Social by Definition: How Users Define Social Platforms and Why It Matters

Social media platforms are characterized by diverse features and functions, and these facets remain in constant flux over time. This research examines how users define the central purpose of four major platforms in the United States (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat), and how such lay definitions relate to key outcomes previously associated with social media use. In Study 1, we validated self-report measures using a comparative scaling approach to capture what users view as the most defining categories of the four platforms. In Study 2, we investigated whether lay definitions of platforms relate to perceptions of social affordances and social resources. Overall, results provided evidence that defining platforms as social interaction (vs. other categories) is associated with amplified social affordances and resources. Together, the studies contribute to our understanding of how users navigate a dynamic online ecosystem, as well as how lay definitions may anchor the experiences and effects of social media.

Let’s talk about affordances: some implications of the social-material affordances approach

In Erik Rietveld’s inaugural lecture “The Affordances of Art for Making Technologies,” art is presented as a valuable avenue to enrich the environment with material and social affordances that may enhance human meaning giving practices. In this contribution, I make a distinction between conventional and unconventional practices and argue for an account of sociomateriality that covers the whole spectrum and not just the evidently artistic and artful ones. In this context, I plea for a cognitive science program that adds to the rich resources art has to offer for understanding the whole spectrum of practices and deals with the complexity of social, material, and cultural practices.

“We Dissect Stupidity and Respond to It”: Response Videos and Networked Harassment on YouTube

Over the past decade YouTube “response videos” in which a user offers counterarguments to a video uploaded by another user have become popular among political creators. While creators often frame response videos as debates, those targeted assert that they function as vehicles for harassment from the creator and their networked audience. Platform policies, which base moderation decisions on individual pieces of content rather than the relationship between videos and audience behavior, may therefore fail to address networked harassment. We analyze the relationship between amplification and harassment through qualitative content analysis of 15 response videos. We argue that response videos often provide a blueprint for harassment that shows both why the target is wrong and why harassment would be justified. Creators use argumentative tactics to portray themselves as defenders of enlightened public discourse and their targets as irrational and immoral. This positioning is misleading, given that creators interpellate the viewer as part of a networked audience with shared moral values that the target violates. Our analysis also finds that networked audiences act on that blueprint through the social affordances of YouTube, which we frame as harassment affordances. We argue that YouTube’s current policies are insufficient for addressing harassment that relies on amplification and networked audiences.

Affordances in Virtual World Learning Communities

Since the 2000s, much has been made of the potential technological affordances of virtual world education and training. However, despite their potential utilization for useful simulations, virtual worlds are first and foremost open, social platforms. In this chapter, the author will explore both the technical affordances and the oft-ignored social affordances of virtual world learning groups. Drawing from the literature and over a decade of experience with learning communities in Linden Lab's Second Life, the author will use ethnographic data gleaned from participant observation in two very different learning groups to develop a basic taxonomy of technical and social affordances in avatar-based multi-user online environments. It is hoped that through the rubric provided, educators, researchers, and technology stewards will have a clearer understanding of both the possible benefits and the drawbacks of hosting learning communities in this environment.