Oxford University Press's
Academic Insights for the Thinking World

Social media and the culture of connectivity

By José van Dijck

In 2006, there appeared to be a remarkable consensus among Internet gurus, activists, bloggers, and academics about the promise of Web 2.0 that users would attain more power than they ever had in the era of mass media. Rapidly growing platforms like Facebook (2004), YouTube (2005), and Twitter (2006) facilitated users’ desire to make connections and exchange self-generated content. The belief in social media as technologies of a new “participatory” culture was echoed by habitual tools-turned-into-verbs: buttons for liking, trending, following, sharing, trending, et cetera. They articulated a feeling of connectedness and collectivity, strongly resonating the belief that social media enhanced the democratic input of individuals and communities. According to some, Web 2.0 and its ensuing range of platforms formed a unique chance to return the “public sphere” — a sphere that had come to be polluted by commercial media conglomerates — back in the hands of ordinary citizens.

Eight years after the apex of techno-utopian celebration, a number of large platforms have come to dominate a social media ecosystem vastly different from when the platforms just started to evolve. It’s time for a reality check. What did social media do for the public — users like you — and for the ideal of a more democratic public space? Do they indeed promote connectedness and participation in community-driven activities or are they rather engines of connectivity, driven by automated algorithms and invisible business models?  Online socializing, as it now seems, is inimically mediated by a techno-economic logic anchored in the principles of popularity and winner-takes-all principles that enhance the pervasive logic of mass media instead of offering alternatives.

Most contemporary social media giants once started out as informal platforms for networking or “friending” (Facebook), for exchanging user-generated content (YouTube), or for participating in opinionated discussions (Twitter). It was generally assumed that in the new social media space, all users were equal. However, platforms’ algorithms measured relevance and importance in terms of popularity rankings, which subsequently formed the quantifiable basis of data-driven interactivity wrapped in “social” rhetoric such as following, trending, or sharing. In this platform-mediated ecosystem, sponsored and professionally generated content soon received a lot more attention than user-generated content. Platforms like YouTube and Facebook gradually changed their interfaces to yield business models that were staked in two basic variables: attention and user data. By 2012, once informal social traffic between users had become fully formalized, automated, and commoditized by platforms owned and exploited by fast growing corporate giants. Although each of these platforms nurses its own proprietary mechanisms, they are staked in the same values or principles: popularity, hierarchical ranking, quick growth, large traffic volumes, fast turnovers, and personalized recommendations. A like is not a retweet, but most algorithms are underpinned by the norms of popularity and fast-trending topics.

The cultivation of online sociality is increasingly dominated by four major chains of platforms: Google, Apple, Facebook, and Amazon. These chains share some operational principles even if they differ on some ideological premises (open versus closed systems). Some consider social media platforms as alternatives to the old mass media, praising their potential to empower individual users who can contribute their own opinions or content to a media universe that was before pretty much closed to amateurs. Although we should not underestimate this newly acquired power of the web as a publishing medium for all, it is hard to keep up the tenet that social media are alternatives to mass media. Over the past few years, it has become increasingly obvious that the logics of mass media and social media are intimately intertwined. Not just on the level of platforms mechanics and content (tweets have become the equivalent of soundbites) but also on the level of user dynamics and business models; YouTube-Google now collaborates with many former foes from Hollywood to turn their platform into the gateway to the entertainment universe. Newspapers and television stations are inevitably integrated in the ecosystem of connective media where the mechanisms of data-driven user traffic determines who and what gets most attention, hence drawing customers and eyeballs.

This new connective media system has reshaped the power relationships between platform owners and users, not only in terms of who may steer information but also who controls the vast amount of user data that rushes through the combined platforms every day. What are the larger political and social concerns behind deceptively simple interfaces and celebrated user-convenient tools? Where in 2006 the notion of user power still seemed unproblematic, the relationship between users and owners of social media platforms is now contentious and embattled. In the wake of the growing monopolization of niches (Facebook for social networking, Google for search, Twitter for microblogging) it is important to redefine and reappraise the meaning of “social,” “public,” “community,” and “nonprofit.” The ecosystem of connective media has no separate spaces for the “public”; it is a nirvana of interoperability which major players argue for deregulation and which imposes American neoliberal conditions on a global space where boundaries are considered disruptions of user convenience. Common public values, such as independence, trust, or equal opportunities, are ready for reassessment if they need to survive in an environment that is defined by social media logic.

José van Dijck is a professor of Comparative Media Studies at the University of Amsterdam; her latest book, The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media has just been published by Oxford University Press (2013).

Subscribe to the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Subscribe to only media articles on the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Image credit: 3D little human character X9 in a Network, holding Tablet Computer. People series. Image by jojje9999, iStockphoto.

Recent Comments

  1. Peter M C Jones (@innov8tor3)

    Cutting to the chase, from someone who is out here connecting and contributing content as a micro-entrepreneur, my reply to this article is that we the global community are still just at the beginning of understanding how to use the mainstream tools described.

    As we begin to understand how to collaborate, how to form projects behind which there can be wider consensus, and how to deliver value such that we can monetise work streams so as to pay our bills and rear our children, there will be a tipping point. After this tipping point, corporates as we know it will change and become far more nebulous, far more organic, and the originality of content contribution and solution delivery from individuals will become an essential metric.

    This may take another ten years, unless the right kind of leader steps forward with the vision to seize the opportunity.

    I await developments with anticipation.

  2. ZackAttack21

    Users should indeed attain more power as this space was created by them. Improving legislation on the other hand in order to control this environment is a whole different thing. It needs to be done but not recklessly.

  3. System Monitoring

    These platforms, indeed, contributed immensely towards empowering users and ensure their connectivity. But, I believe that there still exists a fraction of control by these platform owners.

  4. […] book, will be published soon in work we are developing with Nick Couldry. See also blog about The Culture of Connectivity published by Oxford University Press in March 2013. Jose Van Dijck’s previous books include Mediated Memories in a Digital Age (Stanford […]

  5. […] is possible thanks to the vast array of communications technology that exists. According to MediaBistro, nearly 2.5 billion people in the world have access to the […]

  6. […] profesor de estudios de medios comparativos de la Universidad de Amsterdam. En su reciente libro, La cultura de la conectividad: Una Historia Crítica de los medios sociales , el profesor van Dijk analiza cómo ha evolucionado en medios sociales desde su lugar inicial a […]

  7. A. Lindenauer

    The culture of connectivity is absurd. Zuckerberg’s assumption is his prison and he promotes his invented philosophy to exploit us .

    The Facebook empire is just a device to enrich Zuckerberg and his followers.

    Who needs to be ‘connected’ with others to enjoy life? In fact endless connectivity is a gross infusion on personal privacy and should be condemned rather than promoted

  8. […] foundation of New Media is composed of technology and the internet. The key is connectivity. News can spread around the entire globe in mere seconds. A major earthquake can strike in China […]

Comments are closed.