Many of us are familiar with the concept of “frape” – the portmanteau used to describe the act of altering someone’s information or posting messages in a person’s profile on a social media platform without their consent. While this gag is often juvenile and inappropriate, it has led to some serious and damaging consequences – insofar as being declared a crime in Ireland!
Charly Irons, a student teacher at Sheffield Hallam University, has written a paper on this concept and calls it “(anti)social networking” where she delves into the anthropological exigence of “fraping”. However, what is interesting here is the underlying, and sometimes unconsidered, anthropomorphism of Facebook. Using such a charged word as “rape” and affiliating it with Facebook is problematic in many ways but also works to increase the treatment of this corporation as a person. Although it is another individual that conducts the “frape”, it is enacted through Facebook and therefore, this nonhuman entity is attributed as performing this inhumane act.
The use of the word “frape” seeps beyond the colloquial usage and points to our perception of Facebook. The recent and heated issue of “corporate personhood” in the United States also applies to the mega social networking platform. Here, the idea that a corporation is legally viewed as an individual beckons both criticisms and praise; the business can be sued and prosecuted as an individual but can also claim freedom of speech to lobby and advertise. There have been several blogs, articles, papers and videos already made around this issue. Since corporations already enjoy an immense amount of power, their recognition as persons has led to a clever reinterpretation of the American flag here:
However, the question remains, what is the responsibility of Facebook to its users under this personification? Eli Pariser points to the masturbatory social media algorithms that encapsulate us into a heightened sense of self-importance by tailoring our newsfeeds to our viewpoints and predicted interests. Keeping this in mind, does Facebook have an obligation to be our quasi-therapist? Should Facebook detect negative moods or markers of depression in our posts to notify someone or change our newsfeed to a more positive one? The New York Times wrote about the difficulty of extracting mental health warning signs from melodramatic teenage posts but also noted how Facebook began to work with the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline in 2007. In this case, is Facebook responsible and liable for reporting disturbing posts?
As we post more photos, status updates, timeline events and our thoughts on Facebook, it is interesting to see our expressions co-produced with this corporation that is increasingly being viewed and treated as a person. The delineation between our rights and those of Facebook is continually being challenged and therefore, a new ethos ought to be established.
Al Shaibani
I hadn’t heard about ‘fraping’ before reading your blog post, but it’s a very interesting (yet creepy!) idea to consider. When people still used social media platforms like Xanga and Nexopia years ago, I remember people behaving in a similar fashion – but the actions taken weren’t meant to be malicious or hurtful to the user. Rather, people would get their friends to “hack” their profiles and leave cutesy messages which would then be a surprise to read later on. I suppose that as technology further advances and people become more and more attached to their online personalities, this makes for an effective way to get even with someone after an argument/fight/etc. (like in the example of what happened in Ireland).
I’ve seen people also ‘frape’ their friends as a joke, as this has come up on my own newsfeed. For instance, people have put up embarrassing status updates and gag profile pictures on other peoples’ profiles, but this is usually done in a light-hearted manner and not meant to cause any real harm.
– Tanzeela Piyasha Parveen
Hi Tanzeela,
I on the other hand is not familiar with Xanga or Nexopia! But I agree – this started at as a “hack” of a profile sort of prank but has progressed to being labelled “frape”. I think it’s very interesting when you mention “as technology further advances […] people become more and more attached to their online personalities,” in suggesting that we are separate from these personas on social media yet we have ownership of them. If that persona is attacked, how much does/should that affect us in real life? Maybe we will start to create a distance between our online personas and our true selves as they become more and more “artificial” and for publicity/self-advertisement! 🙂
I definitely agree with you that people seem to have different personalities online than in real life. This likely comes from the fact that people can remain anonymous on the internet versus in real life. Even if someone seems more outgoing and funny on Facebook, maybe it’s because they very rarely see their online friends in person? One of my friends runs a business online and she always tells me how exhausting it is to keep up her online persona and stay connected with followers on Instagram/etc. because she’s actually kind of reserved, but online she has no choice but to promote herself and her business.
I also had not heard of fraping until now. In my opinion, I do not think Facebook should be responsible for playing the role of therapist by either notifying someone if you publish a distressing status update, recommend treatment or, in the case of the Ted talk we watched, try to expose you to enriching material. Or if they do, it should be a setting you can control. I think the moment a corporation begins controlling the information I intake, even if they have the best intentions, I feel like I’m being manipulated. In terms of being thought of a person, I think this is interesting because people’s sense of self has become very much tied to and reinforced by their activity on Facebook. By posting favourable materials about yourself whether it be a status update or a flattering photo on some exotic adventure and collecting ‘likes’, it allows you to portray yourself however you want and in that way serves our most narcissistic desires. The more a person is active or attached to their profile, the more important it is to them as a part of their identity. I think in this way it is important to think about Facebook as a kind of person, not so much as some non-human entity, but as a platform that people identify with. I think fraping is more a form of virtual rape rather than you actually getting rapped by Facebook. In terms of being a enormous and valuable source of data, ideally you should be able to control who has access to your information, but that does not seem likely to happen. Just like the picture of the flag you posted, America is not made up of or controlled by its inhabitants, but by corporations.
Hi Aaron,
Thanks for your thoughts – I’m still conflicted with whether Facebook is responsible for playing the role of therapist or not. You have valid points but if the information on Facebook is already being “sold” to corporations and governments without our consent, then I may expect some responsibility in return. If Facebook were a completely neutral platform, then I agree with you, we ought to have a setting we can control and select whether Facebook should play a moderator/therapist in our lives. However, there are several stories of posts/pictures/profiles being taken down or censored. If there is already a filtration system to our expression – it may not hurt to flag any concerning posts. The question remains though, what can we assume as legitimate or just a melodramatic, hyperbolic post.
-Aaron Fox