BSTXXX10.1177/0270467613516753McEwen and ScheafferBulletin of Science, Technology & Society research-article5167532013 McEwen and Scheaffer

Article

Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 2013, Vol 33(3-4) 64­–75 Virtual and Memory © The Author(s) 2013 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Construction on : Here Are the DOI: 10.1177/0270467613516753 Terms of Use bst.sagepub.com

Rhonda N. McEwen1 and Kathleen Scheaffer2

Abstract This article investigates the online information practices of persons grieving and mourning via Facebook. It examines how, or whether, these practices and Facebook’s terms of use policies have implications for the bereaved and/or the memory of the deceased. To explore these questions, we compared traditional publicly recorded asynchronous modes of grieving (i.e., ) with Facebook’s asynchronous features (i.e., pages, photos, messages, profiles, comments). Additionally, by applying observational techniques to Facebook memorial pages and Facebook profiles, conducting a survey, and interviewing respondents as a follow-up to the survey, we examined the benefits of and issues surrounding online information sharing via Facebook when coping with the loss of another. We found that the immediacy of publishing comments, messages, wall posts, and photos provides Facebook mourners with a quick outlet for their emotions and a means of timely group support; however, these actions directly affect the online curation of the deceased’s self and memory and also create an environment of competition among mourners. The aforementioned benefits and complications of using Facebook during bereavement are shaped by the policies outlined by the social media platform.

Keywords online information practices, mourning, , moral rights, self-curation, memory, Facebook, social media

Introduction Landry, 2010). Now, before we have time to turn on the radio, flip on the television, or open the newspaper, we are For a growing number of the world’s literate population, the notified of a by Facebook (Carroll & Landry, 2010; rise of social media brings new channels for personal and Levack, 2008; Stone, 2010). collective expression, as well as new spaces for narrating The rise in mobile media use worldwide has also contrib- identities. However, a decade following their introduction, uted to the surge in active participation on social media sites. social media sites remain locales of contestation, where the Access to the mobile Internet is reshaping how we think rules of engagement and policies are still in formation and about information sharing, and the uptake of data services on reformation. Today, with approximately 1.11 billion users mobile media—including the rise of wireless fidelity (WiFi) worldwide (GlobalWebIndex, May 2, 2013), Facebook is the hotspots in public spaces—is transforming when and how most used online platform for social connection and the con- people engage with social media. No longer is the desktop struction of a digital identity (Alexa: The Web Information the only place that information is exchanged; increasingly, it Company, 2013). While other online sites are also used for is shared via our mobile phones, wherever we are (Lenhart, grieving and mourning death, we chose Facebook as our site Purcell, Smith, & Zickuhr, 2010; Rainie & Wellman, 2012). for analysis because its early establishment as a social media Public spaces are grounds for contestations of what consti- venue and its large user base make Facebook a virtual global tutes appropriate and ethical social behavior both online and locale for commemoration, bereavement, and public expres- off-line, and the rules of engagement are still being defined sion of emotion, rich with personal, social, and cultural arti- (Ling & McEwen, 2010; McEwen & Scheaffer, 2012). This facts to study (Brubaker & Hayes, 2011; Brubaker, Hayes, & Dourish, 2013; Carroll & Landry, 2010; Falconer, Gibson, 1University of Toronto Mississauga, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada Norman, & Sachsenweger, 2011; Getty et al., 2011; Hogan & 2 University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Quan-Haase, 2010; Vicary & Fraley, 2010). Prior to the advent of social networking sites, newspaper obituaries, Corresponding Author: radio announcements, television programs, phone calls, Rhonda N. McEwen, Institute of Communication, Culture, Information and Technology, University of Toronto, 3359 Mississauga Road North, e-mail, and text messages were the main modes of notifica- CCT Building, Room 3005, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5L 1C6. tion of someone’s death (Brubaker & Hayes, 2011; Carroll & Email: [email protected] McEwen and Scheaffer 65 leads to a pervasive sense that social networking sites are platform to represent one’s self. Identity via Facebook is omnipresent. constructed by users when they add content to their profiles. This article is an analysis of the nature of the everyday Such content includes sending and accepting friend requests work undertaken to produce, manage, and, in some cases, (“friending”), liking pages, adding photos, tagging one’s self unintentionally erode digital identities and memory archives. and others in photos, writing photo captions, adding infor- Since Facebook is a dominant, global site with multigenera- mation in the “About” section, posting statuses, making wall tional and increasingly older users (PiperJaffray & Co, posts, generating comments, and uploading videos. A user’s 2013), we focus on it for our analysis of the context of activity on pages and profiles where he or she is not the bereavement and the limitations of its terms of use policies, administrator also contributes to the construction of the and we explore the tensions at play between the collective user’s online identity, for as Van House and Churchill (2008) construction of individual digital identities/memory and a argue, “What is remembered individually and collectively deceased individual’s self-curation. depends in part on technologies of memory and the associ- ated socio-technical practices” (p. 296). Thus, unlike a per- Grief and/or Mourning Defined sonal web page, a Facebook page comprises not only the content created or edited by the administrator but also the After being informed of a death, Westerners traditionally contribution of others to the profile, through the addition of gather in public venues to mourn—at wakes, memorials, or comments, photos, videos, and like; this latter content also . For those who are unable to attend the event physi- builds the online reputation and persona. Facebook’s features cally, Facebook users reinterpret and repackage memorials have defined the platform as a social space for the develop- online; thus, Facebook becomes a social space for continual ment of a collective online memory and digital archive for mourning and grieving support—or does it (Brubaker et al., the individual, thus perpetuating a culture of interdependent 2013; Brubaker & Hayes, 2011; Getty et al., 2011)? connectivity (DeGroot, 2008; Getty et al., 2011; Kern, Throughout this article, grief and mourning are placed Forman, & Gil-Egui, 2013; van Dijck, 2012). within the context of bereavement. Grover and Fowler’s (2011) definitions of “mourning” and “grief” are used: Since the self is a “collaborative manufacture” between “Mourning is the external part of loss. It is the action we performer and audience, authorization must be a collective act. take, the rituals and customs. Grief is the internal part of loss, Individuals cannot be the sole arbiters of their online identity. how we feel” (p. 9). Facebook users mourn online to remem- (Davis, Seider, & Gardner, 2008, p. 1086) ber a loved one who has passed away, to connect with the deceased’s community of friends, to honor the life lived by In this highly articulated process, it becomes necessary the deceased, and to receive support from and give support to for interacting individuals to seek consensus regarding the other Facebook users (Brubaker & Hayes, 2011; Carroll & parameters of authorization. As part of these consensus- Landry, 2010; Getty et al., 2011; Hogan & Quan-Haase, building processes, Facebook users continually verify the 2010; Stone, 2010). self-presentations of others through feedback, which takes In this article, we use Goffman’s (1959) notion of front the forms of “liking” a comment, photo, video, or status, and stage and backstage to contextualize Facebook members’ by contributing evidence in the form of text, photos, videos, online actions. Front-stage performance, the actions each of or links. However, in spite of the social nature of online iden- us perform in a public sphere for public consumption, is tity management processes, individual Facebook users take extended to online mourning via Facebook (e.g., construct- personal ownership of the sum of these interactions as repre- ing memorial pages, memorializing profiles, tagging photos, sented by their edited or unedited profile. Fowler (2005) adding photos and videos, composing photo and video cap- states that “collective representation can exist through the tions, as well as posting comments and status updates). On medium of individual interaction, but they are socially situ- the other hand, backstage performance, the private aware- ated and are thus ‘social facts’” (p. 54). Although created and ness and personal performance—in this case, the internal maintained by a collective in a process of social construc- grief of a user—is acted out in private via Facebook (e.g., tion, this digital output in the form of a profile is associated sending a direct messages to the deceased). with—and in many senses belongs to—a single person. The Facebook profile that is the end product of edits and contri- butions is still the curatorial digital asset of the profile owner. The Collective Process of Digital Identity Construction, the Individuation Mission Expansion Through of Profile Ownership, and Memory “Memorialization”: An Open When the submitter of this content is still living, we can maintain Connection Between the Bereaved and the illusion that submitter and submitted content are one. (Hogan the Deceased & Quan-Haase, 2010, p. 311) According to Facebook’s website, its mission is “to give Online self-curation describes the practices of intentional people the power to share and make the world more open and content creation and the editing of that content on a digital connected.” How that mission is extended to bereaved users 66 Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 33(3-4) was conceptualized following the unexpected death of a In short, memorialized accounts leave the content of the Facebook colleague and avid Facebook user in 2005. In deceased user unchanged with regard to the addition or dele- response to this loss, Facebook instituted a “memorializing” tion of friends, while the content contributed to the profile by procedure. In its infancy, to “memorialize” a deceased mem- the deceased’s friends is uneditable. Thus, the profile of the ber’s account meant that a Facebook friend or an immediate deceased reflects no longer the work of the user but rather the relative had to report the passing of that user to Facebook. remembered life of the user’s Facebook friends, and the indi- Once Facebook received the notification and verified the vidual’s memory archive becomes a social archive (Brubaker information, the deceased member’s account would be et al., 2013; Falconer et al., 2011). The online self-curation of “memorialized”—preserved in its current state so that no the deceased is overridden. content or friends could be added or deleted; it would be a digital archive of the deceased’s creation of content and Research Questions interaction with others on the platform. After 30 days, the account would be permanently deactivated (Kelly, 2009). Recent literature surrounding public online self-representa- That definition of “memorializing” remained in place until tion via social networking sites (Back et al., 2010; Hogan & 2007. However, in response to an overwhelming number of Quan-Haase, 2010; Hongladarom, 2011; Zhao, Grasmuck, & emotional requests to keep active indefinitely the profiles of Martin, 2008) concludes that online self-representation is the Virginia Tech shooting victims, “memorializing” was congruent with and reflective of public off-line self-repre- redefined by Facebook to denote a state where deceased sentation. However, the curation of objects of the online self users’ accounts remains in an active state. Thus, the passion- differs from the objects available off-line, and defining and ate advocacy of bereaved users informed Facebook’s policy refining objects digitally via Facebook are limited to the fea- decision to enable loved ones to continue an online relation- tures (e.g., photos, comments, videos, status updates) offered ship with the deceased via Facebook (Vicary & Fraley, 2010; by the social media platform. Wortham, 2010). The constraints of features and policies are engineered into the very fabric of services like Facebook and lead to the The 2013 Policy on How Surviving a following research questions: Loved One Can Affect the Deceased Research Question 1: Which practices of family mem- User’s Account bers and friends affect the deceased’s Facebook account No one can log in to a memorialized account, even if he or status? she has the login information; thus, the ability to accept new Research Question 2: How do the mourning practices of friend requests is lost. Additionally, the account will no lon- Facebook users affect the deceased’s digital ger appear in the list of suggestions of “People You May self-curation? Know.” However, all privacy settings selected by the Research Question 3: How do Facebook’s features and deceased remain in place, private message functionality policies support or constrain the online information prac- remains intact, and content remains viewable by those to tices of those mourning and grieving? whom the deceased granted access (Facebook, 2013). The profile of a deceased Facebook user—the portion of Method the user’s digital estate that resides on Facebook in his or her name—is left in the hands of friends and family members. Given the sensitive nature of this exploratory study, we Specifically, the platform allows users to engage in eight dis- applied a qualitative lens to the data collection and elected to tinct practices of front-stage bereavement performances: apply a multimethod approach to a small sample. To explore the questions, we used three data collection techniques: doc- 1. contributing content in the form of videos, photos, ument analysis, survey, and interviews. links, comments, or likes 2. taking over the authorship/administration of the Document Analysis deceased’s account 3. adding content to one’s own account and tagging the Document analysis provided us with the opportunity to con- deceased trast traditional and publicly recorded asynchronous modes 4. requesting that the deceased’s profile be of grieving (i.e., online obituaries) with Facebook’s asyn- memorialized1 chronous features (i.e., pages, photos, messages, profiles, 5. removing the deceased’s profile2 comments, etc.) Additionally, the benefits and issues con- 6. creating and/or acting as an administrator of a memo- cerning online information sharing, using, and seeking when rial page for the deceased coping with loss were examined utilizing document analysis 7. liking the memorial page created for the deceased techniques on specific Facebook memorial pages and pro- 8. adding content to a memorial page files in combination with the analysis of a survey and McEwen and Scheaffer 67 interviews with volunteer participants. This study included first-come (contact), first-recruited basis in accordance with document analysis of three types of data: Facebook terms of the following criteria: Individuals had to be 18 years of age use policies (n = 8 pages); public obituaries from the Toronto or older (this was easily verified as all were within our net- Star newspaper online (n = 14), replicating practices used by works or our friends’ on Facebook); they had to self-disclose Fowler (2005); and participant Facebook profiles (n = 7) and as active members of Facebook, that is, have a Facebook publicly accessible Facebook memorial pages (n = 7). The account; they had to know someone who had died between first two types comprise publicly available documents, while March 1, 2006, and the date of the study period; they had to the selected Facebook profiles were provided via screen have used Facebook to mourn or grieve a death; and they had shots sent to consenting participants’ Facebook profiles on to be able to speak and write English. an opt-in, voluntary basis. The 14 Facebook profile and At the end of the 2-week recruitment period, 18 Facebook memorial pages represented over 200 printed pages (8.5 × 11 users had completed the survey. The survey consisted of 16 inches) of text and images. open-ended and closed questions (see Appendix A). One In these three types of documents, we looked for themes third of the respondents were male and two thirds were that emerged from the manual coding of identical or similar female. The age of the respondents breaks down as follows: words or phrases. For example, in obituaries, we found the 11.1% were 18 to 28 years of age, 61.1% were 29 to 39, and recurrence of employment or occupational identifiers, such 27.8% were 40 or older. The majority (n = 16) of respondents as “staff sergeant,” “student,” and “homemaker,” which we had had a Facebook account for 18 months or more, and over coded as the theme “occupation”; we also found lists of fam- half of the respondents accessed Facebook between 10 and ily members’ relationships, which we coded as “family tree.” 25 times a day. Three were notified of their loved one’s death For Facebook terms of use pages, we coded words such as via Facebook, while over half were notified via a phone call. “protect,” “secure,” “privacy,” and “private” as “privacy In all cases, the deceased had passed away after 2008. control,” and we coded phrases such as “contact us,” “friends Facebook’s features allowed the participants to connect can share,” “we encourage you,” and “need to report” as with other bereaved Facebook users who were socially con- “instructional.” This allowed us to analyze the repetition of nected to the deceased. Over half of the participants stated themes in the policies and directives to surviving friends or that Facebook was important, very important, or essential in family members, as well as to assess the purposes of the poli- the process of coping with the death of their loved one. cies. When analyzing participant Facebook pages related to the deceased, we coded words like “shock,” “sad,” “cried,” Interviews “missing,” and “pissed off” as “survivor emotion.” Phrases describing the deceased (“loved to travel,” “was adventur- When surveying participants, we asked if they would be ous,” “one of the smartest people,” “made everyone laugh”) interested in participating in an interview (approximately 30 were coded as “perspective on deceased’s character.” Finally, minutes). We conducted five in-depth interviews with volun- when analyzing the memorialized profiles, we coded phrases teers whose completed surveys had indicated a diversity of such as “feels good to help a friend in need,” “I love being practices. This allowed us to unpack more fully the survey outdoors at camp,” and “I’m not a bully, I’m just not your responses and gain more insight into a range of experiences. friend” as indicative of “self-assessment of character.” “My The short, semistructured interviews mainly consisted of sister,” “grandparents,” “mom,” “dad,” “cousins,” and so on open-ended questions used to gain in-depth perceptions (see were coded as “family tree.” The document analysis data Appendix B). A participant could terminate the interview at provided a “sense of setting” and positional information that any time without recrimination or penalty. In accordance cannot be captured in interview data (Simons, 2009, p. 55). with the consent form, interviews were audio recorded for We analyzed the selected documents and shared the coding transcribing later. Screen shots of memorial pages, the of data. deceased’s profile, memorialized profiles, and postings of the deceased with all names and photographs redacted by the Survey participants were submitted to us. We then reviewed the key points of the consent form with each participant, ensured that Out of respect for those in mourning, an opt-in approach was each had sufficient time to review the form before signing it, adopted for the survey and interview. In April 2012, we and asked if there were any questions before commencing posted a message once a week for 2 weeks on our respective the interview. Facebook profiles to recruit volunteers to participate in a sur- Although interviews can have limitations depending on vey. The goal was to start with a convenience sample that how articulate the participants are and how skilled the inter- would then enlist other Facebook members via a referral sys- viewer is (Creswell, 2009, p. 179), they are still an excellent tem, consistent with snowball sampling techniques. way to gain insight into an interviewee’s perspective on a Therefore, for this study, participants were active topic and to obtain information on unobservable data Facebook members. Selection of participants was on a (Simons, 2009, p. 43). 68 Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 33(3-4)

Findings and Discussion Removed Accounts. In response to the question regarding what happens to a deceased person’s Facebook profile, three Research Question 1 participants reported that they think the profile gets deleted. Which practices of family members and friends affect the In reality, there are two ways that a Facebook profile can be deceased’s Facebook account status? The findings from the removed. First, if a surviving friend or family member has survey and document analysis offered key insights into this the account user name and password, that person can go into question. the account and act as if he or she is the owner and delete the Half of the survey participants indicated that the Facebook account, whether or not this was the expressed wish of the profile of their deceased loved one/friend still exists as an deceased. Second, if the official confirmation of a death and active account. This means that years after passing away, the the proof of death are provided, Facebook administrators individual’s profile is discoverable by the public via will remove the account. Proof of death takes the form of a Facebook’s search engine; the owner’s last postings, includ- copy of a , the deceased’s birth certificate, or ing his or her privacy settings and very last status update, are a legal document proving that you are the executor of the intact; and the profile picture that existed at the time of death deceased’s estate. Facebook conducts an investigation and, if still appears. In this scenario, there are two additional points satisfied with the validity of the request, removes the account. of interest: First, any automated notifications set up by the When a profile that was once active is removed without profile owner (e.g., birthday greetings, game updates, and prior knowledge, the deceased’s social network on Facebook holiday salutations) continue to function, and in many cases responds in anger. One participant expressed it this way: this prompts the sending of messages to friends from the “What the hell . . . it’s like she disappeared and never existed. deceased’s profile; and second, the Facebook friends of the WTF, how come the people who loved her had no say? How deceased are able to, and do, continue to post messages, pho- could they do this? She was our friend too.” This statement tos, and videos on the person’s wall. reflects the tension that exists between the Facebook profile as a shared construct (i.e., it is ours) versus a property right Active Accounts. An active account can be one that was perspective that the profile belongs to the owner, and as with memorialized or one that is still active owing to the fact that other “property,” the Facebook profile is part of the digital Facebook was not notified by friends or family of the user’s estate now in the hands of those managing the deceased’s passing. The effects on participants of memorialized and assets. active accounts ranged from unsettling to comforting. In many cases, participants remarked that unexpectedly receiv- Wizard of Oz Profiles. A small but noteworthy group of par- ing an alert or greeting from the deceased’s profile is star- ticipants (n = 3) reported that after their loved one died, tling; one participant said that it is like “seeing a .” On someone else gained access to the profile and began acting as the other hand, the ability to visit the profile of a loved one the administrator. We were unable to establish whether this and read others’ messages and posts is a source of comfort was at the bequest of the late owner or whether the new for those who appreciate having an ongoing community of administrator assumed responsibility because he or she knew people with whom they can share memories and grief. the log-in information or had access to an account that When a profile is left in an active state, it begins to resem- remained signed in postmortem. Regardless, one of the curi- ble a multimedia guest book that friends and family return to ous aspects of this arrangement is that there is someone who and update often during the first years after the passing of a continues to add friends, reply to wall posts, and in other loved one. Our data show that Facebook activity is especially ways acts on behalf of the deceased. intense for the first few months after the death if the member was young and/or very active online and off-line. This time Memorial Pages. Finally, only two of the survey participants frame coincides with the early phases of both grief and reported that their loved one’s profile has been memorialized mourning, and Facebook serves a community archival func- or that a memorial page has been created. To achieve this, a tion. For example, in the study we noted the following post Facebook page is created by a family member or loved one on the wall of a friend who had died (whose pseudonym is to honor the deceased. It can be either a new page, where “Lewis”). It appeared 4 months after Lewis’s passing: grief and thanksgiving may be expressed by the online com- munity (i.e., a memorial page), or an adaptation of the I know it makes no sense and is completely contrary to what I deceased person’s profile (i.e., memorializing the profile). believe in but I find a level of comfort on this page still being up The information practices (Savolainen, 2008) observed on and bustling wid limers [sic friends]. I kinda would like this memorial pages share many commonalities with those on when I go. Not that I would know. So wha gwaan Lewis? active profiles, which were discussed earlier in this article. There are, however, a few differences, including the fact that Nine others “liked” the comment and made additional sub- a memorial page can be created by a friend or family member comments echoing the sentiments expressed. for the deceased even though the departed may not have been McEwen and Scheaffer 69 a Facebook user. This is an important distinction since the the is strikingly different from the Facebook profile online persona described and constructed via others’ com- in terms of whose voices are represented in its construction. ments and postings can never be adjusted by the person for The immediate family is privileged in the construction of the whom it was created. Thus, memorial pages serve a function “final image” of the deceased in an obituary; it is imbued more similar to a guest book or obituary than a Facebook with the notion that it is the official word on the death. In profile that remains active after death. contrast, the deceased’s Facebook profile posts are open to friends already accepted in his or her network online. Their Research Question 2 collective voices compose the unofficial obituary, and their postings are littered with images, slang, inside jokes, poetry, How do the mourning practices of Facebook users affect the and more personal and unfettered emotion. One study par- deceased’s digital self-curation? A consequence of leaving a ticipant remarked that the obituary is not a good representa- Facebook profile active after death is that the profile persists, tion of the deceased and that the Facebook profile is closer to and the social identity continues in the absence of the profile the “real” person and is a much richer account of a person’s owner. One study participant remarked that while she felt she life. The Facebook profile appears to be a complement to the and her husband were close during their 10 years of mar- obituary in most cases, and in a few instances, particularly riage, it was in continuing to read posts added to his Facebook among younger users, it replaces the function of the profile during the year following his death that she learned obituary. new things about him; seeing him through the eyes of his Regarding the removed accounts encountered in this friends enhanced her understanding of who he was in life. study, while we could not confirm whether the deceased per- Perhaps it is for similar reasons that five of the survey son requested that the account be removed following his or respondents said that they wished their profile to remain her death, the sentiment in the online community in such active after they pass away—“active” meaning still live cases is that this action was not sanctioned by the deceased whether memorialized or not. and that someone else is attempting to control access to the However, there are other, more dire, consequences of memory of that person. As a consequence of deleting the leaving a profile active after death. Document analyses of Facebook profile, there is a residual bitterness among mem- Facebook profiles pre- and postdeath make it clear that the bers of the online community that taints the postings on their roles of editor and arbitrator as played by the owner of a walls, and there is room for misinterpretation of the choice to profile when alive are key in shaping the identity that he or remove the profile. We conjecture that the online community she presents to others online. In the absence of this control by loses a space for mourning their loss, and in two cases, par- the owner, the online identity is left in the hands of the com- ticipants knew of online community members who had cre- munity and can be substantially altered. In one case, the ated a memorial page for the deceased after the profile was deceased’s mother—who was not a major contributor to his removed. profile wall during his life—became a principal figure. Her Interestingly, and seemingly contrary to these sentiments, wall posts described the deceased’s love of animals, and she five people surveyed indicated that they would like their pro- outlined the animal rights activities in which she had engaged file removed after death. This is the same as the percentage in memory of her late son. The eight photos of dogs and cats who would like their page to remain active. When queried that she posted on his profile in the months following his about this apparent contradiction, people expressed a desire death, and her active encouragement of his Facebook com- to close things off for those whom they leave behind; they munity to donate money to an animal rights fund opened in see deleting the page as a way for others to “move on.” In his name, were striking, because prior to his death he had their responses, there was evidence of a need to retain control made no mention of being an animal lover. Other community of the profile and the feeling that this control is lost if the members reacted to these posts in a reserved manner, with page remains active after death. two short comments indicating the incongruence of the ani- For the “Wizard of Oz” cases in our study, where a third mal rights persona with his previously understood identity. party has taken over the management of the account, we One person simply stated, “I didn’t think Mark loved ani- understand from an analysis of the wall postings that friends mals,” and 10 people “liked” this comment. of the deceased are aware that he or she is dead and that This postmortem alteration of the Facebook profile effec- someone else is in charge of the account. We also note that tively alters the deceased’s online identity in a manner simi- for most people this is acceptable. In fact, when questioned lar to an obituary. In this study, the obituary written for the about what they themselves would want to have happen deceased was compared with the latest entries on an active when they pass away, eight of the survey participants Facebook profile; it was discovered that they share many responded that they wanted someone to take over the man- functional similarities. Both are artifacts constructed through agement of their Facebook profile. A consequence of taking the eyes of others; both offer a glimpse into the social net- over the administration of a deceased person’s Facebook pro- work of the deceased; and both represent narratives that file is that, in addition to being a coauthor of the profile, one attempt to capture elements of who the person was. However, has access to direct messages. Direct messages via Facebook 70 Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 33(3-4) are similar to e-mail messages; only the profile owner (or connections through comments on wall posts or “likes.” someone with access to his or her account) can read the However, the public nature of wall posts and photo captions messages. can create an environment of competition and coercion, In contrast to a wall post that is viewed by anyone in the inducing a feeling that one has to contribute content to the profile owner’s network, a direct message is private in nature. deceased’s profile or memorial page. Thus, rather than being In this study, one participant had access to a close friend’s solely a venue for expression of sincere sentiment, Facebook Facebook profile after he died. When asked about direct becomes an environment where there is war over who loved messaging, he explained that although the numbers gradually the deceased more. Carroll and Landry (2010) have also decreased, over 100 direct messages were being sent to his observed that Facebook’s online memorials are a milieu for late friend’s Facebook account on a weekly basis. The send- competition. ers described their grief and expressed how much the Direct messages provide bereaved individuals with an deceased was missed. The interviewee had taken over the opportunity to write to the deceased. The direct message is a management of the page to keep the presence of his departed backstage performance used as a space for people to explore friend alive. Two questions arise that are worthy of further internal feelings. This is an area in need of deeper explora- research: First, what motivates someone to appropriate the tion through a longitudinal study. Direct messages are the Facebook profile of another? And second, is the profile still online equivalent of writing a letter to the deceased, copying considered an artifact of digital self-creation representing the it for one’s records, and mailing it. deceased? The time line layout allows Facebook users to review the Regarding memorial pages, we conducted separate inter- evolution of events, sentiments, and postings over time— views with two people about the death of a man who was from the moments after death to the present; this is a form of connected to both of them. He was a 60-year-old sports memory process. Interestingly, as mentioned previously, a coach who was not a Facebook user during his life. When he little over half of the participants identified Facebook as an died, his daughter, an active Facebook user, created a memo- important or essential contributor to their means of coping rial page and made her aunt, one of our respondents, an with the loss of their loved one. However, the majority of the administrator. Our respondent explained that she was happy survey respondents (n = 13) used Facebook to share the news to be an administrator because she wanted to use Facebook that their loved one had passed away; therefore, it may not be as an information-sharing platform to let her friends, their as important a factor for the coping aspect of bereavement as shared friends, and family members know that he had passed it is for communication. away and to provide a place where they could share memo- Fifteen out of 18 survey participants were unaware of ries. She also knew that in his life her brother had worked Facebook’s policies regarding what happens to a Facebook with hundreds of young people who were probably on account when a user dies, potentially indicating an informa- Facebook themselves and would be more likely to search for tional gap for Facebook members. information about him there than read a death announcement During the interviews, we gained some insights into the in a newspaper. Finally, she indicated that she wanted people impact of Facebook policies on online information practices. to remember him “the way he was for most of his life—not Before discussing these, we offer a brief summary of the way he was at the end.” Her brother, who was a decorated Facebook’s terms of use policies associated with the death of member of the United States military, intelligent, and a pas- a member. sionate sports fan, developed Alzheimer’s disease toward the The thinking behind Facebook’s current policies on mem- end of his life. She purposefully reversed the clock for him bers’ death emerged after individuals began to question how by focusing his memorial page on his pre-Alzheimer’s iden- they should proceed in the event of a death; it was not part of tities. This did not go unnoticed. When we interviewed a the original design of the social media platform. According mutual friend of the siblings, we learned that at least one to Facebook’s policies, if a member dies and Facebook is not person had found this choice to reconstruct his own and oth- officially notified, the profile remains active for as long as ers’ memories to be a well-intentioned manipulation of the Facebook exists. If someone dies, Facebook administrators deceased’s identity. The mutual friend asked the question, must be officially notified, and a copy of the original death “Would he have wanted this?” certificate and another document that contains proof of death, such as an obituary, must be sent to Facebook. Facebook will Research Question 3 then verify that the documents are valid. If this is the case, Facebook offers three options: (a) the profile remains as is; How do Facebook’s features and policies support or con- (b) the profile is memorialized (as described earlier); or (c) strain the online information practices of those mourning and access to the profile is halted. Unless there are instructions in grieving? From the survey, we ascertained that Facebook the member’s will, the decision about which option to choose provides surviving users with a locale for social support to is in the hands of the friend or family member. mourn and share their stories. The testimony of one’s grief This raises a question: Who has the right to decide on and memories are corroborated by the deceased’s other behalf of the deceased what should be done with the profile? McEwen and Scheaffer 71

If, as is argued in this article, a Facebook profile is a repre- Continuing Bond Theory sentation of a person’s digital identity and is also a self- curated artifact belonging to that individual, then on the The features of Facebook and the memorializing policy that death of that person, his or her profile can be considered a Facebook has instituted facilitate a continuing bond between digital asset. The personal assets or effects of the deceased the deceased and the living. The living Facebook friends of are handled very specifically according to the law. In fact, the deceased are maintaining a relationship with the departed the rules governing the treatment of personal assets require by creating memorial pages or by continuing to post on his or specialized legal knowledge. In the absence of a formal her active wall; directly messaging the dead; posting, tag- will, there are rules about who can make decisions about ging, and adding captions to photos of the deceased; and tag- assets. Yet for digital assets in the realm of social media, ging him or her in status updates or comments. This type of this is a grey area. In our interviews, only one participant continuing bond is fostered by Facebook’s features and poli- had a general idea of what the policies regarding Facebook cies. The continuation of a relationship is disrupted only if an accounts might contain. All of the interviewees remarked immediate member of the deceased’s family requests the that although they had not considered how they would want removal of the profile from Facebook. their Facebook profile treated, they themselves want to Continuing bond theory emerged in the 1990s (Rothaupt decide. & Becker, 2007). It is a therapeutic approach whereby the The contents of a user’s Facebook profile should be bereaved person maintains relationships with the deceased. afforded the same protection in copyright law as a personal Only recently has it received empirical attention as a mode of journal. Under Canadian law, these rights cover the lifetime mourning and grieving. Although the notion of continuing of the user plus 50 years after death (in the United States, life bond is heavily theorized, longitudinal studies are lacking, of the user plus 70 years). When a Facebook user dies and a especially within the context of social networking sites, con- family member or friend notifies Facebook (and provides the cerning the effect of maintaining a relationship with the appropriate documentation) that the profile should be memo- deceased. Stroebe, Abakoumkin, Stroebe, and Schut (2011) rialized, according to Facebook’s terms of use the following conducted a longitudinal study of how widows’ and widow- privacy setting changes are made to the profile: No new ers’ off-line continual bonds affected the resolution they felt friends can be added to the account (or removed), and per- concerning the loss of their spouse. The results of their study sonal information (as defined by Facebook) is removed. The were consistent with other short-term studies, showing that policy also indicates that people who were within the continuing a bond with the deceased has the potential to be a deceased’s network before death can continue to access the harmful practice. Investigation into the effect of continuing a profile after death and that this access continues in bond via Facebook would provide insight as to whether the perpetuity. current policies of memorializing a deceased member’s pro- In cases where no proof is given and another family mem- file is aiding or hindering the mental state of the user. ber takes over the account (i.e., Wizard of Oz profiles), we Regardless of the benefits of one grieving theory versus conjecture that the deceased’s rights are being infringed. another (Rothaupt & Becker, 2007), Facebook has become a According to the Canadian Copyright Act, creators of copy- location where mourning and grief are taking place and are right works have a second set of rights known as moral being experienced through continual bonds. The immediacy rights. Under Section 14.1(1) of the Copyright Act, an author of being able to publish grieving and memorializing com- of a work has a right to the integrity of their work and has a ments, messages, wall posts, photos, and so on provides right to be associated with their work by name, unless they users with a quick outlet for emotion and a means of timely choose otherwise; these are known as moral rights. Moral support via replies; however, these actions have direct conse- rights continue even after a work is no longer in the creator’s quences for the deceased’s curation of self—the intentional possession. Thus far, these legal principles have not been online content creation and content editing to represent an associated with the type of digital assets represented by a intentional persona. The aforementioned benefits and com- Facebook profile. Moral rights may cause difficulties with plications of using Facebook during bereavement are a result the memorialization of a profile; since an author of a work of the terms of use outlined by Facebook, as they present has a right to the integrity of his or her work and to be associ- loved ones with opt-out policies to change the status of the ated with it by name even after death, one could argue that a profile to be memorialized, close the profile account, or decision by others to memorialize a profile infringes on the remove a memorial page, thus leaving the deceased’s reputa- author’s right to the integrity of his or her work and to the tion beyond the grave in the hands of others. control of his or her digital identity. Conclusion The idea of moral freedom is here to stay. It is not a simple matter to repeal a freedom once it has been embraced by the In an always-on age in which increasingly we log on to social majority of society. The challenge, Wolfe argues, is to strike a networking sites via our mobile and stationary devices but balance between the authority of tradition and the authority of never log out, issues on access to our online identity extend the individual. (Davis et al., 2008, p. 1104) the possibility of “identity theft” after death. 72 Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 33(3-4)

Facebook offers its members, via features and policies, a 2. Turning a Facebook account into a memorial page is locale for the bereaved user to access an online community not covered by the fair use/dealing exception. It for support, to act out front-stage performances of mourning would be better to shut off any modification function- regardless of physical geography, and to negotiate the private ality for the Facebook account and leave the work as backstage performance of grief through a continual online it is. Facebook should delete everything after 50 bond with the deceased. The mental state attributed to this years. type of bond deserves further exploration. The terms of use 3. The Facebook profile of deceased members should shape and constrain the grieving and mourning process car- be frozen but remain accessible to Facebook friends ried out by users. with the same privacy filters enabled. This would Additionally, the policy of memorializing an account has mean that after the date of death, a member’s account a direct impact on the self-curation of the deceased. Whose would no longer be a locale for posting content (in Facebook life, work, and reputation is it anyway? We make the form of text, photos, videos, or likes) by friends. the following recommendations: The profile would not be locatable via a search and the direct message feature would be disabled to main- 1. Digital estate options should be offered to current tain profile content fidelity, thereby respecting the Facebook users and decided on by new users at the deceased’s self-curation. However, should users wish time of signing up. As with friending and unfriend- to commemorate a loved one via Facebook, they ing, it should be possible to amend this decision at could continue to create memorial pages, thus taking any time. ownership of digital curation.

Appendix A Survey Questions (via Link to Survey Monkey) 1. Informed Consent Do you agree to participate in this study?—If “no” survey ends.  Yes  No 2. How long have you been a member of the social networking site called Facebook?  Less than 6 months  6-11 months 12-17 months  18 months or more 1.1.1.1.1 3. On average, how frequently in the day do you use Facebook (includes reading posts, reading messages, posting photos/messages, playing games, watching videos, etc.). 1.1.1.1.2  very often (>25 times a day) 1.1.1.1.3  sometimes (10-25 times a day) 1.1.1.1.4  rarely (5-9 times a day) 1.1.1.1.5  almost never (fewer than 5 times a day) 1.1.1.1.6 Questions 4-13 explore the use of Facebook in the event of the death of a friend or family member. 1.1.1.1.7 4. Did someone that you know pass away the period March 1, 2006-today? (If “no” survey ends). 1.1.1.1.8  Yes  No 1.1.1.1.9 5. How did you hear about your friend/family member’s passing? 1.1.1.1.10 A phone call  Face to face  On Facebook  I was present 1.1.1.1.11  In the newspaper  Via a text message  other (specify)______1.1.1.1.12 6. How important was/is Facebook in helping you cope with this unfortunate situation? 1.1.1.1.13  essential  very important  important  somewhat important  not at all 1.1.1.1.14 7. How many messages people do you post about this event from the time you first heard about it to now? 1.1.1.1.15  0  1-3  4-6  6-9  10 or more 1.1.1.1.16 8. Did you forward the information to others via Facebook? 1.1.1.1.17 Yes  No 1.1.1.1.18 9. Did the deceased have a Facebook account? 1.1.1.1.19  Yes  No (continued) McEwen and Scheaffer 73

Appendix A (continued) 10. What happened to his/her Facebook account after he/she passed away? 1.1.1.1.20  I don’t know  Nothing – it still exists and people still post messages/photos on his/her page It is no longer accessible  Someone has taken over management of the page 1.1.1.1.21  Other (specify)______1.1.1.1.22 11. Do you know what Facebook’s policies are regarding what happens to an account when the user dies? 1.1.1.1.23  Yes  No 1.1.1.1.24 If Yes, what do you think about the policy 1.1.1.1.25 ______1.1.1.1.26 ______1.1.1.1.27 ______1.1.1.1.28 12. Does the deceased have a Memorial page? 1.1.1.1.29 Yes  No  I don’t know 1.1.1.1.30 13. What would you like to have happen to your Facebook profile if you passed away while still a member? 1.1.1.1.31  I don’t know  Nothing—it still exists and people still post messages/photos on his/her page It is no longer accessible  Someone has taken over management of the page 1.1.1.1.32  Other (specify) 1.1.1.1.33 ______1.1.1.1.34 ______1.1.1.1.35 14. Would you be willing to take part in a follow on interview? 1.1.1.1.36  Yes  No 1.1.1.1.37 If “yes”, please provide contact information (i.e. an email address)______1.1.1.1.38 15. How old are you?  18 to 23  24 to 29  30 and above 1.1.1.1.39 16. Sex? 1.1.1.1.40  Male  Female Thanks so much for taking the time! SUBMIT 1.1.1.1.41

Appendix B 5. This is a more complex question, but we would like Interview Questions (Face to Face) you to try your best in answering it. What do you think your friend/family member would think about 1. Could you tell us a little about the passing of your all of the Facebook activity? [Prompt for why they friend or family member? Without too much detail, believe this.] we are interested in who this person was, when it 6. What happened/is happening with his or her Facebook happened, and how you found out about it? [Prompt profile now? [Prompt: What do you think about that?] for how soon after the event the participant found 7. Does your friend/family member have a memorial out.] page? [Prompt: If no, do you know of anyone with a 2. How much time has passed between the time that you memorial page?] found out and when you went to his or her page on 8. Does all of the Facebook activity change your mem- Facebook? ory of your friend/family member? 3. Was there much activity on his or her page? [Prompt: 9. What would you want for yourself in this situation? Did you read only or did you also post something? 10. Do you know Facebook’s policies regarding death of a If yes, what did you post—text/photos/videos? If member? [If yes, prompt: What do you think about that?] they did bring the screen shots ask for them now and 11. Any other thoughts or comments about how Facebook use during this question and others; if not, ask is used during such a sad time? whether they could e-mail us the screen shots.] 4. At the time, how did you feel about the Facebook Thank you so much. activity? END 74 Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 33(3-4)

Acknowledgments CA. Retrieved from http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/ p271067_index.html We would like to thank all of our participants for their time, candor, Facebook. (2013). What happens when a deceased person’s and selfless contributions. Additionally, we would like to dedicate account is memorialized [Web page]. Retrieved from https:// this study to one of our participants who recently passed away. This www.facebook.com/help/103897939701143 participant’s passionate responses directly informed the actions the Falconer, K., Gibson, K., Norman, H., & Sachsenweger, M. loved ones took to ensure that the participant’s profile was (2011). Grieving in the Internet age. New Zealand Journal of memorialized. Psychology, 40(3), 79-88. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup. com/ps/i.do?id=GALE|A325496132&v=2.1&u=utoronto_ Declaration of Conflicting Interests main&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=04675f1c27d8ca0dee9ec The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect c251e07d014 to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Fowler, B. (2005). Collective memory and forgetting components for a study of obituaries. Theory, Culture & Society, 22(6), 53- Funding 72. doi:10.1177/0263276405059414 Getty, E., Cobb, J., Gabeler, M., Nelson, C., Weng, E., & Hancock, The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author- J. T. (2011). I said your name in an empty room: Grieving and ship, and/or publication of this article. continuing bonds on Facebook. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 997- Notes 1000). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/1978942.1979091 1. Family and friends can request the account of a deceased user Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New to be memorialized (more information on the request form and York, NY: Doubleday. the information required to do so can be found at https://www. Grover, R. J., & Fowler, S. G. (2011). Helping those experience facebook.com/help/103897939701143). loss: A guide to grieving resources. Santa Barbara, CA: 2. Family of the deceased can request for the account to be Libraries Unlimited. removed (more information on the process and the information Hogan, B., & Quan-Haase, A. (2010). Persistence and change in required for a family member to do so can be found at https:// social media. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30, www.facebook.com/help/265593773453448?sr=2&sid=0iEY 309-315. doi:10.1177/0270467610380012 PKsciBcB7IRy8). Hongladarom, S. (2011). Personal identity and the self in the online and offline world. Minds and Machines, 21, 533-548. References doi:10.1007/s11023-011-9255-x Alexa: The Web Information Company. (2013). Top sites: The top Kelly, M. (2009, October 26). Memories of friends departed endure 500 sites on the web [Web page]. Retrieved from http://www. on Facebook [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.face- alexa.com/topsites book.com/blog/blog.php?post=163091042130 Back, M. D., Stopfer, J. M., Vazire, S., Gaddis, S., Schmukle, S. C., Kern, R., Forman, A. E., & Gil-Egui, E. (2013). R.I.P.: Remain Egloff, B., & Gosling, S. D. (2010). Facebook profiles reflect in perpetuity: Facebook memorial pages. Telematics and actual personality, not self-idealization. Psychological Science, Informatics, 30(1), 2-10. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2012.03.002 21, 372-374. doi:10.1177/0956797609360756 Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2010). Social Brubaker, J. R., & Hayes, G. R. (2011). “We will never forget you media & mobile Internet use among teens and young adults. [online]”: An empirical investigation of post-mortem Myspace Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media/Files/ comments. In Proceedings of the ACM 2011 Conference on Reports/2010/PIP_Social_Media_and_Young_Adults_ Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 123-132). New Report_Final_with_toplines.pdf York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/1958824.1958843 Levack, C. (2008, March). You have one new death notifica- Brubaker, J. R., Hayes, G. R., & Dourish, P. (2013). Beyond tion. Social networking: It’s not just for the living anymore. the grave: Facebook as a site for the expansion of death and This Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.thismagazine.ca/ mourning. Information Society, 29, 152-163. doi:10.1080/019 issues/2008/03/onenewdeath.php 72243.2013.777300 Ling, R., & McEwen, R. (2010). Mobile communication and eth- Carroll, B., & Landry, K. (2010). Logging on and letting out: ics: Implications of everyday actions on social order. Nordic Using online social networks to grieve and to mourn. Journal of Applied Ethics, 4(2), 11-26. Retrieved from http:// Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30, 341-349. www.tapironline.no/last-ned/470 doi:10.1177/0270467610380006 Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, McEwen, R., & Scheaffer, K. (2012). Orality in the library: How and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. mobile phones challenge our understandings of collabora- Davis, K., Seider, S., & Gardner, H. (2008). When false represen- tion in hybridized information centers. Library & Information tations ring true (and when they don’t). Social Research, 75, Science Research, 34, 92-98. doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2011.08.001 1085-1108. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docvie PiperJaffray & Co. (2013, October). Taking stock with teens survey w/209672060?accountid=14771 [Webpage]. Retrieved from http://www.piperjaffray.com/2col. DeGroot, J. (2008, May). Facebook memorial walls and CMC’s aspx?id=287&releaseid=1863548 effect on the grieving process. Paper presented at the annual Rainie, L., & Wellman, B. (2012). Networked: The new social oper- meeting of the NCA 94th Annual Convention, San Diego, ating system. Cambridge: MIT Press. McEwen and Scheaffer 75

Rothaupt, J. W., & Becker, K. (2007). A literature review of Western ery? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1555- bereavement theory: From decathecting to continuing bonds. 1563. doi:10.1177/0146167210384880 Family Journal, 15(1), 6-15. doi:10.1177/1066480706294031 Wortham, J. (2010, July 17). As Facebook users die, reach Savolainen, R. (2008). Everyday information practices: A social out. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes. phenomenological perspective. Lanham, MA: Scarecrow com/2010/07/18/technology/18death.html?_r=1 Press. Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S., & Martin, J. (2008). Identity construction Simons, H. (2009). Case study research in practice. London, on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships. England: Sage. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1816-1836. doi:10.1016/j. Stone, E. (2010). Grief in the age of Facebook. Chronicle of Higher chb.2008.02.012 Education, 56, 25. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA220078103&v=2.1&u=utoronto_main Author Biographies &it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=c77b42d9bf011cf83ac4da226 Rhonda N. McEwen is an assistant professor at the Institute of 80d394b Communication, Culture, Information and Technology and at the Stroebe, M. S., Abakoumkin, G., Stroebe, W., & Schut, H. (2011). iSchool at the University of Toronto. Her research and teaching Continuing bonds in adjustment to bereavement: Impact of center around information practices involving new media technolo- abrupt versus gradual separation. Personal Relationships, 19, gies, with an emphasis on mobile communication, social media, 255-266. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2011.01352.x youth information practices, and mediated technologies for persons van Dijck, J. (2012). Facebook as a tool for producing social- with sensory disabilities. ity and connectivity. Television & New Media, 13, 160-176. doi:10.1177/1527476411415291 Kathleen Scheaffer is an outreach and instructional services Van House, N., & Churchill, E. F. (2008). Technologies of mem- librarian at Faculty of Information, University of Toronto. Her ory: Key issues and critical perspectives. Memory Studies, 3, research interests and pursuits stretch across an array of informa- 395-310. doi:10.1177/1750698008093795 tion studies topics, including collaboration, social media, mobile Vicary, A. M., & Fraley, R. C. (2010). Student reactions to the phone usage, information needs, information literacy, and the shootings at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University: changing role of the library within and information-based Does sharing grief and support over the Internet affect recov- economy.