Exposing Childhoods Online: A qualitative content analysis to explore how digital footprints can be created for children

(1)

Exposing Childhoods Online

A qualitative content analysis to explore how

digital footprints can be created for children

Amber de Zeeuw

M.A. New Media and Digital Culture

29 June 2018

Word count 21.210

Supervisor: Alberto Cossu

Second reader: Sabine Niederer

(2)

Abstract

Digital footprints are often understood as the traces one can leave behind while being on the Web. Frequently, scholars put a clear emphasis on the agency of the person creating his or her own digital footprints. This thesis, however shows how this is not always the case as one’s digital footprints can also be established by other individuals. Through analyzing the consequences of sharenting by applying a qualitative content analysis, I argue how digital footprints can be created for children. Arguments will be made based on a specific case study, namely the most visible parts of the digital footprints of five children whose childhoods are exposed via the popular vlogging YouTube channel ‘SHAYTARDS’. This thesis will provide insights in the ways how not only the parents of these children hold power over the establishment of these digital footprints as the public holds great power in this as well. By appropriating the data concerning children shared by their parents, the public is able to create new types of content that can contain extensive amounts of personal information. With this thesis I aim to obtain an understanding of the different ways in which digital footprints can be established for others and ultimately, the ownership of online data.

Keywords: Digital footprint, sharenting, online identity, networked publics, YouTube, Micro-celebrity

(3)

1. Introduction

In 1999, the reality television series Big Brother was introduced by the Dutch television network Veronica. The show is famously characterized by the continuous and close surveillance of its contestants who all live together in a house that is completely isolated from the outside world. The viewers of the show, therefore are offered the opportunity to closely observe the way how these contestants live and behave as friendships are made, romances happen and dramas occur. Since its release, the show gained massive worldwide popularity as the format has been sold to over fifty countries (ET Canada n.pag.). Big Brother is however far from the only reality show as Idols (2001-present), Survivor (1997–present) and The X Factor (2004–present) are different

examples among many others worth mentioning as well. Although these well-known examples of the reality genre are to be considered rather divergent, it can be said they all do emphasize a sense of daily life, authenticity and reality as ‘ordinary people’ take their place in the spotlight

(Biltereyst, van Bauwel and Meers 41).

It can be argued that, due to the rise of online platforms that allow users to publish own content, the reality genre today is not exclusive to the medium of television anymore. Ordinary people can use such online platforms to share their personal lives with a community of people. The sharing of video content regarding one’s personal life is mostly being referred to as vlogging and regularly associated with the platform YouTube. Vlogs in general do not exist in one fixed format as they can revolve around a variety of topics. The vlogs published by the French-Canadian Laurie Dion for example mainly revolve around fashion and the treatments she received after she was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor years ago (Soucie n.pag.). On the contrary, Dutch television personality and singer Patty Brard commits to vlogging in order to document her weight loss journey (Boudrie n.pag.). Vlogs can also be used in order to speak from a religious perspective, as is the case for Becca Eller who tackles Christian topics with “openness, honesty and, […] levity” (Coughlin n.pag). These three out of many other examples of vlogging are to be considered quite divergent in nature. What they however have in common is that the publishers often share a great amount of information online concerning their health issues, daily struggles, interests and personal lives. All these Web traces one can leave behind are woven together in a virtual personal data base. This database is often referred to as a personal ‘digital footprint’ (Weaver and Gahegan 329). Stephen Weaver and Mark Gahegan defined this concept as “the digital traces each one of us leaves behind as we conduct our lives” (324).

Often, scholars make a distinction between two categories of digital footprints, namely between an ‘active’ and a ‘passive’ one (Madden et al.; Gill et al.; Zezulka; Lowenthal, Dunlap and

(5)

Stitson). This distinction was originally made by Mary Madden et al. who describe active digital footprints as the personal information deliberately shared by an individual, and passive digital footprints as the personal data gathered with no deliberate intervention from the individual (Madden et al.). Examples of active digital footprints are sent e-mails, status updates on

Facebook and posting pictures on Instagram. Your IP address a web server gathered after visiting a website and a by search engines saved search histories can be considered examples of passive digital footprints.

By understanding the creation of a digital footprint through the lens of this set dichotomy, a clear focus is put on the agency of the person creating her or his own digital footprint. Therefore, this categorisation implies that your digital footprint can only be created by yourself. It can, however, be argued that this is not necessarily the case as someone’s digital footprints can as well be created by other individuals. This third category of digital footprint creation, I will designate as ‘made digital footprints’. To illustrate the way how these pre-made digital footprints can be established, I will analyse the digital footprints created for children as a result of the so-called phenomenon of ‘sharenting’. This concept can be described as a “rapidly growing phenomenon in which parents regularly use social media to share and disclose a great amount of intimate information about their child” (Brosch 226). In the specific context of vlogging, the phenomenon of sharenting can take place when parents decide to closely document family life. Therefore, the lives and daily activities of (young) children are disclosed to an

audience and by doing so the parents play an active role in the creation of their children’s digital footprints.

Research on the phenomenon of sharenting often mainly focuses on the possible harmful effects on children (Blum-Ross; Otero), and the friction that seems to appear between parents’ right to share and children’s right for privacy (Blum-ross and Livingstone; Steinberg; Leaver, “Intimate surveillance”). Some scholars take a more practical approach by aiming to obtain insights in the specific content that is shared by parents. Anna Brosch explores in her paper the types of baby pictures shared by 168 Polish parents on Facebook and concludes that the practice of sharenting is nothing uncommon among these parents. Children are therefore often exposed to public exposure without their consent. Muge Marasli et al. focus on a broader and more diverse range of information of children shared by 94 parents on Facebook and thereby aim to obtain an understanding in the usage frequency and the specific content shared on social media. They conclude that the degree and nature of content posted by the parents can show a wide range of variety and diversity. These disclosures, they argue, can include private and personal experiences of children. Finally, Grace Yiseul Choi and Jennifer Lewallen also aim to obtain an

(6)

understanding of the specific content concerning children shared by their parents by executing a content analysis of 521 Instagram photos gathered using the hashtag ‘#children’. By applying self-categorization theory, Choi and Lewallen argue how the same gender and racial stereotypes are shown in this digital content as in traditional media.

These researchers focus on specific selected content and base their findings on a big dataset consisting data from dozens to hundreds of social media accounts and pictures to look for patterns. However, a more in-depth analysis concerning the extent and nature of personal information of specific children shared online, seems to lack in this scientific debate as Paula Otero stated in 2017: “[...] to date, no studies have been made on the details of the personal information available online” (413).

Nonetheless, since Otero’s article was published, concise research on the creation of digital footprints for specific children as a result of sharenting has been done by Frederike Lichtenstein et al., my fellow students of the University of Amsterdam (n.pag.). On their Masters of Media blog post published late 2017, they aim to grasp an understanding of the scope of specific children’s digital footprint as a result of being part of a popular family vlogging channel. However, Lichtenstein et al. claim to be limited in the scope and capability to extract the large amount of gathered data. They do not offer insights in the specific information shared by

parents, they rather focus on the extensiveness of available data by analysing and interpreting the amount of results social media platforms and Google provide after querying the names of the children. They claim that their research could rather serve as a natural springboard into more exhaustive studies into this topic. Despite these addressed limitations, relevant insights are offered by Lichtenstein et al. as they importantly conclude how not only parents have control over a child’s digital footprints since data, after being shared, belongs to the public domain (n.pag.).

Based on a cultural scientific perspective, I will build on this research by Lichtenstein et al. and base my analysis on a case study, namely the digital footprints created for the children of the YouTube family vlogging channel called SHAYTARDS. This channel mainly revolves around the daily life of the Butler family, consisting of father Shay, mother Colette, and their children Gavin, Avia, Emmi, Brock and Daxton. Currently, just over five million users are subscribed to the channel that originates from October 2008. As of today, the channel uploaded well over 2600 videos, resulting in a broad extent of shared data. In earlier videos, Shay and Colette addressed the children by their nicknames; Sontard (for Gavin), Princesstard (for Avia), Babytard (for Emmi), Rocktard (for Brock) and Brotard (for Daxton). However, in more recent videos this conscious effort in hiding the real names is not taken any more as the children are being

(7)

addressed by their nicknames as well as forenames. During the years of sharing daily content, a large quantity of information about the Butler children has been released by their parents to an ever-growing audience. Everyday activities as eating breakfast, going to school and playtime are recorded as well as the children’s milestones as first words, the first teeth and the first school day. The information shared in these videos can reach a high level of intimacy as the birth of the two youngest siblings are for example uploaded in vlogs.

I am interested in the way how these five children are consciously portrayed in a certain way in the videos shared by their parents and how therefore their pre-made digital footprints are initially established by their caregivers. Besides, I will draw on insights by Lichtenstein et al. claiming that not only parents have control over a child’s digital footprints (n.pag.). I will argue how the audience can appropriate the shared information and therefore contribute to the creation of the children’s digital footprints as well. Fans are easily able to store, republish, and recirculate information in fan community networks (Abidin, “Micro-microcelebrity" n.pag.), and this might result in digital footprints with persistence (they are automatically recorded and

archived), replicability (they can be duplicated), scalability (they can potentially be visible for a big audience) and searchability (they can be accessed through search) (Boyd 45). I will analyse the extent and nature of the most visible personal shared information of these children as a result of sharenting in order to understand the ways how pre-made digital footprints can be constructed. By studying the details of personal information online for a specific case study, I will fill the research gap suggested by Otero.

Research on the digital footprints that are created for minors as a result of sharenting is relevant, as the sharing of personal information concerning children is not to be considered an uncommon practice among parents. A recent representative survey of 2032 parents of children aged 0 to 18 years old in the United Kingdom shows that the great majority, namely three-quarters of parents monthly disclose photos or videos of their children in online environments (Livingstone, Blum-Ross and Zhang 5). Other research, conducted by Parent Zone on behalf of Nominet, indicates that parents on average share nearly two hundred pictures of their child per year online (Nominet). In a recently published article on the website of The Guardian, it is addressed by Emine Saner how parents can take the practice of sharenting one step further as they can apply social media accounts in order to, either by accident or design, brand their children or whole family (n.pag.). It can be argued that the latter is applicable for the Butler family. My research will provide insights in the extent and nature of shared, available and visible online data concerning specific children as a result of being consciously exposed to an ever-growing audience. Obtaining an in-depth understanding of the way how parents enclose personal

(8)

information concerning these children and the way how fans appropriate this data in several ways, is relevant as it offers insights in the possible effects of exposing childhoods online

(Lichtenstein et al. n.pag.). My research, therefore will not only be relevant in the context of these specific Butler children or in the context of the practice vlogging as it will provide insights in a broader phenomenon, namely the disclosing of information concerning branded children online. I will argue that once information is shared, it belongs to a bigger public that is free to

appropriate this data as they like, and that these publicly exposed children do not have any control over the dissemination of their personal information (Steinberg 846).

I will aim to obtain an understanding of the ways how children’s digital footprints can be created for them by the sharing and appropriating of their personal information. By analysing a specific case study, namely the digital footprints of the children of the popular YouTube channel SHAYTARDS, I will aim to answer the following main question: How can pre-made digital footprints be created for children? To answer this main question in a structured manner, I constructed two sub-questions.

My first sub-question is: How can parents shape their children’s digital identity and therefore establish their digital footprints? With this type of pre-made digital footprints I will call the ‘primary pre-made digital footprint’, I will focus on the original posts and disclosures. I will aim to answer this question by analysing the specific content shared of the children directly by Shay and Colette. By doing so, I will explore different categories of disclosed personal information and elements of identity creation.

My second sub-question revolves around the way how a bigger audience can appropriate these primary pre-made digital footprints. My second sub-question will therefore be: How can an audience appropriate content concerning children and thereby contribute to the establishment of their digital footprints? I will aim to answer this question in order to obtain an understanding of how shared information concerning the Butler children can be used for other purposes as well. To answer this question, I will analyse the persistence, replicability, scalability and searchability of digital footprints, by analysing the extent and nature of available appropriated information concerning the Butler children. The four aforementioned characteristics of digital footprints will be further explained in sub-chapter 2.4 of the theoretical framework.

Before I will get to the analysis, I will first in the second chapter of this thesis aim to obtain an in-depth understanding of the way how the scale of sharing changed over the last decades from face-to-face communication to many-to-many communication due to the evolving Internet landscape, often referred to as Web 2.0. In this chapter I will also zoom in on the platform YouTube that allowed the Butler children to receive their so-called micro-celebrity

(9)

status. Further on I will define a clear understanding of the way how online media allow their users to maintain a digital identity and how this results in the establishment of digital footprints.

Hereafter, the third chapter of this thesis will be dedicated to the specific the steps I will take in order to answer my research questions. I will first explain my case study, the most visible digital footprints of the Butler children, more in-depth and explain how and what kind of specific data I will use for this research. Furthermore, in the second part of this chapter I will clarify my analytic method that is a qualitative content analysis.

I will execute my analysis in the fourth chapter that is divided into four sub-chapters. In the first sub-chapter, I will aim to obtain a comprehension of the relevance of the data I

gathered. To do so, I will start close reading the retrieved web pages in order to determine whether they provide personal information concerning (one of) the Butler children or not. Then, a categorisation of the data will be made based on specific characteristics in order to argue how digital footprints can be created for the Butler children. I will make a distinction between the children’s primary digital footprints that are created by their parents, the secondary digital footprints that are created by the public and I will finish this chapter by speculating how the children also seem to have agency over the creation of their own digital footprints as well.

Hereafter, in the discussion chapter I will describe my major findings and their

corresponding meanings. I will in this chapter argue how the public holds immense power in the creation of the children’s most visible digital footprints as their personal information is shared, made accessible and searchable by this group of people. I will draw back on the introduction of the thesis by putting the findings into the context of the common comprehension of the ways how digital footprints can be established.

Finally, in the concluding chapter, I will draw back on my research question and answer it by presenting a concise summary of the research. Hereafter, some limitations of the methods and research will be included as well as suggestions for further research.

(10)

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1 The history of sharing

As parents have always shared information about their children, this cannot be considered a new phenomenon. However, due to recent technical developments, one can say that the scale of this sharing changed over the last decades from face-to-face communication to many-to-many communication via the Web. In this sub-chapter I will aim to obtain an in depth understanding of this development in order to ultimately comprehend how platforms built on the Web facilitate the current opportunities to share information. This will be the first step in understanding the rise of sharenting and the establishment of pre-made digital footprints.

To get a grip of the way how information sharing changed, one must acknowledge the major developments the Internet went through over the last decades. The Internet was made accessible in the 1970’s and can be considered an infrastructure made for networking (Lee 18). To be built on this infrastructure, the World Wide Web was invented by Tim Berners-Lee in 1991. With the World Wide Web, Berners-Berners-Lee formed the basis of a new type of networked connection by linking hypertext technology to the Internet (van Dijck 5). The first stages of the Web are characterized by its one-way communication structure, as the networked media were according to van Dijck “mostly generic services that you could join or actively utilize to build groups, but the service itself would not automatically connect you to others” (5). The Web during this period is often referred to as ‘Web 1.0’ and is mainly characterized by the lack of content creators as the vast majority of Web users simply only consume content (Cormode and Krishnamurthy n.pag.).

However, in 2001 a change occurred in the nature of the Web. This evolving Internet landscape, is often referred to as ‘Web 2.0’ and revolves around the internet as we know it today. Web 2.0 is characterized by its focus on many-to-many communication, or so-called ‘connected communication’ (van Dijck 5). According to O’Reilly, one of the key lessons of the Web 2.0 era is the shift from a read-only Web, to a service in which user participation is stimulated and users add value to the applications build on the Web (235). To O’Reilly, the concept of ‘Web 2.0’ helps us to embody the internet as a platform that allows and stimulate users to participate. The

platform sense can be understood as the presence of new technologies on which for example popular social networks have been built (Cormode and Krishnamurthy n.pag.).

The Web as we know it today can be understood as a dynamic space where everyone with a connection can create content, even with the most basic computer skills (Gane and Beer 72).

(11)

According to American media scholar Henry Jenkins, this lack of required computer skills to results in todays so-called ‘participatory culture’ in which “fans and other consumers are invited to actively participate in the creation and circulation of new content” (Convergence Culture 290). Jenkins has a great interest in popular culture and is known for his work in which he associates participatory culture with contemporary fan culture in which different features of Web 2.0 can be found. He argues that fan culture has shifted into a participatory culture as a result of the

transformation from media consumption into a trend in which fans construct new texts, cultures and communities by appropriating popular mass culture (Textual Poachers 46). Due to the rise of the Internet, fandom therefore transformed from something that was once considered to exist among small groups, to a mainstream cultural practice that operates on a worldwide scale and is more accessible (Marchione 12). This accessibility is offered by new media platforms, like Twitter, that allow users to interact with others (Jeewa and Wade 216).

According to Mirko Schäfer, participation in today’s participatory culture can be understood in two distinct ways. Sharing pictures, sending tweets to a friend and updating personal details on a social media platform, are examples in which users debatably participate and share content. This type of conscious participation, called ‘explicit participation’, is according to Schäfer often the only type of participation that is being acknowledged in the context participatory culture (51). However, he also distinguishes another type of participation he calls ‘implicit participation’. This category of participation revolves around the users’ behaviour on the platform and the

unconscious contribution users make by simply making use of an application. According to Schäfer, implicit participation is “channelled by design, by means of easy-to-use interfaces, and the automation of user activity processes” (51). User activity information is relevant for platforms since it can be exploited for different purposes, like market research (Schäfer 51).

Although in theory the ideology of Web 2.0 promises participation under equal conditions, this is does not seem take place in reality. Web 2.0 platforms allow participation but require their users in return to accept the terms and conditions (Warnke 87). This usually means that users are only allowed to participate on the platform in exchange for the disclosure of personal

information. Besides, the transformation from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 seemed to promise a significant increase in the amount of content creators. However, according to the ‘participation inequality’ theory originally constructed by Jakob Nielsen, it can be argued that the majority of online content is created by only 1% of the participants, often referred to as so-called ‘super-users’. A small amount of content is created by a slightly larger group, namely 9% of the

participants; the ‘contributors’. The other 90% of users, the ‘lurkers’, read or observe the content without actually contributing (Nielsen n.pag.).

(12)

So, for Web 2.0 in theory any participant is considered equal and able to create and share content with the help of numerous technological aids in the form of applications and platforms that have been created to stimulate content creation (Cormode n.pag.). The platforms that allowed this participation did not appear overnight, as they were created as a result of years of yearning for a place to share, express and connect (van Dijck 4). In this context, YouTube, a new platform for video sharing was created and launched in 2005. In the next sub-chapter of this theoretical framework I will be aiming to obtain a better understanding of the history and

features of this platform and its users. A thorough comprehension of this platform is relevant for this thesis, as YouTube is to be considered the main medium Shay and Colette utilise in order to share information about their children.

2.2 The rise of YouTube

Different stories are told about the inspiration the three co-founders may had to create the platform YouTube. American weekly news magazine Time describes how founders Steve Chen and Chad Hurley were inspired by the troubles they experienced in an attempt to share an online video that had been shot at a dinner party at Steve’s apartment (Cloud n.pag.). No platform at the time allowed them to upload and share a video to proof to the doubtful Jawed Karim that the party actually happened. American newspaper USA Today describes how Karim’s inspiration for YouTube first came from both the 2004 Super Bowl incident in which Janet Jackson’s breast was exposed on live television and the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami (Hopkins n.pag.). Karim

experienced the effort it took to retrieve the videos concerning these events online, which lead him to the concept of a video sharing platform.

Together, the three co-founders created YouTube in 2005, originally as a forum that allowed people to create and share short amateur video clips online (Terantino 10). At 23 April 2005, the first YouTube video was uploaded, called “Me at the zoo” (Jawed). The 18-second video features co-founder Karim in front of elephants in the San Diego Zoo. In an article written in 2010, the Guardian explicitly mentions its poor quality to point out the changes the platform underwent in its five years of existence. However, despite being mentioned for its low quality, this video is also considered to be a foundation in the alternation of the way how people consume content online. The Los Angeles Times highlights the importance of this video by explaining how it “played a pivotal role in fundamentally altering how people consumed media and helped usher in a golden era of the 60-second video” (Pham n.pag.). To argue this, professor of media and communication studies Paul Levison is quoted in the article as follows; "Prior to

(13)

TV, the shortest show was 30 minutes" (cited in Pham n.pag.). Understood in this way, the video “Mike at the zoo” and the features of YouTube as a new platform, revolutionized way how people made and consumed video content.

About a year after its launch, the platform’s biggest turning point so far in history took place when Google acquired the website for $1.65 billion dollars in October 2006. After being purchased by Google, the platform gained more popularity resulting it mature into a fully-grown platform. Today, YouTube is ranked the second most used website worldwide with over a billion users localized in 88 countries in 76 different languages (Alexa n.pag.; YouTube for Press n.pag.). The platform allows users to upload, view, rate, share, add to favorites, report and comment on videos and subscribe to other users. The value of YouTube lies in the users who upload content to the website and spectators who engage with it by sharing and commenting (Burgess and Green vii). YouTube can be considered a classic platform representative for what we consider Web 2.0, as it is considered to have changed Internet users from video consumers to video producers (Ding et al. 361).

Although YouTube initially seemed to aim for amateur content producers, those are nowadays far from they only type of uploading users on the platform. Today, according to Jean Burgess and Joshua Green, the contributors are a diverse group of participants from “large media producers and right-owners such as televisions stations, sports companies and major advertisers, to small-to-medium enterprises looking for cheap distribution or alternatives to mainstream broadcast systems, cultural institutions, artist, activists, media literate fans, non-professional and amateur media producers” (vii). There seems to be a dichotomy between the different kind of users on the platform. The amateurs are to be understood as the users who participate just for fun as they are often self-taught and get no financial support for their efforts (Isomursu et al. 2). On the other side, major broadcast companies also use the platform to promote content and attract viewers (Kim 57–58).

However, after YouTube introduced its partnership program in 2007, this line between amateur and professional content creators became more and more blurred, as amateurs could for the first time earn money by uploading their videos. It can be argued that the introduction of this monetization program has led to professionalization concerning video content. Besides, as more people found their way to the platform, uploading users were able to attract and reach

increasingly bigger audiences. YouTube, as a new contemporary platform, increased possibilities for participation and content creation and this resulted in a popularization of the techniques to become a so called ‘micro-celebrity’ (Marwick and Boyd 139). Theresa Senft developed the concept micro-celebrity in her research of webcam girls in the early 2000’s, describing it as a new

(14)

type of online performance using different kind of platforms (25). Using the theory of Senft, micro-celebrities can best be understood as individuals who actively attempt to obtain popularity and stardom through online media (25). According to Marwick, the concept micro-celebrities can be understood in two different ways; firstly, as a state of being famous to a niche group of

people, while it secondly also refers to a specific way of behaving online, regardless the size of the audience (Status update 230). An important factor in obtaining and holding on to this online fame, is according to Marwick the constant and conscious arrangement of the self and the way this role is assigned by others (Status update 230).Constantly creating and shaping a desired online identity is therefore an important factor of the status of micro-celebrity. Understood this way, online stardom can be considered a constant performance of the self. With the next sub-chapter of this theoretical frame work I will dig deeper in identity theory in order to obtain a better

understanding of how online identities are constantly and consciously constructed.

2.3 The micro-celebrity identity

For scholars, the shaping and creation of identities has been a concept of interest long before the Web existed. In his influential book The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Erving Goffman developed in 1959 a dramaturgical framework in which he argues how social interactions can be understood as stage productions. By using the metaphor of identity as a performance, Goffman understands identities as masks we, as ‘actors’, put on in order to represent the conception of ourselves (12). He describes these understandings of ourselves, ‘the selves we would like to be’ and ‘the role we are striving to live up to’, and by doing so he argues how these perceptions of our roles in everyday life become an inherent part of our personality (12). To play this desired role, the actor can make use of ‘props’ and can adapt the ‘costume’, statements and body posture in order to manage certain desired impressions. According to Goffman, our identity performance cannot exist without their unique settings that include spectators, furniture, décor, physical layout and other objects. The settings, Goffman argues, are mostly tend to stay put and determine the way actors present themselves in order to manage impressions (13-15). These everyday

performances which actors actively manage impressions, are categorized by Goffman as ‘the front stage’ (13). Besides the frontstage, Goffman also describes a ‘back stage’ setting in which actors are allowed to let go these conscious performances. In the backstage, actors can be their true selves, without aiming to reach those ideal self-perceptions (Goffman 69-70). Home, a setting where one can feel more relaxed and swap work clothes for loungewear can be considered an example of such a back stage. Goffman’s ideas about identity as a performance are meaningful

(15)

something that is not linked to a fixed subject position but is rather something more dynamic depending on the individual’s setting and social situation.

Media theorist Sherry Turkle argues that one can also utilize media to consciously create and shape desired identities (127), and therefore online platforms could also be considered front stages for self-presentation. To illustrate this, Turkle uses the example of the early 1990s

anonymous online game environments providing users with the possibility of creating a character and living out multiple aspects of the self. Online environments could help the users to create an online character that could find it easier to express intimacy and sexuality in the virtual world then in ‘real life’ (Turkle 126).Online environments therefore can help us to present and

construct our self in ways we can control without being limited by our physical bodies, fears and limitations. Therefore, it can be argued that the arrival of the Internet has changed the traditional conditions of the construction of identities (Zhao, Grasmuck and Martin 1817). Goffman’s ideas about identities as something dynamic rather than static, are also to be found in more recent research on identities constructed online. As, according to media scholar Hellen Kennedy, webpages are never entirely finished, online identity construction is also considered to be ‘constantly under construction’ (869). Software platforms will always be demanding more

information in the form of updates, photographs, check-in’s, etc. and therefore will never suggest that users’ online identities are complete (Helmond 16).

Besides on rather anonymous online environments, it has been argued that identity performances also take place on non-anonymous online environment settings such as the popular platforms Facebook and Instagram (Zhao, Grasmuck and Martin 1816). These web environments are not entirely anonymous since users are often connected to and being watched by people they know ‘in real life’, for example their parents, siblings, friends, colleagues and neighbors. In these online environments, the same rules and norms will be maintained as in ‘the real world’, and therefore users are likely to act the way as people expect them to in everyday ‘offline life’ (Zhao, Grasmuck and Martin 1819). However, according to Yurchisin,

Watchravesringkan and Brown McCabe, by sharing certain information and by consciously constructing and presenting an online self, users do ‘stretch the truth a bit’ (742). A certain Facebook user might for instance only post photos with filters and a certain lightning to camouflage skin conditions and shy users might want to hide social insecurity by posting long comments, status updates and descriptions. By carefully crafting the persona users aim to be ideally, the reality is altered without creating an identity that is considered too dishonest or fake (Ellison, Heino and Gibbs 415).

(16)

to an audience of millions of users. According to Alice Marwick and Danah Boyd, an important part of being a micro-celebrity, is to carefully think about the construction of self-presentation and the way this created identity is to be consumed by others (140). Internet micro-celebrities are often considered to be more personal, direct, swift and therefore more intimate. By sharing a large amount of personal information, the possibilities of social media platforms are used to create a sense of intimacy and this strategy is used to appeal to followers (Marwick and Boyd 139). Personal information shared online by micro-celebrities can vary from the intimate details of certain thoughts, dreams, and desires, to information about food consumptions, family life, hobbies, sexual orientation and sex lives. By creating this sense of intimacy, micro-celebrities often record in their home environment that otherwise can be considered the ‘backstage’ of their identity performance. Sometimes, the extent and nature of the shared information can reach a point of extreme discomfort or vulnerability (Marwick, Status Update 351-352), for example when personal information is shared about topics such as abortion, death, addiction, mental disease, and suicide. Although the line between private and intimate seems blurred at times, this does not necessarily mean that micro-celebrities are engaging in full disclosure or do not have concerns about privacy issues (Abidin, “Communicative <3 Intimacies” n.pag.). According to Abidin, micro-celebrities carefully select information by sharing ‘snippets’ of backstage events and developments to create just an illusion of intimacy (“Communicative <3 Intimacies” n.pag.).

Besides creating a sense of intimacy, the performance of an authentic self is also a valuable factor for micro-celebrities to attract the attention of an audience (Jerslev 5240). This sense of an authentic self is according to Anne Jerslev created through ‘straight-to-camera

communication’, and ‘being real’ (5240-5241). An authentic identity, is according to Marwick and Boyd to be understood as a performance of the hidden inner life; as something completely honest without any pretense. Micro-celebrities can carefully choose how to represent themselves, without being dependent on a big media company and therefore they often appear to be less controlled and more authentic than traditional celebrities (Marwick, “You May Know” 346). However, most of the time it seems to be impossible for fans to check whether a micro-celebrity is truly authentic or not.

As a result of this this illusion of intimacy and authenticity, fans may think they have a good perception of micro-celebrities’ daily lives and ‘real’ identities and personalities. Therefore, when events happen that contradict this perception, fans can feel upset and lied to. An example of this can be found in a video uploaded by Meg Says on 5 March 2017 as result of the

controversy around the SHAYTARDS channel concerning Shay Butler’s cheating and alcohol abuse. She introduces the video by sharing her feelings about the SHAYTARDS channel and

(17)

then continues by talking about the controversy.

I found the SHAYTARDS in 2010 when I was about 16 years old. […] During those seven

years, I’ve watched their family […] pretty much every single day. Over that time, they’ve become such a big important part of my life. […] I would much rather watch someone real who inspires me […]. I did feel this connection with them. It was almost like I joined their family. […] I can’t explain how I felt when I first saw [the controversy] come up, but I think it was just a mixture of like, disbelief and anger and disappointment. I just felt so gutted. This doesn’t make sense. […] I think a lot of SHAYTARDS fans right now, are feeling lost because many of us have looked up to Shay (Meg Says 1:16-6:44).

The way Meg expresses her feelings concerning the controversy, shows how the Butler family constantly created an online identity by ‘stretching the truth a bit’ (Yurchisin, Watchravesringkan and Brown McCabe 742), and by sharing of ‘snippets’ reality to create an illusion of intimacy (Abidin, “Communicative <3 Intimacies” n.pag.). The vlogs uploaded online, did not by definition show a fake view of their life, but rather a narrowed and carefully selected one, skipping the events concerning Shay’s cheating and alcoholism.

This sub-chapter concerning identity theory helped me in order to obtain an understanding of the way how certain personal information is shared to create a desired online identity. The shaping of an online identity is therefore always to be understood as a conscious process of hiding and unveiling personal information, that can reach high levels of intimacy for micro-celebrities. In the next sub-chapter, I will dig deeper in ‘the aftermath’ being offered the opportunity to share content online, by arguing how detailed digital footprints are being established as a result of enclosing personal data online.

2.4 Creation of a digital footprint

As mentioned in the introduction, woven together in personal virtual databases, all traces one might leave behind while browsing and contributing to the Web, are often referred to as the so-called ‘digital footprint’ (Weaver and Gahegan 329). This concept is defined by Stephen Weaver and Mark Gahegan as “the digital traces each one of us leaves behind as we conduct our lives” (324). Such virtual data prints are relevant for platforms like Facebook and Google since they help to provide advertisers with better access to the specific markets they aim to target (Leaver, “Born digital” 151). People’s personal information is therefore considered a currency for these platforms. To obtain more personal information, such online platforms will hence continuously

(18)

persuade their users to keep engaging with the platform in various ways (Helmond 16). As online platforms are never entirely finished and user data is abstracted each day, digital footprints can be considered to be constantly evolving personal databases which full extents can be challenging to shed a light on (Weaver and Gahegan 324).

As mentioned in the introductory chapter, a distinction is regularly made between two different categories of digital footprints; the passive digital footprint and the active digital

footprint. This distinction was originally made by Mary Madden et al. who describe passive digital footprints as the personal data gathered with no deliberate intervention from the individual (3). Passive digital footprints are unintended by the users, as are very likely to be unaware that information like IP addresses, locations and browsed products get stored in large data bases. Passive digital footprints are the result of an implicit form of participation. Active digital

footprints, on the other hand, are the result of explicit participation and are therefore based on all information deliberately shared by users. According to Ondřej Zezulka, active digital footprints emerged “with a broad extension of Web 2.0 applications and the deliberate intention of users to present themselves within various social networks to the broad public and an undisclosed range of people” (2). As photos and other content can be curated and shared on social media platforms in order to present a desired online identity, users also actively construct their own digital

footprints (Haimson et al. 2899). Therefore, this latter category of digital footprint creation is relevant in the context of the conscious shaping of a desired digital identity.

By understanding the establishing of a digital footprint through this dichotomy, the agency of the individual seems to be put in a central position. Therefore, the individual self is implied to be fully responsible for the creation of his or her digital footprint. However, the possibility in which someone’s digital footprints are created by other individuals has to be taken into account. This category of digital footprint creation, the ‘pre-made digital footprints’ can be established in several ways as a result of explicit participation. This happens for example through facial

recognition tools applied to commonly used platforms like Facebook. As a result of simply being captured in the background of a photograph uploaded on the platform, one’s facial information can be added to social media company databases (Oremus n.pag.).

By sharing extended details about personal life, parents are often creating their children’s first digital footprints and this can happen before the child is born when ultrasounds are shared online. When parents regularly use the social media to communicate a lot of detailed information about their children, they are according to Anna Brosch ‘guilty’ of the practice of ‘sharenting’ (226). The concept sharenting is a combination of the two words parenting and sharing and is often decried in the mass media as a practice that is to be considered as something exploitative,

(19)

narcissistic or naïve (Webb 2013), as children often have no control over the public exposure and circulation of their personal information shared by their parents (Steinberg 846). According to Paula Otero, parents and families should be advised on the issues that might be affecting children’s well-being as a consequence of sharenting (412).

The potential effects for children who are the ‘victims’ of sharenting can be understood through the lens of Boyd’s theory on networked publics. Networked publics are according to Boyd to be comprehended as simultaneously “the space constructed through networked technologies and the imagined collective that emerges as a result of the intersection of people, technology, and practice” (45). Networked publics are the collections of people connected through networked technologies that introduce new possibilities for amplifying, recording and spreading information and social acts (Boyd 45). According to Boyd, the content produced by networked publics are characterized by four intertwined and co-dependent features: persistence, replicability, scalability and searchability (45). For my research, these main characteristics are useful as they can help to understand the creation of pre-made digital footprints through the appropriation of data by fans. It therefore supports the idea how data does not belong to a single person anymore once it is shared; as it becomes ‘common property’, available to be used and appropriated by the public.

The first category, persistence, describes how online personal expressions are

automatically recorded and archived and therefore not necessarily decay online (Boyd 45-46). While offline conversations are to be considered ephemeral, networked technologies offer conversations and shared to be persistently archived (Boyd 46). As shared information becomes persistent, it appears therefore to be impossible to completely delete online information. Parents should therefore take into consideration what is to be shared about their offspring on the internet as it has the potential to exist long after the value of these revelations remains (Steinberg 846). Disclosures made during childhood have the potential to last beyond a lifetime and the question of what happens to this information during this time is unclear (DeNicola 265-266).

The second feature of networked data proposed by Boyd is replicability. This category includes how networked technologies simplify the opportunities to make copies of networked digital information within or across different platforms (Boyd 46). All types of media shared online, including text, images, video and other media are easily replicable and impossible to differentiate from original (Boyd 46). According to Boyd, this also can lead networked publics to appropriate and alter this data in ways beyond realisation (46). It is according to Patricia

Aufderheide important to realize that personal information is corporately owned once it is shared on a commercially operated online platform (289-291). Personal information can therefore be

(20)

sold to advertising companies. The company ‘Koppie Koppie’ is another example of how personal data can be used by a company for economic purposes. By using open-access images from Flickr, the company sell mugs with pictures of children shared online with the clear purpose to teach parents a better understanding of privacy and copy right issues (“Koppie Koppie” n.pag.). However, these appropriations of data as a result of sharenting can also take a more lurid turn, as it may result in hazards like being ridiculed by strangers, and when images are posted on child porn web sites or when identity theft happens (Otero 413). A type of identity theft

concerning children called ‘digital kidnapping’ happens when a stranger uses photos of children in order to act online like they are his or her own (O’Neill n.pag.). According to Blum-Ross, users need to take into consideration that every bit of information shared online may be accessed by someone else in order to use it for other purposes as intended (n.pag.).

Scalability is subsequently the third feature of networked publics. According to Danah Boyd, scalability of networked publics is about the possibility of tremendous visibility, not the guarantee of it (47). Information shared about children can therefore potentially be visible for and being watched by a large audience. Parents can turn their offspring into micro-celebrities, when content concerning their children is repeatedly being noticed by a significant audience. According to Marwick, micro-celebrities are “highly edited, controlled and monitored” (Status Update 5), and therefore parents may depict their children to a large audience in a certain desired light that might be (partially) untrue to reality. Parents are often no media professionals, and by making decisions to represent their children networking technologies can have significant impact on developing children’s identities (Choi and Lewallen 2). The way how minors now will be known by an audience, will not necessarily define how they act and feel later in life when they are grow-up and shaped their own identities. While likely to be a ‘stretched truth’ (Yurchisin, Watchravesringkan and Brown McCabe 742), these digital footprints can be considered the ‘only truth’ by a large audience and can be appropriated for other purposes. This can be harmful for children, as these pre-made digital footprints will follow them as they grow and managing and deleting a digital past after a transition of identity can be a complex process (Haimson et al. 2895).

Finally, searchability is the fourth characteristic of networked publics according to Boyd (47). This category describes the organisation of online identity-information as being accessible via search tools or search engines such as Google (Boyd 47). By searching with the use of these tools, people’s personal information in networked publics are easily being accessed online. In my analysis, these characteristics of networked publics will be relevant as I will aim to understand the way how an audience appropriates data of the Butler children that was initially shared by their parents.

(21)

3. Methodology

3.1 Data collection

In this thesis I will argue how ones digital footprints can be constructed by other individuals in several ways and by doing so, I aim to obtain an understanding of the possible consequences of sharenting. This is relevant as sharenting is not an uncommon practice and minors have often no control and lack awareness over the dissemination of their personal information shared online (Steinberg 846). The research question I will aim to answer in this thesis is “How can pre-made digital footprints be created for children?”. In order to answer this ‘how’ question that can be considered to be more explanatory by nature, a case study approach will be most suitable (Schell 3). The case study that will be analysed in this thesis concerns the most visible parts of the pre-made digital footprints of the Butler children. The children Gavin, Avia, Emmi, Brock and Daxton Butler, are part of the popular YouTube family vlogging channel called SHAYTARDS that started their daily vlogs less than a decade ago, on 5 March 2009. During the period the family uploaded daily video content, a comprehensive amount of information was shared on the five children. The Butler family is often being referred to as ‘the first family of YouTube’ and its family members repeatedly appeared in popular mainstream media (Graham n.pag.).

According to Charles Schell, case studies allow the ability to “consider a single or complex research question within an environment rich with contextual variables.” The digital footprints that are created for the Butler children are interesting and suitable as case study for this thesis, as they allow to investigate the phenomenon of sharenting within its own original context. I will argue in this thesis how this long-term sharing of video content regarding the minors, resulted in the children to reach a micro-celebrity status that includes its corresponding consequences regarding to the creation of their pre-made digital footprints.

With this thesis, I intent to acquire an apprehension of the way how one’s digital

footprints can be constructed, structured and made visible by others on the Web. In order to do so, I will analyse the most visible part of the Butler children’s pre-made digital footprints in order to argue what kind of personal information is initially shared by the parents and thereafter

appropriated by the fanbase. The data I will base my findings on, will be the Web results included in first page of Google Search results after querying the minors’ full names [“first name +

surname”] and personal assigned nicknames [nickname]. Therefore, the queries will be [“Gavin Butler”], [“Avia Butler”], [“Emmi Butler”], [“Brock Butler”], [“Daxton Butler”] and [Sontard], [Princesstard], [Babytard], [Rocktard], and [Brotard].

(22)

The decision to base my dataset on Google Search results is not unsubstantiated, as Google Search is the most visited website and search engine worldwide. Every second, Google processes over 40,000 search queries, translating in 3.5 billion daily searches (“Google Search Statistics” n.pag.). Therefore, this engine plays a rather crucial role as a gatekeeper of information for our society (Bozdag 209). It makes data and hence pre-made digital footprints in the context of this thesis visible. Consequently, the Google Search engine also plays a crucial role in the searchability of personal information, a feature of networked publics described by Danah Boyd as the easy accessibility of personal information on the Web (47).

According to Richard Rogers, Google Search responds directly to its users’ search queries with a so-called ‘hierarchy of sources’ (95). This hierarchy is based on computational categories measuring webpages’ “hits, freshness, posting frequency, age, [and] likes” (Rogers 97). The higher the specific webpage ends in the Google Search result page, the more relevant it is to be

considered according to the tool and this influences its visibility for the public. With this thesis I aim to focus on the most visible and easily accessible parts of the Butler children’s pre-made digital footprints, and therefore the focus will only be on the relevant webpage results of the first page of Google Search results per inserted query.

Search algorithms tend to customise the results based on what users are expected to want or need at the time of the search (Bozdag 209). In order to avoid a decrease of diversity in information called a ‘filter bubble’ (Bozdag and van den Hoven 249), I will make sure to utilize a ‘clean browser’ (Rogers 111). The purpose of generating this clean browser is to decimate traces such as cookies, histories, and preferences (Rogers 111). To search, I will use the open-source web browser Firefox which I will forbid to save my search history. Besides, I will not log in to my personal Google account, as this might affect the nature of my results as well. My research will be based on Google Search results I gathered on 20 April 2018. The screenshots of the Google Search result pages of all queries are to be found in the appendix.

The conclusions I will draw in this research, will be based on observations and interpretations of a specific case study, namely the digital footprints created for the Butler children. It is however important to notice that taking a case study approach will have some method-related limitations. By zooming in on a specific case study, namely only the most visible digital footprints created for some specific children, I will not be able to generalize case research findings statistically to a bigger whole (Cavaye 229). Digital footprints can be created for children in an infinite number of ways and its most visible parts may differ over time. However, these limitations are being overshadowed by the importance of the strengths this case study approach has, as it allows obtaining an in-dept understanding of the context of a phenomenon (Cavaye

(23)

229). A case study approach will make it possible to investigate a larger number of variables and different aspects of a phenomenon that might have never been determined before (Cavaye 229). In the context of this research, this approach will allow me to capture a sense of reality in great detail concerning the most visible parts of the pre-made digital footprints established for the Butler children.

3.2 Analytic method

In order to be able to answer my main question, a qualitative content analysis will be executed in which I will analyse the ways pre-made digital footprints can be established for the Butler children. This method is most suitable for this thesis, as it will according to Sue Wilkinson allow to systematically and comprehensively summary and overview selected data sets as a whole (125), as the method entails analysing data for recurrent instances of some kind (126-127). After being identified, the instances in the data will be grouped together based on specific features (Wilkinson 126). I will utilize a qualitative content analysis to structurally analyse the data in order to

differentiate different types of identity sources and information structures regarding the pre-made digital footprints of the Butler children. In doing so, I will investigate the content on the

webpages in my dataset at a micro-level.

The first step that will be taken in the analysis is determining the relevance of the retrieved content, by close reading the retrieved Google Search results in order to learn whether the web pages are concerned with the Butler children or not. As this research will be aimed at exploring the different ways in which pre-made digital footprints of the Butler children are being established, I will in the further sub-chapters of the analysis aim to categorise two different types of personal information sources in the retrieved Google Search results; primary and secondary pre-made digital footprints. The category that contains the original uploaded online posts, will be designated as the ‘primary’ pre-made digital footprint. Those publications can be understood as ‘the sources’ of the online shared personal information concerning the children. The

establishment of primary pre-made digital footprints can be considered the direct result of sharenting and other forms of explicit participation in which new, unappropriated kinds of content are shared. The YouTube video content uploaded by the SHAYTARDS channel will be considered the main example of this category in this thesis. Regarding to primary pre-made prints, the way how the children’s online identities are constantly shaped, will be a main point of focus, as analysing this will help me to answer my first sub-question; how can parents shape their children’s digital identity and therefore establish their digital footprints?

(24)

As I mainly expect to retrieve primary pre-made prints in the form of videos uploaded by the SHAYTARDS channel, certain points of focus are set in order to obtain an understanding of digital identity shaping in the vlogs. This identity shaping, I will argue, is not a random process, but rather the result of sharing carefully selected content to show ‘the best version’ of an identity. In the case of the Butler children, this is interesting, as the children are not shaping their own digital identities. Instead, their parents are in charge of what is being seen and what is cut out; they are the ones that hold power over the impression of the children fans might obtain from the videos. I will make use of specific focus points that will be concerned around the involvement, activities and other kinds of shared information concerning the Butler children. The first focus point concerning involvement, focusses on whether Shay and Colette actively attempt to engage the children in the videos. This attempt can take place when the parents involve the children in the video by for example asking them things in order to get a response on camera. Besides, asking the children to perform and execute desired actions and performances for the purpose of entertainment, can also be considered to be an example of this category. The second focus point of digital identity creation revolves around the activities the children are executing and the things they are saying in the shared video content. The third and final focus point concerning identity shaping in the vlogs, consists of the other information that is shared on the children. Snippets of personal information about the Butler children as mentioned in the video by other family

members can be considered an example of this category. These points of focus will help me to analyse this SHAYTARDS video content in a rather structured manner in order to argue how Shay and Colette consciously shape their children’s digital identities and therefore create their digital footprints.

The other way digital footprints of the Butler children are being established, includes the appropriated content. I designate this category as ‘secondary’ pre-made digital footprint. This category is concerned with the ways how fans appropriate the primary pre-made footprints established by the parents, to argue how data belongs to the public once shared on the Web. I will analyse the persistence, replicability, scalability and searchability by analysing the

extensiveness of these secondary pre-made footprints, the way how data is structured and the way it is used in order to convey a certain desired identity concerning the children. By analysing the way how fans create the Butler children’s digital footprints, I will be aiming to answer my second sub-question; How can an audience appropriate content concerning children and thereby contribute to the establishment of their digital footprints?

(25)

4. Analysis

4.1 Relevance of Data

The first step in my analysis will be to identify the Google Search result data in order to

determine whether the specific webpages contribute to the creation of the Butler children’s digital footprints or not. I will aim to determine whether webpages are either relevant for the thesis and its analysis chapters to follow, or not concerned with these Butler children at all.

Querying [“Gavin Butler”] in the Google Search engine provided me with a total of 166.000 results. This is a lower number compared to the query [Sontard], that retrieved 204.000 results. It is rather interesting that the child’s specific nickname retrieved nearly 40.000 more results than a combination of his first and last name, since the latter may be expected to be more generally applied and is therefore likely to point to a broader variety of individuals with the same name. The result page of these queries as well as all other executed queries in the dataset contain nine web results per search. Eight out of nine results for the query [“Gavin Butler”] as well as for [Sontard] were related to the oldest child of the Butler family and are therefore contributing to the creation of his digital footprint.

A total of 129.000 web results were retrieved by querying Avia’s full name [“Avia Butler”], a significant higher amount compared to the amount of results retrieved by querying her assigned nickname [Princesstard] that retrieved ‘only’ 86.600 results. For Emmi, the query concerning her full name retrieved 37.000 results and querying her nickname resulted in a total of 92.000 web pages. The retrieved web results for both girls were all directly related to the Butler children themselves.

So far, an interesting trend is to be noticed, as the amount of results seem to be directly proportional to the ages of the children; the older the child, the higher the number of retrieved results. This corresponds to the findings described in the concise research conducted by Lichtenstein et al. in which they discover the same phenomenon for the SacconeJolys children, who are also a part of a popular YouTube vlog channel (n.pag.). In the dataset my thesis is concerned with, this ‘age rule’ is however broken by the second youngest child, Brock as querying [“Brock Butler”] retrieves a total of 132.000 results. This is a higher amount of results compared to the queries concerning his older sisters. However, this relatively high number of results can be explained by closely looking at the specific content and thus relevance of these webpages. For [“Brock Butler”], only three results out of nine in total were actually related to the child. By looking closer into the retrieved webpages, it can be noticed that five out of nine results

(26)

are aimed at American jam band Perpetual Groove’s guitar playing lead vocalist, who is also named Brock Butler.

As the query [“Brock Butler”] only retrieved three relevant web pages, this was not the case for the query concerning the child’s nickname, as [Rocktard] retrieved none but relevant sources. Brock’s nickname therefore seems to offer the opportunity to a more specific query, which is most likely to point to the child. For Brock, the more specific nickname resulted in an increase of searchability as it made his pre-made digital footprints more accessible (Boyd 47). The nickname, originally assigned by his parents in order to offer the child privacy online, therefore seems to be counter-productive as it appears to make Brock’s digital footprints more visible.

Finally, querying the youngest child’s full name [“Daxton Butler”] resulted in a total of 6680 retrieved websites. Despite this relatively sheer number, all results on the first page were related to the child and therefore contributing to his digital footprints. After inserting his nickname [Brotard], the Google Search engine provided me with a total of 115.000 results. This number is significantly higher compared to the query concerning Daxton’s full name. However, four of the web pages on the first page of results concerning his nickname were not related to the child at all. Therefore, based on the nature of the results of the first page, [Brotard] could be considered more general and widely used compared to his full name [“Daxton Butler”], that retrieved less but more specific results.

As argued the assigned nicknames could provide a more concise and directed way of retrieving personal information of the children and could therefore increase the searchability of their footprints. This can be supported by looking at whether the results for both queries overlap or not. For Gavin, Avia, Emmi and Brock, both their queries resulted in one overlapping web page in the result page. For Daxton two overlapping web pages were retrieved. This is interesting, as both queries therefore can result in different kind of websites that contribute to the most visible parts of the Butler children’s digital footprints.

For all queries combined, a total of 11 results were retrieved that were not directly related to the Butler children. These webpages do not contribute to the creation of their digital

footprints and will therefore not be taken into account in the next parts of the analysis. The other 79 web results will be categorized and analyzed at a micro-level in order to reach my main goal which revolves around understanding the ways digital footprints can be established children.

(27)

4.2 Primary pre-made digital footprints

After identifying the relevant web results in the first sub-chapter of the analysis, the next step will be to investigate the specific content on these relevant webpages in my dataset at a micro-level in order to distinguish the specific ways pre-made digital footprint can be created for the Butler children. In this sub-chapter I will focus on the ways how Shay and Collette consciously shape their children’s digital identities and therefore create their digital footprints as a result of

conscious sharing, Mirko Schäfer argues to be an example of explicit participation (51). In total, two types of primary pre-made digital footprints can be categorized, namely the SHAYTARDS vlogs and the more concise videos uploaded by the channel in which a song is sung by one of the Butler children.

4.2.1 SHAYTARDS vlogs

For all queries combined, a total of four SHAYTARDS vlogs were retrieved. This number can considered to be relatively low since their appearance in the many uploaded vlogs allowed the children to become micro-celebrities in the first place. As argued, an important part of being a micro-celebrity is to think carefully about the construction of self-presentation (Marwick and Boyd 140). As the children are being filmed by their parents who also edit the video, the minors appear to not be fully in charge of creating and constructing their own desired online identity performances. SHAYTARDS vlogs usually last for ten to twenty minutes and are mostly concerned with daily intimate family life. To create the illusion of intimacy, micro-celebrities often share ‘snippets’ of backstage events by sharing carefully selected information (Abidin, “Communicative <3 Intimacies” n.pag.). The SHAYTARDS videos are therefore not to be considered a neutral reproduction of a day, as conscious editing decisions are being made. For this thesis, I am interested in the way how Shay and Colette knowingly display their children in the vlogs, likely in order to appeal to the audience. By doing this, these parents establish their children’s digital footprints for them.

The first SHAYTARD vlog was retrieved as a result of the query [Princesstard] and is called “PRINCESSTARD IS WRITING A SONG!”. The video was uploaded on 4 June 2014 and is currently watched over 1.800.000 times. All shots in the vlog are filmed in the home environment, that can be considered as a ‘backstage’ of identity management (Goffman 69-70). Among micro-celebrities, home environments are often used as a setting for the videos, since this can create a sense of intimacy that often appeals to an audience (Marwick and Boyd 139).

Exposing Childhoods Online: A qualitative content analysis to explore how digital footprints can be created for children