A recent study led by Evelyn Murray at Aston University reveals a profound ambiguity in the public’s understanding of what constitutes “social media.” Despite the ubiquity of the term in academic, policy, and everyday discourse, there is no consensus on the platforms included under this umbrella, raising significant implications for regulation and research.
Social media is typically characterized as platforms enabling digital content sharing within a social context, featuring user-generated content, networking, and community building. Yet, as the digital landscape evolves, these definitions struggle to encompass the diverse range of platforms that blend social interaction with other functionalities. The research team engaged nearly 1,000 active social media users to assess their perspectives on which platforms qualify as social media, their views on social media’s benefits and harms, and alignment with common academic and policy definitions.
The findings highlight marked discrepancies: Instagram, Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), TikTok, and Snapchat were the most commonly recognized social media platforms. Intriguingly, other platforms that exhibit key social media features—such as Roblox, a gaming and avatar creation platform with extensive messaging capabilities, and Wikipedia, which enables collaborative user-generated content—were often excluded by the public from this category. This contrast underscores the complexity of applying a uniform label to heterogeneous platforms.
Murray’s study also illuminated public attitudes toward social media’s dual-edged nature. Contrary to polarized media narratives, participants acknowledged both positive and negative impacts. On the positive side, social media enhances accessibility, entertainment, information dissemination, and relationship maintenance. Conversely, users recognize social media’s addictive qualities, its role in misinformation propagation, sleep disruption, social comparison pressures, and cyberbullying risks.
This research spotlights the challenge policymakers face when crafting regulations based on an ill-defined concept. For instance, proposed social media bans targeting under-16 users could inadvertently encompass essential communication tools like WhatsApp, potentially hindering family interactions. The study advocates for nuanced definitions that reflect real-world platform usage to avoid overbroad or misguided policy measures.
By emphasizing the variation in public perception and the evolving nature of digital platforms, this work calls for more precision in academic and legislative language. Recognizing the heterogeneous composition of so-called social media is critical for developing targeted interventions that address genuine harms without stifling beneficial uses.
In summary, the study’s mixed-methods approach offers a crucial lens on the multifaceted identity of social media—a term that defies simplistic categorization. As digital technologies continue to evolve, so too must our frameworks for understanding and regulating them, grounded in empirical evidence and public realities.
Subject of Research: People
Article Title: Exploring Public Perceptions of Social Media: A Preregistered Mixed-Methods Study
News Publication Date: Not specified
Web References: https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000680
Keywords: Social media, Communications, Mass media, Social sciences, Psychological science, Social research
