Digital Communities

For my final blog post, I will be exploring the role of social media platforms in cyberbullying and harassment, focusing particularly on how this ties into being a good ‘digital citizen’ and the responsibility that extends past the social media user to the platform itself.

Harassment online – some definitions

Despite the fact that scholars have been looking into cruelty and meanness for decades, there is no universal definition of bullying (boyd 2014). Some definitions focus on aggression, repetition and imbalance of power, while others encompass “every act of teasing” (boyd 2014, p. 132) (this article goes into more detail on various facets of bullying). The same may be said of online harassment, definitions of which can range from name-calling and use of pejorative language, to doxing (posting someone’s personal details online) and death threats (Marwick & Caplan 2018).

In 2014, it was found that 73% of adults experienced harassment online, while 40% personally experienced it (Duggan 2014).

source: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2014/10/22/online-harassment/

Yet an interesting difference may be found in how teenagers view bullying, as opposed to their parents or the mainstream media. In a study which involved extensive interviews with US high school students, danah boyd (2014) and Alice Marwick found that teenagers often saw a distinction between bullying and ‘drama’ – drama was different in that it allows the opportunity to respond and does not “automatically position anyone as either a target or an abuser” (boyd 2014, p. 138). In fact, creating drama was seen variously as a way of achieving attention, relieving boredom, or redirecting anger.

The role of social media in bullying

One of the particulars of abuse on social media is its visibility and ability to spread rapidly – where such occurrences might have previously been contained within a limited group of people, they are now open for amplification by others (boyd 2014). It must be noted that although this can increase the emotional pressure on targets, it has been consistently reported that teens experience greater stress when bullied at school (boyd 2014). One of the factors here could perhaps be linked to proximity in schools, which not only allows for physical bullying, but also reduces the ability for victims to distance themselves from the bully and their actions.

Another factor to take into account is the relative anonymity of social media users (if they choose), which can make it difficult to charge offenders.

Who is to blame?

The idea of the good ‘digital citizen’ suggests that as social media users, we are each responsible for our own behaviour. This is definitely true and we should be mindful of how we interact with other users, however such a narrow definition fails to observe how government and other institutions, as well as platforms themselves, shape our behaviour (Milne 2020).

Government and educational institutions might set certain rules and guidelines that govern how social media platforms may be used, as well as set out procedures for cases of misuse. For example, the Criminal Code Act 1995 deems it an offence to “menace, harass or cause offence using a ‘carriage service’ … [or] to make threats to kill or cause serious harm to a person” (eSafety Commissioner n.d.). A ‘carriage service’ could refer to mobile phones, landlines and the internet (including emails and social media).

The eSafety Commisioner also has a variety of resources available for reporting and dealing with online abuse:

source: https://www.esafety.gov.au/

The architecture and affordances of (ie. ways of using) platforms also shape our behaviour – examples of this can include algorithms, which play an important role in deciding what we see and don’t see. It is easy to picture these as objective and rational systems, however they are inherently political, if only by preferencing one type of content over another (McCosker 2016).

#IAmAWitness

Social media has been quite often condemned as the driving force behind bullying and harassment, however it can also be empowering, as with the case of the ‘eye’ or ‘I am a witness’ emoji, which seeks to encourage the silent witnesses of bullying to speak up. Whether it was effective or not is up to debate, but it was used 29,000 times across just Twitter and Instagram alone (Shorty Awards 2016) (read more here).

Final Conclusion

While it may be tempting to get caught up in news about the detrimental effects of social media (which definitely do exist, as explored throughout this blog), we must not forget how social media may also be a force for good. Notwithstanding the power of external organisations and social media platforms, we too are involved in shaping what it means to be a good digital citizen, whether this is through our content choice, a simple word of support or mass protest.

A final thank you to everyone who has taken the time to read these posts!

References

  boyd, d 2014, It’s complicated – the social lives of networked teens, Yale University Press, New Haven

  Duggan, M 2014, Online Harassment, Pew Research, viewed 30 May 2020, <https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2014/10/22/online-harassment/>

  eSafety Commissioner n.d., Adult cyber abuse, eSafety, viewed 30 May 2020, <https://www.esafety.gov.au/key-issues/adult-cyber-abuse>

  Marwick, AE & Caplan, R 2018, ‘Drinking male tears: language, the manosphere, and networked harassment’, Feminist Media Studies, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 543 - 559

  McCosker, A 2016, ‘Managing Cyberbullying – The Three Layers of Control in Digital Citizenship’, in A McCosker, S Vivienne & A Johns (eds), Negotiating Digital Citizenship: Control, Contest and Culture, Rowman & Littlefield, eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), pp. 21 - 40

  Milne, E 2020, ‘Digital Communities and Trolls: understanding social media conflict’, MDA20009 Digital Communities, Learning materials via Canvas, Swinburne University of Technology, 27 May, viewed 27 May 2020

With a reflection on the concepts of digital communities and digital citizenship discussed throughout my previous posts, this week I will explore gaming communities and what it means to be a ‘gamer’. In doing so, I hope to dispel a few stereotypes and discuss how norms are negotiated in these complex spaces.

Unpacking the ‘gamer’ stereotype

Who is a ‘gamer’?

As a rather broad definition, we could say that a ‘gamer’ is simply someone who plays video games (whether this is Solitaire, Fortnite, Minecraft or Farmville).

Although I have personally known a diverse group of avid gamers, there is a typical image that springs to mind when thinking of one: this is a young middle-class man who is either white or east-Asian (Hardwick 2020) and spends his day locked up in a dark bedroom in front of his PC. A case in point below:

source: https://tenor.com/view/gaming-timmy-turner-fairly-odd-parents-console-no-sleep-gif-16673926

While there are certainly some types of games that remain more male-dominated compared to others (more on this shortly), the overall ratio of male to female gamers isn’t as disparate as it may seem. The following graph from Statista, for example, shows a ratio of about 46% female to 54% male computer and video gamers in the US in 2019 (Gough 2019):

source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/232383/gender-split-of-us-computer-and-video-gamers/

Despite this, a study conducted by the Pew Research Center found that men are more than twice as likely as women to call themselves a ‘gamer’ (Duggan 2015), perhaps in part due to these stereotypes we hold, with 60% of the study participants agreeing that ‘most people who play video games are men’.

While there is a similar number of men and women who play games, a study has found that there are differences in motivation for playing them (which impacts on the type of games played) across genders.

The study conducted by Quantic Foundry discovered that while the three primary motivators for men were competition, destruction and completion (in that order), women were motivated by completion, fantasy and design (Yee 2016). This is not an absolute definition of all gamer motivations and there are many other factors that are important to consider here - two important examples are age and the influence of targeted marketing of particular games – yet it is an interesting point to reflect on. For those interested, this article by WePC provides a more comprehensive summary of key gaming industry trends and statistics.

Gaming communities: social, dynamic and controversial

Gaming is an inherently social activity, with a gamer likely being part of many different communities as they play different games and participate in various chat forums and events. Even games that are single-player can be vividly interactive as players stream walkthroughs, engage with fans in real time, and chat with friends over Discord. Yet what is perhaps the unifying force that binds all these ‘mini-communities’ is the “mutual production and reciprocal exchange of knowledge” (Jenkins, cited in Hardwick 2020), where players continuously strive to improve their gameplay and the game itself (for example through mods, or modifications of a video game – an introduction to these here).

There is a tension however that often exists between players and developers. Massively multiplayer online games (MMOGs) such as Eve Online are notorious for their use of abusive language – in fact this could be considered a tactic to convince other players to give up a certain item or region (de Zwart & Humphreys 2014) – yet this is clearly contradictory to the terms of use of the game. While there are rules and terms that are formally accepted before signing up to these sites, they are less than often understood and lack consistent enforcement (de Zwart & Humphreys 2014).

A further problem occurs when these differ from community norms, which – unlike mostly static terms of use policies – change continuously. Suzor & Woodford (2013, p. 3) describe this well:

“These norms are contested and emergent, continuously shifting and evolving within different parts of communities, over time, and between environments.”

What it might mean to be a good ‘digital citizen’ of the gaming community thus becomes this tension between ‘offline’ rules and customs, in-game rules and terms of use, and more informal community norms.

A parting video

While I have already tried to dispel the ‘gamer’ stereotype, it never hurts to show that some passion (and practice) can go a long way to breaking past this, and so I leave you with 90-year-old Hamako Mori, who has been recognised as the oldest video-game YouTuber:

References

  Duggan, M 2015, Who plays video games and identifies as a “gamer”, Pew Research, viewed 23 May 2020, <https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/12/15/who-plays-video-games-and-identifies-as-a-gamer/>

  Gough, C 2019, U.S. computer and video gamers from 2006 – 2019, by gender, Statista, viewed 23 May 2020, <https://www.statista.com/statistics/232383/gender-split-of-us-computer-and-video-gamers/>

  Hardwick, T 2020, ‘Gaming Communities, Social Gaming and Live Streaming’, MDA20009 Digital Communities, Learning materials via Canvas, Swinburne University of Technology, 20 May, viewed 22 May 2020

  Suzor, N & Woodford, D 2013, ‘Evaluating Consent and Legitimacy amongst Shifting Community Norms: an EVE Online Case Study’, Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 1 – 14

  Yee, N 2016, 7 Things We Learned About Primary Gaming Motivations From Over 250,000 Gamers, Quantic Foundry, viewed 23 May 2020, <https://quanticfoundry.com/2016/12/15/primary-motivations/>

This week’s post is in many ways an extension of my previous discussion of digital citizenship, social media and politics, where I mentioned that one of the ways we think of digital citizenship is engaging in activism online. The question then stands as to whether this activism is truly effective?

Digital activism: definitions & a little history

Although digital activism is often thought to have started along with the rise of social media, this is not entirely true. Prior to this, mobile phones, PCs and handheld video-cameras were used to organise and document social movements (Kaun & Uldam 2018).

In fact, one of the earliest examples of digital activism occurred in 1990, when some 30,000 consumers successfully made use of email and message boards to protest against a CD-ROM that was to be released into the market, containing the names, addresses and purchasing behaviour of 120 million Americans (Peters 2011).

A distinction must then be made between digital activism and online activism, although these terms are often used interchangeably. The former could relate to using any form of digital technology (mobile phones, bluetooth, etc.) for activism (with or without the use of the internet), while the latter specifically pertains to online activities such as social media use or blogging.

The online protest: true power to change or simply virtue signalling?

source: https://medium.com/texas-mccombs/digital-activism-6ab0fc74bccc

When considering the particular advantages of digital activism through social media, for example, a few of the most notable would be the ability to connect with a global community in a matter of seconds and measure campaign results through analytics, as well as the integrated nature of platforms (Rees 2015). A Facebook post can be shared, reproduced across Twitter, sent through email or Messenger, and thus spread with great speed.

Another particular advantage of social media platforms is the hashtag. While these can ordinarily help keep up to date with the latest debate on Married at First Sight (#MAFS) or engage in trending political topics (#auspol), they also function as very important ways to centre discussion around a particular campaign/issue and continue an offline discussion into the online world (Stickels 2020).

An example of these points in action is the Occupy Wall Street movement, which fought for economic equality in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis. Starting from a call to #occupy Zuccotti Park (near the New York City financial district), the movement eventually spread to 82 countries around the world (White, Alvarez & Zaiontz 2019). The following image shows an example of one of these protests:

source: https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-spreads-worldwide/100171/

It is this continuation and link between online and offline activities that is key. While the #occupy movement is not seen as a great success (read more about this here), it did mobilise people to fight for a cause they believed in. If a campaign is simply wanting to raise awareness online without asking for something from its audience, it will likely not lead to any change.

Here come in related arguments about slacktivism and clicktivism, which propose that activities devolve into “a circulating data stream of clicks, messages and posts in which ‘action and application’ come second to connectivity” (Alvarez, Lauzon & Zaiontz 2019, p. 13). People engage by liking posts, show their concern to others (‘virtue signalling’), and then get swept up in a new debate or cause.

source: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/gender-equality-activism-coronavirus-covid19-pandemic/

Now while this is admittedly a popular approach to take and has some merit, things are not always so clear-cut. For example, a 2010 survey conducted by Georgetown University’s Center for Social Impact Communication and Ogilvy Worldwide found that online activism does not adversely impact the likelihood of an already-engaged person becoming involved in offline activism (Rees 2013), as can be seen in the results below:

source: https://mashable.com/2011/10/24/slactivism-cause-engagement/

Concluding thoughts

In the same way that issues are linked to effects in the real world, online activism must be used in tandem with offline activism to achieve greater results. It must not be forgotten that a digital divide exists, and that we risk alienating key (often impoverished) groups from the discussion by relying too heavily on online channels.

Digital activism has the power to mobilise people across borders, to center discussion and to do so with blinding rapidity, but it is not a magical solution.

References

  Alvarez, N, Lauzon, C & Zaiontz, K 2019, ‘On Sustainable Tools for Precarious Times: An Introduction’, in N Alvarez, C Lauzon & K Zaiontz (eds), Sustainable Tools for Precarious Times, Palgrave Macmillan, Springer eBooks, pp. 1 - 25

  Kaun, A & Uldam, J 2018, ‘Digital activism: After the hype’, new media & society, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 2099 - 2106

  Peters, M 2011, ‘A Brief History of Online Activism’, Mashable, viewed 16 May 2020, <https://mashable.com/2011/08/15/online-activism/>

  Rees, A 2013, ‘More Than Likes and Bytes: Online Activism’, Reset, viewed 16 May 2020, <https://en.reset.org/blog/more-likes-and-bytes-online-activism>

  Rees, A 2015, ‘Digital and Online Activism’, Reset, viewed 16 May 2020, <https://en.reset.org/knowledge/digital-and-online-activism>

  Stickels, L 2020, ‘Digital communities, political engagement and activism’, MDA20009 Digital Communities, Learning materials via Canvas, Swinburne University of Technology, 13 May, viewed 16 May

A group of researchers have tried to examine this by asking female graphic designers from 18 different countries to Photoshop a model’s figure according to what they feel would be most attractive to their country’s citizens (read full article here). This was the result:

Last week, I discussed some of the positive effects that social media can have in promoting slow fashion, mentioning the responsibility that social media users (and especially influencers) must take over what they post and the values their content suggests. This week’s post will further look at this responsibility, with a particular focus on the types of beauty standards that are championed on visual social media platforms, and how this affects one’s own perception of self.

Beauty standards on social media

The media is acknowledged as a particularly strong influencer of how one perceives body image through its continuous portrayals of the ‘ideal body’ (Walker et al. 2019). With the rise of social media, there has been hope that stereotypical representations of beauty will finally give way to the ‘real’ and ‘authentic’, as users from various countries and backgrounds post photos of themselves as they truly are.

While this is (sometimes) happening, there is admittedly a strong pressure to conform to the specific ‘aesthetic templates’ of a platform to gain attention (Mavroudis 2020). This is particularly pertinent to ‘microcelebrities’, who are continuously engaged in an online performance, creating and maintaining a ‘branded self’ in order to gain visibility (and thus status) online.

Taking Instagram as an example, it doesn’t take too long to see the general ‘aesthetic’ presented by various influencers and celebrities: if you’re a woman then you need to be thin but curvy, with an angular face and full lips, and if you’re a man then you should be bulky and have a six-pack. This is exemplified by the image promoting a photo-editing application below:

As a comparison, these are images taken from two popular female Instagram accounts:

While these points are admittedly a generalisation, the fact that it is difficult not to find one of these images certainly makes them worthy of attention.

Virtual and physical presentations of self: a conflict

Given the increasing commodification of intimacy and the self (Dobson, Robards & Carah 2018), it is important to consider the effects that this has on other social media users.

According to a 2017 report by the American Academy of Facial Plastic Reconstructive Surgery, 42% of surgeons stated that their patients sought aesthetic surgery to improve their appearance across social media channels (Dorfman et al. 2018). Aesthetic or cosmetic surgery differs from reconstructive surgery in that it is usually performed on ‘normal’ structures of the body to improve one’s appearance (Walker et al. 2019). Reconstructive surgery however is done to restore function or ‘normal’ appearance, such as to areas harmed by trauma or infection.

While getting cosmetic surgery or using a photo-editing application to look more pleasing on social media may not be too problematic in and of itself, what is problematic is the idea that the ensuing image that is presented to thousands if not millions of followers is normalised. A cycle then starts, where one is forced to continue with a certain representation to avoid dissonance (this management of online and offline brands is termed ‘fame labour’ (Mavroudis 2020)), and thus continue to influence other users’ own presentations of self.

As a form of protest against this culture of heavy image-editing and filtering, many accounts have been created that compare the ‘real’ image and the ‘fake’ one that was posted to social media. One good example of this is @s0cialmediavsreality:

Given the tension that is inherent between wanting to present a ‘best self’ and a ‘real self’, it is important to consider how much a platform and its users are controlling the accepted ‘aesthetic’ and its true relevance. Social media platforms may be virtual communities with little binding to space and time, yet the interactions that take place have very real effects on the physical world and our perception of it.

References

Dobson, AS, Robards, B & Carah, N (eds) 2018, Digital Intimate Publics and Social Media, Palgrave Macmillan, Ebook Central (ProQuest)

Dorfman, R, Vaca, E, Mahmood, E, Fine, N & Schierle, C 2018, ‘Plastic Surgery-Related Hashtag Utilization on Instagram: Implications for Education and Marketing’, Aesthetic Surgery Journal, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 332 - 338

Mavroudis, J 2020, ‘Public Health Campaigns and Social Media Influence’, MDA20009 Digital Communities, Learning materials via Canvas, Swinburne University of Technology, 6 May, viewed 9 May 2020.

This post will continue to explore what it means to be a digital citizen, with a focus now on slow fashion and the impact of our shopping choices.

What is slow fashion?

Slow fashion, also termed eco-, green-, sustainable- and ethical-fashion (Lai et al. 2017), is in many ways a counter-movement to fast fashion, which is characterised by its low cost, rapid rate of change and mass production: 

Trends run their course with lightning speed, with today’s latest styles swiftly trumping yesterday’s, which have already been consigned to the trash bin. (Joy et al. 2012, p. 273)

It is easy to be tempted by the new designs, available at very low prices and only for a limited time. Yet, there is a need for consumers to be more critical: the question really stands as to why it is possible to buy a brand new dress for only $5?

Standing in clean, well-lit shops, we choose the garments that we like – that will help to express an identity that is ever-shifting as time passes. Yet it is rare to stop and think about how these garments were produced and who made them. The dichotomy is rather stark:

The image on the top right is taken from a documentary called The True Cost – an influential work on this very issue that is well worth a watch.

What is it that makes a line of fashion sustainable then? According to Fletcher, there are four guidelines (Lai et al. 2017):

Items must be child labour free across the entire supply chain

Materials used during the production process should aim to lessen harm to the environment (examples include organic cotton and bamboo)

Workers should be paid fairly, and (ideally) items should be produced locally to create jobs in the country of origin

Long-term relationships across the supply chain should be created to negotiate fair prices and wages and enable a collective effort towards the creation of sustainable fashion items

How does this relate to digital citizenship?

Traditionally, some options for engaging in slow fashion could include visiting op-shops and thrifting – these are all still very valid today, however the difference is the degree to which one can reach out and find clothes suited especially for them (Big Sister Swap comes to mind as a perfect example), as well as the increased ability to influence other people’s fashion choices.

While there are over 3.8 billion social media users (Kemp 2020), not everyone has an equally wide reach – it is the people that have a large engaged following that we term ‘influencers’ (see this article for a more nuanced view of the different types of influencer). With many people who actively engage with their content, there is an increased responsibility to think about the values that are being promoted. One particular issue that I would like to bring up here is ‘haul videos’, which show the items someone recently bought (usually for a low price at that) and often seem to contribute to our throwaway culture that undervalues the clothes we buy. Tiffany Ferguson, an influencer herself, has a good video on this responsibility:

In the end, it is admittedly more of an effort to source sustainable clothes, however the least we can do is to consider whether we truly need something new, and look for options to recycle or upcycle the clothes we no longer wear.

source: https://wormfarmersdaughter.com/slow-fashion/

References

Joy, A, Sherry, JF, Venkatesh, A, Wang, J & Chan, R 2012, ‘Fast Fashion, Sustainability, and the Ethical Appeal of Luxury Brands’, Fashion Theory, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 273 - 296

Kemp, S 2020, Digital 2020: 3.8 billion people use social media, We Are Social, viewed 2 May 2020, <https://wearesocial.com/blog/2020/01/digital-2020-3-8-billion-people-use-social-media>

Hello everyone! In this week’s post, I will be looking at what digital citizenship is and how social media is changing the ways in which politicians and political parties communicate with the public.

What does it mean to be a ‘digital citizen’?            

Often, when we think of ‘digital citizenship’, this can be seen as actively taking part in political processes or engaging in online activism to effect some change in society. Being a good digital citizen however could also simply mean using digital media appropriately, for example by engaging in meaningful and polite discussion, as opposed to bullying or trolling.

An important concern to consider when thinking of digital citizenship is who is able to access these online platforms, and whether access and ability to participate is truly equal. If there are important discussions being held online – especially those that concern a large group of people or even a nation – it is important that everyone is given the opportunity to voice their concerns. The reality of a digital divide is then perhaps one of the shortcomings of what is otherwise often seen as the empowering nature of social media.

source: https://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/defreitas-closing-the-digital-divide/

Social media: How are politicians using it & why?

Social media has given politicians many opportunities that traditional media arguably could not have, in particular the ability to engage in discussion with many members of the public directly, and to bypass the mainstream media and thus have greater control over their message. It can also be an effective channel for fundraising and voter activation (Nelimarkka et al. 2020).

source: https://medium.com/jamieai/is-social-media-is-manipulating-you-57b5066c3fd2

However, what makes social media most enticing as a channel is arguably the sheer number of people who are already on these platforms – a number often hard to find in an era of audience fragmentation. In fact, almost 50% of the world’s total population (3.81 billion people) is on social media, with the average user spending an average of 2 hours and 29 minutes per day using these platforms (Kepios 2020).

While the way in which social media is used differs between politicians, countries, and even between platforms, there are a few trends that can be pointed out. One of these is ‘amateurism’, which is reducing the professional and polished tone of messaging and instead injecting more personality into posts. Gunn Enli (2017) expresses the potential benefit of this approach beautifully:

“Politicians who come across as too professional might ... seem calculated and cynical, while the amateur has the benefit of perhaps seeming clumsy and imperfect, but yet authentic.” (p. 58)

Another ‘trend’ is the use of social media platforms as information- and opinion-sharing tools by candidates (Enli 2017), perhaps more so than for direct conversation with users.

We can see some elements of this in Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s Twitter and Instagram posts below:

It is interesting to note that while Twitter seems to have largely formal messaging, the Instagram posts are more casual, giving followers an idea of what his life is like outside of politics.

Overall, social media is giving politicians more control over their messages and at times allowing citizens to obtain more of a personal glimpse into their lives. While a powerful tool, it must be taken into account that social media participation is in fact affected by many things, including accepted platform behaviour, practices and affordances (Nelimarkka et al. 2020), and ability to access the internet and devices.

As such, it has the ability to enhance (but does not replace) traditional methods of engaging with politics.

References

 Enli, G 2017, ‘Twitter as arena for the authentic outsider: exploring the social media campaigns of Trump and Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election’, European Journal of Communication, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 50 - 61

 Kepios 2020, Global Social Media Overview, Data Reportal, viewed 24 April 2020, <https://datareportal.com/social-media-users>

Tumblr is a place to express yourself, discover yourself, and bond over the stuff you love. It’s where your interests connect you with other people. (source: tumblr.com meta-description)

 image source: http://www.dottanimation.in/latest-update/social-living-organ/76

Tumblr is a microblogging and social networking site designed to allow users to share their views, art, interests and lives with others in the form of short blog posts. It is a highly visual platform, with support for GIFs, images, videos and audio clips along with text posts. Interaction between users is facilitated through ‘following’ other users, reblogging or liking posts (these are called ‘notes’), as well as through messaging and chat features.

When one considers a community, perhaps the first thing that comes to mind is their local community or a group of people in a shared location, bound by time and space. Another image could be, as expressed by the Cambridge Dictionary “people who are considered a unit because of their common interests, social group, or nationality” (Cambridge University Press 2020).

Based on these definitions, Tumblr could be called a digital community in light of the idea that its users do share a common location for their expression and connection – this space is simply not a physical time-bound location but a virtual one, able to bring together people from around the world.

image source: https://www.lyfemarketing.com/blog/what-is-social-media-management/

It may also be argued that interactions between many Tumblr users are based on a shared goal or common interest, whether this be travel, Italian cuisine, One Piece or LGBTIQ support.

The important point to make here is that while Tumblr is one single application, there are arguably many ‘mini-communities’.

As Bruns and Highfield (2015) describe it, the public sphere envisioned by Habermas, a single place where everyone can voice their opinion and engage in discussion equally irrespective of rank or status, is not only an ideal but also very unrepresentative of today’s world of social media and fragmented publics.

Rather, what we have is a “series of public sphericules and micro-publics, none of which are mutually exclusive but which co-exist” (Bruns & Highfield 2015, p. 70). This applies to not only the wide variety of platforms, which each have their own platform vernacular (language particular to the platform; Sheehan 2019) and affordances (methods of interacting with/using the platform), but also the groups within those platforms.

Thus, while Tumblr itself is a community of users who share an interest in blogging and a common vernacular, it is also a gathering place for many smaller and overlapping communities, whether based on interest, culture or values.

References

  Bruns, A & Highfield, T 2015, ‘Is Habermas on Twitter? Social Media and the Public Sphere’, in A Bruns, G Enli, E Skogerbo, AO Larsson & C Christensen (eds), The Routledge Companion to Social Media and Politics, Taylor and Francis Group, Ebook Central (ProQuest), pp. 56 - 73

  Keller, J 2019, ‘“Oh, She’s a Tumblr Feminist”: Exploring the Platform Vernacular of Girls’ Social Media Feminisms’, Social Media + Society, pp. 1 - 11