Faceted identity, faceted lives: social and technical issues with being yourself online
Abstract
This paper explores key issues people experience managing personal boundaries within and across social technologies. We look in particular at email and online social networks. We offer a theoretical framework for understanding the errors in assumptions about the singularity of identity that are currently inscribed into the sharing models of social technology systems. Through a questionnaire study we examine how people facet their identities and their lives, and how these facets are expressed through use of email and Facebook. We found family was an extremely important context for sharing online, and that email was still a preferred form of communication for private sharing across facets of life. Single, working men had the highest level of incompatible facets, and a higher level of facet incompatibility was correlated with increased email usage and worry about sharing in the context of social networks.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
There exists a significant body of work on queer online identity management, including how being trans and visible online in everyday social media usage can be a form of political advocacy and activism.
“There exists a significant body of work on queer online identity management [29, 75, 118], including how being trans and visible online in everyday social media usage can be a form of political advocacy and activism [56].”
From Paradoxes of Openness: Trans Experiences in Open Source Software (2024) · cites this paper as [29]
Cites
All in a Day's Work: Boundaries and Micro Role Transitions
Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259305 · Cited by 3,039 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Andalibi, N., Haimson, O. L., De Choudhury, M., & Forte, A. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2858036.2858096 · Cited by 378 · see citing works
Paradoxes of Openness: Trans Experiences in Open Source Software
Frluckaj, H., Stevens, N., Howison, J., & Dabbish, L. (2024) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3687047 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Farnham, S. D., & Churchill, E. F.
- Affiliations
- Yahoo (United States) (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the ACM 2011 conference on Computer supported cooperative work
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2011-03-19
- Pages
- 359-368
- OpenAlex
- W2146342155
- Cited by
- 169
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 16
- FWCI
- 47.84
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Media and Digital Communication
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Personal Information Management and User Behavior
- Keywords
- personal boundaries, online sharing, email, Facebook, social networking sites, family communication, privacy concerns, social technology, single men
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review