Advertisement

Devices and Technology: How the Way in Which We Access Social Media Affects Our Experiences, Uses, and Identities

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

Abstract

Beyond looking at the platforms themselves, when considering how social media is shaping our experiences and interactions online and offline, there is also a need to consider the devices through which we access these platforms. This chapter provides a look at how technology can change our actions and interactions and highlights the need to move beyond thinking of social media as a unified experience across different devices. A social media platform may look, feel, and act differently based on the devices we are accessing it on, in turn affecting our experiences of these platforms. Rather than treating a platform as a uniform experience, this chapter highlights the need to consider how we are accessing and experiencing these platforms and which features may be excluded, included, emphasised, or minimised due to the devices we access them on.

We begin with an exploration of a history of technology shaping our experiences and interactions, online and offline. This discussion highlights not only how technology shapes our experiences but also how technology is not neutral and is not experienced in the same way by all users. Issues of race, gender, sexuality, and other socio-cultural resources permeate our experiences with technology. Building from this discussion, this chapter presents data from a year-long series of interviews with young people to explore how technology shaped their social experiences and their use of social media platforms and how their engagement with technology is crucially socio-culturally grounded. This includes one participant who moved from a joint family computer to a mobile phone, a move which impacted how and why she utilised social media in complex ways.

Keywords

GPS Technology Social media Mobile phone Family computer 

References

  1. Abidin, C. (2016, April–June). Aren’t these just young, rich women doing vain things online?: Influencer selfies as subversive frivolity. Social Media+ Society, 2016, 1–17.Google Scholar
  2. Akhtar, A (2016, August). Is Pokémon go racist? How the app may be redlining communities of color. USA Today. Accessed 08/2019. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/08/09/pokemon-go-racist-app-redlining-communities-color-racist-pokestops-gyms/87732734/
  3. Anderson, M. (2015, October). Technology device ownership: 2015. Pew Research Center. Accessed 08/2019. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/29/technology-device-ownership-2015.
  4. Anderson, M. (2019, June). Mobile technology and home broadband 2019. Pew Research Center. Accessed 08/2019. https://www.pewinternet.org/2019/06/13/mobile-technology-and-home-broadband-2019/.
  5. Anderson, M., & Jiang, J. (2018, May). Teens, social media & technology 2018. Pew Research Center. Accessed 08/2019. https://www.pewinternet.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2018/05/PI_2018.05.31_TeensTech_FINAL.pdf.
  6. Arnold, M. (2003). On the phenomenology of technology: The “Janus-faces” of mobile phones. Information and Organization, 13(4), 231–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bales, E., Li, K. A., & Griwsold, W. (2011). CoupleVIBE: Mobile implicit communication to improve awareness for (long-distance) couples. In Proceedings of the ACM 2011 conference on Computer supported cooperative work (pp. 65–74). ACM.Google Scholar
  8. Bar, F., Weber, M. S., & Pisani, F. (2016). Mobile technology appropriation in a distant mirror: Baroquization, creolization, and cannibalism. New Media & Society, 18(4), 617–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bayer, J. B., Ellison, N. B., Schoenebeck, S. Y., & Falk, E. B. (2016). Sharing the small moments: Ephemeral social interaction on Snapchat. Information, Communication & Society, 19(7), 956–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boczkowski, P. J., Mitchelstein, E., & Matassi, M. (2018). “News comes across when I’m in a moment of leisure”: Understanding the practices of incidental news consumption on social media. New Media & Society, 20(10), 3523–3539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boesen, J., Rode, J. A., & Mancini, C. (2010). The domestic panopticon: location tracking in families. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM international conference on Ubiquitous computing (pp. 65–74). ACM.Google Scholar
  12. Bonilla, Y., & Rosa, J. (2015). # Ferguson: Digital protest, hashtag ethnography, and the racial politics of social media in the United States. American Ethnologist, 42(1), 4–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burgess, J., & Green, J. (2018). YouTube: Online video and participatory culture. Cambridge: Wiley.Google Scholar
  14. Cappellini, B., Kravets, O., & Reppel, A. (2019). Shouting on social media? A borderscapes perspective on a contentious hashtag. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 145, 428–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Charteris, J., Gregory, S., & Masters, Y. (2014). Snapchat ‘selfies’: The case of disappearing data. Rhetoric and reality: Critical perspectives on educational technology. Proceedings of Ascilite Dunedin, 2014, 389–393.Google Scholar
  16. Chen, Y., Randriambelonoro, M., Geissbuhler, A., & Pu, P. (2016, February). Social incentives in pervasive fitness apps for obese and diabetic patients. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing companion (pp. 245–248). ACM.Google Scholar
  17. Chun, W. H. K. (2016). Updating to remain the same: Habitual new media. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Conner, C. T. (2019). The Gay Gayze: Expressions of inequality on Grindr. The Sociological Quarterly, 60(3), 397–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cottom, T. M. (2017). Black cyberfeminism: Ways forward for intersectionality and digital sociology. In J. Daniels, K. Gregory, & T. McMillan Cottom (Eds.), Digital sociologies. London: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  20. Cramer, H., Rost, M., & Holmquist, L. E. (2011, August). Performing a check-in: emerging practices, norms and ‘conflicts’ in location-sharing using foursquare. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on human computer interaction with mobile devices and services (pp. 57–66). ACM.Google Scholar
  21. Crockett, E. (2016, July). Pokemon Go is augmented reality. Too bad reality is still racist. VOX.com. Accessed 08/2019. https://www.vox.com/2016/7/11/12149664/pokemon-go-augmented-reality-racist.
  22. Dewing, M. (2010, February). Social media: An introduction. Library of Parliament – Publication No. 2010–03-E. Accessed 10/2019. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2013/bdp-lop/eb/2010-3-eng.pdf.
  23. Dobson, A. S. (2018). Sexting, intimate and sexual media practices, and social justice. In Digital intimate publics and social media (pp. 93–110). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  24. Dourish, P. (1998). Introduction: The state of play. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 7(1), 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ellbrunner, H., Barnikel, F., & VETTER, M. (2014). “Geocaching” as a method to improve not only spatial but also social skills: Results from a school project. GI_Forum 2014 – Geospatial Innovation for Society, pp. 348–351.Google Scholar
  26. Erickson, I. (2010). Geography and community: New forms of interaction among people and places. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(8), 1194–1207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Esmonde, K., & Jette, S. (2018). Assembling the ‘Fitbit subject’: A Foucauldian-sociomaterialist examination of social class, gender and self-surveillance on Fitbit community message boards. Health, 1–16.Google Scholar
  28. Fahlquist, J. N. (2015). Responsibility and privacy – Ethical aspects of using GPS to track children. Children & Society, 29(1), 38–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Farman, J. (2009). Locative life: Geocaching, mobile gaming, and embodiment. In Proceedings of the digital arts and culture conference. Accessed 08/2019. http://www.jasonfarman.com/JasonFarman-Locative_Life_DAC09.pdf.
  30. García-Gómez, A. (2018). From selfies to sexting: Tween girls, intimacy, and subjectivities. Girlhood Studies, 11(1), 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ge, Y., Knittel, C. R., MacKenzie, D., & Zoepf, S. (2016). Racial and gender discrimination in transportation network companies (no. w22776). National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  32. Hailu, R. (2019, July). Fitbits and other wearables may not accurately track heart rates in people of color. STATnews.com. Accessed 08/2019. www.statnews.com/2019/07/24/fitbit-accuracy-dark-skin/.
  33. Harder, R. A., Paulussen, S., & van Aelst, P. (2016). Making sense of twitter buzz: The cross-media construction of news stories in election time. Digital Journalism, 4(7), 933–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hart, M. (2017). Being naked on the internet: Young people’s selfies as intimate edgework. Journal of Youth Studies, 20(3), 301–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Humphreys, L., & Liao, T. (2011). Mobile geotagging: Reexamining our interactions with urban space. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 16(3), 407–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ihamäki, P. (2015). Social tribe culture case study: Geocaching game. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 11(1), 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Katz, J. E., & Aakhus, M. (Eds.). (2002). Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Kobie, N. (2019, February). TikTok breaks all the rules of app design – but somehow it still works. Wired.co.uk. Accessed 10/2019. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/tiktok-snapchat-app-design.
  41. Kranzberg, M. (1986). Technology and history: ‘Kranzberg’s Laws’. Technology & Culture, 27(3), 544–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lenhart, A. (2015, April). Teen, social media and technology overview 2015. Pew Research Center. Accessed 08/2019. https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2015/04/PI_TeensandTech_Update2015_0409151.pdf.
  43. Llinares, D., Fox, N., & Berry, R. (Eds.). (2018). Podcasting: New aural cultures and digital media. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  44. Mai, L. M., Freudenthaler, R., Schneider, F. M., & Vorderer, P. (2015). “I know you’ve seen it!” individual and social factors for users’ chatting behavior on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 296–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Monmonier, M. (2018). How to lie with maps. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  46. Munafo, J., Diedrick, M., & Stoffregen, T. A. (2017). The virtual reality head-mounted display Oculus Rift induces motion sickness and is sexist in its effects. Experimental Brain Research, 235(3), 889–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York: New York University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. O’Hara, K. (2008). Understanding geocaching practices and motivations. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1177–1186). ACM.Google Scholar
  49. Office for National Statistics. (2019, August 12). Internet access – Households and individuals, Great Britain: 2019. Statistical Bulletin. Accessed 08/2019. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/householdcharacteristics/homeinternetandsocialmediausage/bulletins/internetaccesshouseholdsandindividuals/2019.
  50. Page, X., & Kobsa, A. (2010). Navigating the social terrain with Google latitude. In iConference 2010 (pp. 174–178). Urbana-Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
  51. Patton, D. U., Brunton, D. W., Dixon, A., Miller, R. J., Leonard, P., & Hackman, R. (2017, July–September). Stop and frisk online: Theorizing everyday racism in digital policing in the use of social media for identification of criminal conduct and associations. Social Media+ Society, 2017, 1–10.Google Scholar
  52. Piwek, L., & Joinson, A. (2016). “What do they snapchat about?” Patterns of use in time-limited instant messaging service. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 358–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Poushter, J., Bishop, C., & Chwe (2018, June). Social media use continues to rise in developing countries but plateaus across developed ones. PEW Research Center. Accessed 08/2019. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2018/06/19/social-media-use-continues-to-rise-in-developing-countries-but-plateaus-across-developed-ones/.
  54. Saker, M. (2016). Foursquare and identity: Checking-in and presenting the self through location. New Media & Society, 19(6), 934–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schwartz, R., & Halegoua, G. R. (2015). The spatial self: Location-based identity performance on social media. New Media & Society, 17(10), 1643–1660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Scott, E. D., Jr. (2015). Big, black, teenaged queens: Navigating intersections and understanding ‘no fats, no fems’ phenomenon. In K. M. Rice & M. V. Felizzi (Eds.), Global youth: Understanding challenges, identifying solutions, offering hope (pp. 17–33). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  57. Shcherbina, A., Mattsson, C. M., Waggott, D., Salisbury, H., Christle, J. W., Hastie, T., et al. (2017). Accuracy in wrist-worn, sensor-based measurements of heart rate and energy expenditure in a diverse cohort. Journal of Personalized Medicine, 7(2), 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stoilova, M., Livingstone, S., & Nandagiri, R. (2019). Children’s data and privacy online: Growing up in a digital age. Research findings. London: London School of Economics and Political Science.Google Scholar
  59. Sweeney, M. E., & Whaley, K. (2019). Technically white: Emoji skin-tone modifiers as American technoculture. First Monday, 24(7).Google Scholar
  60. Thulin, E. (2018). Always on my mind: How smartphones are transforming social contact among young Swedes. Young, 26(5), 465–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tiidenberg, K., & Gómez Cruz, E. (2015). Selfies, image and the re-making of the body. Body & Society, 21(4), 77–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tsetsi, E., & Rains, S. A. (2017). Smartphone Internet access and use: Extending the digital divide and usage gap. Mobile Media & Communication, 5(3), 239–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. van der Zeeuw, A., van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & Jansen, G. (2019). Inequalities in the social use of the Internet of things: A capital and skills perspective. New Media & Society, 21(6), 1344–1361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & Mossberger, K. (2018). Any thing for anyone? A new digital divide in Internet-of-things skills. Policy & Internet, 10(2), 122–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vanden Abeele, M. M., Antheunis, M. L., Pollmann, M. M., Schouten, A. P., Liebrecht, C. C., Van Der Wijst, P. J., Van Amelsvoort, M. A., Bartels, J., Krahmer, E. J., & Maes, F. A. (2018). Does Facebook use predict college students’ social capital? A replication of Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe’s (2007) study using the original and more recent measures of Facebook use and social capital. Communication Studies, 69(3), 272–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wajcman, J., & Dodd, N. (Eds.). (2017). The sociology of speed: Digital, organizational, and social temporalities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Wang, Y., Weber, I., & Mitra, P. (2016). Quantified self meets social media: Sharing of weight updates on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 6th International conference on digital health conference (pp. 93–97).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations