2004
Volume 50 Number 4
  • ISSN: 1384-6930
  • E-ISSN: 1875-7286

Abstract

Samenvatting

De auteurs onderzoeken de wisselwerking tussen socialenetwerkplatformen en sociale interacties door een overzicht van relevante platformkenmerken te ontwikkelen. Dit overzicht helpt een kader te formuleren van die een invloed hebben op normvorming tussen sociale-mediagebruikers. De affordances die de auteurs hiervoor identificeerden zijn ‘interageerbaarheid’, ‘intervenieerbaarheid’, ‘vluchtigheid’ en ‘externe zichtbaarheid’. Deze vier affordances zijn complementair aan boyd’s (2010) structurele affordances van de genetwerkte publieken. Met dit kader wordt het duidelijk wie met wie kan interageren, aan welke andere gebruikers en content men kan worden blootgesteld en wie bepaalde sociale correcties en sancties kan uitvoeren. Met deze affordances kunnen gebruikers invloed uitoefenen op normvorming op sociale media. Ze laten ook zien waar de verantwoordelijkheden liggen bij het beïnvloeden van de groepsdynamiek, en welke gebruikers in staat zijn om de normen in een groepsinteractie uit te dagen.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/TCW2022.4.005.RAEM
2022-12-01
2023-01-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arguedas, A. R., Robertson, C. T., Fletcher, R., & Kleis Nielsen, R. (2022). Echo chambers, filter bubbles, and polarisation: A literature review. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Axelrod, R. (1984) The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Asch, S. (1951). Effects of Group Pressure on the Modification and Distortion of Judgments. In H.Guetzknow (Ed.), Groups, Leadership and Men (pp. 177-190). Carnegie Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bastiaensens, S., Vandebosch, H., Poels, K., Van Cleemput, K., DeSmet, A., & De Bourdeaudhuij, I. (2015). ‘Can I afford to help?’ How affordances of communication modalities guide bystanders’ helping intentions towards harassment on social network sites. Behaviour & Information Technology, 34(4), 425-435.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Beer, D. (2017). The social power of algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 1-13.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bernstein, M., Monroy-Hernández, A., Harry, D., André, P., Panovich, K., & Vargas, G. (2021). 4chan and /b/: An Analysis of Anonymity and Ephemerality in a Large Online Community. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 5(1), 50-57. https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/14134
    [Google Scholar]
  7. boyd, d. (2010). Social Network Sites as Networked Publics: Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications. In Z.Papacharissi (Ed.), A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites (pp. 39-58). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group
    [Google Scholar]
  8. boyd, d. (2002). Faceted id/entity: Managing representation in a digital world [Master’s Thesis, Program in Media Arts and Sciences]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. boyd, d. & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bucher, T., & Helmond, A. (2018). The Affordances of Social Media Platforms. In J.Burgess, A.Marwick, & T.Poell, The SAGE Handbook of Social Media (pp. 233-253). SAGE Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Centola, D., & Macy, M. (2007). Complex Contagions and the Weakness of Long Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 113(3), 702-734.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social Influence: Compliance and Conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55(1), 591-621.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015-1026.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Cinelli, M., Morales, G. D. F., Galeazzi, A., Quattrociocchi, W., & Starnini, M. (2021). The echo chamber effect on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(9). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023301118
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Coleman, J. (1990) Foundations of Social Theory. Belknap.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Davis, J. L., & Chouinard, J. B. (2016). Theorizing Affordances: From Request to Refuse. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 36(4), 241-248.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Del Vicario, M., Vivaldo, G., Bessi, A., Zollo, F., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., & Quattrociocchi, W. (2016). Echo Chambers: Emotional Contagion and Group Polarization on Facebook. Scientific Reports, 6(1), 37825.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Delfanti, A., & Arvidsson, A. (2018). Introduction to Digital Media. John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Evans, S. K., Pearce, K. E., Vitak, J., & Treem, J. W. (2017). Explicating Affordances: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Affordances in Communication Research. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(1), 35-52.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Gaudette, T., Scrivens, R., Davies, G., & Frank, R. (2020). Upvoting extremism: Collective identity formation and the extreme right on Reddit. New Media & Society, 146144482095812.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Gibson, A. (2019). Free Speech and Safe Spaces: How Moderation Policies Shape Online Discussion Spaces. Social Media + Society, 5(1), 205630511983258.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Houghton Mifflin.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Gibson, J. J. (1982). Notes on affordances. In Reasons for realism. Selected Essays of James J. Gibson (pp. 401-418). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Graham, T. (2018). Platforms and hyper-choice on the World Wide Web. Big Data & Society, 5(1), 205395171876587.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Granovetter, M. (1978). Threshold Models of Collective Behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 83(6), 1420-1443.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Helberger, N., Pierson, J., & Poell, T. (2018). Governing online platforms: From contested to cooperative responsibility. The Information Society, 34(1), 1-14.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Hsieh, Y. P. (2012). Online social networking skills: The social affordances approach to digital inequality. First Monday. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v17i4.3893
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Ito, M. (2008). Introduction. In K.Varnelis (Ed.), Networked Publics (pp. 1-14). MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Jacobs, J. (2019, November22). Will Instagram Ever ‘Free the Nipple’?The New York Times. Geraadpleegd op 8augustus2022, van https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/22/arts/design/instagram-free-the-nipple.html
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes (2nd ed). Houghton Mifflin.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Jhaver, S., Bruckman, A., & Gilbert, E. (2019). Does Transparency in Moderation Really Matter?: User Behavior After Content Removal Explanations on Reddit. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3(CSCW), 1-27.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Legros, S., & Cislaghi, B. (2020). Mapping the Social-Norms Literature: An Overview of Reviews. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(1), 62-80.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Lessig, L. (1999). Code and other laws of cyberspace (Nachdr.). Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Light, B., Burgess, J., & Duguay, S. (2018). The walkthrough method: An approach to the study of apps. New Media & Society, 20(3), 881-900.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Marwick, A. E. (2021). Morally Motivated Networked Harassment as Normative Reinforcement. Social Media + Society, 7(2), 205630512110213.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Massanari, A. (2017). #Gamergate and The Fappening: How Reddit’s algorithm, governance, and culture support toxic technocultures. New Media & Society, 19(3), 329-346.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Matias, J. N. (2019). Preventing harassment and increasing group participation through social norms in 2,190 online science discussions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(20), 9785-9789.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Meier, F., Elsweiler, D., & Wilson, M. (2014). More than Liking and Bookmarking? Towards Understanding Twitter Favouriting Behaviour. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 8(1), 346-355.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Miškolci, J., Kováčová, L., & Rigová, E. (2020). Countering Hate Speech on Facebook: The Case of the Roma Minority in Slovakia. Social Science Computer Review, 38(2), 128-146.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Newman, M. E. J., Barabási, A.-L., & Watts, D. J. (Eds.). (2006). The structure and dynamics of networks. Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Parsons, T. (1951) The Social System. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Picone, I., Kleut, J., Pavlíčková, T., Romic, B., Møller Hartley, J., & De Ridder, S. (2019). Small acts of engagement: Reconnecting productive audience practices with everyday agency. New Media & Society, 21(9), 2010-2028.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Picone, I., & Vandenplas, R. (2022). Windows to the World: Imagining Flemish News Audiences and Their Views on Society through the Lens of News Repertoires. Digital Journalism, 10(1), 87-108.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Pierson, J. (2021). Digital Platforms as Entangled Infrastructures: Addressing Public Values and Trust in Messaging Apps. European Journal of Communication, 12.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Poell, T., Nieborg, D., & van Dijck, J. (2019). Platformisation. Internet Policy Review, 8(4).
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Postigo, H. (2016). The socio-technical architecture of digital labor: Converting play into YouTube money. New Media & Society, 18(2), 332-349.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Rajendra-Nicolucci, E. C., & Zuckerman, E. (2021). An Illustrated Field Guide to Social Media (p. 119). Knight First Amendment Institute. https://knightcolumbia.org/blog/an-illustrated-field-guide-to-social-media
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Rossini, P., Stromer-Galley, J., Baptista, E. A., & Veiga de Oliveira, V. (2021). Dysfunctional information sharing on WhatsApp and Facebook: The role of political talk, cross-cutting exposure and social corrections. New Media & Society, 23(8), 2430-2451.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Scissors, L., Burke, M., & Wengrovitz, S. (2016). What’s in a Like?: Attitudes and behaviors around receiving Likes on Facebook. Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, 1501-1510.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Seering, J., Kraut, R., & Dabbish, L. (2017). Shaping Pro and Anti-Social Behavior on Twitch Through Moderation and Example-Setting. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, 111-125.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Shah, R. C., & Kesan, J. P. (2007). How Architecture Regulates. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 24(4), 350-359.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Somers, J. (2017). The Like Button Ruined the Internet. The Atlantic. Geraadpleegd op 25november2021, van https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/03/how-the-like-button-ruined-the-internet/519795
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Statista (2022) Most popular social networks worldwide as of January 2022, ranked by number of monthly active users. Statista. Geraadpleegd op [..] january2022, van https://web.archive.org/web/20220825151036/https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Republic. Com 2. 0. Princeton University Press
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Tadesse, M. M., Lin, H., Xu, B., & Yang, L. (2018). Personality Predictions Based on User Behavior on the Facebook Social Media Platform. IEEE Access, 6, 61959-61969.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior. In J. T.Jost & J.Sidanius (Eds.), Political Psychology: Key readings (0 ed., pp. 276–293). Psychology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Theocharis, Y., Cardenal, A., Jin, S., Aalberg, T., Hopmann, D. N., Strömbäck, J., Castro, L., Esser, F., Van Aelst, P., de Vreese, C., Corbu, N., Koc-Michalska, K., Matthes, J., Schemer, C., Sheafer, T., Splendore, S., Stanyer, J., Stępińska, A., & Štětka, V. (2021). Does the platform matter? Social media and COVID-19 conspiracy theory beliefs in 17 countries. New Media & Society, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211045666
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Treem, J. W., & Leonardi, P. M. (2013). Social Media Use in Organizations: Exploring the Affordances of Visibility, Editability, Persistence, and Association. Annals of the International Communication Association, 36(1), 143-189.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Van Dijck, J. (2013). Disassembling platforms, reassembling sociality. In J.Van Dijck, The culture of connectivity: A critical history of social media (pp. 24-44). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Van Raemdonck, N. (2019). The Echo chamber of anti-vaccination conspiracies: Mechanisms of radicalisation on Facebook and Reddit. In The Digital Age, Cyber Space, and Social Media: The Challenges of Security & Radicalization: Vol. Book 6.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Wachs, S., & Wright, M. (2018). Associations between Bystanders and Perpetrators of Online Hate: The Moderating Role of Toxic Online Disinhibition. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(9), 2030.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Watt, A. (2014). The Entity Relationship Data Model. In A.Watt, & N.Eng, Database Design. BCcampus. https://opentextbc.ca/dbdesign01/chapter/chapter-8-entity-relationship-model
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Wellman, B., Quan-Haase, A., Boase, J., Chen, W., Hampton, K., Díaz, I., & Miyata, K. (2003). The Social Affordances of the Internet for Networked Individualism. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 8(3), JCMC834.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Zadrozny, B. (2020, February6). On Facebook, anti-vaxxers urged a mom not to give her son Tamiflu. He later died. NBC News. Geraadpleegd op 8augustus2022, van https://web.archive.org/web/20200207045147/https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1131936
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/TCW2022.4.005.RAEM
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/TCW2022.4.005.RAEM
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error