{"title":"可信的公地:为什么“旧”社交媒体很重要","authors":"P. Maxigas, Guillaume Latzko-Toth","doi":"10.14763/2020.4.1517","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The term social media is problematic. As Papacharissi puts it, “all media are social” and “invite [their] own form of sociality” (2015: 1). As a category, the term lacks a clear boundary. Further, using the phrase “social media” as a way to categorise a bound set of digital communication devices may be seen as a negation of the sociality fostered by other technological artifacts that existed prior to them. It pertains to the rhetoric of periodisation that has become commonplace in studies of digital media as the notion of newness has been instrumental in structuring the research agenda (Gitelman 2006; Park, Jankowski, and Jones 2011). Drawing attention to the most recent technologies contributes to framing already existing technologies as “old” in the derogatory sense of “obsolete” and “irrelevant”. It obscures (and denies) the possibility for users of technologies that are not in the spotlight of the largest public’s attention to contribute to a social critique of dominant technologies, overlooking their political and subversive potential.","PeriodicalId":219999,"journal":{"name":"Internet Policy Rev.","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Trusted commons: why 'old' social media matter\",\"authors\":\"P. Maxigas, Guillaume Latzko-Toth\",\"doi\":\"10.14763/2020.4.1517\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The term social media is problematic. As Papacharissi puts it, “all media are social” and “invite [their] own form of sociality” (2015: 1). As a category, the term lacks a clear boundary. Further, using the phrase “social media” as a way to categorise a bound set of digital communication devices may be seen as a negation of the sociality fostered by other technological artifacts that existed prior to them. It pertains to the rhetoric of periodisation that has become commonplace in studies of digital media as the notion of newness has been instrumental in structuring the research agenda (Gitelman 2006; Park, Jankowski, and Jones 2011). Drawing attention to the most recent technologies contributes to framing already existing technologies as “old” in the derogatory sense of “obsolete” and “irrelevant”. It obscures (and denies) the possibility for users of technologies that are not in the spotlight of the largest public’s attention to contribute to a social critique of dominant technologies, overlooking their political and subversive potential.\",\"PeriodicalId\":219999,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Internet Policy Rev.\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Internet Policy Rev.\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14763/2020.4.1517\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Internet Policy Rev.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14763/2020.4.1517","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
摘要
社交媒体这个词是有问题的。正如Papacharissi所说,“所有媒体都是社交的”,并且“邀请[他们]自己的社交形式”(2015:1)。作为一个类别,这个术语缺乏明确的边界。此外,使用“社交媒体”一词作为对一组数字通信设备进行分类的方式,可能被视为对之前存在的其他技术产物所培养的社会性的否定。它涉及到在数字媒体研究中已经变得司空见惯的周期化修辞,因为新颖性的概念在构建研究议程方面发挥了重要作用(Gitelman 2006;Park, Jankowski, and Jones, 2011)。提请注意最新的技术有助于将现有技术定性为“旧的”,即“过时的”和“不相关的”的贬义。它模糊(并否认)那些不受公众关注的技术的用户对主流技术的社会批判做出贡献的可能性,忽视了它们的政治和颠覆潜力。
The term social media is problematic. As Papacharissi puts it, “all media are social” and “invite [their] own form of sociality” (2015: 1). As a category, the term lacks a clear boundary. Further, using the phrase “social media” as a way to categorise a bound set of digital communication devices may be seen as a negation of the sociality fostered by other technological artifacts that existed prior to them. It pertains to the rhetoric of periodisation that has become commonplace in studies of digital media as the notion of newness has been instrumental in structuring the research agenda (Gitelman 2006; Park, Jankowski, and Jones 2011). Drawing attention to the most recent technologies contributes to framing already existing technologies as “old” in the derogatory sense of “obsolete” and “irrelevant”. It obscures (and denies) the possibility for users of technologies that are not in the spotlight of the largest public’s attention to contribute to a social critique of dominant technologies, overlooking their political and subversive potential.