Social media

Definition and delimitation

The frequently used term social media comprises “offers based on digitally networked technologies that enable people to make information of all kinds accessible and, based on this, to establish and/or maintain social relationships” ^[1]. This definition by Taddicken and Schmidt clarifies the role of social media for the information society as well as their importance for social action and interpersonal communication.

Nevertheless, from the perspective of communication studies, all media are to be regarded as a component of communication acts and interaction processes and thus to be described as “social” ^[2]. The so-called social media differ from classical mass media such as television, radio or the newspaper in that they dissolve the sender-receiver principle, enable non-linear communication and also networking with others ^[3]. In this context, users of social media are not only recipients of information conveyed by the media, but also producers of content.

Social media are often associated with the term Web 2.0. This goes back to the article by O’Reilly, which has been cited several times ^[4] and describes the development of the Internet as well as the functional change in online offerings ^[5]. As Hohlfeld and Godulla aptly put it, “the network idea” stands ^[6] as the “driving force of social media” ^[7] is at the centre. Web 2.0 and social media not only enable the exchange of information, but also the formation of social relationships between users and the creation of communities. However, this apparent expansion of the functionalities of the Internet can also be seen critically, since the possibilities for networking and two-way communication between users were already possible before the Web 2.0 era in the form of forums, e-mails and instant messaging ^[8]. Despite the controversial view of this technical and functional change from the first to the second “internet generation”, the term Web 2.0 has become accepted both by the general public and in academic circles as a criterion for distinguishing social media from earlier social media-like applications.

History

The history of social media dates back to the smooth transition between the aforementioned web generations. Although some basic functions of social media, for example the sending of public and private messages, already emerged in the early 1990s, the first internet services that are nowadays called social media only appeared at the end of the 1990s or with the beginning of the new millennium. This refers to online services such as SixDegrees.com or Classmates.com, which enabled the creation of profile pages and friend lists, networking between users and the creation of an extensive messaging system. The historical development of social media is characterised by phase-specific dynamics ^[9]. Decker ^[10] distinguishes between five phases, which refer back to processes in the development of the internet and represent the evolution of social media in the western world. The first two phases cover the period in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s and illustrate the development of the internet and the first precursors of social media. The so-called “early years” of social media ^{[11, 12]} (1989 to 1999) saw the emergence of the first blogging sites where individuals could share their lives with other users. These blogging platforms and the “social media-like internet site” Classmate.com, which was developed in 1995, are considered to be the forerunners of social media ^[13] Classmate.com, developed in 1995, are considered the forerunners of social media.

Following Pein ^[14] decker recognises ^[15] recognises the third “mainstream” phase in the period between 2000 and 2003. In this phase, online encyclopaedias such as Wikipedia, the platform for creating personal profile pages MySpace, but also platforms for professional purposes such as LinkedIn were launched ^[16]. The transition from the third to the fourth phase is regarded by Decker ^[17] as the beginning of Web 2.0. In this context, the father of the Web 2.0 term O’Reilly emphasised that the special feature of this new internet generation is the variety of participation possibilities as a key feature of social media. These are expressed above all through the central function of all social media to disseminate user-generated content. In the phase of popularisation of Web 2.0 (2004 to 2011), the nowadays widespread representatives of social media emerged ^[18]platforms like Facebook, video portals like YouTube, photo-sharing apps like Instagram, telecommunication services like WhatsApp or the short message service Twitter ^[19]. As a result, due to the great variety of applications developed, their diversity and extended functions, it is no longer possible to make a clear distinction between the individual genres of social media.

The fifth and final phase of the historical development of social media is what Decker calls ^[20] as the phase of “business models, network monopolies and niche networks” ^[21]which began to emerge in 2012 and extends to the present day. In this period, the focus is no longer on the development of ever new social media, but rather on their transformation into cross-sectoral, profitable business models ^[22].

Opportunities and challenges

The use of social media offers many opportunities for better informed citizens and has a positive influence on interpersonal communication, but at the same time it brings with it a number of challenges that have been intensively addressed by research in recent years. The most important ones will be briefly discussed here.

The era of social media has made searching, finding and sharing information easier than ever before ^[23]. As Schmidt et al. aptly put it, the so-called “information management” in the social media ^[24] as Schmidt et al. aptly put it, the so-called “information management” in social media enables not only the dissemination of journalistic content, but also the communication of problem-solving, group-related or topic-specific information that fulfils different needs of the users.

Furthermore, Krämer et al. ^[25] also describe the positive consequences of interpersonal communication through the use of social media as the development of “social capital”, i.e. the maintenance of existing relationships and the creation of new ones ^[26]i.e. the maintenance of existing relationships and the establishment of new contacts. Based on the social science concept of Granovetter, the so-called “strong ties” and the ^[27] we talk about so-called “strong ties” and “weak ties” and thus distinguish between different types of relationships. On the one hand, the platforms enable the formation and maintenance of emotional relationships (“strong ties”). On the other hand, users can enter into exchange with certain organisations or institutions and receive useful information or recommendations (“weak ties”) ^[28].

Furthermore, social media fulfil the central function of so-called “self-presentation” and promote “identity” ^[29] and promote the “identity management” of the users ^[30] of the users. Through their broad spectrum of functions, social media support users in their self-presentation and thus promote their identity formation. Users strive to make a good impression on others and can use social media to “align and freely shape the presentation of the self with one’s own ideal self” ^[31] and shape it freely. To this end, personal data such as place of residence and work, gender and age are often shared with other users, but also other sensitive information such as photos, status updates, regular activities, preferences and the like. ^[32]. The dissemination of this information in social media brings with it many challenges and dangers, which need to be addressed in greater depth with regard to the regulation of social media.

Furthermore, social media, like traditional mass media, play an important role in shaping the opinions and wills of citizens. The non-linearity of communication on social media and the possibility of creating and disseminating user-generated content at any time lower the hurdle for participation in public discourse and thus bring with them many opportunities for citizens to participate. Political participation enjoys a special status in social media, as the networking of citizens and the rapid dissemination of information have made political mobilisation processes easier than ever. On the one hand, the political mobilisation of citizens on social media can be seen as an opportunity for democracy; on the other hand, the expanded possibilities for political participation can easily be instrumentalised for political purposes and lead to a loss of quality in democratic processes, i.e. endanger democracy under certain circumstances. The endangerment of democratic processes manifests itself in the fact that social media offer, among other things, a platform for online agitation, promote radicalisation processes and thus contribute to a polarisation of society.

In the context of the dissemination of personal data, questions are increasingly being asked today about necessary data protection regulations to ensure data security in social media. The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which came into force in 2018, aims to give users more control over their own data.

In the context of communicating information, social media pose further challenges. As already mentioned, social media applications are characterised by the absence of classic gatekeeping processes. This means that due to the high number of media offerings and the open participatory culture in social media, classic journalistic selection processes are replaced by automated selection mechanisms. This paradigm shift “from passive recipient to active producer” ^[33] coupled with the continuously increasing flow of information could, on the one hand, be understood as an opportunity for better informing citizens and promoting democratic participation processes, but at the same time it leads to a lack of transparency in the selection processes and even to restrictions in media diversity and a danger to freedom of information ^{[34, 35, 36]}. Moreover, the large flow of information in social media does not necessarily mean better informed citizens. One of the greatest challenges of the Web 2.0 era is to ensure the quality of the content presented.

Research projects at bidt

The challenges for the information society that social media bring with them are being researched at bidt within the framework of various projects. The project “Challenges of regulating digital communication platforms” focuses on the topics of copyright, data protection and quality assurance on video platforms. Specifically, the central question is to what extent platforms can be regulated in such a way that diversity of opinion is guaranteed and disinformation is prevented while at the same time data protection, copyright and competition law are secured.

In addition, the project “Measuring Opinion Power and Diversity on the Internet: Pilot Project on Journalistic Concentration Control” is researching opinion power and securing diversity of opinion in social media.

In the field of political communication, the project “How are the central social conflict structures in Germany changing? Social Media Analytics of Collective Protests and Movements” deals with the role of social media in political mobilisation processes. Particularly exciting is the question of what consequences communication in social media has for democracies and the handling of new forms of participation.

Under the title ” Sharenting’ as a Legal Problem”, a PhD project deals with whether the public sharing of photos or videos of children by their parents in social media is compatible with the current legal situation.