After Twitter: Fragmentation, Platform Polities and Protective Sociality

IF 4.9 1区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION
Nathaniel Tkacz, Robert W. Gehl
{"title":"After Twitter: Fragmentation, Platform Polities and Protective Sociality","authors":"Nathaniel Tkacz, Robert W. Gehl","doi":"10.1177/20563051251366907","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article argues that a profound change has occurred in the spaces of social media, centring on the region formerly occupied by Twitter. More than Twitter rebranding as X, After Twitter refers to a historical punctuation point in the timeline of social media and an emerging social media reality. After Twitter registers the slow death of a set of ideals and related practices specific to platforms like Twitter, but also to the waning of ideals in relation to the communicative potentials of the open web more generally. We make three broad claims which characterise social media After Twitter: First, by way of an overview of alternatives and competitors including Bluesky, Mastodon, Threads, Truth Social and more, we observe a social media fragmentation. Such fragmentation is not solely driven by economic forces or technological development and instead is understood along explicitly political lines. Second, we observe the rise of polarised platform polities. These polities reflect divergent political positions, create distinct political realities and foster different modes of interaction and belonging. Third, we observe a general shift from connective to protective forms of sociality, where users approach social media as if they are constantly in the presence of adversaries, and the ‘weak ties’ that once defined a web of opportunities are replaced by an assumed toxicity of ties. We conclude by reflecting on the nostalgia for the Twitter-that-was, suggesting the need to foster a critical and reflective relationship with the Twitter of old.","PeriodicalId":47920,"journal":{"name":"Social Media + Society","volume":"90 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Media + Society","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051251366907","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article argues that a profound change has occurred in the spaces of social media, centring on the region formerly occupied by Twitter. More than Twitter rebranding as X, After Twitter refers to a historical punctuation point in the timeline of social media and an emerging social media reality. After Twitter registers the slow death of a set of ideals and related practices specific to platforms like Twitter, but also to the waning of ideals in relation to the communicative potentials of the open web more generally. We make three broad claims which characterise social media After Twitter: First, by way of an overview of alternatives and competitors including Bluesky, Mastodon, Threads, Truth Social and more, we observe a social media fragmentation. Such fragmentation is not solely driven by economic forces or technological development and instead is understood along explicitly political lines. Second, we observe the rise of polarised platform polities. These polities reflect divergent political positions, create distinct political realities and foster different modes of interaction and belonging. Third, we observe a general shift from connective to protective forms of sociality, where users approach social media as if they are constantly in the presence of adversaries, and the ‘weak ties’ that once defined a web of opportunities are replaced by an assumed toxicity of ties. We conclude by reflecting on the nostalgia for the Twitter-that-was, suggesting the need to foster a critical and reflective relationship with the Twitter of old.
推特之后:碎片化、平台政治和保护性社会
本文认为,社交媒体领域发生了深刻的变化,主要集中在以前被Twitter占据的领域。不仅仅是将Twitter重新命名为X, After Twitter指的是社交媒体时间轴上的一个历史标点点和新兴的社交媒体现实。Twitter记录了一系列特定于Twitter等平台的理想和相关实践的缓慢死亡,但也标志着与开放网络的交流潜力相关的理想的减弱。首先,通过对包括Bluesky、Mastodon、Threads、Truth social等在内的替代品和竞争对手的概述,我们观察到社交媒体的碎片化。这种分裂不仅仅是由经济力量或技术发展驱动的,而是按照明确的政治路线来理解的。其次,我们观察到两极分化的政纲政治正在兴起。这些政治反映了不同的政治立场,创造了不同的政治现实,促进了不同的互动和归属模式。第三,我们观察到一种从连接到保护的社交形式的普遍转变,在这种情况下,用户接触社交媒体时,就好像他们一直处于对手面前,曾经定义机会网络的“弱关系”被假定的毒性关系所取代。最后,我们反思了人们对Twitter过去的怀念,并建议我们与旧Twitter建立一种批判和反思的关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Social Media + Society
Social Media + Society COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
3.80%
发文量
111
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Social Media + Society is an open access, peer-reviewed scholarly journal that focuses on the socio-cultural, political, psychological, historical, economic, legal and policy dimensions of social media in societies past, contemporary and future. We publish interdisciplinary work that draws from the social sciences, humanities and computational social sciences, reaches out to the arts and natural sciences, and we endorse mixed methods and methodologies. The journal is open to a diversity of theoretic paradigms and methodologies. The editorial vision of Social Media + Society draws inspiration from research on social media to outline a field of study poised to reflexively grow as social technologies evolve. We foster the open access of sharing of research on the social properties of media, as they manifest themselves through the uses people make of networked platforms past and present, digital and non. The journal presents a collaborative, open, and shared space, dedicated exclusively to the study of social media and their implications for societies. It facilitates state-of-the-art research on cutting-edge trends and allows scholars to focus and track trends specific to this field of study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信