Content uploaded by Sam Srauy
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sam Srauy on Aug 13, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Social Media + Society
April-June 2015: 1 –3
© The Author(s) 2015
DOI: 10.1177/2056305115578676
sms.sagepub.com
Creative Commons CC-BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 License
(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without
further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (http://www.uk.sagepub.com/aboutus/openaccess.htm).
SI: Manifesto
Social media can be among many media tools by which
we articulate our culture. They can be ways in which we
socialize and share who we aspire to be with those who
are closest to us. Social media can be these and so much
more. But what they also can be are ways through which
corporations monitor us for marketing purposes, exploit-
ing our fears and desires (Andrejevic, 2011; Bilton, 2014;
boyd & Hargittai, 2010; Facebook, 2013; Fish &
McKnight, 2014; Gillespie, 2014; Ippolita, Lovink, &
Rossiter, 2009; Lilley, Grodzinsky, & Gumbus, 2013). Of
course, there are other ways in which social media are
used to exploit us (see Hill, 2011). But addressing corpo-
rate marketing specifically, I believe we should hope
social media never become merely ways through which
we are marketed with no benefit in return. If we must live
in a corporate media–dominated world, at least we ought
to claim some social benefit.
What Social Media Can Be
It should come as no surprise that for some of us, such as
myself, social media are tools that can potentially benefit
society. This is, after all, the inaugural issue of Social Media
+ Society. If we are generous and optimistic, we can imagine
social media as a liberating forum for self-expression or a
medium that might, in its own way, usher in a more demo-
cratic form of content distribution or civic participation
(Burgess & Green, 2013; Caren & Gaby, 2011; Iskander,
2011; Johnson, Zhang, Bichard, & Seltzer, 2011; Kaye, 2011;
Kreiss, 2012; Neumayer & Raffl, 2008). Groups can form
and freely associate (Iskander, 2011; Johnson et al., 2011;
Oiarzabal, 2012; Parks, 2011). People can discuss ideas with
others in ways and with such speed that a couple of decades
earlier would have seemed far-fetched.
Social media can be places where self-expression occurs
(DiMicco & Millen, 2007; Gilpin, 2011; Zhao, Grasmuck, &
Martin, 2008). However, it can also be a place where the
harsher tides of identity politics can define an “us” and a
“them.” For instance, boyd (2012) found that white teens
fled MySpace in the early 2000s for Facebook in an instance
of white-flight when black teens started to join the service.
Those white teens felt that MySpace became a “virtual
ghetto” because of the influx of profile pages belonging to
black bodies (boyd, 2012). Today, services like Facebook
Groups can also be a place where, for example, ethnic groups
gather to form communities (Oiarzabal, 2012; Parks, 2011).
Or Facebook Groups can become easy places for people to
engage in identity tourism or as captive audiences for adver-
tisers (Grosser, 2011; Srauy, 2012). Social media might be
578676SMSXXX10.1177/2056305115578676Social Media + SocietySrauy
research-article2015
Oakland University, Rochester, MI, USA
Corresponding Author:
Sam Srauy, Department of Communication and Journalism, Oakland
University, 316 Wilson Hall, 2200 N. Squirrel Road, Rochester, MI 48309-
4401, USA.
Email: srauy@oakland.edu
The Limits of Social Media: What Social
Media Can Be, and What We Should
Hope They Never Become
Sam Srauy
Abstract
Social media are among many tools that people use to articulate culture. However, it must be remembered that social media
are websites that afford community building regardless of the morality, social benefit, or social detriment of the communities
that get built. At their core, social media sites are products created by their respective corporations with the intent of
monetizing the labor of their users. The values that these sites might offer are dependent on the users and the users’ ability to
claim some social benefit. In this regard, the author argues that social media can be beneficial spaces where society articulates
and records culture “only if” users can maintain that use despite corporate actors’ efforts to monetize users’ labor.
Keywords
manifesto, monetization of user labor, social value
2 Social Media + Society
spaces for social protest where divergent political voices liv-
ing in oppressive regimes might find a forum (Caren & Gaby,
2011; Iskander, 2011; Marichal, 2013; Neumayer & Raffl,
2008). Or social media may simply become spaces where
divergent brand loyalties are contested and played out under
the watchful eyes of corporations all too eager to exploit our
desire to share our lives with our friends and families (Bilton,
2014; Facebook, 2013; Fish & McKnight, 2014; Gillespie,
2014; Hansson, Wrangmo, & Soilen, 2013; Lilley et al.,
2013).
Social media sites are all of these and none of these at the
same time. What they are, at their core, are websites with
features that afford community building in one fashion or
another regardless of the communities that get built (see
boyd, 2011; boyd & Ellison, 2007). That is the take-away
and the charge for scholars and users as we study and engage
with social media—social media are nothing without users
(see Burgess & Green, 2013; Jenkins, 2013); however, we as
a society ought to be mindful as we determine how, in the
future, social media are useful to us. Whatever they are today
is a result of how we choose to use them. Whatever they
become is also the result of our engagement with them.
What We Should Hope They Never
Become
Social media are refractions, tools to record a particular user
base’s moment in time. Yet, social media are also products
created by their respective corporations with the intent of
monetizing our labor (e.g. posts, comments, “likes,” and
content we create) through market research, advertisements,
or our content (Facebook, 2013; Tumblr, 2014; Twitter,
2014; YouTube, 2010). For all our hopes and fears about
what social media are or could be, they are first and foremost
a product or website designed to monetize us in some form or
another (see Fish & McKnight, 2014; Gillespie, 2014).
Perhaps, this is the crux of what we should hope social
media never become—a way for corporate actors merely to
collect the most sensitive information about us so that we
may be advertised to. The emphasis of my claim is on the
word “merely.” We cannot fully control how corporate actors
use our information all of the time. Since there is the implicit
deal that these “free” services come at a cost to our privacy,
we can at least extract some social and cultural benefit—pre-
suming we assume that advertising has no social or cultural
good—from our social media use.
In a way, the perception that we tend to have about social
media mirrors and refracts what the perception of television
offered us a generation ago (see Hilliard, 1958). Social
media, such as television, can be an educator, an equalizer,
an exploiter, a social unifier, a social divider, and so on. Of
course, social media are forms of media that afford some
positive uses and some questionable actions. Social media
can be all of these and none of these at once. Our task as a
society, then, is to ensure that some of their uses enable the
“better angels of our nature”1 while avoiding—to the extent
that we can—our unfettered exploitation by capital.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
Note
1. I borrowed this quote with apologies, from Abraham Lincoln’s
First Inaugural Address, 1861.
References
Andrejevic, M. (2011). Social network exploitation. In Z. Papacharissi
(Ed.), A networked self (pp. 82-102). New York, NY: Routledge.
Bilton, N. (2014). Friends, and influence, for sale online. Retrieved
from http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/friends-and-
influence-for-sale-online/?_r=1
boyd, d. (2011). Social network sites as networked publics. In Z.
Papacharissi (Ed.), A networked self (pp. 39-58). New York,
NY: Routledge.
boyd, d. (2012). White flight in network publics? How race and
class shaped American teen engagement with MySpace and
Facebook. In L. Nakamura & P. Chow-White (Eds.), Race after
the internet (pp. 203-222). New York, NY: Routledge.
boyd, d., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition,
history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 13, 210-230.
boyd, d., & Hargittai, E. (2010, July 27). Facebook privacy settings:
Who cares? First Monday. Retrieved from http://firstmonday.
org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3086/2589
Burgess, J., & Green, J. (2013). YouTube: Online video and partici-
patory culture. Cambridge, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Caren, N., & Gaby, S. (2011). Occupy online: Facebook and the
spread of Occupy Wall Street. SSRN. Retrieved from https://
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1943168
DiMicco, J. M., & Millen, D. R. (2007, November 4). Identity
management: Multiple presentations of self in Facebook. In T.
Gross & K. Inkpen, Proceedings of the 2007 International ACM
Conference on Supporting Group Work—GROUP ’07 (p. 383).
New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1316624.1316682
Facebook. (2013). Data use policy. Retrieved from https://www.
facebook.com/about/privacy
Fish, A., & McKnight, J. C. (2014). Beyond surveillance fridges and
socialized power drills: social media and the financialization of
everyday life. Retrieved from http://culturedigitally.org/2014/04/
beyond-surveillance-fridges-and-socialized-power-drills/
Gillespie, T. (2014). Facebook’s algorithm—Why our assumptions
are wrong, and our concerns are right. Retrieved from http://
culturedigitally.org/2014/07/facebooks-algorithm-why-our-
assumptions-are-wrong-and-our-concerns-are-right/
Gilpin, D. (2011). Working the Twittersphere: Microblogging as a
professional identity construction. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A
networked self (pp. 232-250). New York, NY: Routledge.
Srauy 3
Grosser, B. (2011). How the technological design of Facebook
homogenizes identity and limits personal representation.
Retrieved from http://bengrosser.com/blog/how-thetechno-
logical-design-of-facebook-homogenizes-identity-and-limits-
personalrepresentation/
Hansson, L., Wrangmo, A., & Soilen, K. S. (2013). Optimal ways
for companies to use Facebook as a marketing channel. Journal
of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 11,
112-126. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/
full/10.1108/JICES-12-2012-0024
Hill, K. (2011). How Facebook secretly aids government
Searches. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/kash-
mirhill/2011/07/12/how-facebook-secretly-aids-government-
searches/
Hilliard, R. (1958). Television and education. The Journal of
Higher Education, 29, 431-470. Retrieved from http://www.
jstor.org/stable/1978698?seq=8#page_scan_tab_contents
Ippolita, Lovink, G., & Rossiter, N. (2009). The digital given: 10
Web 2.0 theses. The Fibreculture Journal, 14. Retrieved from
http://journal.fibreculture.org/issue14/issue14_ippolita_et_al_
print.html
Iskander, E. (2011, September 8). Connecting the national and the
virtual: Can Facebook activism remain relevant after Egypt’s
January 25 uprising? International Journal of Communication.
Retrieved from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/38165/1/Connecting_
the_national_and_the_virtual_%28LSERO%29.pdf
Jenkins, H. (2013). Textual poachers: Television fans and partici-
patory culture. New York, NY: Routledge.
Johnson, T. J., Zhang, W., Bichard, S. L., & Seltzer, T. (2011).
United we stand? Online social network sites and civic engage-
ment. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A networked self (pp. 185-207).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Kaye, B. K. (2011). Between Barack and a net place. In Z.
Papacharissi (Ed.), A networked self (pp. 208-231). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Kreiss, D. (2012). Taking our country back: The crafting of network
politics from Howard Dean to Barack Obama. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Lilley, S., Grodzinsky, F. S., & Gumbus, A. (2013). Revealing
the commercialized and compliant Facebook user. Journal
of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 10(2),
82-92. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/
abs/10.1108/14779961211226994
Marichal, J. (2013). Political Facebook groups: Micro-activism
and the digital front stage. First Monday, 18(12). Retrieved
from http://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/
4653/3800
Neumayer, C., & Raffl, C. (2008). Facebook for global protest:
The potential and limits of social software for grassroots activ-
ism. In Proceedings of the 5th Prato Community Informatics
& Development Informatics Conference. Retrieved from http://
cirn.infotech.monash.edu.au/assets/docs/prato2008papers/
raffl.pdf
Oiarzabal, P. J. (2012). Diaspora Basques and online social net-
works: An analysis of users of Basque institutional diaspora
groups on Facebook. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies,
38, 1469-1485. doi:10.1080/1369183X.2012.698216
Parks, M. (2011). Social network sites as virtual communities. In Z.
Papacharissi (Ed.), A networked self (pp. 105-123). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Srauy, S. (2012). The affordance of power in Facebook. Paper
presented at the Meeting of the Association of Internet
Researchers, Manchester, UK.
Tumblr. (2014). Terms of service. Retrieved from https://www.
tumblr.com/policy/en/terms-of-service
Twitter. (2014). Terms of service. Retrieved from https://twitter.
com/tos/
YouTube. (2010). Terms of service. Retrieved from https://www.
youtube.com/static?gl=US&template=terms
Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S., & Martin, J. (2008). Identity construction
on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships.
Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1816-1836. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2008.02.012
Author Biography
Sam Srauy (PhD, Temple University) is an Assistant Professor of
Communication at Oakland University. His research interests
include the roles that race and economics play in identity construc-
tion in various forms of new media.