Reflection on Topic 2

This week’s topic on the arguments for and against having multiple online identities has been really interesting and has made me re-think my own online identities and use of social media. Through interacting with my course mates and reading their opinions on the issue, my own knowledge of the issue was broadened.

I chose to talk specifically about the positives and negatives of having multiple and single online identities and included varying quotes from contradictory sources such as Mark Zuckerberg and Christopher Poole.

However, I was really interested by the varying aspects that my course mates chose to focus on from this diverse topic. For instance, Dominic’s blog presented the issue of the booming industry set up to manage and clean-up our online identities for $1000/year, which is a fascinating concept. The fact that we need this industry shows just how important the issue of creating an online identity (whether single or multiple) truly is! This blog also presented me the idea that Korea and China allow residents to have multiple identities online but force them to associate each account with a unique National ID number, which made me question whether this sort of system would ever be implemented in the UK…

Anna’s blog with its conclusion that “The best solution is to be yourself. If that makes you uneasy, talk with your shrink. Better yet, blog about it,” was again very thought-provoking and the embedded Buzz Feed video displaying the ramifications of having low privacy settings on social media accounts, added a humorous tone. However, it made me re-think the importance of ensuring that privacy settings are set to a level one is comfortable with – and equally, the importance of with-holding personal, private information to avoid fraud.

Sophie’s blog provided a very similar conclusion to my own, that being, that we should have multiple online identities to suit specific target audiences and also the specific social media platforms we are using.

My comments:


On the internet, nobody knows if you’re a dog?!

‘Your online identity is the sum or your characteristics and interactions’ (Internet Society) with different websites. The adage ‘on the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog’ created by Peter Steiner referred to a time when our online identity could remain separate from our real lives, however, now many people are pushing for authentic, transparent online identities which truly reflect the user. At the same time, others have multiple identities across varying social networks for different purposes.

So what are the arguments for and against having more than one online identity?

The creator of 4Chan, Christopher Poole argues that ‘individuals are multifaceted – they have to have multiple identities’ (2012), which is reflected in the way that 4Chan is characterized by anonymous users and lack of archive. Others like Martin Clear stress that we ‘have [always] maintained multiple identities and separate circles of acquaintances’ (2014) and states that not all our acquaintances are interested in the same content we share and generate over different platforms. According to him, this is why we set up different accounts portraying different identities, to tailor them for our varied target audiences. Others believe that in order to avoid controversies à la Justine Sacco, we should have many identities or: ‘one for work, another for schools, another for home, another for friends’ (Jarvis 2011).

I was interested to read that ‘as a marketing tool, in order to reach the most valued niche audiences possible, fragmenting your interests into separate social media accounts seems worthwhile’(Casserly 2011), which reflects my personal use of Twitter to interact with potential employers and market myself.


many disagree with multiple online identities, principally the founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg who said that ‘having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity.’ (2011) Unlike those who see multiple identities for friends/family/work as essential, he predicts that ‘having a different image’(2011) of yourself for different audiences is short-lived.

Nowadays many people only want ‘online interactions with authentic identities’ (Krotoski 2012) which has seen many businesses, figures in the Communications Industry and celebrities construct single, transparent identities which show a much more human side to themselves, making themselves therefore more appealing.

Having multiple online identities can be dangerous as it leads to anonymity which can in turn, give rise to cyber bullying in the guise of ‘anonymous trolls…attack[ing] people online,’(Jarvis) as users deem themselves to be safe from punishment.

Personally, I am of the same opinion as Martin Clear and I have multiple online identities which I tailor to the desired audience – the content I share on Facebook (aimed at my friends and family) is different to that on LinkedIn for example. However, I firmly believe that regardless of whether one has single or multiple online identities, it is essential to keep in mind exactly why you are using the internet and who the content you generate is aimed at: one always should keep things professional, even in a personal domain…


Casserly, Meghan. 2011, Multiple Personalities And Social Media: The Many Faces of Me, Forbed, Available at: %5BAccessed 24/10/2014]

Clear,Martin. 2014, Why should I reveal my ‘real identity’ online? Anonymity isn’t so terrible, The Guardian, Available at: [Accessed 24/10/2014]

Helft, Miguel. 2011. Facebook, Foe of Anonymity is forced to explain a secret, The New York Times, Available at: %5BAccessed 24/10/2014]

Jarvis,Jeff. 2011, One identity or more?, Buzz Machine, Available at: [Accessed 24/10/2014]

Krotoski, Aleks. 2012, Online Identity: Is authenticity or anonymity more important? The Guardian, Available at: %5BAccessed 24/10/2014]

Withnall, Adam. 2013, PR executive Justine Sacco apologies after losing job over racist Aids ‘joke’ provoked #HasJustineLandedYet Twitter storm, The Independent, Available at:  [Accessed 24/10/2014]

Internet Society, ‘Online Identity Overview’. (Video). Available at: %5BAccessed 24/10/2014]

Steiner, Peter. 1993, On the internet, nobody knows if you’re a dog, The New Yorker, Available at,_nobody_knows_you’re_a_dog#mediaviewer/File:Internet_dog.jpg [Accessed 24/10/2014]

Digital Residents and Digital Visitors : a reflection

As the first week of Living and Working on the Web draws to a close, it is time to reflect on the first thought-provoking topic of Digital Residents and Digital Visitors – the two terms following Marc Prensky’s initial offering of Digital Natives and Immigrants.

Prior to the #UOSM2033 module, the Natives/Immigrants / Residents/Visitors debate was one which I had never actually heard of, yet I have found researching and reading around this topic to be really interesting and pertinent to how I perceive our modern society and our varying usage of the Internet.

I was intrigued to read about the shift from Prenksy’s initially well-received typology of Natives and Immigrants to what White and Le Cornu and many others have deemed Residents and Visitors, and after reading the criterion for both and the fact that age is not a factor for resident/visitor status, I am in complete agreement with this second typology. I have also been fascinated by the issue of a continuum between the status of Resident and Visitor and have found that on reflecting on my own online behaviour, I am in fact a perfect example of this shifting status between the two.

My knowledge of this topic has also been very much extended thanks to reading the extensive and extremely interesting posts that my course mates have posted on the subject.

Anna’s blog post with its very helpful diagram of the continuum between Residents and Visitors was very clear and easy to understand and really consolidated my knowledge of the subject and I liked the inclusion of the embedded video from David White on the issue. The blog post (and Anna’s comment on my blog) also raised the issue on whether one can be successful in both their personal and professional lives on the web to which I answered that yes, one can be successful in both, if one adapts the content and ideas they express to be suitable for the target audience.

Sophie’s post was also very interesting and she used personal examples to clarify what exactly is meant by a Resident and a Visitor. My only comments on this post were the fact that she did not mention that the Resident/Visitor continuum and that one can shift between the two modes of web user. In return, she asked me an interesting question on whether one can ever truly be a complete Digital Resident to which I replied.

I also looked at Deepbim’s blog and enjoyed its concise and personal style and was impressed by his attention grabbing opening sentence – ‘If you are reading this blog then you are more likely to be a Digital Resident rather than Digital Visitor. You maybe a fellow student reading this with Facebook open in another tab.’ For me, this was really effective and I have taken on board the importance of a hooking opener for a blog post.

All in all, I really enjoyed researching this topic and writing my own thoughts. The comments I received from others were invaluable and also reading their perspectives on the same issue was of great interest to me.

Roll on the next topic!


Digital “visitors” and “residents”…

In his work Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants from On the horizon (2001), US technologist Marc Prensky, first coined the term “digital native” to describe the young generation born after 1980, who were confident in using ‘all the…toys and tools of the digital age’ (Prensky, 2001,p.1), such as the internet and video games. In contrast to the Y and Z generations who were so at ease with these new technologies, Prensky suggested that previous generations occupied the position of “Digital Immigrants”, who were ‘forced to adapt to a world of digital media after (many) years of leading “pre-digital” lifestyles’ (Selwyn, 2009, p.369).

Initially, Prensky’s theory was very popular however, as David White and Alison Le Cornu note,

‘Natives and Immigrants were hypothetical children of their time… as our understanding has developed, it is appropriate to re-evaluate what has previously been accepted'(White, Le Cornu, 2011)

and therefore challenge the notion that older web users and learners are handicapped due to their age, whilst younger web users are automatically privileged and more confident on the web thanks to their age. Many other critics such as Sue Bennet take issue with Prensky’s typology of Native and Immigrant and note that whilst many young people are

‘highly adept with technology and rely on it for a range of information gathering and communication activities…there also appears to be a significant proportion of young people who do not have the levels of access or technology skills predicted by proponents of the digital native idea’. (Bennet et al, 2008, p.777)

She then goes onto mention that variation can exist just as easily between the Digital Immigrant generation with some older people being just as tech-savvy and comfortable with new technology as their younger generation Y and Z counterparts.

The growing reflections and re-evaluations of Prensky’s theory has given rise to a new typology which is now popularly known as Digital Visitors and Digital Residents, which is seen by many to respond much better to the current situation.

So what exactly are Digital Visitors and Digital Residents in today’s world?

 Is the web a place to live or simply a collection of tools? 


Visitors are web users who see the internet as a simple tool to enable them to achieve certain goals. For instance, a Visitor would use the internet to search for a specific piece of information and then would be quite happy to log off after finding it, satisfied with the result. Visitors are anonymous users and ‘their activity [is] invisible to all but the databases running the Web sites they use’ (White, Le Cornru, 2011). Furthermore, Visitors do not have a persistent online profile – they might use Skype or the web to book holidays but they are not avid users of social media and might not have Facebook or Twitter accounts.

Visitors are ‘sceptical of services that offer them the ability to put their identity online and don’t feel the need to express themselves by participating in online culture in the same manner as a Resident’ (TALL blog). They are users of the web rather than members and use pre-made content rather than generate it like Residents.


In contrast to Visitors, Residents are individuals who actively live out a percentage of their life online and are frequent users of the internet and social media. They view the web as a social space like a coffee shop where they can interact with others and play out their social lives and it is crucial for their interaction with friends and their social circle. It is a place in which relations can be formed and extended and connections with like-minded individuals can easily be made.

As mentioned on TALL Blog, the ‘web supports the projection of their identity and facilitates relationships’, enabling them to construct their online identity and portray themselves in certain lights to others, something which is very important for Residents. Moreover, it also enables Residents to express their thoughts and opinions via social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook. The internet is so important for Residents that ‘when [they] log off, an aspect of their persona remains.’ (White, Le Cornru, 2011) and a typical Resident would be frequently found uploading pictures to their Instagram page or tweeting.

Like Visitors, Residents use the web as a tool to complete specific actions like online banking and booking holidays, but they are much more actively engaged with the web and create and generate their own content.

However, although Residents and Visitors and their relationship with the web seem very different, the Visitor / Resident typology should be understood as a continuum and NOT a binary opposition. Our status as Resident or Visitor can fluctuate very easily depending on our current situations and why we are using the Web. For instance, at the moment I am very much a Resident of the web, through the active use of this blog and my Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn pages (with the latter to enhance my employability) however, during the summer months I was an infrequent web user and used the Internet to search for specific information like train times as a typical Visitor would do. The typology of Visitor / Resident is not black and white, but offers a much more relevant set of criterion for web users than Prensky’s Digitial Natives and Digital Immigrants.


Selwyn, N. (2009) The digital native- myth and reality. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 61(4), [Online], Available at,%20Aslib%20Proceedings%202009.pdf [Accessed 08/10/2014]

White, D and Le Cornru A. (2011) Visitors and Residents: A new typology for online engagement Vol 16 Available at,%20Aslib%20Proceedings%202009.pdf [Accessed 08/10/2014] 

White, D. (2008) Not ‘Natives’ & ‘Immigrants’ but ‘Visitors’ & ‘Residents’, TALL blog, University of Oxford, Available at: [Accessed 08/10/2014]

Bennett,S et al. (2008). “The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence,” British Journal of Educational Technology, volume 39, number 5, pp. 775–786 in Visitors and Residents: A new typology for online engagement.


So for the very first time this evening, I am sitting down and attempting to write a post on my brand new blog! It was a little trickier to set up than I had imagined (despite watching the handy tutorial), but I am almost there and hopefully this will soon start to look a little less amateur!

Anyway, this blog is set up especially for my new University module – “Living and working on the web,” so watch this space for all my posts on the fascinating issues connected with our modern use of the internet for both our professional and private lives.