>.
"iCeNSA." Interdisciplinary Center for Network Science and Applications. University of Notre
Dame, n.d. Web. 9 May 2012. <http://icensa.nd.edu/>.