Topic 2 Reflection

Topic 2 made me think about how I like to portray myself. Most people always think consciously how they would like to be seen or perceived to other people in the real world. However almost un- conscientiously many people are far more critical of their own personal online identity. I had never thought of that before attempting topic 2, I had almost always seen my online identity as an automated representation of myself however looking at my online identities I see how much information has been cherry picked and selected. Such profile pictures, certain interest and other aspects that accumulate to my online identity.

After having a conversation with Rachel, I decided to compare how mu online personalities differ between social networks almost to see how I have generate multiple identities.

Firstly, looking towards Facebook, I see how it has mainly become a form of communication or discovering news, snapchat has also become a form of communication however far more personal and intimate in-comparison to Facebook. Instagram is the second online identity I believe every photo I have uploaded I believe to be the best photo of that occasion almost being hyper-selective. This means that each photo is not completely representative of the event or occasion that occurred. Lastly looking towards my LinkedIn profile, I see how it’s almost opposite to my Facebook identity being far more professional accommodating to a completely different audience. I have successfully identified three multiple identities for myself for which I was not completely aware of. Depending on which identity you examine you will receive a completely different interpretation of myself.

This made me realise that very few people will have a single online identity and rather have multiple identities.

Knowing this then makes me think of the authentication and security how many people believe multiple online identities is usually only used for immoral or even criminal behaviour however in our current world multiple identities are almost required in my opinion whether that be separate work and social lives or just trying to reduce your online presence


Alex’s blog –

Rachel’s Comment –


Topic 2: Online Identities

Online identities, this has been a conversation point for as long as I can remember. Online idents usually have a poor reputation and one often generalises that an online identity is almost a negative phrase. It should only be brought up in references to illegal or immoral actions such as cat fishing or internet fraud.However, your online identity covers all your interactions and digital presence across the web.

Firstly, let’s look to the early 1990s where the web had only recently been developed. Interactions between users was not widely used or adopted. When interactions did occur, they were almost always anonymous and not completely in real time.

Looking towards the millennium we see that a multitude of online social networking sites have been developed and have started to become widely adopted. Personal information had now been put on to the web openly for other members of the public to quickly and easily access. Looking at today’s digital landscape online profiles are completely intertwined with real names and day to days’ actions. Within, an instant someone can usually find out where you are or what you have been up to by simply looking at their online profile. Through the creation of social networking it can be argued that personal privacy has exponentially decreased. Due to modern day changes “Users have formed a single public identity that’s version of their offline past, the online present and their combined future” (Krotoski, 2012)

A way in which one can regain a degree of privacy would be creating multiple online identities. Multiple identities can allow you to separate your real life from your digital life. It enables you to separate different personas and different personalities. This enable those to regain privacy as it means they can separate their social interactions to their work actions. (Henry, 2012).


Enabling anonymity has both benefits and disadvantages when looking at its possible uses. Looking at it from a beneficial point of view, having anonymity for example means that journalist or other members of the digital press can express their opinion and beliefs freely without fear of repercussions. (Marcus, 2007)


However increasing anonymity through multiple online identities means inauthenticity can increase. People can hide behind a false identity leading to misrepresentation on the web deceiving other users.  This adds to the inauthentic nature of online identities that has led to its poor generalised reputation. Many believe it largely due to online personas that the prevents the development of meaningful connections with others online. (Seife, 2014)

To conclude I believe that we must meet somewhere in the middle. At this current point in time it is incredibly difficult to separate one’s online identity to their offline identity. We must instead be selective about how much we reveal online. Many feel multiple identities allow for the separation of a social and professional persona however we must be more careful about how much of our single identity is freely available on the web.

Word Count: 487


Krotoski, A. (2012). Online identity: is authenticity or anonymity more important?. [online] the Guardian. Available at:

Henry, A. (2012). Should I Keep My Personal and Professional Identities Completely Separate Online? [online] Available at: 

Marcus, L. (2017). Removing anonymity won’t stop the online flame wars. [online] the Guardian. Available at: 

Seife, C. 2014. The Weird Reasons Why People Make Up False Identities on the Internet | WIRED. [ONLINE] Available at: 


Topic 1 Reflection

This is now my second blog and before I actually started this module I never realised how difficult it is to consistently write a blog. Blogs have become so common in todays culture and before I actually attempted to write one I underestimated the actual difficulty of writing a blog.

Nevertheless upon my initial reading off the material such as Prensky’s work I was pretty sure I could be considered a digital resident. My opinion of this has not changed however before understanding the differences between natives and immigrant I was unaware there was an actual classification. I often believed most people used the web in the same way I did. I decided to follow up my initial blog with a few short conversations with my housemates regarding their web use. Now most of my housemates use the web to the same extent as I do however I was surprised to find that a few used it more and one believed they weren’t a native but more of a resident that made them lie more with white and cornu’s digital resident and visitor.

After reading a few of the other blogs in particular Alex’s and Harriet’s I believe I have seen a slightly common trend that most believe that the initial classification system of having definitive native/immigrants or residents/visitors is flawed and many people cannot be completely categorised given a multitude of variable such as someone born before the digital revolution although have quickly adapted and therefore embraced the digital age far better than many people born after the digital revolution. Having been on this module for only a week I have certainly learn a few new concepts that do relate to my everyday life however given a longer time period I would like to test their relevancy and to what to extent.

Topic 1: Digital ‘Visitors’ and ‘Residents’

Vistors and Residents can be seen as a simple interpretation of how users engage with the web.

The initial background of these categories originate from Marc Prensky’s notations of Digital natives vs Digital Immigrants on how students can be split between the two. He states that students can be organised into each category in reference to their technological ability. Natives refer to those born at cusp of the technological revolution in the sense where they are far more comfortable interacting and operating in a digital world. Whereas Digital immigrants are those who belong to an older generation and find it harder to adapt in today’s increasingly digital world.

The main distinction between the two visitors and residents is the level of engagement one has with the digital world.

Visitors use the internet in a functional manner, the internet is seen far more as a tool to increase the efficiency of reaching their end task. Visitors use the internet with a specific end goal in mind.

Residents however almost use the internet as a second world. A world in which they use a different language to communicate. When residents often use the internet it is not to accomplish an end goal but to simply increase their social presence.

Looking at the table below we can see how visitors and residents are split:


Looking to my own internet usage I would largely side with being a digital resident however being a university student in this current day and age, using the internet is crucial. From having to check emails consistently to using blackboard for assignments I find it hard to side completely with the above interpretation of Digital visitors and residents as more often or not one is required to spend far longer than 6 hrs a week online.

To end below, Professor David White of Oxford University further explains the concept of Digital Visitors and Residents :



Prensky, M., (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants.

Prensky, M., (2009). From Digital Natives to Digital Wisdom

White, D., (2014). Visitors and Residents. Video. University of Oxford