Jjcmcom 0361

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
Publicly Private and Privately Public: Social

Networking on YouTube
Patricia G. Lange
School of Cinematic Arts
University of Southern California
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/13/1/361/4583074 by guest on 21 April 2023

YouTube is a public video-sharing website where people can experience varying degrees
of engagement with videos, ranging from casual viewing to sharing videos in order to
maintain social relationships. Based on a one-year ethnographic project, this article
analyzes how YouTube participants developed and maintained social networks by
manipulating physical and interpretive access to their videos. The analysis reveals how
circulating and sharing videos reflects different social relationships among youth. It also
identifies varying degrees of ‘‘publicness’’ in video sharing. Some participants exhibited
‘‘publicly private’’ behavior, in which video makers’ identities were revealed, but con-
tent was relatively private because it was not widely accessed. In contrast, ‘‘privately
public’’ behavior involved sharing widely accessible content with many viewers, while
limiting access to detailed information about video producers’ identities.
doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00400.x
Introduction
As social network sites (SNS) gain users and visibility, a wide range of websites have
adopted SNS features (boyd & Ellison, this issue). YouTube began as a video sharing
platform, but it also offers users a personal profile page—which YouTube calls
a ‘‘channel page’’—and enables ‘‘friending.’’ Research on SNSs has shown that the
meanings of social network site practices and features differ across sites and indi-
viduals (boyd, 2006). This article explores how YouTube users employ the technical
and social affordances of the site to calibrate access to their videos by members of
their social circle. Specifically, it examines how video sharing can support social
networks by facilitating socialization among dispersed friends. An important goal
of the article is to document how youth and young adults use YouTube’s video
sharing and commenting features to project identities that affiliate with particular
social groups. The analysis also evaluates to what extent YouTube’s video sharing
practices are conducted in public view (versus as private video exchanges) and how
these choices reflect different kinds of social relationships. For example, how does
sharing videos with certain friends but not others reflect different kinds of friend-
ships? More generally, how do young people maintain and delineate distinct social
networks through public video sharing?
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 361–380 ª 2008 International Communication Association 361
In order to address these questions and themes, I begin by describing theoretical
frameworks that illustrate the relationship between media exchange and the pro-
cesses whereby social networks are negotiated online and in public. I then discuss
how youth and young adults manipulate both technical features and social mecha-
nisms to achieve different levels of visibility in their media sharing activities. Using
a combination of ethnographic methods that included semi-structured, formal inter-
views and analyses of videos, comments, and video responses, I argue that ‘‘friend-
ship linkages’’ are not the only—or even the primary—way in which some
participants express social linkages. Furthermore, I suggest that YouTube participa-

tion involves more than strictly public or private interaction. Through an examina-
tion of two categories that complicate this dichotomy—‘‘publicly private’’ and
‘‘privately public’’ behavior—this article describes how participants manipulate
media to maintain social networks and intimacy amid public scrutiny. It is shown
that expectations about what should be shared or withheld on YouTube vary con-
siderably according to individual needs and according to different types of social
relationships.
Background
The concept of ‘‘social networks’’ is difficult to define. Wellman (1996) argues that
online and offline social networks do not exist as such, but that they are useful
analytic constructs for understanding social dynamics. A social network will look
different depending upon how one measures it (counting the number of interactions
between members versus rating the closeness of relationships, for instance). A social
network is defined here as relations among people who deem other network mem-
bers to be important or relevant to them in some way (Wellman, 1996). Using media
to develop and maintain social networks is an established practice (Baym, 2000;
Horst & Miller, 2006; Ito & Okabe, 2005; Kendall, 2002).
One way that social networks are articulated and negotiated on social network
sites is through linking and viewing profiles (Donath & boyd, 2004; Gross & Acquisti,
2005). The linking of profiles through friendship requests and acceptances and the
ability to view the resulting connections on others’ profiles are tangible mechanisms
that reflect existing social networks. They also reflect change, as when friends are
added (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007). By studying social and technical choices
that participants make on social network sites, it is possible to analyze how different
social networks are created, maintained, and negotiated through media (Ellison
et al., 2007; Gross & Acquisti, 2005).
Social network sites are defined as websites that allow participants to construct
a public or semi-public profile within the system and that formally articulate their
relationship to other users in a way that is visible to anyone who can access their
profile (boyd & Ellison, this issue). This definition does not specify the closeness of
any given connection, but only that participants are linked in some fashion. Simi-
larly, this article considers social networks in a broad sense and examines their
362 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 361–380 ª 2008 International Communication Association
sub-instantiations as they are visibly reflected on YouTube through friending prac-
tices, video sharing, and posting comments to videos.
Maintaining Social Networks Through Media Circuits

Writing about transnational migration, Rouse (1991) proposed a useful framework
for understanding the role of media in social network maintenance. He analyzed how
Mexican immigrants used media to stay in touch, engage in community decision-
making, and ‘‘participate in familial events even from a considerable distance’’
(p. 13). The telephone was not used merely to maintain contact; it also helped

immigrants engage intensely with distant loved ones and friends. The use of media
by members of a social group to stay connected or to interact with other members of
the group constitutes a ‘‘media circuit.’’ In Rouse’s example, the media circuit con-
nected people via the telephone. Media circuits in other forms—such as intercon-
nections through video sharing—may also be examined to understand the social
dynamics of a particular group. A media circuit is not a social network itself, but
rather it supports social networks by facilitating and technically mediating social
interactions among people within a network.
By examining a media circuit, it is possible to understand important social
dynamics among the people who use the media. On YouTube, for example, a person
may make and share certain kinds of videos with one set of friends, while making and
sharing other types of videos with a different set of friends. Although it is not feasible
to obtain information about all the media that are exchanged across a social network,
Rouse’s framework provides a window into particular instantiations of a social
network as tangibly reflected in related media use. A media circuit helps some
members of a social group to stay connected or interact in qualitatively meaningful
ways. Not all members of a social group may participate in a particular media circuit,
but examining media use reveals crucial aspects of relationships among participants.
In the context of video sharing, posting videos that are shared with certain individ-
uals and not others materially reflects different social configurations.
People who do not regularly participate on YouTube may not understand why
people watch seemingly poor quality or odd videos on the site. Yet those videos may
serve important social functions, and their utility is not necessarily judged by tech-
nical criteria. Media utility is often assessed in terms of the bandwidth or quality of
information that a particular medium affords (Nardi, 2005). However, in the context
of instant messaging, Nardi (2005) demonstrates how certain exchanges are not
focused on information gathering. Rather they strive to establish an ‘‘affinity,’’ which
Nardi defines as a ‘‘feeling of connection’’ between people who ‘‘[experience] an
openness to interacting with another person’’ (p. 92). Evaluating an instant message
in terms of novel information ignores how short, similarly worded messages may
transmit feelings of openness and affinity to the people to whom they are circulated.
How and why media like instant messages or videos are viewed, enjoyed, and for-
warded reveal much about the participants and their relationships. How they are
shared also provides insight into distinctions between public and private.
Interrogating the Public/Private Dichotomy
Scholars invoking the public/private dichotomy typically use one of two analytically
distinct metaphors (Weintraub, 1997). The first is ‘‘what is hidden or withdrawn
versus what is open, revealed, or accessible’’ (pp. 4–5). Private things are ‘‘things that
we are able and/or entitled to keep hidden, sheltered, or withdrawn from others’’ (p. 6).
Similarly, ‘‘individuals have privacy to the extent that others have limited access to
information about them, to the intimacies of their lives, to their thoughts or bodies’’
(Sheehan, 2002, p. 22). This includes preventing physical access to materials, as well
as using symbols that are not easily understood by people outside a small social

group. Intent, however, does not guarantee success, which depends upon the capa-
bilities of interpreting parties, who may detect someone’s identity or decipher
arcane meanings in videos. The second line of analysis used to distinguish between
the public and private concerns ‘‘what is individual, or pertains only to an individ-
ual, versus what is collective, or affects the interests of a collectivity’’ (Weintraub,
1997, pp. 4–5). This article analyzes the public and private both in terms of what is
physically or symbolically more or less visible, and what counts as important or
socially relevant for social network members. How ‘‘public’’ a video is can be
evaluated according to both factors; it can be judged in terms of how much infor-
mation a person yields about their identity and how much information in a video is
accessed and meaningful to many people, as opposed to a select few.
Social and legal theorists have grappled with the subtleties of the public/private
distinction. Nissenbaum (2004) introduces the concept of contextual integrity,
which states that within a context of an interaction, people have expectations about
what information is appropriate to collect and whether it should be distributed. For
instance, when one friend tells another a secret, expectations within the context of
‘‘friendship’’ mean that a confidant will not widely distribute sensitive information.
Nissenbaum stresses that ideas about contextual integrity vary across time, place, and
culture. However, she does not account for variations within a particular context. On
YouTube, people have different expectations about what information can be shared
or what constitutes sensitive information. One useful lens for understanding differ-
ences in expectations about identity and content sharing within social networks is the
concept of the fractalization of the public and private.
The Fractalization of the Public and Private

Some scholars suggest that communication technologies may be ‘‘eroding the
boundaries between ‘publicity’ and ‘privacy’ in fundamental ways’’ (Weintraub &
Kumar, 1997, p. xi). At the same time, Weintraub and Kumar (1997) rightly assert
that ‘‘the enormous bodies of discourse that use ‘public’ and ‘private’ as organizing
categories are not always informed by a careful consideration of the meanings and
implications of the concepts themselves’’ (pp. xi-xii). Recent scholarship on the
public/private distinction in mediated contexts confirms this observation. Several
recent studies discussing public and private media do not acknowledge nuanced
meanings. For instance, they 1) consider either visibility or social relevance to
determine public/private boundaries, rather than incorporating both lenses (Barnes,
2006; Sandvig, 2006) or 2) do not consider how contexts other than the one they are
analyzing shed light on public/private dimensions (Al-Saggaf, 2006). Such limita-
tions are unsurprising, given that entire volumes grapple with these complex terms
(Schoeman, 1984; Weintraub & Kumar, 1997). Yet, nuances and gradations exist in
who can access, manipulate, and distribute information. What do these nuances and
gradations look like within different contexts? How do social and technical affor-
dances enable or limit particular configurations? If communication technologies are
eroding these boundaries, what are the social responses to this erosion?

Gal (2002) provides a useful lens for interrogating the meaning of and response
to public/private erosions. According to Gal, ‘‘public’’ and ‘‘private’’ are relative
terms and shift according to individual perspectives. The public/private dichotomy
is thus more productively visualized as a ‘‘fractal distinction.’’ A fractal is defined as
‘‘a shape made of parts similar to the whole in some way’’ (Feder, 1988). Gal explains,
‘‘Whatever the local, historically specific content of the dichotomy, the distinction
between public and private can be reproduced repeatedly by projecting it onto
narrower contexts or broader ones’’ (p. 81). For instance, a home is private when
contrasted with the neighborhood. At the same time, public and private spaces exist
within the home. At a higher level, community matters may appear private relative to
affairs at the level of state government.
Examining the fractalized patterns of public and private video access and inter-
pretation reveals different social networks and their dynamics within the context of
public video sharing. Just as small towns constitute a socio-spatial domain that sub-
divides when smaller social networks require neighborhood interaction, so, too, do
video-sharing practices sub-divide in ways that reflect different social networks and
relationship dynamics. Studying the fractalization of video-sharing practices thus
provides a valuable lens through which to view how social relations shift and sub-
divide within the context of visible media sharing.
Method
The analysis that follows is based on an ethnographic investigation into young
people’s engagement with online video sharing on YouTube. The data include
semi-structured interviews, fieldnotes on observations conducted several times
a week over the course of one year on YouTube, analyses of posted videos and
comments, and examination of subscription and friending practices.1 The 54 inter-
viewees ranged in age from 9 to 43, although most were in the mid-teens to early 20s
range. In keeping with the project’s focus, most of the interviewees were from the
United States, although two were from Canada and two were from Europe. Formal
interviews lasted from one to three hours and included a pre-interview survey on
interviewees’ demographic background and media use. Twenty-nine interviews were
conducted over the phone, 15 interviews were conducted via instant messaging chat,
and 10 interviews were conducted face-to-face.
Observations were collected during varied activities, including watching the
main YouTube page to see what videos were featured, reading the YouTube video
blog, watching videos of interviewees and others, reading video comments, and
observing how YouTube participants responded to commentary (such as addressing
a comment in a video). Other data include observations gathered at video-themed
events that I attended in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York, including
a YouTube meet-up on July 7, 2007 in New York City.
Interviewees were recruited in several ways, such as asking members of the
research team’s personal networks for interviews and sending email requests for

interviews on the basis of YouTube content. Soliciting interviews from the research-
ers’ social networks, such as acquaintances of project members, was helpful because
several of these participants did not promote their videos widely on YouTube, if they
posted videos at all. Such a strategy helped to illuminate a broader participation base
than would have been possible by examining only youth who were popular or
particularly visible on the site.
The interview protocol included questions about why the individuals partici-
pated on YouTube, how they responded to comments, and what they thought of
certain issues on YouTube, such as how ‘‘haters’’ (people posting excessively negative
commentary) should be dealt with (Lange, 2007). The interview items included
questions such as:
l What are the major advantages and disadvantages about participating on You-
Tube? Are you a ‘‘YouTuber’’? Why or why not?
l Do you know all the people who have posted comments to your videos? Where
do you know them from (YouTube, elsewhere online, offline)? What were your
reactions to the comments on your videos?
l Under what circumstances do you ‘‘friend’’ someone? Do you only make You-
Tube friends with people you know offline? Do you make YouTube friends with
people only online or only from YouTube? Why? How do you decide to whom
you will subscribe? How is the practice of ‘‘friending’’ someone on YouTube
different from subscribing to their videos?
The interview was adapted to the interviewee’s particular interests and back-
ground. Interviewees were also asked specific questions related to their media choices
and interactions. For instance, interviewees who indicated that they had received text
comments on their videos were asked if they knew specific people, either from online
or offline contexts, who posted comments on their videos.
Interviewees represented a wide range of visibility, as indicated by the numbers of
YouTube friends and viewers they had. Some were YouTube celebrities who
uploaded dozens of videos, had thousands of friends and subscribers, and were
recognized within the YouTube community and beyond. Others were not well
known within YouTube, had few subscribers and friends, and posted few or no
videos.
Results
Creating and Negotiating Social Networks Through Video Sharing
Posting text comments and video responses to videos enacts Rouse’s (1991) concept
of media circuits that illustrates particular social network patterns. For example, an
aunt of two boys that I interviewed posted a comment on one of their videos. Living
several states away, the boys rarely see her. But by viewing her nephews’ videos and
posting comments, she re-affirms her position in a familial social network. When the
boys read her posted comments, they complete a media circuit that began with an

experience that was encoded in video, displayed, and commented upon by their aunt,
who participated from afar. In this case, the media circuit helps maintain a social
network that already exists. Media circuits take different forms and not only help
maintain, but can also help create connections and negotiate relationship changes, as
described below.
While some media circuits support existing social networks that began in-person,
other social networks would not exist as such without online media circulation. For
example, one YouTube celebrity expanded his network after posting videos for
dispersed, unknown others to see. When a YouTube participant posts a video, view-
ers may ‘‘friend’’ the celebrity or comment on the video to garner the celebrity’s
attention. Several interviewees reported that an intelligent comment on their video
usually prompted them to examine the commenter’s work. In an environment where
friending practices can become liberal, in that some participants routinely automat-
ically accept friendship links, participants often post comments to increase their
social visibility and connection to a video maker.
YouTube participants can broaden or limit physical access to their videos and thus
create larger or smaller media circuits by using technical features such as limited
‘‘friends-only’’ viewing or strategic tagging. Viewers may locate videos using keywords
or ‘‘tags’’ that video makers designate for their videos or write into the video’s title or
description. Given the limited capabilities of YouTube’s search features at the time of
this research, several interview participants reported that appropriate tagging, titling,
and video descriptions were critical for finding relevant videos. Vague or generic tags,
such as ‘‘cats,’’ can yield a list of over 200,000 videos, which are difficult to sift through.
Manipulation of video descriptions and tagging systems thus becomes crucial for video
makers to regulate physical access to their videos. For example, one video maker used
his YouTube name as his only tag. Unless one were a close enough friend to know this
tag, it would be difficult to find his videos using the tagging system.
In addition to supporting social networks, video-sharing practices helped create
new connections and develop social networks. Several interviewees said that they
were not friends with their fellow video makers until they began making videos
together and distinguishing their videos from other YouTube participants’ work.
For instance, despite living in the same dorm, one group of college students only
began interacting in a qualitatively meaningful way after an incident that they con-
sidered ideal to record for YouTube. In this incident, two boys wrestled in their
dorm’s hallway. One was wearing combat gear and the other, a set of medieval
armor. Several people filmed the incident, one of whom filmed it to share on
YouTube, given its reputation for similar spontaneous and playful videos. The video,
referred to here as Ninjas and Knights, was posted on September 30, 2006. Some of
the students noted that they did not know each other well prior to the mediated
incident. They further said that filming the incident for YouTube encouraged them
to meet and interact with each other.
Brian2:

Yeah. We made new friends with the people who filmed us because we’d never
met them before. They just came out of their rooms like, ‘‘Hey, let’s film this.’’
So one – two of the guys that were filming became new friends.
Making the video helped launch connections that did not exist prior to the
mediated event. The goal was not to make a high-quality video, but rather to encode
an interesting, affective experience that they could share. People who do not regularly
use YouTube are often critical of the quality of videos on the site. Some participants
were dismissive of the standard of other people’s videos. Their objections often
related to technical issues (including poor editing, lighting, sound, or some combi-
nation) or content (too many videos about people sparring). But critics fail to
understand that video quality is not necessarily the determining factor in terms of
how videos affect social networks. Rather, creating and circulating video affectively
enacts social relationships between those who make and those who view videos.
Posting the Ninja video expanded and articulated the network of people interested
in participating in the video makers’ experience. For students, identifying one’s
college in the video description and tagging system helps other students and alumni
locate the video and participate in a larger community of individuals who have
similar affinities.
Brian1:
.and we know a lot of other people watch [YouTube] like our friends, and it’s
– if we wanted to tell our friends, ‘‘Hey, come and watch this,’’ it’d be a lot easier
if we just put it on YouTube instead of sticking it in an email and waiting for the
email to get there and waiting for them to open it which would take forever
‘cause the file was so big. So we just put it on YouTube and go the link, sent the
link to everyone, and they watched it.
Not all videos target general consumption. Some reaffirm pre-existing social
networks by including material intended to appeal to shared affinities between the
senders and certain receivers. Similarly, sending so-called viral videos to intimates
demonstrates readiness to maintain social associations and bond with recipients.
People who post criticisms, expecting a high-bandwidth, high-quality experience,
fail to display affinity with the video. They effectively reject a social link to the video
maker’s social network members, for whom the video represents an emotional
connection point. For example, in the case of the Ninja video, someone posted
the comment, ‘‘Can I please have my five minutes and seven seconds back?’’ In an
interview, one of the video makers said that he did not know the person who had
posted this comment from either his online or offline social networks. Further, he
did not appreciate the comment, nor did he feel compelled to interact with the
commenter. Thus, by posting a comment that did not display affinity with the video
maker, the comment discouraged the video maker from pursuing additional social
contact.
Conversely, interviewees reported that people who post comments of affinity or
leave thoughtful comments may prompt the video maker to respond to the poster of

the comment. Video makers may react to comments by: 1) reading them; 2) posting
comments in response to the comments they received on a video; 3) posting a com-
ment or question on the commenter’s video or channel page; 4) extending a friend
request to the commenter; or 5) viewing or subscribing to the commenter’s videos.
Although further interaction is not guaranteed through comments, interviewees
noted that these interactions were often the initial steps in broadening social con-
nections through media circuits.
Fractalized Public and Private Dynamics Reveal Different Social Networks

Applying the fractal public/private distinction (Gal, 2002) is useful because it reveals
social patterns that otherwise remain hidden. The fractal distinction between the
public and private is reproduced at various levels on YouTube. At a high level,
YouTube is public, especially when contrasted with home video viewing, but within
YouTube, fractalized divisions occur. While some video makers heavily promote
their videos to connect with many people, others tell only a few friends about their
work. Moving down to the level of specific video makers, the fractalized pattern
repeats. Within a single video maker’s work, some videos are personal, whereas
others address issues such as environmental sustainability or racism and are intended
for a larger audience.2 Video makers may also have more than one YouTube account.
Some celebrities reported having one account that encourages broad participation
and social network linkages with fans and another account that targets circles of
intimate friends.
Publicly Private
On YouTube, some participants broadcast extensive information about their iden-
tity. Moreover, they craft videos with content that is broadly appealing, and they
aggressively promote and disseminate their videos. This can be considered quite
public video making and viewing, because all three factors—identity information
about the video maker, content relevance, and technical access to videos—are
designed to be broadly appealing and widely available. On the private end of the
spectrum, video makers may choose to restrict information about their identity in
videos, and they may make videos with content that appeals only to a few close
friends. They can also restrict access to the videos technically, by using few or
cryptic tags or by invoking YouTube’s ‘‘friends-only’’ viewing feature, according
to which only members designated as the video maker’s friends may access the
video.
Other important categories of participation exist. Participants may share private
experiences through video but do so in a ‘‘public way,’’ by revealing personal identity
information. This behavior may be characterized as ‘‘publicly private,’’ in that they
disclose identity information about themselves. At the same time, they use mecha-
nisms to limit physical access to the videos or to limit understanding of their con-
tents. The first part of this compound expression thus refers to the amount of identity
information imparted by video makers. The second part refers to the available phys-

ical access to the video and to the interpretative content that may be understood only by
the video maker and a few viewers.
Mechanisms that limit access may take technical and social forms. In a video
referred to here as Hand Puppets, both the video’s tags and content limit access to it.
Theoretically, anyone can view the video and the identity information it contains.
A girl’s face intermittently appears on camera and the video’s channel page contains
identifying information. Nevertheless, only people who find it can analyze its con-
tents. It also exhibits occasionally uneven audio, which offers another type of phys-
ical access barrier. This video was posted on July 8, 2006, and over the course of
a year, it garnered only 88 views. The creator’s tagging choices, which include
common first names and cryptic abbreviations, complicate casual viewing access.
For instance, one abbreviated tag is a reference to the religious convention that the
girls attended while making the video. People who attended this convention or who
are members of that religious network might use the tag to find other videos in other
media circuits with the same tag. In this way, they can try to connect with other
members of this social network.
Once they obtain physical access to videos, participants may have numerous
interpretations, but these interpretations may not coincide with the girls’ feelings
about what is happening in the video or their in-jokes about the people they discuss.
The video is filled with inside references and stylistics that are not intended for
general YouTube viewership.
Interviewer:
What was your story idea?
Allison:
It was just basically about this guy that I met and myself, and [my friend] kept
like messing up our names when we were talking about it. Like she kept calling
him James instead of John, which is her brother’s name. And so we decided to
just change the names in the movie and such. And then we also talked about
some random things that he and I had talked about on the phone and such, and
yeah, it just kind of random, spur of the moment sort of things.
Anjin, a youth in his late teens, also uses cryptic tagging practices, such as using
only his YouTube name. Unless one knows this name, the video’s title, or words in
the video description, it will be impossible to use the tagging and search systems to
search for his videos. Only his close friends and family—whether online or offline—
are likely to find his videos using the tagging system as it was implemented at the
time of this writing. Unlike some other participants, he does not widely promote his
videos (such as by posting comments and directing viewers to his videos). Of his nine
videos, six of them received fewer than 200 views over periods ranging from five to 11
months. Even though YouTube enables global video sharing, relatively few people
view his videos there. With regard to tagging practices, it should be noted that
nuances in public and private access to videos are not only based on the video

maker’s intent. For instance, one interviewee claimed that she was simply ‘‘lazy’’
about putting up a lot of tags.
Certainly, viewers’ and creators’ interpretations may not coincide. Anjin’s videos
contain personal information, including his real name, the places he visits, and his
and his friends’ faces. In one video, Anjin and a few friends take a hike. At one point,
a young man faces the camera and gives a thumbs-up sign in front of some graffiti,
which is difficult to see. Anjin enlarges the graffiti in a graphic and places it next to
the youth’s face. The box contains the image of swastika. For many people, a swastika
symbolizes Nazis and mass genocide. But as Anjin explains, the incident had a par-
ticular meaning for the small network of friends with whom he participated on the
hike and with whom he shared the video.
Anjin:
And there was this graffiti there and it had a swastika. And Ben is Jewish, so
we’re like; ha-ha, Ben. And he’s like, what. So then the kind of joke was that Ben
is Jewish and he’s making this thumbs up at this swastika. There’s some sort of
irony there. And, once again, that’s just kind of our odd inbred sense of humor
at work, even though it’s actually pretty terrible.
The image has symbolic value to the boys who participated in the nature walk.
For the youth, giving a thumbs-up sign to a swastika does not aim to transmit
political information but rather creates an affinity among the friends. One of Anjin’s
friends later posted a comment on another video in Anjin’s oeuvre. The comment—
No Swastika. =(—expresses mock disappointment that the current video con-
tained no swastika. If one has not seen the prior video, the comment’s intertextual
meaning is likely to be lost. Even if viewers had seen Anjin’s prior video, they may not
understand that the swastika is an affective symbol that refers to humor shared by
a small group of friends, rather than genuine disappointment that Anjin does not
place swastikas in his videos.
Why did Anjin post the video publicly, given its inside references and symbolism?
Although he is aware of the friends-only viewing option, he declined to restrict
physical access to his videos. For Anjin and other people interviewed, it was a matter
of convenience. Although many people watch YouTube, a number do not have
accounts, which are required to ‘‘friend’’ other participants and enable selective
viewing. Notably, just as social network site participants have different interpretations
of what constitutes a ‘‘friend’’ (boyd, 2006), YouTube participants apply different
definitions of what constitutes a ‘‘public’’ video. Despite the fact that YouTube
offers potential connections to a large public, some people choose to create less
public videos, some of which are not available or interesting to people beyond a few
close friends.
Anjin:
.And like I said, I don’t really feel too bad about [the swastika video] because I
don’t, like, display it super publicly. I guess people could stumble onto it

randomly but nobody has given me a hard time about it yet.
Within Anjin’s YouTube oeuvre, fractalized gradations between public and private
videos exist. Although he does not consider most of his videos ‘‘super public,’’ since
they contain inside references and few people actually watch them on YouTube, some
of his videos are ‘‘more public’’ than others. For example, on a martial arts video he
used tags that included the name of the martial art. Over a seven-month period, the
video garnered over 2,000 views, which is far more than Anjin’s other videos. The
martial art is practiced around the world and thus has potentially broad social rele-
vance to other dispersed practitioners. One person posted the comment, ‘‘Very
cool.if you guys are ever in New York, make sure to stop by our branch. =) Best
wishes.’’ This poster simultaneously invites Anjin into his social network and expresses
interest in joining Anjin’s network based on common interest in the video’s content.
Privately Public
YouTube participation may take another hybrid form.3 Being ‘‘privately public’’
means making connections with many other people, while being relatively private
with regard to sharing identity information. Participants in this category conceal
certain aspects of their identity, while expanding their friend and subscriber base and
making videos with widely accessible content. Privately public individuals who were
interviewed included YouTube celebrities and non-famous participants who wished
to retain some anonymity. For instance, one person did not want his identity
revealed, lest it compromise professional credibility with clients and co-workers.
Other people cited concerns about safety and the desire to avoid stalkers.
One privately public video, which is referred to here as Vlad The Impaler, showed
a mask-wearing monster. ‘‘Vlad’s’’ menacing speech echoes the sentiments of other
participants who wish to interact with many people, but in a way that conceals
identifying information. The video announces a series of videos that he and his
friends intend to make. In this video, Vlad outlines the level of identity that people
should expect.
Vlad:
We have a strict rule [governing] our society that there are some things that
should never be seen, should never be known, [which is] more for our
protection than yours. If people knew that we were doing such things, [we]
would be punished, so you’ll never know our real names or our real faces but
you will know our entertainment.
In a chat interview, CT, a youth in his mid-teens, said that he created this character
with select friends as a secret joke. Although CT is in the costume, another friend
provided a narrative voice over, in which his voice was modulated to sound lower. CT
made the video after another friend (RJ) ‘‘jokingly’’ told him that he didn’t need CT’s
help to make videos. RJ implied that CT’s contribution was technically lacking. In
response, CT and some other friends created the ‘‘Vlad the Impaler’’ character. CT’s

goal with the ‘‘Vlad’’ films was to become quite popular on YouTube and then reveal
himself to his friend RJ, so that RJ would know that he had misjudged CT’s talent.
CT:
the first vid was to make it seem like we had no clu what we were doing and i
wanted it to [build] up. and when the time came if we had a lot more views
than RJ we would [unveil] our selves, but we havent been able to make any
videos for them
Interviewer:
Wow!
CT:
we were going to make them in a way where we wouldnt have to show our faces
Interviewer:
Why [wouldn’t] you show your faces?
CT:
well so nobody on youtube, or RJ would [know]
just to prove him wrong
Figure 1 ‘‘Vlad the Impaler’’
Interviewer: .
It is rather [surprising] to me that RJ did not notice that video. I scanned
through [Vlad’s] subscriber list and it is not that long.
CT:
well one day he had seen it
and then he showed it to me that day because we had subscribed to him (he
always checks that) and was like hey [CT] look at this noob4
i had to comment on the cool [lighting] effect

CT uses video in a way that articulates two separate social networks to which he
belongs. The first includes his friend and video-making partner, RJ. The second includes
a group of friends from which RJ is excluded. RJ was not invited to create the ‘‘Vlad the
Impaler’’ video, because he had ‘‘insulted’’ CT. Even though the video is ‘‘public,’’ in the
sense that anyone using YouTube, including RJ, can view it, RJ did not recognize his own
friend in the video and did not associate CT with Vlad. Despite being a close friend of
CT’s, RJ cannot access the symbolic meaning of the video that refers to conflict between
CT and RJ. In this sense, although public, the ‘‘Vlad’’ video was not interpretable in the
same way by all who viewed it. Again, there appears to be a fractalization of the public
and private in terms of how CT presents himself in different media circuits that support
social connections in varyingly public and private ways. When he makes videos with RJ,
he reveals his face, name, and location. Yet when he made the Vlad film, he withheld that
information and sought more ‘‘privately public’’ connections to new fans. It should be
noted that CT’s intentions do not guarantee identification privacy; RJ’s role in failing to
recognize CT was critical for CT’s ruse to work.
Some well-known YouTubers also exhibit this type of privately public participa-
tion. A further fractalization of relative public and private behavior appears across
different participants within this category in terms of their levels of identity revela-
tion. Examples include MysteryGuitarMan (MGM) and MadV. MGM discloses
Figure 2 MysteryGuitarMan
more personal information than does MadV. For instance, MGM speaks and shows
himself on camera, albeit usually behind glasses and often wearing a hat.5 In contrast,
MadV wears a Guy Fawkes6 mask, does not disclose much personal information
about himself, and never speaks.7
Although MadV’s participation is public, in that a large number of people view
his work and have a connection to him (as a YouTube ‘‘friend’’ or subscriber), the
person behind the persona does not disclose identity details such as name, location,
occupation, age, and gender.8 MadV has maintained relative anonymity, although he
said that this is becoming ‘‘trickier’’ as he attains greater popularity and participates

in a widening social network on YouTube. MadV interacts with fans while main-
taining a mysterious persona in a Guy Fawkes mask, a symbol that appears in many
art works such as the vigilante character named ‘‘V’’ in the dystopic film, V for
Vendetta. MadV said that he did not adopt the mask to show alliance with this V
character. Indeed, MadV does not allow posted comments that suggest that he wishes
to overthrow a government. People attempting to enter his YouTube media circuit
using these comments are barred from entry both technically and socially, since
MadV also deletes such comments from his YouTube pages. These types of nego-
tiations determine whom MadV will allow into his social network.
People may friend or subscribe to MadV because his videos, such as One World,
are broadly appealing and popular. People may assume that MadV is aligned with the
‘‘One World’’ movement,9 which promotes a more just global society in which
people can access information and make connections worldwide. Instead, MadV
said he wished to raise global awareness, a topic that also has wide appeal and
interests many. In this video, MadV invites others to ‘‘make a statement’’ and to
‘‘make a difference.’’ He holds up his hand to the camera. On it is written the phrase,
‘‘One World.’’ Many viewers joined this media circuit by posting videos in which
they wrote special messages on their hands (thus becoming video makers as well as
viewers). Within an eight-month span, One World garnered more than one million
views and over 2,000 video responses. At one point, it also held the honor of being
the ‘‘most responded to video of all time on YouTube.’’
MadV encourages broad participation, albeit anonymously, by making videos
that potentially concern many people and adopting liberal friending practices.
Although MadV connects with many people, he nevertheless allows only certain
kinds of comments to be posted on his videos. By refusing to post comments or
videos from others who try to guess or knowingly reveal his identity, MadV tries to
maintain a degree of privately public participation. He writes people who make such
attempts at disclosure out of his YouTube media circuit. By placing a comment of
affinity to MadV’s work, a supporter can write him- or herself into a social network
in which MadV is the center by showing how MadV is relevant to them. The way in
which a participant responds to other participants illustrates different relationship
patterns. Examining these patterns reveal particular media circuit topologies. For
example, MadV said in an interview that he does not subscribe to other people’s
channels or initiate friend requests. In this sense, the media circuit topology that
MadV supports is one in which he is the center of a directed social network in which the
fans watch and comment on his videos, but he does not engage in these same practices
toward fans. His practices are quite different from those that other interviewees
reported, in which small, close groups of friends post and watch videos intended for
consumption by a limited group. This and the other examples presented above illustrate
how by examining participants’ choices with regard to video sharing practices, processes
of social network maintenance, delineation, and negotiation are revealed.

Discussion
This research suggests that for many participants, profile linkages are not the only or
even the primary way of supporting a social network through YouTube. A more
common practice among the interviewees was posting videos that friends and family
could see and respond to. Posting comments also enabled people to express feelings
of affinity for the video or the video makers. Media circuits are useful for under-
standing how social networks are created, maintained, and negotiated in public
arenas such as on YouTube. Sharing and commenting on videos helped users main-
tain connections with their friends and relatives at a distance, and such behaviors
facilitated membership negotiation within social networks. Interviewees reported
that intelligent commentary on a video could stimulate closer social connections,
if the video maker continues to communicate with and interact with the poster of the
commentary.
Why do networks fractalize in ways that rupture yet maintain relative public and
private social relations? Nissenbaum (2004) argues that some privacy is required for
individuals to self-actualize. Privacy is arguably necessary for advancing the self and
protecting the integrity of relationships. Having insulation against outside scrutiny is
important for experimenting with aspects of the self without fear of retribution. For
instance, as part of CT’s ‘‘privately public behavior,’’ he cloaked himself in a character
in order to develop video skills, garner a fan base, and then reveal himself, once
successful, to his old friend RJ. Different kinds of relationships require distinctive
levels of protection from outside parties; these are manifested in varied levels of
publicness and privacy in video making and sharing.
The question also arises: Why do people engage in ‘‘publicly private’’ behavior?
This study identified two main reasons. First, the technical options for delineating
media circuits as implemented at the time of the research had drawbacks. Many
interviewees wished to share media with particular friends or family members but
did not want to use the friends-only viewing option, because it required viewers to
have an account. Nevertheless, YouTube was a convenient way to circulate videos
with dispersed friends and relatives whom they knew watched YouTube. Some
interviewees responded to the problem of sharing in public by using limited tagging,
such that only people in the social network who knew the tags—which included
cryptic references such as the video maker’s YouTube name—would be able to use to
locate participants’ videos.
In addition, some interviewees used their view counts and comment systems as
a way of gauging viewership, determining that their videos were not ‘‘super public’’ if
they did not garner much response. Just as prior research on blogging demonstrated
(Nardi, Schiano, & Gumbrecht, 2004; Viégas, 2005), a few interviewees were indif-
ferent to being watched. Further, they did not express awareness about how their
material could be accessed in ways outside their control. For instance, after the
purchase of YouTube, Google enabled its search engine to return results from general
searches that included YouTube videos. Such a feature widens video makers’ expo-
sure to being viewed, if they use tags that people searching Google also use to find

material. YouTube also lists a number of ‘‘related’’ videos next to the current video
being watched. If YouTube places a video maker’s video on a ‘‘related list,’’ the video
may get more exposure than the video maker anticipated. Video source code can also
be placed on profiles of other social network sites, allowing people to access videos
from YouTube.
This article reveals that what constitutes how ‘‘public’’ a media circuit is varies,
depending on participants’ display of information about themselves and the con-
tent that they produce. For instance, MadV kept his identity guarded and reported
that he does not know most people in his YouTube media circuit offline, but he
encourages broad online viewership and friendships in a way that is not ‘‘mutual’’
with his fans. Posted videos and related comments create media circuits that take
on a variety of different forms according to the relationships that they reflect. In
MadV’s case, fans watch and comment on his videos, but the social trajectory only
moves in one direction, since MadV does not subscribe to other people’s videos nor
initiate friend requests. Different media circuit types reflect different interaction
dynamics.
Future studies could examine different types of media exchange to see what they
reveal about underlying social relationships. The social connections in a group in
which media are circulating among a small number of people may differ from those
in a group in which media are distributed only in one direction, as is the case
between certain YouTube celebrities and their fans. A small private network may
more interactively exchange media in bi-directional exchanges than a fan-centric
media circuit with a YouTube star. Viewing the media exchange trajectories in
different media circuits may thus shed light on other types of media-supported social
relationships.
The analysis has shown that the public and private fractalize in complex ways in
video making and sharing on YouTube. It also supports previous scholarship that
claims that watching media is not merely a passive exercise, but rather that film or
video viewing in general involves active interpretations that shape reception of media
messages (Friedman, 2006). On YouTube, frequent interaction between video mak-
ers and viewers is a core component of participation on the site. Viewers and
commenters are often themselves video makers, who comment with the strategic
intent of forming social relationships with others who will support their work. Some
interviewees reported that their attempts to be ‘‘friends’’ with popular YouTube stars
were lost in large, mediated, social networks. In the context of liberal friending
practices, discourse through comments and video responses provides another way
for participants to establish meaningful social connections.
Conclusion
This article demonstrated how YouTube participants used both technical and sym-
bolic mechanisms to attempt to delineate different social networks. It proposed new
categories of nuanced behavior types that are neither strictly public nor strictly

private. Moreover, it demonstrated that parts of social networks, as supported by
media circuits, can be examined to shed light on the dynamics of social network
creation, maintenance, and negotiation. Beyond profile-based friendship connec-
tions, the analysis showed how video sharing can become an important way for
participants to negotiate membership in social networks.
These findings also have design implications. As social groups and professional
organizations increasingly supplement their websites with social network site com-
ponents, it is important to be alert to fractalization touch points, where greater
amounts of publicity or privacy may be required to meet different individuals’
and groups’ social needs. Technical features that provide participants more custom-
ization and control in creating public and private interactions could help to optimize
social network site usage.
As intentional and unintentional surveillance becomes more commonplace in
contemporary society, people will likely continue to seek ways to carve out privacy in
highly visible media environments. While corporations and institutions may require
additional information sharing and employee monitoring on the company Website,
the present analysis suggests that some participants will nevertheless manipulate
public systems in ways that preserve, in a fractalized pattern, different desired levels
of informational and behavioral publicity and privacy. Analyzing micro-processes of
networking through video sharing is one way to understand how social groups strive
to protect varied levels of privacy amid increasing public scrutiny.
Notes
1 On YouTube channel pages, participants can display friend and subscription links or
withhold them from view, even from other YouTube friends. This contrasts to Donath
and boyd’s (2004) finding that friendship links are assumed by many participants to be
‘‘mutual’’ and ‘‘public’’ on social network sites. Subscriptions mean that when a new
video is posted, all the video maker’s subscribers are alerted through email about it.
Some interviewees had difficulty distinguishing the social difference between accepting
a friend request and subscribing to their videos.
2 The claim here is not that all viewers interested in racism or other subjects will actually
view a particular video, but rather, as Weintraub (1997) points out, that some subjects
are considered more public than others. What scholars have characterized as relatively
more public issues are those that concern a larger collective versus, for example, gossip
that involves an event that relatively few people know or care about.
3 The two intermediate forms (‘‘publicly private’’ and ‘‘privately public’) discussed here
are not the only ones. However, these forms emerged as particularly salient in the
dataset used in this study.
4 A ‘‘noob’’ (short for ‘‘newbie’’) is a person who is new to a social group, typically an
online environment. The term is often used in a derogatory way to characterize
someone who is unfamiliar with the technical and social aspects of a particular online
community or activity.

5 A sense for his level of participation can be gotten from his channel page: http://
www.youtube.com/profile?user=mysteryguitarman. Retrieved October 29, 2007.
6 For more information about Guy Fawkes, see ‘‘The Gunpowder Plot’’ (2006).
7 MadV’s channel page can be accessed at: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=madv.
Retrieved October 29, 2007.
8 Here I follow his fans’ convention and refer to him as ‘‘he.’’
9 http://us.oneworld.net/. Retrieved October 29, 2007.
References
Al-Saggaf, Y. (2006). The online public sphere in the Arab world: The war in Iraq on the
Arabiya Website. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(1), article 16.
Retrieved July 1, 2007 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue1/al-saggaf.html
Barnes, S. B. (2006). A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States. First Monday,
11(9). Retrieved July 1, 2007 from http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_9/barnes/
index.html
Baym, N. (2000). Tune in Log On: Soaps, Fandom, and Online Community. Thousand Oaks,
CA and London: Sage.
boyd, d. (2006). Friends, Friendsters, and Top 8: Writing community into being on social
network sites. First Monday, 11(12). Retrieved February 28, 2007 from http://
www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_12/boyd/
Donath, J., & boyd, d. (2004). Public displays of connection. BT Technology Journal, 22(4),
71–82.
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook ‘‘friends:’’ Social
capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), article 1. Retrieved August 28, 2007 from
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue4/ellison.html
Feder, J. (1988). Fractals. New York and London: Plenum Press.
Friedman, S. L. (2006). Watching twin bracelets in China: The role of spectatorship and
identification in an ethnographic analysis of film reception. Cultural Anthropology, 21(4),
603–632.
Gal, S. (2002). A semiotics of the public/private distinction. Differences: A Journal of Feminist
Cultural Studies, 13(1), 77–95.
Gross, R., & Acquisti, A. (2005). Information revelation and privacy in online social networks.
Proceedings of WPES’05 (pp. 71–80). Alexandria, VA: ACM.
‘‘The gunpowder plot.’’ (2006). Retrieved February 28, 2007 from http://www.parliament.uk/
documents/upload/g08.pdf
Horst, H. A., & Miller, D. (2006). The Cell Phone: An Anthropology of Communication.
Oxford, UK and New York: Berg.
Ito, M., & D. Okabe (2005). Technosocial situations: Emergent structurings of mobile email
use. In M. Ito, D., Okabe, & M. Matsuda (Eds.), Personal, Portable, Pedestrian: Mobile
Phones in Japanese Life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kendall, L. (2002). Hanging Out in the Virtual Pub: Identity, Masculinities, and Relationships
Online. Davis: University of California Press.
Lange, P. G. (2007 March). Commenting on comments: Investigating responses to
antagonism on YouTube. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for

Applied Anthropology. Retrieved August 29, 2007 from http://sfaapodcasts.files.
wordpress.com/2007/04/update-apr-17-lange-sfaa-paper-2007.pdf
Nardi, B. A. (2005). Beyond bandwidth: Dimensions of connection in interpersonal
communication. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 14, 91–130.
Nardi, B., Schiano, D., & Gumbrecht, M. (2004). Blogging as social activity, or, would you let
900 million people read your diary? Proceedings of Computer-Supported Cooperative Work
2004. New York: ACM Press.
Nissenbaum, H. (2004). Privacy as contextual integrity. Washington Law Review, 79(1),
101–158.
Rouse, R. (1991). Mexican migration and the social space of postmodernism. Diaspora, 1(1),
8–24.
Sandvig, C. (2006). The Internet at play: Child users of public Internet connections. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(4), article 3. Retrieved July 1, 2007 from
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue4/sandvig.html
Schoeman, F. (1984). Philosophical Dimensions of Privacy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Sheehan, K. B. (2002). Toward a typology of Internet users and online privacy concerns.
The Information Society, 18(1), 21–32.
Viégas, F. B. (2005). Bloggers’ expectations of privacy and accountability: An initial survey.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3), article 12. Retrieved August 20,
2007 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue3/viegas.html
Weintraub, J. (1997). The theory and politics of the public/private distinction. In
J. Weintraub & K. Kumar (Eds.), Public and Private in Thought and Practice (pp. 1–42).
Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Weintraub, J., & K. Kumar, (Eds.) (1997). Public and Private in Thought and Practice. Chicago
and London: University of Chicago Press.
Wellman, B. (1996). Are personal communities local? A Dumptarian reconsideration.
Social Networks, 18(4), 347–354.
About the Author

Patricia Lange [[email protected]] is a postdoctoral fellow in the School of
Cinematic Arts at the University of Southern California. Her research explores issues
of technical identity performance, identity in online environments such as video
sharing sites, emotions in online encounters, and bodily experience of place.
Address: 746 East Adams Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90089, USA

Jjcmcom 0361

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jjcmcom 0361

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jjcmcom 0361

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication

Publicly Private and Privately Public: Social

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/13/1/361/4583074 by guest on 21 April 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/13/1/361/4583074 by guest on 21 April 2023

Maintaining Social Networks Through Media Circuits

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/13/1/361/4583074 by guest on 21 April 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/13/1/361/4583074 by guest on 21 April 2023

The Fractalization of the Public and Private

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/13/1/361/4583074 by guest on 21 April 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/13/1/361/4583074 by guest on 21 April 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/13/1/361/4583074 by guest on 21 April 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/13/1/361/4583074 by guest on 21 April 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/13/1/361/4583074 by guest on 21 April 2023

Fractalized Public and Private Dynamics Reveal Different Social Networks

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/13/1/361/4583074 by guest on 21 April 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/13/1/361/4583074 by guest on 21 April 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/13/1/361/4583074 by guest on 21 April 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/13/1/361/4583074 by guest on 21 April 2023

Figure 1 ‘‘Vlad the Impaler’’

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/13/1/361/4583074 by guest on 21 April 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/13/1/361/4583074 by guest on 21 April 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/13/1/361/4583074 by guest on 21 April 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/13/1/361/4583074 by guest on 21 April 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/13/1/361/4583074 by guest on 21 April 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/13/1/361/4583074 by guest on 21 April 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/13/1/361/4583074 by guest on 21 April 2023

About the Author

You might also like