Defining Social Media…It’s Complicated

  • Harry T. Dyer
Part of the Cultural Studies and Transdisciplinarity in Education book series (CSTE, volume 11)


This chapter deals with the seemingly simple but surprisingly complex task of defining social media. We begin with a discussion of what social media isn’t, working through some of the common and pervasive myths around social media and young people, before moving on to discuss some of the difficulties in offering a clear definition of social media. Given the continuing evolving nature of platforms, including the addition of new ways of interacting, the ever-growing diverse ways of engaging with and through platforms beyond social interaction, and the use of various social features on a wide array of platforms that may not traditionally be considered overly social spaces, we discuss where (if anywhere) the boundaries of social media sit. We then move on to discuss the importance of a platform-specific approach to understanding social media and then finally reflect on data drawn from a series of interviews with young people to discuss how they understand, define, and use social media.


Social media Social networking Digital natives Moral panic Young people 

2.1 Introduction

There is no denying the increasingly important and ubiquitous role of the Internet and of social media in the everyday lives of many people today. Social media has quickly become incredibly popular – both important and mundane, widespread and individualised, a source of global political power and a space for sharing GIFs of cats. Social media contains multitudes and is experienced, used, and present in many of our lives in a variety of ways (see Miller 2011; Wang et al. 2015; Anderson and Jiang 2018). In its relatively short existence,1 the Internet has quickly come to serve many broad functions and roles in everyday life, from social interaction and action (boyd 2015), to news (Hermida et al. 2012), shopping (Schivinski and Dabrowski 2016), business (Qualman 2009), politics (Shirky 2011), and many more growing diverse uses (Irwin 2016). Given the seemingly increasing popularity of social media, especially amongst our youth (Lenhart 2015; OFCOM 2019), there is a pressing need to understand exactly what social media is and how young people are using social media in their daily lives to act and interact. This means a need to consider not only the amount of time young people are spending online (a topic discussed in more detail later in this chapter) but also what their experiences are (if indeed these can be considered universal, another topic we’ll discuss later) and how social media may shape their complex social lives (a theme we’ll return to throughout this book).

Though the use of social media is spread amongst all age ranges at an increasing rate (Perrin and Anderson 2019), young people in particular2 access the Internet more frequently at an increasing rate (Lenhart 2015; Anderson and Jiang 2018). This is for a complex range of reasons (Malvini Redden and Way 2017) beyond just the suggestion that they are young and therefore somehow ‘native’ to technology. This idea of ‘digital natives’ in particular is a myth that educational researchers, policy makers, and practitioners must dismantle and a topic that we will return to in detail later in this chapter. Nonetheless, the latest OFCOM (2019) figures do highlight heavy usage by young people, noting that 83% of 12–15-year-olds have their own smartphone, that 69% of 12–15-year-olds have social media accounts, and that 99% of 12–15-year-olds go online for 20.5 hours per week. This suggests that social media is playing a large part in the lives of an increasing majority of young people, even when lower age limits of social media platforms are being potentially flouted (Livingstone and Ólafsson 2018). Indeed the same 2019 OFCOM report suggests 18% of 8–11-year-olds in the UK have a social media profile and 47% have their own device, a statistic that suggests young people have an online presence even when platforms restrict lower age limits. This presence is seemingly significant and pervasive in the lives of young people. Statistics suggest that in the USA, 92% of teens go online daily, with 24% reporting that they are online ‘almost constantly’ (Lenhart 2015). Indeed, Lenhart (2015) notes that the majority of teens access the Internet several times a day at least, visiting an increasingly diverse range of destinations. Only 12% of teens reported accessing the Internet just once a day.

As these spaces broadly are becoming increasingly relied upon in the everyday social lives of young people, the ways in which identity and interactions play out on- and offline must be of crucial interest to researchers, educators, parents, the media, and users and non-users of social media alike. It is worth noting here, however, that much like young people and their use of social media, this growing body of statistical data shows no sign of slowing or abating any time soon, seemingly suggesting that Internet use in the global north appears to be generally strong and pervasive. Whilst these quantitative readings are broadly useful, these sort of statistical barrages of data about young people and social media in the paragraph above lack qualitative depth around the lived experiences of young people on- and offline. Nonetheless these narrow data snippets often form the basis of the discussion around social media, in the public and in the media writ large. This shallow reading of youth and social media becomes the ever-present narrative undercurrent of public discussion and consternations, with the gaps left from this mass data around the actual lived experiences of young people on- and offline seemingly filled with fears, myths, assumptions, and misunderstandings. The ways the public fills in the gaps about what young people are doing online from this unabating mass of statistical data has roots bleeding back to long-held extant fears around youth. This often belies and supersedes the much-needed deeper discussion that is increasingly required to understand the various complex roles that social media plays in the lives of young people, a discussion that is ever-present in digital research (see Livingstone et al. 2018, for example) but which often fails to penetrate the broader discussion, especially in education.

This chapter, and indeed this book in general, aims to move beyond broad statements about young people and social media to instead understand how young people’s experiences of social media, their lives on- and offline, their identities, and their experiences across various digital and non-digital domains result from the complex, ongoing, and continual negotiation of various shifting factors, actors, and technologies. Though exploring and dwelling in this complex mix, this book begins to lay the groundwork for a theoretical framework to understand and map the enmeshing of the various factors that shape youth experiences of social media. This is vital if we are to understand how Internet use is largely effected and shaped by socio-cultural backgrounds and exposures to a variety of discourses and media narratives (see Dyer 2016).

In order to explore beyond these pervasive broad statistics about teens and social media use, this chapter will discuss what social media is and what research tells us about how young people understand and engage with it. First, however, given the propensity of daily stories about young people and social media, it is worth doing some myth-busting and talking clearly about what social media isn’t.

2.2 Dispelling Some Myths and Moral Panics: What Young People Aren’t Doing Online

Increasingly we are seeing a large rise in concern about social media and young people, with uncertainties around how young people are using social media, what spaces they are using that parents and teachers may not know about, what ‘normal’ usage is, and if young people are addicted. Unfortunately this well-meaning concern is being exacerbated and fuelled by misinformation and long-standing generational fear. Headlines appear in the Daily Mail in 2016 claiming ‘Social media-obsessed teenagers are so frightened of real life some won’t even answer the door’, articles in The Atlantic ask ‘have smartphones destroyed a generation?’, and the Observer headlines implore parents to ‘stop children bingeing on social media’. As with many changes involving young people throughout history, this has led to growing ‘moral panics’ about ‘kids today’. McRobbie and Thornton (1995, 561–562) note of this that:

The same anxieties appear with startling regularity; these involve the immorality of young people, the absence of parental control, the problem of too much free time leading to crime, and the threat which deviant behaviour poses to national identity and labour discipline.

We see these observations from over two decades ago still present today, much as they were when highlighted by Geoff Pearson (1983) who discussed the same attitudes towards young people in the 1930s and 1940s. As with past moral panics, our concerns about young people and social media are shaped in no small part by our collective fears – of youth, of our own mistakes, of our growing irrelevancy, and of our increasing distance from being ‘cool’, none of which are all that unique or new as concerns and fears.

Throughout history we see fears of media and of new technological inventions coded as ways of explaining and justifying broader concerns around issues such as race, youth, gender, and sexuality. These include fears of televisions as ‘idiot boxes’ that are ‘obstructing a moral lifestyle, and impairing mental and physical health’ (Syvertsen 2017, 55); fears of video games causing youth violence (see the largely debunked Anderson and Dill 2000 paper); fear of comic books causing violence (Springhall 1998); fears of flapper dancing causing sexual promiscuity and manly behaviours in young females (see Hall 1922); fears of dungeons and dragons causing Satanism (Lancaster 1994); and more recently fears linking hip hop to inner-city crime as seen in an article in The Times (Mararike et al. 2018) detailing ‘Drill, the “demonic” music linked to rise in youth murders’. The list goes on.

Lest we think these fears of media and technology are a twentieth-century peculiarity, I would like to detour quickly to highlight two of my personal favourite cases of moral panics around media and technology.3 The first being the case of Jonas Hanway, an Englishman in the 1750s who, reportedly after a trip to Europe, began using an umbrella around London when it rained. Onlookers were recorded to be shocked by this ‘effeminate’ behaviour displayed publicly by a man and were even recorded as being violent towards Hanway, heckling him, and pelting him with rubbish (Waters 2016). The second case is considerably older, coming from Plato’s Phaedrus composed around 370 BC. In Phaedrus, the Egyptian King Thamos is detailed discussing his fears around how writing might impact the capabilities of younger generations to remember ideas, stating:

If men learn this [art of writing], it will implant forgetfulness in their souls; they will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks (Plato, Transl. Hackforth 1973).

The point here being that this is nothing new yet seemingly we refuse to learn from this ongoing fear of youth. This landscape of fear and concern around technologies and youth can often be confusing for parents, teachers, and others concerned with young people, but worryingly can also be truly dangerous in regard to how we treat young people. Nowhere has this been more apparent recently than in the case of the ‘Momo Challenge’ in early 2019, a story which obscured, diverted, and refracted concerns around young people and mental health onto a collectively manifested and exaggerated fictional totemic ‘folk devil’ (reminiscent of Cohen’s [1972] work around moral panics). With origins in online rumours dating back to 2018, the ‘Momo Challenge’ was reportedly a ‘suicide game’ where a sinister-looking bird-faced woman named Momo would appear on children’s phones telling them to complete an escalating series of tasks, culminating in self-harm and suicide. Early reporting in the media linked this to deaths of children in South America, and the stories were met with concern from parents, statements from police forces4 and school boards,5 posts about the craze from celebrities such as Kim Kardashian,6 and a flurry of new stories. Of course, the Momo Challenge was not actually real, but nonetheless the stories spread far and fast. It has even been suggested that, because of this press coverage, Momo was manifested into existence, with the UK safer Internet Centre noting ‘It’s a myth that is perpetuated into being some kind of reality’ (Waterson 2019). To any media scholar, this should remind you instantly of Jean Baudrillard’s (1994) concept of hyperreality in which he posits that fiction and reality are so closely intertwined in modern life that it becomes difficult to separate one from the other.

Whilst concerns parents were seemingly talking to their children about the dangers of a fictional bird-lady on their phones in the immediate aftermath of the Momo Challenge, the underlying concerns from which this story manifested – concerns around social media, young people, and mental health – were left under-discussed. Though there are well-meaning fears that young people are suffering through a mental health crisis driven in no small part by social media, the research is rather clear, highlighting that adolescent well-being is not strongly linked to technology use (Orben and Przybylski 2019). Nonetheless, there has been a great deal of handwringing around the ‘screentime’ debate, with the logic that screentime can correlate somehow to an increase in mental health issues or a lack of ‘proper’ communication (See Turkle 2011). It is worth noting that Orben and Przybylski find in no uncertain tone that, though worthy of academic study, the search for easy answers around screentime is obscuring more nuanced discussion around youth and social media, suggesting ‘that the outsized weight given to digital screen-time in scientific and public discourse might not be merited on the basis of the available evidence’ (Orben and Przybylski 2019: 177).

The blame for these moral panics cannot, of course, be placed solely in the hands of concerned parents, nor with the media. As Ophir et al. (2019) go to some length to point out, key studies that have captured public attention in claiming a link between social media and mental health in young people, such as Twenge et al. (2018) heavily discussed paper, are misleading in their measurements, analyses, and results. As researchers, we should also be careful to understand our role in shaping public narratives.7

Despite the hard work of many researchers in dispelling these myths around social media causing mental health issues, we nonetheless see increasing reports of educators reacting to social media in extreme ways, punishing young people and blaming social media for complex mental health issues. This includes schools increasingly banning phones to improve the mental health of young people, such as the school I attended in my teen years: St. Bede’s in Redhill, Surrey, UK. Headmaster Stephen Crabtree detailed his plans in the summer of 2019 to ban phones from the school to improve mental health and encourage communication, suggesting this would allow pupils the ‘time to simply be children again’.8 I couldn’t be more disappointed in this decision. This move to scapegoat social media and screen time in lieu of actually providing mental health services and support for young people should be truly worrying to anyone involved in education, and it is evident that mental health issues need to be treated rather than removing some of the means through which mental health issues manifest themselves. Though links between sleep and social media screen usage are notable and telling, in general the focus should not be on time spent, but the way we use social media and the content we see, seek, produce, and consume. As Ophir et al. (2019: 5 [my emphasis]) note:

the risk for adolescent depression rises when the adolescent avoids positive and constructive daily behaviors (e.g., exercising or interacting with friends online and offline) and when he or she lacks community support or meaning in life (e.g., attending religious services), regardless of new-media screen use.

With this need for a more nuanced discussion of social media in mind, the framework presented in Chap.  6 of this book presents a way to situate online content in the complex and multifaceted lives of young people, rather than treating them as a catch-all category and assuming a one-way relationship between social media use and behaviour. Nonetheless, there are many myths that pervade about young people. One in particular that is present in education stems from an urge to categorise young people as a collective through the ever-present narrative of ‘digital natives’.

You will notice this is the only section in this book in which I discuss or use the term digital natives, despite its popularity amongst educators and despite this book exploring in detail how young people are engaging with social media and digital spaces. There is good reason for this, as laid out here and indeed in this entire book. Originally conceived by Prensky (2001), digital natives refers to the generation of young people born roughly after 1980 who, because they have been exposed to digital technology from birth, have a different approach, fluency, and use of technology than previous generations whom Prensky labels ‘digital immigrants’. The term digital natives has passed somewhat into its public parlance and has quickly been adopted as a way of helping to understand why young people are competent and comfortable with computers.

The notion of digital natives, despite its popularity (particularly amongst educators), has nonetheless been widely discredited and criticised (Jones and Shao 2011; Helsper and Eynon 2010; Judd 2018). There are a numerous reasons for this criticality, not least because digital natives is such a broad and sweeping term. To assume that young people universally will have the same or comparable experiences of technology merely due to exposure is far too simple and misunderstands the well-documented digital divides that straddle socio-cultural categories such as class, ethnicity, race, and gender (Carpio 2018; Hargittai 2018; Mihelj et al. 2019).9 As Shah and Abraham (2009, 26) note:

It is necessary to promote research that grasps that not all digital natives are equal. Each context will have certain norms by which digital nativity is understood and experienced. Dismantling the universal digital native and considering contextualised digital native identities might also help us move away from speaking of the digital native as a necessarily elite power-user of technology.

Indeed, as the above quote highlights, the use of ‘digital natives’ also highlights some of the problems around attitudes towards technology we see in education to date – the idea that exposure is related to competence. Though there is much to be said for discussions of using technology as a pedagogical tool for younger generations (see Morgan 2014, for example), considerations of students and pupils as digital natives can be harmful to approaches to learning for both teachers and pupils. Blanket assumptions of competence by younger generations can be problematic and deter from the need for holistic, critical, and engaged guidance from older generations, which may serve to undermine calls for digital literacy and critical digital citizenship in schools.10 Students have been suggested to lack, for example, search skills to find and evaluate suitable research (Duke and Asher 2012). Using an ‘immigrant/native’ dichotomy in education can lead to ‘structurally embedded de-privileging of the role of the teacher’ (Bayne and Ross 2011, 161–162) undermining their ability to guide and work with students and pupils on, in, and through technology. It is also far too simple to assume older generations lack competence, willing, and ability to utilise technology (Hill et al. 2008) or that they are unable to become ‘native’ (Bayne and Ross 2011). Further, positioning of older generations as digital immigrants can serve to undermine critiques of technology by these users, meaning ‘their dissent can be delegitimised as symptomatic of their ignorance, backwardness or resistance to change’ (Bayne and Ross 2011, 162).

Further to this, it is worth highlighting and emphasising the linguistic flaw and danger in dwelling on an ‘immigrant/native’ divide. As Bayne and Ross (2011, 164) point out, such a rhetoric ‘inevitably evokes complexities and anxieties around migration, integration, and racial and cultural difference in Western society’. Even with a charitable reading of this stretched metaphor of the native pitted against the immigrant as inherently different in their approach to the world, Prensky’s (2001, 2) claims of immigrants as ‘heavily accented, unintelligible foreigners’ should be a warning to any use of this as a concept as a notion of generation assimilation, superiority, or difference.

In reality, beyond such easy generational catch-all assumptions, we see young people with varied and complex existences that are mediated by, through, on, and with technology to different degrees, for different purposes, and with different results. In this regard, the research and discussion in this book focuses upon the need to consider how technology is embedded in the lives of young people and how the relationships between technology and humans are mediated in an ongoing manner to create complex identities, actions, and interactions. As Shah and Abraham (2009, 29) aptly suggest:

It is necessary to overcome the physical-virtual dialectic when speaking of digital natives and to consider them as techno-social identities who straddle, like Donna Haraway’s cyborgs, the realms of the physical and the virtual simultaneously.

Whilst there are other myths worth addressing and unpacking around technology and young people, it is through this lens of a need to consider ‘techno-social’ identities when approaching the experiences of young people today that we turn to a consideration of how best to define and understand ‘social media’.

2.3 Understanding ‘Social Media’

Given that social media has become an increasingly ubiquitous (Curran et al. 2016) part of everyday social life for a wide variety of users (Perrin and Anderson 2019), research has been keen to unpack the effects of the many aspects of social media upon our actions and interactions (Ariel and Avidar 2015; Salomon and Brown 2019; Barker and Rodriguez 2019). The subject has attracted a lot of interest from a variety of fields ranging from sociology (Curran et al. 2016; Daniels et al. 2017), to psychology (Seidman 2013), geography (Kitchin 2013), business studies (Safko 2010), and education (Marsh et al. 2016). With this broad scope of approaches, there are a similarly wide variety of approaches towards understanding, considering, and defining social media. This section will therefore detail the scope of this research in regard to social media, discussing the key aspects of social media as they pertain to a focus upon identity performances.

A common task I set my students in the first lecture of every year is to define ‘social media’. This seemingly simple task, to define something so ubiquitous in modern life, becomes quite complex quite quickly as my students realise that they are unsure about where social media begins and ends. The inevitable responses that come at the end of this short group task are either hyper-specific, focusing on one or two aspect such as ‘public posting’ or ‘networking’, or are extremely broad, encompassing all communication online. Some centralise Facebook as ‘default’ social media with variations spinning off from this; others attempt to account for all variations and include such methods of interacting as email, financial transactions, and dating apps. One aspect however that unfailingly is centred in almost all definitions from my students is that social media me is a space for people to interact and post content online.

As Chap.  4 of this book discusses in detail, there is an understandable tendency to centre our understanding of social media around this ‘loud’ and obvious public data that seems to be ostensibly at the heart of ‘social’ media, but in reality our experiences and uses of social media move far beyond just social interaction alone. You only have to be on Facebook for a minute to see some on the variations available on this platform alone. Facebook has groups, advert after advert, videos, news, private messaging, games, and spaces where you can buy and sell goods; the list goes on and changes frequently. Seemingly social platforms are expanding their focus far beyond social interactions alone. It could even be argued that companies such as Facebook and Twitter centre user interaction as the purpose of the platforms but that their interest lies in collecting and producing data about our habits, clicks, and footprints online. As David Beer (2018) rightly points out, this ‘data gaze’ follows users online and offline, restructuring and re-contextualising many aspects of daily life.

In many ways, given the complex and multifaceted nature of these platforms, the term ‘social media’ is somewhat of a misnomer that, at the very least, makes users, observers, audiences, and researchers consider these spaces to be social first. Nonetheless, the term has quickly come into the zeitgeist, seemingly replacing old terms such as ‘web 2.0’ and ‘social networking ‘, making it somewhat hard to discuss the growing mass of unique online experiences covered by spaces as diverse as Grindr and the Daily Mail message board without somehow invoking social media. Indeed, along with ‘traditional’ social media platforms diversifying their offerings into a range of different functions and features beyond user-produced content, we are also seeing other platforms integrate social elements to encourage some form of engagement and interaction, such as the proliferation of comment boards and forums on a wide variety of online spaces. Ostensibly then, ‘traditional’ social media platforms are extending far beyond social interactions, and at the same time a wide variety of diverse website, games, and platforms are integrating social elements into the users experience, making a strict boundary of where social media begins and ends increasingly hard to define.

This complex landscape poses somewhat of a challenge to any researcher looking into social media, as choices have to be made about where to focus one’s attention when trying to capture online experiences in a manner that allows a holistic and accurate representation of online experiences. Questions emerge when approaching research around the topic of social media, including exactly how broad an approach towards social aspects online the researcher needs to take, exactly what social elements the research will consider, and how to deal with features beyond the social aspects of these complex platforms. Beyond the well-known and much researched features and practices associated with Facebook and Twitter (Oz et al. 2018), a growing range of online platforms today purposefully attempt to utilise features that encourage varying forms of social interaction between users (Stroud et al. 2016; Wu and Atkin 2018) around a range of content (boyd 2015; Curran et al. 2016). Features such as comment sections and sharing buttons are, for instance, increasingly common across a wide array of sites and have been noted for their ability to generate social interaction (Toepfl and Piwoni 2015). Research has also looked at other features that can encourage social interaction, including the up-voting of content (Leavitt and Clark 2014; Tarsa 2015) or simple view counters (Lange 2007; Rieder et al. 2018). The ubiquity and commonality of these elements on a wide array of websites potentially blurs the line between dedicated social media platforms and platforms that contain social elements and that foster an interactive environment around the content of that site (Canter 2013).

Given this variety of features that encourage different forms of social interaction, there is limited agreement about what exactly can be considered ‘social media’ and what cannot. Whilst platforms such as Twitter and Facebook are comfortably accepted as social media, other platforms with social elements are nonetheless often excluded from this discussion. This can be seen in choices around how large-scale statistical data is being collected about social media. A study from PEW (Lenhart 2015), for example, collected data on a range of platforms for their expansive survey on Internet usage, but chose to delineate only seven platforms (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, Tumblr, Google+ and Vine) as social media platforms. This is despite the fact that in amongst the other platforms were popular platforms with social elements, such as Pinterest, used by 22% of teens (Lenhart 2015); discussion boards, used by one in six teens; and anonymous sites and apps such as Yik Yak and Ask.FM. Indeed, platforms such as Pinterest have been highlighted for their social elements and the range of communities that emerge around the sharing of content (Hall and Zarro 2012; Tekobbe 2013; Guidry et al. 2016). Since 2018, PEW now collect data on nine platforms, removing Tumblr, Google+, and Vine adding YouTube, LinkedIn, Pinterest, WhatsApp, and Reddit (Perrin and Anderson 2019). Again, this contains some odd exclusions, including the removal of Tumblr which continues to be a thriving platform (Byron et al. 2019).

Interestingly, research has found that even if the social element does not serve as the site’s primary purpose, the inclusion of these interactive features can nonetheless foster an attitude of social interaction and even a sense of community (Barnes 2015; Zhou et al. 2016). Manosevitch and Walker (2009, 22), for example, in their study of the comment section of two news websites noted that despite neither site explicitly encouraging it, there were ongoing social conversations in the comment sections of the sites, suggesting ‘that commenters did not simply ‘parachute’ in and leave their opinion. Instead, they engaged with one another as well as the issue under discussion’. This presence of social engagement through comment sections is also confirmed by Canter (2013, 604) who found ‘buoyant levels of interactivity between readers in comment threads’ in UK newspaper comment section and by Barnes (2015, 823) in Australian newspaper comment sections who found that many commenters were ‘actively forming a virtual community, fuelling their own sense of identity through the submission of comments and the dynamic played out through established relationships within that community’. This sense of community and engagement has even been noted in comment sections and platforms that allow anonymity. Coles and West (2016, 47), for example, note ‘the majority of posts are of an interactional nature’ and that ‘online members do not treat each other as being anonymous – even when posters real names and identities are unknown’ (Ibid, 51). This strongly suggests that there is a need to broaden approaches to social interactions online beyond just Facebook and Twitter alone if we are to get a fuller picture of the rich variation of online social interactions.

There is also a need to expand understandings of the activities and purposes of users on more easily identifiable platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter (boyd and Ellison 2008; Kowert et al. 2016). As mentioned earlier, it is increasingly clear to see that these platforms are not exclusively social and focused on peer-to-peer interactions alone, a point that has been being made in research for a decade now (Kwak et al. 2010; Smock et al. 2011). Indeed, these spaces are increasingly offering diverse ways of engaging, with various possibilities for action and interaction (Bucher and Helmond 2018). This makes providing a holistic definition of social media difficult. Many of the traditional criteria that have been used to separate and delineate the core of social media’s essence in the early days of online interaction are being thrown into question by recent developments in platforms. Aspects that were once considered essential in separating social network sites(SNS)11 from other spaces online (see boyd and Ellison 2008 for an early list of core features) are now questioned, with newer platforms which might be considered under the moniker of ‘social networking’ removing the need for dedicated public profiles (Khazaei et al. 2016; Pangrazio 2018) or a dedicated list of connections (Black et al. 2016). Similarly, social platforms have wholeheartedly integrated private messaging (O’Hara et al. 2014; Karapanos et al. 2016), meaning the notion of a separation of public and private social spaces that some research has previously attempted to maintain is becoming increasingly questionable (Korhan and Ersoy 2016; Utz 2015).

Beyond the blurring of social media into a range of other platforms and spaces online, it appears there is also an issue of synecdoche12 in the existing literature dealing with social media. This can be problematic when attempting to consider the nuances of social media as certain aspects may be exclusively foregrounded and used to generalise all social experiences online (Smock et al. 2011). An example of this synecdoche can be seen in use by Hughes et al. (2012), who (understandably for research published in 2012) position Facebook and Twitter as the key platforms online and generalise about the entirety of social media from these two platforms. More recently, Davis (2016, 137) has suggested that ‘social media are interactive, nonanonymous, network-based Internet technologies that allow for the sharing of user-generated content’. Whilst this is a generally accurate description of how some users interact on certain platforms such as Facebook and Twitter (though certainly this is not all a user can and does do on these platforms), this certainly cannot be applied or generalised to all social media. This is especially apparent given the recent resurgence of anonymity in complex ways in social media (Ellison et al. 2016) and the popularity of platforms such as Reddit and Tumblr that do not require the sharing of personal information. In Davis’ case, their earlier work (Davis and Jurgenson 2014) hints at the need for a broader definitions, highlighting that a large number of users use more than one social media platform and defining social media thusly: ‘by social media, we refer to the set of interactive Internet applications which facilitate (collaborative or individual) creation, curation, consumption, and sharing of user-generated content’ (Davis and Jurgenson 2014, 477). This second definition allows for a wider array of social platforms that does not limit aspects such as anonymity (Coles and West 2016).

None of this is to say that Davis’ definition provided above is not a consideration of some of the most important and prevalent aspects of social media, but it is a clear ontological choice to focus on a specific aspects of the platform – in this case the interactivity, the lack of anonymity, and the sharing of user-generated content – over other uses of these complex multi-faceted platforms. Such synecdoche poses problems for what researchers focus upon when they engage with these platforms, which provide more than just avenues for social interactions between users. It appears, given the growing range and variety of social platforms, that not only is there a need to consider an array of platforms when considering social interaction, but there is also a need to pay attention to the particularities of that platform rather than generalising the scope and shape of social interaction online. Indeed, the research documented in this book emerged from an early study where I attempted to do this myself, focusing on Facebook and Twitter alone to attempt to understand social media. I quickly found this to be notably restrictive and a limited way of understanding social media. Instead, it must be noted that ‘social networking’ represent one aspect of social interaction online and that experiences on these platforms are increasingly diverse. It is also apparent, given the increased presence of social features on a range of platforms alongside the diversification of features offered on platforms such as Facebook, that SNSs are increasingly less of a discrete and wholly distinct category, hence the choice to use ‘social media’ as a broader ‘catch-all’ category throughout this book. Whilst traditionally SNSs foreground a rather specific from of social interaction (see Dabbagh et al. 2015), it is clear that today platforms offer far more than social interaction and foregrounding this aspect may only enhance synecdoche.

Of course, this is also true of the term ‘social media’, which seems to similarly foreground social interaction. At its broadest ‘social media’ has to cover a range of complex and overlapping functions across a wide range of spaces, blurring into and out of a variety of other platforms and including functions far beyond social interactions alone. As such, there is no easy answer to the task I set to my student of defining social media. Nonetheless, if I were to proffer a suggested way to conceptualise social media, I would point towards the Ancient Greek concept of an ‘Agora’. Agorae were the social hubs of the Ancient Greek world, literally meaning a ‘gathering place’. They were, ostensibly, marketplaces that served as key locales in Greek athletic, artistic, spiritual, and political life. On the one hand, they were important spaces to be and to be seen; they served as places to socialise, interact, discuss politics, and generally be a part of Ancient Greek life. On the other hand, they served as decidedly commercial spaces. The embedded nature of this dual functionality is still reflected in the Greek language today, and from the word Agora, we get two Greek verbs ἀγοράζω, agorázō, ‘I shop’, and ἀγορεύω, agoreúō, ‘I speak in public’. Modern social media also blurs a market and a social space, producing different variations and iterations on this theme, emphasising some aspect, and minimising others to produce an increasingly hybrid experience for the user. This still misses many aspects of the social media experience however. In this manner, social media is a rather imprecise term to describe these platforms. For the time being, given the progression of the term into public parlance, social media serves as an imprecise, synecdochic, fuzzy, but inescapable category whose centres may be easily located but whose boundaries become rather obfuscated.

One aspect of importance to note about the term social media is its distinction and distance from the use of the term ‘site’. ‘Sites’ are increasingly fraught in digital research, representing a hangover of ‘website’. Social media however is rapidly moving away from the website-only format towards the use of apps and various ‘blackboxed’ interfaces (Light et al. 2018). Statistics suggest that 95% of American teens have or have access to smartphones which they use to access the Internet (Anderson and Jiang 2018). Some of the increasingly popular platforms such as Snapchat and TikTok (Şimşek et al. 2018) are viewed only in app-based form on mobile. Equally, sites like Twitter and Facebook can be reached on a range of different devices. Given the shift to a range of platforms beyond just websites (a trend that looks likely to continue to evolve with the influx of augmented and virtual reality), the need to avoid synecdoche, and the various uses of these platforms beyond networking alone (Smock et al. 2011), I warily choose to make use of social media as a problematic but inescapable term.

Given this position, my research aims to purposefully consider a broad array of online platforms and considers social media at its broadest point – as platforms through which users engage with, through, on, over, and about media, albeit alone, with other users, or with a range of entities both human and non-human. Such a broad approach naturally covers spaces and platforms which may not traditionally have been considered, including emails and video games. However, this broader focus opens many possibilities for a close engagement with a broad array of experiences. Obviously, due to the abundance of easily mineable data from a wide audience, Facebook and Twitter currently attract a lot of attention from researchers, especially in regard to ‘big data’ research. Nonetheless single-platform research and the implications drawn from it do not match the experiences of many users for whom social interaction is happening across a range of platforms (Smith and Anderson 2018). As Carr and Hayes (2015, 49) highlight, a narrow focus ‘could impede theoretical development of social media more broadly’. Increasingly, user contribution and engagement with a range of materials across a range of platforms has allowed for many diverse spaces to build social community, in turn encouraging new forms and models of social interaction that should not be ignored by researchers in favour of larger platforms like Twitter (Kowert et al. 2016). It is clear that with the growth in user interactions across a plethora of diverse platforms, those findings drawn from one social media platform cannot be applied universally (Katz and Crocker 2015; Stroud et al. 2016). As discussed in Chap.  6, because of the possibilities a broader consideration of social media offers for research, a theoretical frame is needed that is capable of moving beyond a reliance upon the structures and affordances of Facebook and Twitter alone. Given this, this chapter will now move on to consider some of the implications of a broader approach towards social media and what this might mean for how we consider social interactions online.

2.4 More than a Feature

Beyond the need to consider a broad range of platforms, there is also a need to consider the specificities of each platform and the unique ways in which they may be used. This is aptly highlighted by Stroud et al. (2016), who note that across 155 functional similar news websites, the use of social features such as social media buttons, hyperlinks, polls, and comments largely differed from one site to the next. They found little support for any ‘interactive convergence’, instead noting ‘many differences in the adoption and use of interactive features based on medium and target’ (Stroud et al. 2016, 339), highlighting that the context of the site plays a large part in how users engage with these features. This suggests that merely noting the presence of specific features when considering social media is not enough to understand how they are being used to socially act and interact, as the same feature may be used in different ways for different effects on different platforms. Such an approach further complicates a clear definition of social media, as the features of these platforms potentially become less important that the culture and environment in which they are placed. This point is echoed by Bucher and Helmond (2018, 251), who note call for platform-specific approaches to social media which ‘emphasize the specificity of platforms as a socio-technological environment that draw different users together and which orchestrate the relations between different platform users’. In this manner, it is apparent that any analysis of social media should look at how features are utilised and used in context, paying attention to the use of features from one site to the next rather than assuming that specific features and elements alone will create and foster similar uses across a range of contexts.

This can be further highlighted by literature that focuses upon cases of ‘trolling’, anti-social, and uncivil behaviour online, which research suggests may be more prevalent in certain contexts, such as sites and platforms that offer anonymity (Coles and West 2016; Massanari 2017). This certainly does not mean that anonymity itself is always utilised for trolling, and it should be noted that, in some contexts, anonymity can in fact be used in a supportive manner (See Dyer 2017). In this manner, research has highlighted that the context in which features are found can shape their use. Rowe (2015), for example, looked at the comment section of the Washington Post which allows users to post anonymously and compared the comments to those left on the Washington Post’s Facebook site where users had to use personal Facebook accounts to leave a comment. Rowe found that the Washington Post website had far more incivility and impoliteness as well as a greater likelihood for purposefully directed hurtful comments than the Facebook page. Similar findings have been found by other researchers (Cho and Acquisti 2013; Hille and Bakker 2014; Van der Nagel and Frith 2015). It appears then that interactive affordances, such as comment sections, are not used in uniform manners. Context, it seems, matters.

Given this, researchers have begun to question the treatment of a vast range of social media platforms as analogous entities simply due to a commonality of features (see Bucher and Helmond 2018). Work has begun to highlight that many unique factors and contexts can affect the ways in which users engage with features (Dyer 2015; Kowert et al. 2016; Stroud et al. 2016). Katz and Crocker (2015) make the key point that researchers should be careful to contextualise the use of features such as the ability to take and post selfies. In the results of their survey conducted into the subject of selfies then noted that: ‘when it came to selfies, the users that we interviewed suggested that they viewed selfies generated via Snapchat differently than ones published on more public platforms or saved onto mobile communication devices’ (Katz and Crocker 2015, 7). It would appear therefore that focusing upon the affordances offered is not nearly enough to understand the platform, there is also a need to consider the use of those affordances on a platform-by-platform basis in relation to the individual user as well as the intended audience, further echoing calls to understand social media as socio-technical assemblages (Bucher and Helmond 2018; van Doorn 2011; van Dijck and Poell 2013). In the case of Katz and Crocker’s (2015) findings, they noted that:

rather than being a single phenomenon with a singular purpose of engagement, we found that the selfie category encompasses a range of use and intention. The platforms, subject matter, and audience all impact how users engage with selfies and the reasons for taking them. (Katz and Crocker 2015, 10)

My own previous research in this area (Dyer 2015) similarly highlights the need to consider the specificities of the platform, noting that despite Facebook and Twitter sharing many similar features, a number of factors such as the differences in how these platforms frame the reasons for socially interacting shape how users interact, who they interact with, and how they present their identities. Similarly, Duguay (2016) has looked at the differences in use between Vine and Instagram for queer women, noting that despite both platforms ostensibly involving the sharing of visual data, the types of interactions varied, with Vine interactions showing creativity, and Instagram interactions revolving around expressions of beauty and gender. Though both platforms revolved around the sharing of visual data, as Kunze (2014) notes, Vine allowed more creative control and editing, which in turn impacted how users approached conceptualising and sharing visual data. This more nuanced approach and attention to socio-technical designs has been seen across a variety of fields of research (Bowler et al. 2015; Karimov et al. 2011; Postigo 2016). Kowert et al. (2016: 3) in particular issue a call to researchers to ‘consider the idiosyncrasies of these different social platforms, particularly when one is discussing any potential positive or negative impacts they may have on individuals’. They go on to highlight that:

although they [social media platforms] all provide a basis for promoting interaction between users via the Internet, their social utilities, or more specifically their key features and ability to connect users and provide a sense of social connectedness, vary widely. Recognising the unique characteristics of different mediated, social spaces is key to understanding what role these different social services play in our everyday lives, how they are utilized, and what social impact (if any) they may have on users over time. (Kowert et al. 2016, 5)

It is this call for contextualisation that this book therefore aims to provide, not only focusing on a wide range of platforms but also considering the specificities of design within those platforms, as well as providing an attention towards how different socio-culturally situated users experience and navigate these features. Research suggests that even simple differences between platforms may result in different manifestations of identity, different forms of social interaction and action, and changes in how the user negotiates and understands these spaces (Stroud et al. 2016). The approach towards social media when considering identity online therefore needs to be both broad, with attention to the wide variety of social spaces online, and specific, with attention to the designs and experiences of specific platforms.

2.5 How Young People Define Social Media

Whilst we have considered what social media is, it is worth briefly considering more specifically what it represents to young people. Through moving beyond the unhelpfulness of digital natives as a term, we can still broadly consider what existing literature around young people’s interactions online reveal about their understandings of social media and what role social media plays in their social lives and social development. Specific differences have been noted generally in the use of social media by young people, including changes in frequency (Agosto and Abbas 2013) and reasons for engaging with the platforms (Antheunis et al. 2014). Data suggest that young people are vital to the growth of social media (Boulianne 2015; Herring and Kapidzic 2015) and that ‘those ages 18 to 29 have always been the most likely users of social media by a considerable margin’ (Perrin 2015, 4).

However, it is not just the widespread nature of these platforms that is important to the young people, but rather the increasingly important role they play in contemporary social life (Robards 2014), ‘shaping how adults and youth interact with each other in school, at home, and at large’ (Goldman et al. 2008, 185). This role of social media in the lives of young people has been much-discussed, sometimes in slightly hyperbolic fashion but also in a way that highlights the growing importance of social media as a space for young people to develop identities. It has been argued, for example, that social media is now ‘compulsory among groups of young people’ (Hodkinson 2017, 272). Research suggests social media platforms play an increasingly integral role in how young people socialise, interact, and form identities (Wartella et al. 2016; Wood et al. 2016). For example, in their survey of nearly 100 students, Mazzoni and Iannone (2014, 303) suggest that social media forms ‘part of the functional organs that support emerging adults in their ability to connect and to be connected to a social network and to develop and maintain it over time’. Though, as we discuss in Chap.  4, social inequality pervades online spaces, and as highlighted earlier in the discussion around ‘digital natives’, young people’s experiences cannot be so easily generalised, it is nonetheless apparent that social media is playing some role in the social interactions and identity presentations of many young people today. Indeed, social media now serves many purposes in the social lives of young people including enhancing broad socialisation and independence (Vickery 2015), serving as a means of emotional connection (Wood et al. 2016), increasing self-esteem and well-being (Antheunis et al. 2014), increasing a sense of closeness with contacts (Valkenburg and Peter 2007), and decreasing loneliness and improving self-reported adjustment (Yang and Brown 2013).

Given the many important social experience that now have the potential to be filtered through social media, especially at the broadest definition as seen in this chapter, it is important to interrogate how these various platforms are affecting and shaping how young people are presenting themselves and how they are acting and interacting. With this in mind, in my own research with young people, I have attempted to understand how social media, at its broadest definition, is understood and experienced by young people and how identity emerges from the enmeshing of socio-culturally grounded individuals as specifically designed platforms. It was with this broad approach in mind that I asked my participants to define social media for me. As discussed earlier, this is no easy task, but it was nonetheless an important question to ask, not only to understand how young people viewed these sites, but also to ensure that as an interviewer I was not already priming the participants by only asking about, for example, Facebook or Twitter.

In this manner, my interviews for this research project revealed a variety of platforms that were used by the participants for social interaction, suggesting the need to account for and consider more than just Facebook and Twitter when considering social interaction online. During the interviews the participants were asked what they considered social media to be. They provided a number of variable suggestions, some idiosyncratic to their particular method of engaging with social media. For example, Isabel provided the definition of social media as ‘a way to communicate with your friends and acquaintances, I’d say. And a bit of a newsfeed to see what’s going on in the world’, suggesting the notion that social media may involve more than just communication and that in this case it was used for information gathering also of both local, personal, and global issues. Brian too provided a definition informed by his particular use of social media platforms. He noted social media to be:
  • Brian: Like, anything that has a forum or has avatars or profiles I consider to be social networking, in one way or another.

  • Harry: Does that mean you use more than just Twitter and Facebook then?

  • Brian: Umm. Yeah, I guess it does, I (.) I have a whole bunch of sites I use and post stuff on, but not (1.) not in any regular sense. I do post on a whole bunch of things though. Facebook and Twitter just feel a little bit more (.) overtly social. It’s in your face kinda.

Indeed, many of the attitudes towards social media expressed in the interviews appeared to reveal a hierarchy in the participants’ consideration of social media that predominantly stemmed from their experiences of Facebook. Nonetheless all participants used a variable range of platforms; Brian used two platforms for content production and browsed numerous other platforms. Brandon used four platforms regularly. Isabel used two platforms. Kirsty used three platforms, Nina used five platforms, Willow used nine that she discussed during the sessions, Molly used four, and Sally used four. All participants however used Facebook and Twitter in some form. Brian seemed to hold Facebook and Twitter as separate for the manner in which they seemed to overtly revolve around social interaction, but nonetheless acknowledged that social media can be broad. Later he discussed engaging with and through more than just these two platforms, noting ‘I use a lot of other websites, but, when you say social media everyone thinks Facebook and Twitter’. He further clarified this remark, discussing how for him the distinction lay not in the social capabilities of the platform per se, but his personal level of engagement:
  • Brian: I use a lot of them, but don’t have an active presence. So things like YouTube, and Vine, and umm (.) I would go on but I would never contribute to them (.)

  • Harry: So you don’t consider that use of the sites?

  • Brian: No, because I’m not actively giving to the site. I’m (.) milking the site. I don’t think that, like (.) I would never use YouTube for its intended purpose. Well, I don’t know, I use YouTube to watch videos, I suppose that’s the intended purpose. But I would never put videos on there.

Notably Brian later expanded his list of platforms his uses to include Google+ and Tumblr. This suggests that Brian was aware of a range of sites, but only felt he actively contributed to a few. For example, Brian notes:

I feel like you have to be more active. Like, I feel like, the same as YouTube, I don’t use YouTube, I’m not a YouTuber, and I’m not a Viner or whatever the equivalent would be, I’m a, a, I watch. I’m a voyeur.

Brian however later did give some parameters to what he considered to be social media, again suggesting that Facebook is more explicitly social media to him. He detailed that he defines the boundaries of social media as not specifically including ‘texting apps’:
  • Brian: I’m on, I’m social networking sites on my phone as well, WhatsApp, Grindr, those kind of things as well.

  • Harry: You don’t consider that social media?

  • Brian: No, it is, but on a different level. It’s basically texting.

It appears that for Brian social media is a broad field but that there is some degree of definition with certain platforms that are more explicitly, traditionally, or overtly social. Other participants were noticeably more comfortable to express a broader view towards social media. Kirsty, for example, understood social media in a rather broader sense, noting her blog and personal website as forms of social media. Kirsty suggested ‘I suppose I have a website which technically to extent is a social media site, in as much as people can comment and get involved on it’ as well as noting:

I did have a LiveJournal account for a while, which I had a lot of interaction with the fandom community on there, which is a totally, but thinking about it, a lot of people that I knew through LiveJournal I didn’t have any other contact with, so I guess in some ways that is a social media site.

For others participants however there were particular affordances that made certain platforms more or less social in their view. For example, Brandon noted that to him social media needed to contain a marker of ‘identity’. He stated that:

anything that is completely anonymous I would have thought is not social media, just purely on the basis to me is putting some sort of name, whether it be your real name or not, or some sort of identity, communicating with some sort of identity.

In this manner, there appeared to be no stable definition of social media amongst the participants. Despite all participants utilising Facebook and Twitter, there were a broad array of other platforms used for a variety of forms of social interaction, particularly by some participants. For example, Nina used a wide array beyond Facebook and Twitter, including platforms like Pinterest and a musical theatre forum that she accessed frequently and used in a variety of manners. Willow too discussed several platforms that fulfilled social functions for her, detailing how she used two video gaming services, Raptr and Steam, socially. She discussed that users were able to share captured videos of their gaming sessions and could livestream their gaming sessions to an audience. She noted that on Raptr ‘you set up a profile, you set a profile picture, you get a username’ and that it allows for tracking where I rank up against other people in terms of how much I’ve played’. Willow also discussed Steam, another video gaming service which allows users to:

show you how much you’ve played in the last week, and it’ll rank you up against your friends and up against the community as a whole. Like, how many, this is the average amount of hours you’ve spent, or sorry this is the amount of hours you’ve spent, this is the amount of hours your friends have spent, and this is the average amount of hours that the community spent playing it, like the average member of the community has played this game this week for like x amount of hours.

Willow noted that this can be particularly social:

you add your friends, like people you know, or people you like talk to on forums, like steam forums, and play the same games in, like, people that maybe you watch stream stuff or something, or you’ve met online. So it, like, and Steam I always thought is more for meeting up with people that you’d want to play with at the same time.

Beyond this, Willow also discussed comment boards, noting that they served as overtly social spaces for her. She suggested that communities form around the discussion of certain topics:

you don’t really know each other, but because you’re all talking about the same things in the same context, you definitely get a feel of personalities…people will refer back to comment boards from a couple of days ago, like ‘oh yeah, you mentioned last article that your dog was dying, how’s that going?’ or something.

She later suggested one particular comment section she frequented where this social factor was explicitly encouraged and acknowledged:
  • Willow: At the end of the week normally, they’ll do what they call an open thread. Which is ‘here is an article that doesn’t actually say anything, other than comment in the box’, like talk amongst yourselves, basically. And there’s a couple of other sites that do it.

  • Harry: I often wondered what that was. So, I didn’t realise what it was.

  • Willow: It’s basically, they just put up, like one a week normally, which is basically like (.) which is what are you doing this weekend, what are you playing this weekend, which is basically just people, just, talk. What are you doing this week, how are you, it’s like, umm, tell us what you’re on about, how has this week gone for you, what have you been up to? It’s like, because as I was saying, even though it’s commenting on an article, if you’re regular enough people sort of set up, maybe not in the same sense of community, but you kind of get to know people. Or get to see people commenting all the time, that people are sort of interested in other people’s lives.

Willow suggests here that for her, the social experiences and relationship that are formed in these comment boards are often pseudonymous, but nonetheless are still purposeful and often intimate. She notes:

despite the fact that you have no idea of anything, like, I wanna say personal, but I know some really personal stuff about all of them, apart from the fact that I don’t know their names and I don’t know, umm, anything.

She highlights one case in particular of a woman who had been talking in the comment section about living with her partner’s ex-mistress, Willow says she knew:

like how she feels about the fact that she has to put up with her husband’s mistress, although they’re not having a thing any more, and it’s stuff like that, except I have no idea what her name is, where she lives, how old she is, anything like that. And it’s just odd.

These spaces then appear to fulfil different social functions and purposes and provide different social experiences and understandings. This also shows, as discussed earlier, the importance of context in understand features like comment boards and anonymity. In this case it appears the anonymity was a useful feature for sharing personal stories. Indeed, in a similar manner, and detailing the broad scope of social experiences facilitated online, Sally also discussed how video games can serve social functions for her:

Like games where you play with other people, like online role playing games, you can join groups or teams with their friends or just random people in general and they become friends…You hear of people starting relationships with other people who they’ve met online in video games and stuff. I’ve seen a bunch of discussions on games about literally anything under the sun, from cats and parenting tips and just telling stories.

This suggests that social media is a broadly different experience for each participant. Each gains different social experiences online, responding to, enacting, and fulfilling different practice, needs, and experiences. Their understandings of social media, and therefore experiences of social media, appear largely variable. Nonetheless, it should be noted that Facebook and Twitter were used by all participants in some format and appeared to be noted as the most explicitly social formats, though again, with a variety of uses dependent upon a number of factors. Whilst Facebook and Twitter are evidently popular, the interviews nonetheless suggest that the use of multiple platforms is increasingly common and that future research should consider more than just a few specific platforms (Carr and Hayes 2015; Lenhart 2015) when attempting to understand how user are using the Internet to socially interact and act. All participants made use of at least two social media platforms during the study, with some using up to nine different platforms. Indeed, Molly highlights a key reason to consider a range of platforms when considering social media, noting that:

I think other people use Facebook differently to other things, because on Facebook they only tend to be friends who they’ve actually met, but on Twitter and other ones lots of people follow sort of random people that they don’t know.

For Molly, Facebook appears to be the exception to social media usage, not the rule. Despite its popularity, Molly suggests it in some way acts as the outlier for social media usage, and that not only should it not be considered typical of all social media, but that it may be atypical of other social media. This serves as a further crucial reflection for future research into social media. Despite being currently popular, Facebook’s popularity may in fact make the experience of this platform rather unique, meaning data generated from this platform may be notably less generalisable to other spaces online. In essence, the uniqueness of Facebook made the platform an outlier in their social experiences online; it was the exception, not the rule. It was therefore engaged with in a different manner from other platforms. As Brian put it:

I guess they’re all kinda the same, but all other social media feel like (.) community. And if you’re not talking it’s just (.) it’s snooping without being part of that community. I don’t know. It just feels (.) Facebook is different.

Brandon also expresses similar sentiments, noting:

I think Twitter and Instagram, I think, they’re a lot more specialised (.) in the way that they are designed, whereas Facebook feels a lot more kind of generic.

2.6 Implications for Educational Researchers, Policy Makers, and Educators

As the data above suggests, social media is notably more complex than it may originally seem and perhaps broader than we might originally consider. This manifests itself in education in a number of crucial ways, for example, there are interesting documented cases of young people using classroom apps as social media, such as Google Docs, which allows users to ‘collaborate’ on a document. Whether we like it or not, social media is already in our classrooms at all levels. Consider it ‘passing notes 2.0’. The findings here suggest that social media can be considered in a notably broad manner. Whilst discussing and considering social media in the classroom, we should show caution when using Facebook as an example of social media. Whilst currently broadly used, it is clear there is more to social media than this platform, and indeed it may be the exception rather than the rule.

Whilst it is readily apparent that Facebook and Twitter are popular and that they are currently an integral aspect of social interaction, this research highlights that a focus on these two platforms alone is not enough to understand the entirety of young peoples’ diverse experiences of social media. There is a need to move beyond a focus on one or two platforms, a need which is all the more apparent given the growing array of platforms through which users can now interact, each offering different ways of expressing identity, consuming and producing content, and socially interacting. As such, not only is there a need to consider a broad approach towards social media, particularly when considering the social media uses of young people (Wartella et al. 2016); it is also clear that there is a need to consider the specificities of these platforms in their own right and to examine the diversity of experiences and uses they can offer, as Willow’s experience with anonymity makes clear.

The broad array of platforms and spaces that need to be considered when approaching social media research is starkly apparent when considering how the participants define social media here. Even within a small sample, there was a noted variety of approaches towards social media, with the participants’ definitions of social media reflecting the diversity of their experiences online. Asking the participants to define social media therefore revealed an important consideration for future research into social media, that the researcher’s conception and understanding of social media may not match the user, and that a consideration of how participants conceive of social media may aid an understanding of their engagements with and through the platforms. This is true in educational policy. There is a clear case to build an understanding of social media not from our assumptions but from the experiences of young people.

It is apparent that there are a variety of approaches towards defining social media and that social media is not understood or used uniformly by users. As such, it seems odd that research should attempt to take a uniform approach towards social media when collecting data by focusing on experiences on one or two popular, but potentially atypical platforms. Doing so risks prioritising a certain approach over other equally legitimate understandings of social media. This research suggests therefore that a similar approach, placing the definition and scope of social media in the hands of participants, should be taken by future research in order to understand what these spaces mean to the participants. Asking the participants to define social media allowed for a deeper consideration of what social media was for the participants and helped in an understanding of how they conceived of these spaces. As Lefebvre (1991) notes, understanding how social spaces are conceived of by the users of that space can help better reveal and unpack the practises enacted within those spaces. This can be essential for classroom approaches to social media also. Rather than an educational response which assumes usage, we can begin to understand the lived experiences of young people in a more realistic manner.

As this chapter makes readily apparent, understanding and defining social media is somewhat of a complex task, especially as the boundaries of terms such as ‘social media’ can obscure the manner in which these platforms offer experiences far beyond social interaction alone and the manner in which a wide array of spaces online now offer ways of interacting with a range of entities. As the research above highlights, the job of defining social media perhaps is not a task for the researcher, but crucially a task for the participants if we are to better understand the broad array of social experiences present online.


  1. 1.

    The birth of the Internet is, like many aspects of digital history, nebulous. Some trace it to Leonard Kleinrock’s work in packet networking in the 1960s with the Advanced Research Projects Agency (Ruthfield 1995). Others credit Tim Berners-Lee’s work at CERN in the 1980s (Couldry 2012) with the first ‘website’ launching in 1990 (still live at Some place it as early as the 1950s with the emergence of WANs (wide-area networks) and other networks like the Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (Kim 2005), or to 1962 with J.C.R Licklider’s work at MIT on the ‘Galactic Network’ (Leiner et al. 2009).

    For the purpose of this book, we’ll be focusing on the internet from roughly around 2000 onwards, when there appears to have been a shift away from the Internet as a little used communication medium amongst those in the know to a heavily utilised method of mass communication and interaction. In 1993, only 1% of the information sent through two-way telecommunication networks was via the Internet. By 2000 this figure was 51%, and by 2007, it was placed at more than 97% of all information sent (Hilbert and Lopez 2011).

    This signifies a massive shift in the last 20 years towards mass communication via the Internet, followed by capitalist investment in infrastructure across a number of industries, such as the introduction of broadband and the huge boom in educational technology (themes that we will return to in Chap.  3).

  2. 2.

    At increasingly and notably early ages (Livingstone and Ólafsson 2018; Jones and Glynn 2019)

  3. 3.

    For a brilliant achieve of newspaper articles documenting fears of technology from horseless carriages and bicycles to headphones and radios, I would encourage you to explore the pessimists archive at

  4. 4.
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
  7. 7.

    It should be noted that Twenge seems rather undeterred by this and has continued to explore links between low well-being and frequent social media use (see Twenge 2019).

  8. 8.
  9. 9.

    For more information about digital divides, see Chap.  4 where social inequality online is discussed at length.

  10. 10.

    See Chap.  7 for a discussion of digital literacy in education and the need to teach criticality over compliance.

  11. 11.

    boyd and Ellison (2008, 211) make specific use of social ‘network’ site (SNS) rather than social ‘networking’ site, noting that ‘what makes social network sites unique is not that they allow individuals to meet strangers, but rather that they enable users to articulate and make visible their social networks’.

  12. 12.

    Synecdoche refers to the use of a part to refer to the whole or vice versa, for example, the use of ‘Hoover’ to refer to all vacuum cleaners or the phrase ‘boots on the ground’ to refer to military troops.


  1. Agosto, D. E., & Abbas, J. (2013). Youth and Online Social Networking. What do we know so far? In J. Beheshti & A. Large (Eds.), The information behavior of a new generation: Children and teens in the 21st century (pp. 117–142). Plymouth: Scarecrow Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, M., & Jiang, J. (2018) Teens, social media and technology 2018. Pew Research Center, May 2018. Accessed 08/2019:
  4. Antheunis, M. L., Schouten, A. P., & Krahmer, E. (2014). The role of social networking sites in early adolescents’ social lives. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 36(3), 1–24.Google Scholar
  5. Ariel, Y., & Avidar, R. (2015). Information, interactivity, and social media. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 23(1), 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barker, V., & Rodriguez, N. S. (2019). This is who I am: The selfie as a personal and social identity marker. International Journal of Communication, 13, 1143–1166.Google Scholar
  7. Barnes, R. (2015). Understanding the affective investment produced through commenting on Australian alternative journalism website New Matilda. New Media and Society, 17(5), 810–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and simulation. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bayne, S., & Ross, J. (2011). ‘Digital Native’and ‘Digital Immigrant’ discourses. In R. Land & S. Bayne (Eds.), Digital difference: Perspectives on online learning (pp. 159–169). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beer, D. (2018). The data gaze: Capitalism, power and perception. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Black, E. W., Mezzina, K., & Thompson, L. A. (2016). Anonymous social media – Understanding the content and context of Yik Yak. Computers in Human Behavior, 57, 17–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boulianne, S. (2015). Social media use and participation: A meta-analysis of current research. Information, Communication and Society, 18(5), 524–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bowler, L., Knobel, C., & Mattern, E. (2015). From cyberbullying to Well-being: A narrative-based participatory approach to values-oriented design for social media. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(6), 1274–1293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. boyd, d. (2015). Social media: A phenomenon to be analyzed. Social Media + Society, 2015(April–June), 1–2.Google Scholar
  15. boyd, d., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bucher, T., & Helmond, A. (2018). The affordances of social media platforms. In J. Burgess, T. Poell, & A. Marwick (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social media (pp. 223–253). London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  17. Byron, P., Robards, B., Hanckel, B., Vivienne, S., & Churchill, B. (2019). “Hey, I’m having these experiences”: Tumblr use and young People’s queer (dis) connections. International Journal of Communication, 13, 2239–2259.Google Scholar
  18. Canter, L. (2013). The misconception of online comment threads: Content and control on local newspaper websites. Journalism Practice, 7(5), 604–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Carpio, G. G. (2018). Racial projections: Cyberspace, public space, and the digital divide. Information, Communication and Society, 21(2), 174–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Carr, C. T., & Hayes, R. A. (2015). Social media: Defining, developing, and divining. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 23(1), 46–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cho, D. & Acquisti, A. (2013). The more social cues, the less trolling? An empirical study of online commenting behavior. In Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on the Economics of Information Security (WEIS 2013), March 6th 2013. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  22. Cohen, S. (1972). Folk devils and moral panics. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Coles, B. A., & West, M. (2016). Weaving the internet together: Imagined communities in newspaper comment threads. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 44–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Couldry, N. (2012). Media, society, world: Social theory and digital media practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  25. Curran, J., Fenton, N., & Freedman, D. (2016). Misunderstanding the internet. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dabbagh, N., Benson, A. D., Denham, A., Joseph, R., Al-Freih, M., Zgheib, G., & Guo, Z. (2015). Learning technologies and globalization: Pedagogical frameworks and applications. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Daniels, J., Gregory, K., & Cottom, T. M. (Eds.). (2017). Digital sociologies (pp. 75–99). London: Policy.Google Scholar
  28. Davis, J. L. (2016). Identity theory in a digital age. In J. E. Stets & R. T. Serpe (Eds.), New directions in identity theory and research (pp. 137–164). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Davis, J. L., & Jurgenson, N. (2014). Context collapse: Theorizing context collusions and collisions. Information, Communication and Society, 17(4), 476–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Duguay, S. (2016). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and queer visibility through selfies: Comparing platform mediators across ruby Rose’s Instagram and vine presence. Social Media+ Society, 2(2), 1–16.Google Scholar
  31. Duke, L. M., & Asher, A. D. (Eds.). (2012). College libraries and student culture: What we now know. Chicago: American Library Association.Google Scholar
  32. Dyer, H. T. (2015). All the Web’s a stage: The effects of design and modality on youth performances of identity. In Sociological studies of children and youth (Technology and youth: Growing up in a digital world) (Vol. 19, pp. 213–242).Google Scholar
  33. Dyer, H. T. (2016). Interactivity, social media, and superman: How comic books can help us understand and conceptualize interactivity online. In J. Daniels, K. Gregory, & T. M. Cottom (Eds.), Digital sociologies (pp. 75–99). London: Policy.Google Scholar
  34. Dyer, H. T. (2017) Online anonymity: The good, the bad, and the ugly., January 2017. Accessed 08/2019:
  35. Ellison, N. B., Blackwell, L., Lampe, C., & Trieu, P. (2016). “The question exists, but you Don’t exist with it”: Strategic anonymity in the social lives of adolescents. Social Media+ Society, 2016(October–December), 1–13.Google Scholar
  36. Goldman, S., Booker, A., & McDermott, M. (2008). Mixing the digital, social, and cultural: Learning, identity, and agency in youth participation. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), Youth, identity, and digital media (pp. 185–206). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Guidry, J., Zhang, Y., Jin, Y., & Parrish, C. (2016). Portrayals of depression on Pinterest and why public relations practitioners should care. Public Relations Review, 42(1), 232–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hargittai, E. (2018). The digital reproduction of inequality. In D. B. Grusky & S. Szelenyi (Eds.), The inequality reader (pp. 660–670). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hermida, A., Fletcher, F., Korell, D., & Logan, D. (2012). SHARE, LIKE, RECOMMEND: Decoding the social media news consumer. Journalism Studies, 13(5–6), 815–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hilbert, M., & Lopez, P. (2011). The World’s technological capacity to store, communicate, and compute information. Science, 332(6025), 60–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hackforth, R. (1973). Plato: Phaedrus, translated with an introduction and commentary by Hackforth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Hall, C., & Zarro, M. (2012). Social curation on the website. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 49(1), 1–9.Google Scholar
  43. Hall, G. A. (1922). Flapper Americana Novissima. Atlantic Monthly, 129(June 1922), 771–780.Google Scholar
  44. Helsper, E. J., & Eynon, R. (2010). Digital natives: Where is the evidence? British Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 503–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Herring, S. C., & Kapidzic, S. (2015). Teens, gender, and self-presentation in social media. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 146–152). Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hill, R., Beynon-Davies, P., & Williams, M. D. (2008). Older people and internet engagement. Information Technology and People, 21(3), 244–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hille, S., & Bakker, P. (2014). Engaging the social news user: Comments on news sites and Facebook. Journalism Practice, 8(5), 563–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hodkinson, P. (2017). Bedrooms and beyond: Youth, identity and privacy on social network sites. New Media and Society, 19(2), 272–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hughes, D. J., Rowe, M., Batey, M., & Lee, A. (2012). A tale of two sites: Twitter vs. Facebook and the personality predictors of social media usage. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 561–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Irwin, S. O. (2016). Media ecology and the internet of things. Explorations in Media Ecology, 15(2), 159–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Jones, K., & Glynn, M. (2019). How children use social media for brand interactions. Young Consumers, 20(2), 91–108.Google Scholar
  52. Jones, C., & Shao, B. (2011). The net generation and digital natives: Implications for higher education. York: Higher Education Academy.Google Scholar
  53. Judd, T. (2018). The rise and fall (?) of the digital natives. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(5), 99–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Karapanos, E., Teixeira, P., & Gouveia, R. (2016). Need fulfillment and experiences on social media: A case on Facebook and WhatsApp. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 888–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Katz, J. E., & Crocker, E. T. (2015). Selfies and photo messaging as visual conversation: Reports from the United States, United Kingdom and China. International Journal of Communication, 9, 1861–1872.Google Scholar
  56. Karimov, F. P., Brengman, M., & Van Hove, L. (2011). The effect of website design dimensions on initial trust: A synthesis of the empirical literature. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 12(4), 272–301.Google Scholar
  57. Khazaei, T., Xiao, L., Mercer, R., & Khan, A. (2016). Privacy behaviour and profile configuration in twitter. In Proceedings of the 25th international conference companion on world wide web. April 11–15, 2016, Montréal (pp. 575–580).Google Scholar
  58. Kim, B. K. (2005). Internationalizing the internet: The co-evolution of influence and technology. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Kitchin, R. (2013). Big data and human geography opportunities, challenges and risks. Dialogues in Human Geography, 3(3), 262–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Korhan, O., & Ersoy, M. (2016). Usability and functionality factors of the social network site application users from the perspective of uses and gratification theory. Quality and Quantity, 50(4), 1799–1816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Kowert, R., Domahidi, E., & Quandt, T. (2016). Networking and other social aspects of technology use: Past developments, present impact, and future considerations. In D. Faust, K. Faust, & M. N. Potenza (Eds.), Oxford handbook of digital technologies and mental health. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Kunze, P. (2014). Kidding around: Children, comedy, and social media. Comedy Studies, 5(1), 2–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., & Moon, S. (2010). What is twitter, a social network or a news media? In 19th international conference on world wide web. April 26–30, North Carolina (pp. 591–600).Google Scholar
  64. Lancaster, K. (1994). Do role-playing games promote crime, Satanism and suicide among players as critics claim? Journal of Popular Culture, 28, 67–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Lange, P. G. (2007). Publicly private and privately public: Social networking on YouTube. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 361–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Leavitt, A., & Clark, J. A. (2014, April). Upvoting hurricane Sandy: Event-based news production processes on a social news site. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1495–1504). ACM.Google Scholar
  67. Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  68. Leiner, B. M., Cerf, V. G., Clark, D. D., Kahn, R. E., Kleinrock, L., Lynch, D. C., Postel, J., Roberts, L. G., & Wolff, S. (2009). A brief history of the internet. [Online]. Accesses 08/2019:
  69. Lenhart, A. (2015). Teen, social media and technology overview 2015. Pew Research Center, April 2015. Accessed 08/2019:
  70. Light, B., Burgess, J., & Duguay, S. (2018). The walkthrough method: An approach to the study of apps. New Media and Society, 20(3), 881–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Livingstone, S., Mascheroni, G., & Staksrud, E. (2018). European research on children’s internet use: Assessing the past and anticipating the future. New Media and Society, 20(3), 1103–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Livingstone, S., & Ólafsson, K. (2018). When do parents think their child is ready to use the internet independently? Technical Report. LSE, May 2018. Accessed 08/2019:
  73. Malvini Redden, S., & Way, A. K. (2017). ‘Adults don’t understand’: Exploring how teens use dialectical frameworks to navigate webs of tensions in online life. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 45(1), 21–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Manosevitch, E., & Walker, D. (2009). Reader comments to online opinion journalism: A space of public deliberation. In 10th international symposium on online journalism, Austin, TX, 17–18 April.Google Scholar
  75. Mararike, S., Harper, T., & Gilligan, A. (2018) Drill, the ‘demonic’ music linked to rise in youth murders. April 8th 2018. The Times. Accessed 08/2019:
  76. Marsh, J., Plowman, L., Yamada-Rice, D., Bishop, J., & Scott, F. (2016). Digital play: A new classification. Early Years, 1–12.Google Scholar
  77. Massanari, A. (2017). # Gamergate and the Fappening: How Reddit’s algorithm, governance, and culture support toxic technocultures. New Media and Society, 19(3), 329–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Mazzoni, E., & Iannone, M. (2014). From high school to university: Impact of social networking sites on social capital in the transitions of emerging adults. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(2), 303–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. McRobbie, A., & Thornton, S. L. (1995). Rethinking ‘Moral Panic’ for multi-mediated social worlds. The British Journal of Sociology, 46(4), 559–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Mihelj, S., Leguina, A., & Downey, J. (2019). Culture is digital: Cultural participation, diversity and the digital divide. New Media and Society, 21(7), 1465–1485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Miller, D. (2011). Tales from Facebook. London: Polity.Google Scholar
  82. Morgan, H. (2014). Using digital story projects to help students improve in reading and writing. Reading Improvement, 51(1), 20–26.Google Scholar
  83. O’Hara, K. P., Massimi, M., Harper, R., Rubens, S., & Morris, J. (2014, February). Everyday dwelling with WhatsApp. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing (pp. 1131–1143). ACM.Google Scholar
  84. Ophir, Y., Lipshits-Braziler, Y., & Rosenberg, H. (2019). New-media screen time is not (necessarily) linked to depression: Comments on Twenge, joiner, Rogers, and Martin (2018). Clinical Psychological Science, 1–5.Google Scholar
  85. Orben, A., & Przybylski, A. K. (2019). The association between adolescent Well-being and digital technology use. Nature Human Behaviour, 3, 173–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Oz, M., Zheng, P., & Chen, G. M. (2018). Twitter versus Facebook: Comparing incivility, impoliteness, and deliberative attributes. New Media and Society, 20(9), 3400–3419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Pangrazio, L. (2018). Young People’s literacies in the digital age: Continuities, conflicts and contradictions. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Pearson, G. (1983). Hooligan: A history of respectable fears. Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Perrin, A. (2015). Social networking usage: 2005–2015. Pew Research Center, October 2015. Accessed 08/2019:
  90. Perrin, A., & Anderson, M. (2019) Share of U.S. adults using social media, including Facebook, is mostly unchanged since 2018. PEW Research Center, April 2019. Accessed 08/2019:
  91. Postigo, H. (2016). The socio-technical architecture of digital labor: Converting play into YouTube money. New Media and Society, 18(2), 332–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Qualman, E. (2009). Socialnomics: How social media transforms the Way we live and do business. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  94. Rieder, B., Matamoros-Fernández, A., & Coromina, Ò. (2018). From ranking algorithms to ‘ranking cultures’ investigating the modulation of visibility in YouTube search results. Convergence, 24(1), 50–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Robards, B. (2014). Mediating experiences of “growing up” on Facebook’s timeline: Privacy, ephemerality and the reflexive project of self. In A. Bennett & B. Robards (Eds.), Mediated youth cultures (pp. 26–41). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Rowe, I. (2015). Civility 2.0: A comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion. Information, Communication and Society, 18(2), 121–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Ruthfield, S. (1995). The Internet’s history and development: From wartime tool to fish-cam. Crossroads, 2(1), 2–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Safko, L. (2010). The social media bible: Tactics, tools, and strategies for business success. London: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  99. Salomon, I., & Brown, C. S. (2019). The selfie generation: Examining the relationship between social media use and early adolescent body image. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 39(4), 539–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Schivinski, B., & Dabrowski, D. (2016). The effect of social media communication on consumer perceptions of brands. Journal of Marketing Communications, 22(2), 189–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Seidman, G. (2013). Self-presentation and belonging on Facebook: How personality influences social media use and motivations. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(3), 402–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Shah, N., & Abraham, S. (2009). Digital natives with a cause? A knowledge survey and framework. Humanist Institute for Cooperation with Developing Countries (Hivos) Report 2009. Accessed 08/2019:
  103. Shirky, C. (2011). The political power of social media: Technology, the public sphere, and political change. Foreign Affairs, 90(1), 28–41.Google Scholar
  104. Şimşek, B., Abidin, C., & Brown, M. L. (2018). Musical. ly and microcelebrity among girls. In C. Abidin & M. L. Brown (Eds.), Microcelebrity around the globe, Emerald Publishing Limited (pp. 47–56). Bingley.Google Scholar
  105. Smith, A., & Anderson, M (2018) Social media use in 2018. Pew Research Center, March 2018. Accessed 08/2019:
  106. Smock, A. D., Ellison, N. B., Lampe, C., & Wohn, D. Y. (2011). Facebook as a toolkit: A uses and gratification approach to unbundling feature use. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), 2322–2329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Springhall, J. (1998). Youth, popular culture and moral panics: Penny gaffs to gangsta-rap, 1830–1996. Basingstoke: Macmillan International Higher Education.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Stroud, N. J., Scacco, J. M., & Curry, A. L. (2016). The presence and use of interactive features on news websites. Digital Journalism, 4(3), 339–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Syvertsen, T. (2017). Media resistance. Protest, dislike, abstention. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  110. Tarsa, R. (2015). Upvoting the exordium: Literacy practices of the digital interface. College English, 78(1), 12–33.Google Scholar
  111. Tekobbe, C. K. (2013). A site for fresh eyes: Pinterest’s challenge to “traditional” digital literacies. Information, Communication and Society, 16(3), 381–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Toepfl, F., & Piwoni, E. (2015). Public spheres in interaction: Comment sections of news websites as counterpublic spaces. Journal of Communication, 65(3), 465–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  114. Twenge, J. M. (2019). More time on technology, less happiness? Associations between digital-media use and psychological Well-being. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(4), 372–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Twenge, J. M., Martin, G. N., & Campbell, W. K. (2018). Decreases in psychological well-being among American adolescents after 2012 and links to screen time during the rise of smartphone technology. Emotion, 18(6), 765–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Utz, S. (2015). The function of self-disclosure on social network sites: Not only intimate, but also positive and entertaining self-disclosures increase the feeling of connection. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2007). Preadolescents’ and adolescents’ online communication and their closeness to friends. Developmental Psychology, 43(2), 267–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Van der Nagel, E., & Frith, J. (2015). Anonymity, pseudonymity, and the agency of online identity: Examining the social practices of r/Gonewild. First Monday, 20(3).Google Scholar
  119. Van Dijck, J., & Poell, T. (2013). Understanding social media logic. Media and Communication, 1(1), 2–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Van Doorn, N. (2011). Digital spaces, material traces: How matter comes to matter in online performances of gender, sexuality and embodiment. Media, Culture and Society, 33(4), 531–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Vickery, J. R. (2015). I don’t have anything to hide, but…’: The challenges and negotiations of social and mobile media privacy for non-dominant youth. Information, Communication and Society, 18(3), 281–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Wang, J., Yu, C. T., Yu, P. S., Liu, B., & Meng, W. (2015). Diversionary comments under blog posts. Transactions on the Web, 9(4). Article 18, e1-34.Google Scholar
  123. Wartella, E., Rideout, V., Montague, H., Beaudoin-Ryan, L., & Lauricella, A. (2016). Teens, health and technology: A National Survey. Media and Communication, 4(3), 13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Waters, M. (2016). The public shaming of England’s first umbrella user. Atlas Obscura. July 2016. Accessed 08/2019:
  125. Waterson, J. (2019) Viral ‘Momo challenge’ is a malicious hoax, say charities. The Guardian, 28th February 2019. Accessed 08/2019:
  126. Wood, M. A., Bukowski, W. M., & Lis, E. (2016). The digital self: How social media serves as a setting that shapes Youth’s emotional experiences. Adolescent Research Review, 1(2), 163–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Wu, T. Y., & Atkin, D. J. (2018). To comment or not to comment: Examining the influences of anonymity and social support on one’s willingness to express in online news discussions. New Media and Society, 20(12), 4512–4532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Yang, C., & Brown, B. B. (2013). Motives for using Facebook, patterns of Facebook activities, and late adolescents’ social adjustment to college. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(3), 403–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Zhou, Z., Su, C., Zhou, N., & Zhang, N. (2016). Becoming friends in online brand communities: Evidence from China. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 21(1), 69–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harry T. Dyer
    • 1
  1. 1.University of East AngliaNorwichUK

Personalised recommendations