Digital Technology, Social Media, and Techno-Social Life

Introduction

In high-tech modern societies, nearly every aspect of social life is touched by digital technology. Families and friends remain in contact via spirited streams of text messages. Individuals spend countless hours sharing, shopping, playing and learning online. Organizations develop digital and social media presences and “brands” that are increasingly requisite for surviving and thriving in a digital world. Even those whose access to communication and information technology (ICT) is limited or who are disinclined to use newer digital technologies are still profoundly affected by living in a world that is computerized, globalized, and interconnected.

This chapter looks closely at digital technology and social media and their impacts, and proposes that it is highly useful to think of life in the digital age as techno-social. “Techno-social” will be hyphenated here to highlight the equivalent, reciprocal importance of the “techno” and the “social” in a world in which the digital and the physical have become completely and irretrievably enmeshed. The “techno” and “social” components of modern life will be probed in some depth this chapter, along with the history and components of a digital/social media participatory culture, features of digital environments, and some key issues and impacts. Finally, the meaning and implications of being “plugged in” to one another vis digital technology and social media will be discussed.

Digital technology and social media influence all aspects of modern life: how people work, play, think, learn, create, relate, and even fall in love. In the process, social environments, relationships, communities, networks, societies, and even individual selves are created, established, and maintained. Throughout, the technological and the social components of life inform, shape and define one another. While it is impossible to separate the “techno” and “social” components of life practically – hence, the utility of the term “techno-social” —  here we separate them conceptually and analytically, and examine, first, the “techno.”

Understanding the “Techno”

Technology is the process or technique of making something that allows human beings to share their knowledge, perform a task, or fulfill a function (see Jary and Jary 1991). It often takes the shape of a tool intended to solve a problem or improve on past understandings of how to do something. Information and communication technologies (ICTs) carry ideas from one person to another via devices and applications along networks, allowing people to interact and exchange ideas and knowledge. This process is also called mediation or technological mediation, and the technology itself can be considered a mediator.

Every piece of technology reflects and often advances the interests of those who create and fund it and deploy it in the world. It is not neutral – it is never “just a tool” – but rather is something that can disproportionately benefit those who invent it, profit from it, or control its use. Having said that, it is impossible to know exactly how a technology will be used and received once it is unleashed on the world, and thus it is not perfectly “controllable.” It operates in a social system in which all those who contribute in some way to its existence (makers, users, distributors, funders, regulators, etc.) play a part in its eventual development and impact.

An ICT is usually considered high-tech when some kind of machine or modernized industry is involved and is considered to be low-tech in less mechanized conditions. It can be as fundamental to communication as the process of writing or the invention of the pencil, or more mechanically sophisticated, like a network of computers that connects the globe. When computerization is involved, the communication process is said to have been digitized, for as computers utilize bursts of energy (bits) to encode, store, and transmit information, data are represented and stored by computers as digits, with zeroes representing “off” and ones representing “on.”

Media are the means by which these pieces of data are stored and then communicated to others. When shared via computerized networks, the media that aggregate or deliver information are considered digital media. Modern computers, of course, can be large or small, stationary or portable, and take many forms; smartphones and “smart” items in which software or sensors are embedded certainly qualify. Digital media, therefore, is commonplace in a society in which these networks are ubiquitous, and is often referred to in the singular (“digital media is ubiquitous” as opposed to “digital media are ubiquitous”).

It is common for the word “media” to be preceded by a qualifier, which can be the type of platform used to deliver it (broadcast, print, digital, mobile, multimedia), its content (news media, advertising media, mainstream media), or its recency (traditional media, new media). Media that enables content to be spread along web-based networks or apps that enable direct interpersonal interaction can be considered social media. The much-used term “the media” technically encompasses all these types of media, though it tends to be used as a shorthand for the mass media (media that is spread to large audiences electronically or via print technology, with the internet and digital/social media increasingly considered “mass media” as well).

Social media is a type of social network site (SNS) (boyd & Ellison 2007). Networks are sets of individuals (or other units, like groups, organizations, or even nations) that are connected or “tied” together such that they have some relationship to and influence over one another. On social network sites, users create profiles, personalize their pages or sites, and make contacts and “friends” with whom they can share content. Serving both one-to-one and one-to-many functions of communication, an SNS can have, simultaneously, both a personal and a mass media feel and function. Material on these sites can be widely shared and reposted, with their data so easily accessed by search engines and “mined” by site creators (and outsiders, including data mining companies) that the collection and sale of such data can be considered another of their key features. SNSs are sometimes called new media, but their social functions are so profound and prominent that they have in many cases become synonymous with social media, especially for those platforms with media-sharing capability.

Digital and social media easily become embedded in the everyday life of their users. Approximately 2.5 billion people—about one-third of the world’s population—use social media (Statista 2017b), and when individuals gain internet access, social networking is generally one of the first online activities they undertake (McKinsey and Company, 2014). 65% of the world’s population uses mobile phones, with penetration in developing areas growing at twice the rate as in more developed areas. These networks are used to do work, form relationships, accumulate power, and exchange social capital — resources, opportunities, and information that help one navigate a networked (or information) society (Statista 2017a; boyd & Ellison 2007; Castells 2011; ITU 2016; ITU 2014; Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project, 2012; Rainie & Wellman 2012; Zichuhr & Smith 2013).

There are limits to technological mediation, of course; not everything can be digitized. Myriad types of interpersonal interaction (like parenting!) and nuances humanity (like love!) can not necessarily find their fullest form when technologically mediated (although digital technologies that simulate the face-to-face experience with ever greater precision – like artificial intelligence, robotics, and virtual and augmented reality — are testing these boundaries). But as digital technology and digital/social media are becoming so deeply embedded in so many aspects of daily life that their use has become a hallmark of modern life. Indeed, the term digitality has come to describe all kinds of computer-influenced phenomena, media, and environments, and now even refers to circumstances and life itself in the age of computing (see Chayko 2018, 5-11).

Understanding the “Social”

Human beings are inherently social. We look to one another to fulfill such basic human needs as safety, shelter, sustenance, companionship, and love. “Left to our own devices, cut off from one another, we would be underdeveloped intellectually and emotionally.” We would be much more vulnerable to danger. The world is better faced in the company of others” (Chayko 2018, 11).

Living in personalized association with others — in relationships, groups and communities — is called sociality. Technological mediation has long been indispensable to sociality. To form social ties and bonds, people must coordinate their actions, and even their thoughts and emotions, with one another. They must get to know one another and determine the extent to which interpersonal similarities, commonalities, and synergies exist. In the digital age, it is not necessary to be physically face-to-face with another person for all of this to occur.

Digital technology and social media specialize in facilitating the flow of social capital from person to person and from network to network. In the process, common interests and traits are routinely discovered; people get to know of one another and to truly know one another. Often, the result is the creation of bonds and communities that are deep, meaningful, and very, very real. And they may exist solely online, or they may be integrated with one’s face-to-face social circles (Chayko 2002, 2008, 2018).

Contrary to some assumptions, the use of digital technology and social media does not generally replace or deter face-to-face interaction. Rather, digital tech use prompts face-to-face interaction and makes it more likely to occur (Chayko, 2014). This is a consistent finding that may seem counterintuitive but is demonstrated in a large and growing body of research (see Boase, Wellman, and Rainie 2006; Chayko 2014; Wang and Wellman 2010; Zhao 2006).

Moreover, those who use digital technology most frequently and diligently tend to be those who stay in closest contact with their friends face-to-face. They use the technology to check in on friends and family members. They post photos and updates so all can remain “in the know.” They are even more likely to have close relationships and confidants and to form local, neighborhood relationships than non-internet users (Chayko 2018, 12).

Not all individuals, however, form digital communities and sociality easily. Some people seem to be more likely than others “to accept online friendship formation as possible, or even desirable,” Tukekci suggests (2010, 176; see also Tufekci 2008). She calls those who form online connections less easily and less often the cyberasocial and notes that for such individuals, “face-to-face interaction has inimitable features that simply cannot be replicated or replaced by any other form of communication” (2010, 176). This does not mean that the cyberasocial refuse to use digital technology but that they may simply be more comfortable it in certain ways, such as to coordinate plans, rather to form social connections(see Tufekci and Brashears, 2014).

Given the human need for togetherness and the ability of technology to serve as interpersonal mediator, it makes sense that people would turn to digital technology to bring them together so they can experience sociality even (or especially) when they are busy, on the go, or separated by space and time. Doing so has become a routine use of digital tech and social media and explains much about their continued expansion, use, and popularity (Chayko 2018, 11-13).

The Growth of a Participatory Culture

Digital technology and digital/social media provide numerous spaces or platforms with which people can create and share ideas, information, stories, music, photos, videos, etc. The result is a participatory culture in which members of the public take active part in the creation and consumption of their cultural products and in sharing them, often freely and widely (see Bruns 2008; Jenkins 2006, 2009). A participatory culture is also an economy in which content, goods, time, effort, and money are, to one degree or another, exchanged (for more on the the processes of production and consumption (or “prosumption,” see George Ritzer’s chapter in this volume). The word sharing can minimize the extent to which doing so disproportionately benefits the powerful. As people contribute information in digital spaces, they make quite a bit of personal information public and/or traceable and trackable without being compensated in return. Such data, in the aggregate, can be used to target and profile individuals unfairly and often inaccurately, while organizations reap profits at their expense.

This participatory culture did not spring forth overnight. From the very early interactive games and web-based communities of the 1970s and 1980s (EIES, Usenet, MUDs) to AOL instant messaging (AIM) and blogging in the 1990s, it was clear that the social and communal uses of digital technologies were their most intriguing features. People wanted to get to know one another, exchange information, and have fun. In co-creating the pioneering online community the WELL (Whole Earth ‘Lectronic Link) in 1984, Larry Brilliant had the idea to “take a group of interesting people, give them the means to stay in continuous communication with one another, stand back, and see what happens” (Hafner 2004). Spirited, fun, and interpersonally involving, the WELL would come to influence nearly every form of digitized social networking that would follow.

In the very late 1990s and early 2000s, social networking sites (SNSs) began to spring up that permitted users to create and customize profiles and pages and locate, connect and share info with networks of followers and friends. The first site generally considered to provide all these functions, and therefore the first full-featured SNS, may have been 1997’s Six Degrees. While AIM had featured buddy lists, members of Classmates.com could search for people to connect to from their high schools or colleges, and some early dating and community sites allowed the creation and posting of profiles, Six Degrees was the first to combine all these features. It was also, danah boyd and Nicole Ellison opined, perhaps a bit “ahead of its time” (boyd and Ellison 2007). While it attracted millions of users, they were geographically dispersed so widely that it was difficult for people who wanted to also get to know one another face-to-face to do so. This turned out to be a fatal flaw. One of the first truisms of online social networking began to become apparent: While people enjoy communicating with those with whom they have something in common, they also, and perhaps primarily, want to use online social networks to maintain and enhance connections with people they also know face-to-face.

Subsequent SNSs were organized around journaling (LiveJournal), community interests (AsianAvenue, BlackPlanet), business (Ryze), virtual worlds (Cyworld), and getting to know friends of friends (Friendster). The initial success of Friendster inspired such sites as LinkedIn, Tribe.net, and MyChurch. Other social network sites specialized in the sharing of media, while adding social networking features and thus becoming true social media sites, such as Flickr (photo sharing) and YouTube (video sharing).

Today, social media and social networking are often spoken of synonymously, as most SNSs allow (indeed encourage) both media sharing and networking, and users often perform these activities together. MySpace, which was particularly welcoming to music and bands, launched in 2003 as a full-service SNS. The most popular SNS of its time, MySpace grew in size as its members (increasingly teenagers) encouraged their friends to join. In time, it was sold to a corporation, was implicated in several underage sex crimes and scandals, and it lost much of its status as a top SNS. Other social networking sites, like Friendster, found it difficult to manage growth both in a technical and cultural sense and were unable to sustain their initial success.

The decline of MySpace coincided with the rise of Facebook (initially, “thefacebook”), which would eventually become the world’s largest and most influential SNS. Established in 2004 as a Harvard-only site by Mark Zuckerberg, assisted by other Harvard students, it spread to other colleges and high schools in 2005 and to professionals and then the wider world beginning in 2006. As of this writing, it is by far the most populated and well-known SNS, with over two billion users, but is experiencing serious growing pains, including controversies over the extent to which it is responsible for and should police content and advertising posted on its site (some of it demonstrably false, posted to deliberately spread propaganda under the guise of news).  Facebook has also been criticized for developing and using algorithms manipulate users’ news feeds, encouraging them to become more deeply engaged in the site, and then monetizing their participation—usually through the gathering and selling of their data. (Other social networking sites, such as Twitter and Pinterest, do the same.) Or a platform can also make money through selling advertising or stock in its company.

Social media and networking sites and blogging sites, some of them doing very big business, are now plentiful. Instagram, Twitter, and LinkedIn, and blogging sites like WordPress, Wix, and Tumblr, have become popular and influential, with users numbering in the millions. Social media specialists, designers, writers, and managers have joined computer scientists, information technology professionals, and other tech careerists in becoming a large and rapidly growing sector of the modern workforce.

Content is often contributed and shared free of charge in a participatory culture, complicating the situation for those who wish to be paid for such work – especially those who are highly skilled. Instead, “compensation” comes in the form of attention, measured in “likes,” comments, shares, and followers, creating an “attention economy” (Davenport and Beck 2001, 3).

There is also frequent remixing and reconfiguring of content, including music and video, in a participatory culture. Materials can be easily taken from existing texts, often without obtaining permission to do so, and combined with other content so that new versions are created. Social media then permits the easy posting and sharing of this reconfigured content. Authorship or ownership is difficult to discern, as is the value of all this digital labor. As tech writer Clyde Haberman puts it, we live in a “culture of free,” expecting to find free or low-cost content in digital spaces (2014). Music and publishing industries (including journalism), along with other creative industries, have seen their power, profits, and very existence threatened (Chayko 2018, 33-36)

In 2001, the free music file-sharing program Napster was found to have violated copyright laws and was shut down, and protocols regulating the “culture of free” began to develop. iTunes, Spotify, Pandora, and other music streaming services began to provide models by which music can be both shared and paid for (albeit in different ways). But a tension still exists between individuals who expect to create and use free or low-cost content and owners of media and technology businesses who are on what media scholar Aram Sinnreich calls a “piracy crusade” (2013). When these owners bring legal action against media makers, it can not only harm them and their businesses, it can do irreparable damage, Sinnreich argues, to privacy, free speech, and democracy itself (Chayko 2018, 68; see also Benkler 2014)

Features of Mediated Digital Environments

Place and Presence

ICTs, and social media in particular, tend to generate a very strong “sense of place”  (Meyrowitz, 1985; see also Polson, 2013). Users can come to feel that they have been “transported” to a common space or environment. Metaphors and symbols reinforce this reality, as does the storytelling function of social media (Biocca and Levy 1995; Gerrig 1993; Kim and Biocca, 1997; Lombard and Ditton 1997; Radway 1984; Hampton 2007; Lambert 2013; Parks 2011). Functions like hashtags help people form groups, effectively guiding them into common spaces (Chayko 2018, 46).

Companions in digital spaces tend to be perceived as “really there.” Those whom we meet online really are met. Our brains do not make a distinction between these different modes in which we “know” others; we can respond emotionally and come to care deeply about people we meet in any context (Chayko 2002). We also perceive them to share space with us (Short, Williams, and Christie 1976). To be socially present to one another even in the absence of face-to-face interaction is social presence or perceived proximity and is common in digital/social media use (O’Leary, Wilson, and Metiu 2014).

Ambient copresence—an ongoing but background awareness of the presence or nearness of others—is also common in digital spaces (Ito and Okabe 2005, 264; see also Chayko 2008, 2014; Gray et al. 2003; Quan-Haase and Wellman 2002). Mobile phones allow users to keep their social media or others digital channels open to one another nearly all the time, checking in on one another in frequent, short bursts. This can intensify social presence and the connections that form.

Social media does much to enable a sense of place and presence among dispersed users. It provides unlimited opportunities for individuals to share ideas, enter a conversation, or tell a story, and in the process, gain a sense of the presence of others in the conversation or group. But sometimes, people want to spend less structured time in digital environments, passing the time leisurely by hanging out on social media or some other online site. Some spend large amounts of time in such spaces, entire days and nights, just hanging out, checking out what others are doing and saying—not necessarily interacting with them but still sensing others’ presence in an ambient way, feeling a sense of perceived proximity and community with them.

Sociologist Ray Oldenburg calls these kinds of hangouts third spaces (1989). They are places other than homes and workplaces—the first and second spaces—in which people spend time and relax, usually without requirements or an agenda. Hangouts, both physical and digital, are important because they provide a space for people to spend time in the company of others without obligations or pressures. And they permit individuals to engage different aspects of their lives and identities than they do at work and at home. By simply sharing a digital space with those who are like-minded, simply experiencing a sense of shared identity and culture, individuals can feel known and accepted and a very strong sense of place and community can develop (Chayko 2018, 51-5). Social media, then, typically acts as a kind of “third space” for users.

Self-expression

Human beings also have a strong need for self-expression. Digital technologies, and social media in particular, are frequently used to create personal expressions of all kinds and to edit and manage these impressions as they are communicated to the wider world. In the process, developing and expressing one’s identity (or self) can flourish and even become a kind of project.

Some people produce and manage their online identities and “brands” rather strategically, and evaluate others’ identities just as strategically (see Rui and Stefanone 2013). They select and “fix up” profiles, photos and interactions online so as to make them more distinctive and, usually, more flattering. Still, most people want to make sure that their true or authentic selves are represented, both online and offline. As Nicole Ellison and her coauthors explain, “pressures to highlight one’s positive attributes are experienced in tandem with the need to present one’s true (or authentic) self to others, especially in significant relationships” (2006, 417). Because people can control their self-presentational behavior online, they manage their impressions strategically and make decisions about what to self-disclose (Ellison, Heino, and Gibbs 2006).

Digital tools provide a relatively controlled space in which to edit and express and explore the self. This is especially valuable when some aspect of face-to-face communication is difficult or challenging. People with nondominant backgrounds and lifestyles can discover unique avenues and spaces for self-expression and connection online that help them deal with offline challenges. In certain spaces they may even find a sense of safety that eludes them in physical space (Baker 2005; Gajjala 2004; Lin 2006; Mehra, Merkel, and Bishop 2004; Mitra 2004, 2005 – see Chayko 2018, 118-123).

Watching and Being Watched

Social media sites are designed so that people can easily see what others are up to. Users follow one another, read timelines, and get to know a lot about one another, serving “the essential purpose . . . of seeing and being seen,” says sociologist and social network expert Duncan Watts (as quoted in Cassidy 2006, 54).

Such behavior can be described as gazing, creeping, voyeurism, or, at its criminal extreme, stalking. Sociologist Alice Marwick calls it social surveillance. Watching one another in digital spaces, and being watched, has become an ordinary and expected aspect of the digital experience and, as an interview subject of Marwick claimed, is “not really weird for anyone anymore” (2012, 378–9).

People generally know that they are effectively being watched when they are on social media sites, Marwick claims. They consider being watched part of the social media experience. They may (or may not) tailor the content they post to certain audiences or particular others they believe will see it, thereby shaping it with the knowledge that social surveillance will take place.

Some consider the experience of watching others online less an act of surveillance than an indicator of emotional involvement, pointing out that real emotion and intimacy are generated in the course of digital exchanges (Chayko 2008, 177). A surge of emotion often arises when two or more people feel that they “click,” whether online or offline (Baker 2005; Chayko 2008). This feeling can be so strong and satisfying that to obtain it can be central to people’s desire to use social media and can shape the contours and dimensions of the space substantially (Chayko 2008).

Watching and being watched on social media can also be difficult emotionally. It is easy to feel judged or rated, especially when being commented upon. Feelings of envy or hurt or being left out are a natural by-product of seeing things that bring one pain, or comparing one’s life to others’. A fear of missing out (FOMO) on the myriad goings-on may develop. Some struggle to the point of depression, anxiety, and even suicide, in this culture.

Social surveillance can also lead to misunderstandings. Very different audiences are exposed to the content posted on social media platforms. An individual’s audience might consist of both family and work colleagues, complicating the process of deciding what to share, or resulting in embarrassment or trouble. When two or more audience coexisting on social media in effect “bleed into” one another or “collapse” such that it becomes difficult to keep them separate, it is called context collapse (Marwick and boyd 2011). To share content on social media is to communicate with a number of audiences, some of which are known and some of which are unknown. Those in a digital environment may “sense their audience at a particular point in time,” as boyd and Heer note, “they have no conception of who might have access to their expressions later” (2006; see Chayko 2018, 88-91).

Trust and Social Support

It is sometimes seen as surprising that people are as supportive and trusting of one another online. But social support is quite often established in digital spaces, both when people have been in contact over a period of time and even among relative strangers who have just “met” (Ellison et al. 2007, 2011; McCosker and Darcy 2013; Parks 2011; Sproull et al. 2005). Digital environments lend themselves so well to sociality that people often find themselves sharing very real needs (information, interpersonal contacts, even money!) and becoming close in a variety of ways.

Some wonder why people spend time, effort, and their own personal funds helping people whom they have never met face-to-face. But the relationships that form in digital environments are not only real and consequential, they can easily become intimate (Chayko 2002). And even when they are not particularly close, it can be gratifying to be seen and known as someone who knows things and helps others. It can raise one’s status in a group or community. It can make it more likely that the helper may be helped someday in return. But most fundamentally, people often assist one another simply because they want to. It is a very human impulse to care about and aid others—to be altruistic—and this impulse is routinely expressed in digital environments although sadly, as will be discussed next, harsh and harassing behavior is all too prevalent in such environments as well).

Some sites exist for the explicit purpose of helping people solve problems or find assistance. People who find themselves in unfamiliar or frightening circumstances often turn to the internet first for information, resources, or supportive groups who can provide support, companionship, information, and resources. Such groups can be indispensable in life’s most worrisome moments. People routinely report being empowered, supported, and embraced in digital spaces (see McCosker and Darcy 2013).

It is actually quite common to develop trust in people who are not personally known. We place our trust in those who guide our financial, government, medical, and military organizations as a matter of course. Society “would be imperiled were individuals unwilling to trust the legions of physically absent others on whom they are dependent,” report Gross and Simmons (2002, 533), paraphrasing Giddens (1994, 89–90). Of course, not everyone should be trusted, online or offline. But a certain degree of trust in people who are critical to the operation of those institutional systems that undergird our societies is necessary, and this is not so different from trusting people who are encountered in digital/online spaces (see Castells et al. 2004; Chayko 2008; Geser 2004; Sproull et al. 2005; Suler 2004; Turow and Hennessy 2007; Chayko 2018, 146-147).

Interpersonal Conflicts and Harassment

Despite the generous presence of social support, trust, and friendship found in digital spaces, harassment — from trolling and name-calling to stalking and threats—is all too prevalent online. This is due in part to the lack of face-to-face accountability in digital spaces and the ease with which coarse, cruel comments can be spontaneously shared online. Disinhibition, or the disregarding of norms, which can be associated with anonymity, is also common online (see Suler 2004).

Harassment can take place in any online environment, but is increasingly seen on social media, in gaming spaces, and in comments sections of blogs and online communities. In general, those whose lives are more fully entwined with the internet, have lots of information about them available online, promote themselves online, or work in the digital tech industry experience higher rates of digital harassment than those who are relatively less engaged online (Duggan 2017).

Digital technology—particularly texting and email—is also used to harass and intimidate in the overwhelming majority of domestic violence cases (89% by one estimate—Chemaly 2014). Fully 73% of Americans have seen someone harassed online, while 40% report that it has happened to them, and these numbers are likely to increase as online rhetoric becomes increasingly coarse and harsh (Duggan 2014). It is not uncommon for women and members of nondominant or marginalized groups who express opinions online to be harassed and threatened, often with rape and death threats. Young people in general also report higher rates of physical threats and sustained harassment than their older counterparts.

Low-income and disempowered individuals, particularly youth, are at increased risk for harm and harassment in public and private spaces, both online and in face-to-face situations. Frequently surveilled by adults, peers, and institutions, they seek spaces that afford freedom of expression, interest-based communities, and privacy. When online, they want to create their own norms and carve out spaces in which they can feel comfortable—spaces that can be considered their own (Vickery 2015). Of course, spatially separated members of dangerous or destructive groups can also use digital technology to find one another, gather digitally and physically, and cause harm (Carmichael 2003; Glaser, Dixit, and Green 2002,  22; Kjuka 2013).

Harassers and abusers tend to operate anonymously or under pseudonyms, while their victims (often women) tend to appear online under their own names, in the context of their professional and personal lives. Online threats often come from a variety of different sources, rather than from a single organization that could be targeted or sued. Policing these behaviors is therefore very difficult and complex. Additionally, the costs are significant—for individuals, law enforcement agencies, and society—and are both financial and emotional (Chayko, 2018, 147-150; Chemaly 2014; Duggan 2014; Hess 2014).

People encounter unpleasantness and face problems in digital spaces, just as in physical spaces. Some of that is the result of the open architecture of many platforms. But while accountability is diminished online, there are occasionally positive outcomes of this, as when a shy person finds himself or herself with more confidence to speak and connect online. It will take collaboration and understanding for digital spaces to be provided with the best possible balance of regulation and openness.

Key Issues and Impacts

Inaccuracy and “Fake News”

A news story is considered to be fake news when it has been deliberately written to spread misinformation, lies and propaganda; essentially, the story is an intentional hoax. The open architecture of the internet lends itself to such swift, widespread information sharing that there has been sharp uptick in the transmission of inaccurate or “fake” news, facts, and information.

Open publishing platforms have made it possible to create websites and social media accounts that look like, or mimic, credible news sites, but are not. They are not operated by trained journalists but by those who seek to perpetrate falsehoods. It is possible to duplicate such sites widely through the use of bots and algorithms that systematically share (and even create) the misinformation in ways that look very real. It is in many cases very difficult to separate legitimate news sites from propaganda.

Some consider “fake news” to be simply information with which they disagree. Others claim that we can no longer regulate truth in an era where fake news spreads so easily, and that we therefore live in a “post-truth” society. But facts are the cornerstone of free, civil debate, and essential for intelligent decision-making on the individual, communal, and societal levels.

The representation of an opinion as “the truth,” while often protected by the First Amendment on free speech, leads to the polarization of differing points of view, generally in the political sphere. The rise and spread of fake news is a major problem, particularly in democracies, who depend on their media representatives to speak for the people and hold governments accountable. Fake news and information cannot be combatted by organizations that privilege balance over accuracy, decline to take responsibility for the speech that occurs in their spaces, or refuse to fact-check the texts they present and stories they tell. In a world in which citizen journalism is becoming increasingly common (see below), all must take on these roles and the responsibility to ensure accuracy (Chayko 2018, 81-82).

Data Mining and Online Surveillance

As people become increasingly present one another in digital contexts, online surveillance has become a constant reality. Nearly everything that is done on the Internet is tracked, analyzed and stored, and then used for a variety of purposes (Cobb 2012; Chen et al. 2009; Sengupta 2012).

Some organizations specialize in finding or “mining for” these bits of information and using them to make inferences about what people would like to buy or do or even be. This is called data mining, and it is important to remember that it can and likely does happen all the time when we are online. In data mining, information is extracted (“mined”) from a larger body of information in order to uncover details or patterns about the behavior of a person or organization. This can have troubling privacy implications because much of this happens without a person’s explicit permission or even his or her conscious realization. At times, permissions may be obtained, but this often occurs in fairly complex terms of agreements, which people may not read or understand or which may keep changing.

Digital technology is intrinsic to the act of modern surveillance. Data related to online behaviors and preferences are persistently tracked when people are online. Habits and behaviors are discerned and individuals’ preferences and lifestyles are profiled. A phone can be wiretapped or can transfer information remotely even when turned off, acting as a microphone and transmitting conversations that take place within its vicinity. GPS systems can track people’s locations as well and in some cases have been placed in people’s cars without their knowledge and even without a warrant (Claburn, 2009).

Surveillance can also be positive. Surveillance can assist in the rescue of people stranded or lost, as locations can often be remotely tracked via one’s smartphone. It can prompt the suggestion of new information or the introduction of new people into one’s life. And information tracked and compiled via surveillance can help people fend off intrusions, attacks, or crimes and make them safer.

Social Organization, Movements, and Activism

Digital technology enables people to reach out to one another and organize their actions so that as a group they might make a greater difference. Social media opens up networks and pathways by which messages can be directly sent to those who are in power. Even if recipients do not respond individually or even see every single message, tens or hundreds or thousands of such messages may have a collective influence.

People who seek information on social network sites are more likely to be politically active, both online and offline (Gil de Zúñiga, Jung, and Valenzuela 2012). And, interestingly, people who are drawn into mobilization efforts via social media tend to be those who would otherwise not have been active (Vissers and Stolle 2014). Of course, reaching out to others on social media is not the same as doing so face-to-face. It can induce what has been called slacktivism or hashtag activism—the substitution of talking about doing something (especially on social media) for actually doing something face-to-face.

The most successful media-influenced social movements combine online and offline interactions. Potential activists can find one another online, discuss their common cause, recruit interested others, and make plans to meet in person. Efforts to bring about change can gain much widespread steam and publicity online as people solidify their stances, organize groups and rallies, and publicize their efforts. Most politically active students are active both online and offline (Vissers and Stolle 2014).

Social media has been instrumental in helping to inspire, jump-start, spread the word about, and sustain a number of movements. The Occupy Wall Street movement in 2011, which protested income and social inequality (“We are the 99%!” was the most well-known of its slogans), and the other Occupy movements that followed were organized and publicized in large part on social media. The Arab Spring protests in the Middle East and North Africa in 2011 were called Facebook or Twitter revolutions, as those platforms played such a large role in the events. In 2014, the deaths at the hands of police of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and Eric Garner in New York City resulted in numerous, massive protests that were organized and documented on Facebook and other social media worldwide. Hashtags such as #BlackLivesMatter and #ICantBreathe sprang up on Twitter. And in 2017 and 2018, the groundswell of attention paid to incidents of sexual harassment and assault was the by-product of the effectively shared hashtags #MeToo and #TimesUp, kick-starting a movement of astonishing scope and impact. It is hard to imagine any of these movements having anything near their strength without the accompaniment of the power of social media. In a very real way, they are social media revolutions.

Social media platforms are often looked to as a kind of lifeline by people who suffer under repressive regimes. Those same authoritarian governments often fear the power of the internet and social media and may attempt to filter it, monitor it, curtail its use, or even shut it down. But increased access to one another and to resources have enhanced the importance of social media in people’s lives and proven especially indispensable in places where people have minimal rights or freedom. When Turkey blocked access to Twitter in early 2014 right before a crucial election, users fashioned highly creative work-arounds and found their way onto Twitter, exchanging more tweets the day after the ban than the day before. Even under difficult conditions—perhaps especially under them—the power of social media to help individuals gather and fight for their rights has become apparent and has become a primary affordance of social media (Guillén and Suárez 2005, 687; Tufekci 2014; Chayko 2018, 107-110).

The Rise of Citizen Journalism

Many people use social media and blogs to spread and comment on the news of the day. In doing so, they are essentially taking on tasks previously performed by professional journalists. Gathering and disseminating newsworthy information to a large number of people once required the coordinated efforts of trained professionals in organizations both small (local newspapers) and large (the wire services, such as the Associated Press and United Press International). These organizations had tremendous control over the news production process. They even decided what was newsworthy.

Today, most anyone with internet and digital media access can post on social media sites or on individual blogs content that will become the “news of the day” and, therefore, can decide what is newsworthy. Citizen journalists produce and spread information throughout social media and other internet networks on their own, without “gatekeepers” to ensure accuracy. At the same time, many news organizations have begun to incorporate the work of citizen journalists into their own professional products. This blurs the boundary between “legitimate” and “amateur” news items and outlets. Many people now turn to Twitter or Facebook for up-to-date information on news events or even for breaking news rather than (or alongside) more traditional media outlets like newspapers, television, radio, and the wire services.

Citizen journalism can provide a voice for people in societies in which the mass media are not independent of the state or where freedom of the press is limited. In such areas, citizens have special motivation to use social media to share and stay abreast of the news. In China, for example, where the media are state controlled, mobile telephony is the least regulated media space. Texting and social media therefore provide opportunities for citizens to inform and be informed about current events (Wei et al. 2014).

Of course, citizen journalist, by definition, are not trained in journalistic techniques as are professional journalists. Unlike the pros, they are not required to obtain multiple credible sources verifying the accuracy of an item before publishing it. Professional news organizations have such standards. They are incorrect sometimes, too—they may be in a hurry to be fast (or first) getting a story out and rely on sources that may be wrong or absent, or they may be more interested in the attention-getting (and financially lucrative) aspects of a story than the facts. But information provided by professional journalists and news organizations is generally considered to have the edge in accuracy and believability over that of citizen journalists or bloggers (Chayko 2018, 110-112).

Social Media and Politics

President Barack Obama’s 2007 campaign for the U.S. was the first major national political campaign to utilize social media in a major way. It used Facebook and YouTube to present him to the electorate and providing ways for people to donate small amounts of money to the campaign. The social media component of the campaign successfully introduced him to a large number of potential voters, many of whom were younger and became interested in politics for the first time (Discovery 2012; Katz, Barris, and Jain 2013).

The use of social media (particularly Twitter) by President Donald Trump and his campaign in his candidacy during 2015 and 2016 and upon assuming the presidency in 2016 is perhaps an even more dramatic example of the power of social media in politics. Trump used Twitter as a platform to speak directly to the American voters and populace, sidestepping traditional media outlets and disrupting traditional practices of dealing with the press. This change is rather in line with his charge to disrupt longstanding patterns and practices in general. The impact of such major changes will likely be felt for years to come, as candidates with little prior political and governing experience leverage their social media platforms and audiences to meet new aims and new ways. Indeed, methods of choosing and electing candidates worldwide, methods of governing, and even democracy itself, may be in a period of transition and overhaul.

Social media, and Facebook and Twitter in particular, are increasingly blamed for allowing the development of polarized rhetoric on their platforms. Those who manage these platforms and sites have sometimes responded by claiming that they can not be held responsible for the content of those who use the platforms. It has become apparent, though, that foreign entities and computerized non-human “bots” have a significant presence on these sites, influencing the conversations and opinions that develop — and, potentially, elections and democracy itself. Facebook seems to be slowly coming to the realization of this influence, and of its responsibility in monitoring and minimizing this presence along with the cruel and hateful speech and harassment on the platform. Twitter and other social media companies must follow suit. The extent of the external regulation that social media companies may face is still unknown.

Social media is also used to express political views and to find like-minded others with whom to engage politically. People are increasingly likely to become enmeshed within filter bubbles and echo chambers, listening to and believing only those who agree with them, and closing their minds to ideas that do not confirm what they already believe to be true. The tendency not to speak up about political or policy issues when it is perceived that one’s audience might disagree with those views is called the “spiral of silence,” and it can spill over from online to offline contexts, making is less likely for people to discuss things that might prove controversial or divisive (Hampton et al. 2014). This is also an example of confirmation bias: the tendency for individuals to be protective of their initial positions on a topic, even in the presence of contradictory evidence (Leeper 2014; Maximino 2014).

Information related to politics and governing is often highly charged and politically skewed; never more so that in the current political and cultural environment (see Campbell 2016; Himelboim et al. 2016). This is all the more reason to educate oneself on various issues and points of view. About 20% of social media users do modify or change their social or political views when exposed to new and different ones in the course of social media use (Anderson 2016). The internet and digital media have the potential to remake political systems and governments in important and consequential ways (Chayko 2018, 172-15), and to present news and information in fair, factual ways, as is the charge of websites such as as The Flip Side (www.flipside.com) and Politifact (politifact.com).

Being Plugged In . . . To Society

In a participatory culture, people spend a great deal of time in digital spaces. They feel the presence of others whom they may (or may not) get to know and trust. As they express themselves, they must deal with FOMO, context collapse and harsh online rhetoric. They can organize themselves on social media to help create the world they want to live in, yet have their every digital gesture tracked and traced all the while. For better or worse, digital technology and social media have reshaped our social landscape

Just as surely as cords and chargers plug our digital devices into electric outlets, digital technology helps  people become plugged into society. Social media helps us take the pulse of our social world; to become and remain “in the know”; to stay in simultaneous contact with multiple social networks. Literally and figuratively, for better or worse, members of tech-rich societies are more “plugged in” than ever before.

The continued presence of significant others can help us feel “at home in the world” in a way that few other phenomena can (Berger and Kellner 1964, 7; see Chayko 2018, 200-2). To be aware of the presence of others in the world via digital technology and social media can help people feel rooted in the world. To build networks and communities of knowledge and understanding makes possible a more connected, bonded, inclusive future. These are the great promises of techno-social life.

References

Anderson, Monica. (2016, November 7). Social media causes some users to rethink their views on an issue.

Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/facttank/2016/11/07/social-

media-causes-some-users-to-rethink-their-views-on-an-issue/

Baker, Andrea. J. (2005). Double click: Romance and commitment among online couples. Creskill, NJ:

Hampton Press.

Benkler, Yochai. (2014). Distributed innovation and creativity, peer production, and commons in networked economy. In Turner Publishing (Ed.), Change: 19 key essays on how internet is changing our lives (pp. 290–306). Nashville, TN: Turner Publishing.

Berger, Peter, & Kellner, Hansfried. (1964). Marriage and the construction of reality: An exercise in the microsociology of knowledge. Diogenes, 12(46), 1–24.

Biocca, Frank & Levy, Mark R. (1995). Communication in the age of virtual reality. London, UK: Routledge.

Boase, Jeffrey, Horrigan, John B., Wellman, Barry, & Rainie, Lee. (2006, January 5). The strength of internet ties. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2006/The-Strength-of-Internet-Ties.aspx

boyd, danah. (2007). Identity production in a networked culture: Why youth heart MySpace. Médiamorphoses (21), 69–80.

boyd, danah. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

boyd, danah, & Ellison, Nicole B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer–Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230.

boyd, d., & Heer, Jeffrey. (2006). Profiles as conversation: Networked identity performance on Friendster. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’06). IEEE Computer Society. Retrieved from http://www.danah.org/papers/HICSS2006.pdf

Brown, Sheila. (2006). The criminology of hybrids: Rethinking crime and law in technosocial networks. Theoretical Criminology, 10(2), 223–244.

Bruns, Axel. (2008). Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and beyond: From production to produsage. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Campbell, James E. (2016). Polarized: Making sense of a divided America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Cassidy, John. (2006, May 15). Me media. The New Yorker. Retrieved from http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/05/15/me-media

Castells, Manuel. (2011). The rise of the network society: The information age: Economy, society, and culture. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Castells, Manuel, Fernandez-Ardevol, Mireia, Qiu, Joch Linchuan, & Sey, Araba. (2004, October 8–9). The mobile communication society: A cross-cultural analysis of available evidence on the social uses of wireless communication technology. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Wireless Communication Policies and Prospects: A Global Perspective, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Chayko, Mary. (2002). Connecting: How we form social bonds and communities in the internet age. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Chayko, Mary. (2008). Portable communities: The social dynamics of online and mobile connectedness. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Chayko, Mary. (2014). Techno-social life: The internet, digital technology, and social connectedness. Sociology Compass, 8(7), 976–991.

Chayko, Mary. (2018). Superconnected: The internet, digital media, and techno-social life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Chemaly, Soraya. (2014, September 9). There’s no comparing male and female harassment online. Time. Retrieved from http://time.com/3305466/male-female-harassment-online/

Chen, Ye,  Pavlov, Dmitry, Berkhin, Pavel, Seetharaman, Aparna, & Meltzer, Albert. (2009). Practical lessons of data mining at Yahoo! Proceeding of the 18th ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, 1047–1056. doi:10.1145/1645953.1646087

Claburn, Thomas. (2009, March 4). Court asked to disallow warrantless GPS tracking. Information Week. Retrieved from http://www.informationweek.com/architecture/court-asked-to-disallow-warrantless-gps-tracking/d/d-id/1077257?

Cobb, Stephen. (2012, March 20). Google’s data mining bonanza and your privacy: An infographic. ESET Threat Blog. Retrieved from http://blog.eset.com/2012/03/14/google-data-mining-bonanza-and-your-privacy-infographic

Davenport, Thomas H., & Beck, John C. (2002). The attention economy: Understanding the new currency of business. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

Discovery. (2012, December 12). Topic: Big question—how has the internet changed politics? Retrieved from http:// dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/curiosity/ topics/big-question-how-has-internetchanged-politics.htm

Duggan, Maeve. (2014, October 22). Online harassment. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/

Duggan, Maeve. (2017, July 17. Online harassment 2017. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2017/07/11/online-harassment-2017/

Ellison, Nicole, Heino, Rebecca, & Gibbs, Jennifer. (2006). Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer–Mediated Communication, 11(2), 415–441.

Ellison, Nicole B., Steinfield, Charles, & Lampe, Cliff. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends”: Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143–1168. doi:10.1111/j.1083–6101.2007.00367.x

Ellison, Nicole B., Steinfield, Charles, & Lampe, Cliff. (2011). Connection strategies: Social capital implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices. New Media and Society, 13(6), 873–892. doi:10.1177/1461444810385389

Gajjala, Radhika. (2004). Cyber selves: Feminist ethnographies of South Asian women. Walnut Creek, CA: Rowman Altamira.

Gerrig, Richard J. (1993). Experiencing narrative worlds: On the psychological activities of reading. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Geser, Hans. (2004). Towards a sociological theory of the mobile phone. Sociology in Switzerland: Sociology of the Mobile Phone. Retrieved from http://socio.ch/mobile/t_geser1.htm/

Gil de Zúñiga, Homero, Jung, Nakwon, & Valenzuela, Sebastian. (2012). Social media use for news and individuals’ social capital, civic engagement and political participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(3), 319–336.

Gray, Tom, Liscano, Ramiro, Wellman, Barry, Quan-Haase, Anabel, Radhakrishnan, T., & Choi, Yongseok. (2003). Context and intent in call processing. Feature Interactions in Telecommunications and Software Systems VII, 177–184. Retrieved from http://groups.chass.utoronto.ca/netlab/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Context-and-Intent-in-Call-Processing.pdf

Guillén, Mauro F., & Suárez, Sandra L. (2005). Explaining the global digital divide: Economic, political and sociological drivers of cross-national internet use. Social Forces, 84(2), 681–708.

Hafner, Katie. (1998). Where wizards stay up late: The origins of the internet. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Hampton, Keith, Rainie, Lee, Lu, Weixu, Dwyer, Maria, Shin, Inyoung, & Purcell, Kristen. (2014, August 26). Social media and the “spiral of silence.” Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/08/26/social-media-and-the-spiral-of-silence/

Hampton, Keith N. (2007). Neighborhoods in the network society: The e-neighbors study. Information, Communication and Society, 10(5), 714–748. doi:10.1080/13691180701658061

Hess, Amanda. (2014, January 6). Why women aren’t welcome on the internet. Pacific Standard. Retrieved from http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/women-arent-welcome-internet-72170

Himelboim, Itai., Sweetser, Kaye D., Tinkham, Spencer F., Cameron, Kristen, Danelo, Matthew, and West, Kate. (2016). Valence-based homophily on Twitter: Network analysis of emotions and political talk in the 2012 Presidential Election. New Media & Society. 18(7), 1382-1400. doi:10.1177/1461444814555096

Ito, Mizuko, & Okabe, Daisuke. (2005). Technosocial situations: Emergent structurings of mobile email use. In M. Ito & D. Okabe (Eds.), Personal, portable, pedestrian: Mobile phones in Japanese life (pp. 257–273). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

International Telecommunication Union. (2016). The world in 2016: ICT facts and figures. ICT Data and Statistics Bureau: Telecommunication Development Bureau. Retrieved from http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTFactsFigures2016.pdf

International Telecommunication Union. (2014). The world in 2014: ICT facts and figures. ICT Data and Statistics Bureau: Telecommunication Development Bureau. Retrieved from http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTFactsFigures2014-e.pdf

Jary, David, & Jary, Julia. (1991). The HarperCollins dictionary of sociology. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Katz, James E., Barris, Michael, & Jain, Anshul. (2013). The social media president: Barack Obama and the politics of digital engagement. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kim, Taeyong, & Biocca, Frank. (1997). Telepresence via television: Two dimensions of telepresence may have different connections to memory and persuasion. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(2).

Kjuka, Deana. (2013, March 6). Digital jihad: Inside Al-Qaeda’s social networks. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/03/digital-jihad-inside-al-qaedas-social-networks/273761/

Lambert, Joe. (2013). Digital storytelling: Capturing lives, creating community. New York, NY: Routledge.

Leeper, Thomas J. (2014). The informational basis for mass polarization. Public Information Quarterly, 78(1), 27–46. doi:10.1093/poq/nft045

Lin, Dennis C. (2006). Sissies online: Taiwanese male queers performing sissinesses in cyberspaces. Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, 7(2), 270–288. doi:10.1080/14649370600673938

Lombard, Matthew, & Ditton, Theresa. (1997). At the heart of it all: The concept of presence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(2).

Marwick, Alice E. (2012). The public domain: Surveillance in everyday life. Surveillance and Society, 9(4), 378–393.

Marwick, Alice E., & boyd, danah. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114–133.

Marwick, Alice, & Ellison, Nicole B. (2012). “There isn’t wifi in heaven!” Negotiating visibility on Facebook memorial pages. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 56(3), 378–400. doi:10.1080/08838151.2012.705197

Maximino, Martin. (2014, August 22). Does media fragmentation contribute to polarization? Evidence from lab experiments. Journalist’s Resource. Retrieved from http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/news-media/media-fragmentation-political-polarization-lab-experiments

McCosker, Anthony, & Darcy, Raya. (2013). Living with cancer: Affective labour, self-expression and the utility of blogs. Information, Communication & Society, 16(8), 1266–1285.

McKinsey and Company. (2014). Offline and falling behind: Barriers to internet adoption. Rechnology, Media, and Telecom Practice. Retrieved from http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/high_tech_telecoms_internet/offline_and_falling_behind_barriers_to_internet_adoption

Mehra, Bharat, Merkel, Cecilia, & Bishop, Ann Peterson. (2004). The internet for empowerment of minority and marginalized users. New Media and Society, 6(6), 781–802. doi:10.1177/146144804047513

Meyrowitz, Joshua. (1985). No sense of place: The impact of electronic media on social behavior. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Mitra, Ananda. (2004). Voices of the marginalized on the internet: Examples from a website for women of South Asia. Journal of Communication, 54(3), 492–510.

Mitra, Ananda. (2005). Creating immigrant identities in cybernetic space: Examples from a non-resident Indian website. Media, Culture & Society, 27(3), 371–390.

Oldenburg, Ray. (1989). The great good place: Cafés, coffee shops, community centers, beauty parlors, general stores, bars, hangouts, and how they get you through the day. New York, NY: Paragon House.

O’Leary, Michael Boyer., Wilson, Jeanne, & Metiu, Anca. (2014). Beyond being there: The symbolic role of communication and identification in perceptions of proximity to geographically dispersed colleagues. MIS Quarterly, 38(4), 1219–1243. Retrieved from http://www18.georgetown.edu/data/people/mbo9/publication-77556.pdf

Parks, Malcolm R. (2011). Social network sites as virtual communities. In Z. Paparachissi (Ed.), A networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites. (pp. 105–123). New York, NY: Routledge.

Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project. (2012, December 12). Social networking popular across globe. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/12/12/social-networking-popular-across-globe/

Quan-Haase, Anabel, & Wellman, Barry. (2002, March 13–16). Understanding the use of communication tools for ad-hoc problem-solving in mid-size organizations. Paper presented at the Popular Culture Association and American Culture Association Conference: Electronic Culture and Communications Forum, Toronto, Ontario.

Radway, Janice. (1984). Reading the romance: Women, patriarchy, and popular culture. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Rainie, Lee, & Wellman, Barry. (2012). Networked: The new social operating system. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Rui, Jian Raymond, & Stefanone, Michael A. (2013). Strategic image management online: Self-presentation, self-esteem and social network perspectives. Information, Communication & Society, 16(8), 1286–1305.

Sengupta, Semini. (2012, October 2). Facebook delivers a confident sales pitch to advertisers. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/03/technology/facebook-delivers-confident-pitch-to-advertisers.html?_r=0

Short, John, Williams, Ederyn, & Christie, Bruce. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

Sinnreich, Aram. (2013). The piracy crusade: How the music industry’s war on sharing destroys markets and erodes civil liberties. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

Sproull, Lee, Conley, Caryn A., & Moon, Jae Yun. (2005). Prosocial behavior on the net. In Y. Amichai-Hamburger (Ed.), The social net: Understanding human behavior in cyberspace (pp. 139–161). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Statista. (2017a). Mobile phone user penetration as percentage of the population worldwide from 2013 to 2019*. Statista, the Statistics Portal. Retrieved from  https://www.statista.com/statistics/470018/mobile-phone-user-penetration-worldwide/

Statista (2017b). Number of social media users worldwide from 2010 to 2020 (in billions). Statista, the Statistics Portal. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/278414/number-of-worldwide-social-network-users/

Suler, John. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 7(3), 321–326.

Tufekci, Zeynep. (2008). Grooming, gossip, Facebook and MySpace: What can we learn about these sites from those who won’t assimilate? Information Communication and Society, 11(4), 544–564. doi:10.1080/13691180801999050

Tufekci, Zeynep. (2010). Who acquires friends through social media and why? “Rich get richer” versus “seek and ye shall find.” Proceedings of the Fourth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download? doi=10.1.1.465.314&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Tufekci, Zeynep. (2012, April 25). Social media’s small, positive role in human relationships. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/social-medias-small-positive-role-in-human-relationships/256346/

Tufekci, Zeynep. (2014). Social movements and governments in the digital age: Evaluating a complex landscape. Journal of International Affairs, 68(1), 1–18.

Tufekci, Zeynep, & Brashears, Matthew E. (2014). Are we all equally at home socializing online? Cyberasociality and evidence for an unequal distribution of disdain for digitally-mediated sociality. Information, Communication and Society, 17(4), 482–502.

Turow, Joseph & Hennessy, Michael. (2007). Internet privacy and institutional trust insights from a national survey. New Media & Society, 9(2), 300–318.

Vickery, Jacqueline 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 & Society, 18(3), 281–294.

Vissers, Sara, & Stolle, Dietlind. (2014). The internet and new modes of political participation: Online versus offline participation. Information, Communication and Society, 17(8), 937–955.

Wang, Hua, & Wellman, B. (2010). Social connectivity in America: Changes in adult friendship network size from 2002 to 2007. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(8), 1148–1169.

Wei, Ran, Lo, Ven-huei, Xu, Xiaoge, Chen, Yi-Ning Katherine, & Zhang, Guoliang. (2014). Predicting mobile news use among college students: The role of press freedom in four Asian cities. New Media and Society, 16(4), 637–654.

Willson, Michelle. (2010). Technology, networks, communities: An exploration of network and community theory and technosocial forms. Information, Communication and Society, 13(5), 747–764.

Zhao, Shanyang. (2006). Do internet users have more social ties? A call for differentiated analyses of internet use. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(3), 844–862. doi:10.1111/j.1083–6101.2006.00038.x

Zikuhr, Kathryn, & Smith, Aaron. (2013, August 26). Home broadband 2013. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/08/26/home-broadband-2013-2/