Content uploaded by Jonathon Hutchinson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jonathon Hutchinson on Feb 10, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X18783549
Media International Australia
2018, Vol. 168(1) 16 –18
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1329878X18783549
journals.sagepub.com/home/mia
Corresponding author:
Jonathon Hutchinson, Department of Media and Communication, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Email: jonathon.hutchinson@sydney.edu.au
783549MIA0010.1177/1329878X18783549Media International AustraliaEditorial
editorial2018
Article
Beyond access, towards
engagement: social media’s
paradox
Jonathon Hutchinson
The University of Sydney, Australia
Gerard Goggin
The University of Sydney, Australia
This special issue of Media International Australia showcases some of the research that was pre-
sented at the 2018 Australia and New Zealand Communication Association (ANZCA), which
addressed the theme ‘Communication Worlds: Access, Voice, Diversity, Engagement’. Among the
high number of papers that were presented, an emerging theme became clear, particularly within
the papers of the early career researchers. In many cases, these scholars have moved beyond the
affordances of social media, and the criticisms that have been raised through critical studies of the
Internet, and towards progressive arguments that frame users as creative system designers. In other
words, while confined by restrictive platform usability, unwieldy regulatory frameworks and
sophisticated ‘black-boxing’ technologies, users have developed processes to circumvent hyper-
commercial imperatives in order to achieve social benefits.
Social media have promised increased connectivity, tools to enable users to participate, the
production of and access to knowledge and expertise, the blurring of once-distinctive communica-
tion roles and an increased democratic potential. Yet, as van Dijck and Poell (2013) argue, social
media have developed their own logic of programmability, popularity, connectivity and datafica-
tion, inherently skewing their empowering, enabling and democratic potential. The hyper-commer-
cialisation of social media platforms has reinserted a significant layer of agency, compounding the
consumer effect of social media audiences through what Andrejevic (2012) notes is the ‘storing
and sorting’ of its users. It is within this contemporary social media environment that users see the
rise of media-savvy influencers, media populism and the cementing of the rhetoric surrounding the
post-truth epoch.
Yet, in this same environment, users are maintaining innovative and intelligent uses of social
media platforms to mobilise users, engage community, initialise movements and continue to spread
important social information on critical matters such as social justice and public issues. In an itera-
tive cycle of critical mass ‘push-back’ against the hyper-commercialisation of social media plat-
forms, users are continuing to develop new ways to provide sincere and engaging communication
Editorial 17
with their peers. From simple augmented technologies that afford connective communication with
friends and relatives, through to quantified personal devices for health and well-being, and intel-
ligent automated media peripherals, diverse communities continue to find their voice and engage
with communication worlds.
This special issue presents several compelling articles that address this social media paradox,
which sees social media and its users develop beyond access alone and towards a more critical
engagement. It brings together a number of young and early career researchers to display the
emerging work surrounding digital communication technologies. Vivienne’s work explores the
role social media has played as a storytelling mechanism within the youth and trans communities
within Adelaide, Australia. From her ethnographic research, Vivienne demonstrates the strong ties
that are constructed across social media to promote the acceptance of multitudinous and fluid iden-
tities. Similarly, the article by Vaughan, Vromen and Martin highlights the significance not only of
branded Facebook channels but also how these spaces have impacted the housing affordability
crisis in Australia. By examining the #smashedavo news moment within Australia, they highlight
the importance of understanding citizen sentiment across social media conversations.
Moving across the pond, Randell-Moon provides us with a unique look at the New Zealand
social media context through the Gigatown project. By exploring the process of collaborative
mobilisation by the New Zealand Government and the local telco Chorus, New Zealand citizens
engaged in unique and innovative processes to secure broadband allocation. However, Randell-
Moon argues that positioning the project in this way in fact increases the digital divide, in what she
terms a digital divide 2.0 built on concerns about access and allocation of digital infrastructures.
Spry’s article on Facebook diplomacy uses innovative digital media methods to examine the
Australian diplomatic Facebook pages as they are used in several countries, including Canada,
New Zealand, the United Kingdom, the United States, Timor-Leste, Hong Kong, Jakarta, South
Korea, Fiji and Taiwan. He examines the engagement of approximately 10,000 Facebook posts to
highlight the absence of diplomacy without diplomats – an emerging common use of social media
across these sorts of social media platforms, increasingly engaged in by government officials. Spry
argues against the use of social media in many ways, suggesting that it may be an antidote to the
notion of a global public sphere.
Examining the role social media plays in social networks can also be framed from a different
perspective, such as networks engaging in algorithmic processes to know too much. This is the
approach taken by van der Nagel in her article. Through the manipulation and exploitation of social
networks, forced connections can be seen as disconnective, or indeed punishment. Van der Nagel
argues that through forced connections, providing profit for some, some users are engaging in
pseudonymised behaviour to boycott the networks that know too much.
In an environment where filter bubbles are highly contested within social media environments,
the article by Tho Le Viet demonstrates the power of connective communication across social
media. In the format of what Habermas terms the public sphere, Viet frames the use of social media
in Vietnam as a forum for citizens to congregate and speak out, providing a diversity of voices and
opinions. Viet’s argument suggests that social media enables a diversity of voices of under-repre-
sented communities that enable an expanded capacity for public discussion and debate.
The final two articles explore the key concepts of sharing and connection across social media.
While Kennedy outlines the inconsistencies and contested spaces of the term ‘sharing’ and how it
relates to social media, she also constructs a new framework for understanding the practice of shar-
ing across social media. Building on existing approaches, including reciprocity, gifting, knowledge
exchange and boundary work, Kennedy goes further to argue that sharing also includes competen-
cies, materiality and symbolic values. The concluding article by Archer and Kao focuses on the
benefits of connectivity across social media for new mothers. This new research on the role of
18 Media International Australia 168(1)
technology and new mothers highlights the benefits of social support, with a number of individuals
surrounding new mothers. Finally, these authors argue for increased efficacy around the role played
by social media for new mothers.
We would also like to thank a number of folk directly and indirectly involved in the production
of this issue, including Dr Fiona Martin for her tireless effort during the ANZCA conference, our
colleagues at the Department of Media and Communication here at the University of Sydney, Ms
Sue Jarvis for copy-editing the entire issue, the support of the ANZCA Executive and the editorial
team at Media International Australia. We would also like extend our gratitude to Associate
Professor Rowan Wilken for his conceptual direction during the early stages.
References
Andrejevic M (2012) Ubiquitous surveillance. In: Ball K, Hagerty KD and Lyon D (eds), Routledge handbook
of surveillance studies. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 91–98.
Dijck Jv and Poell T (2013) Understanding Social Media Logic. Media and Communication 1(1): 2–14.
