Location’s Place in a Web 2.0 World

Featured image: Morrison, T. (2018, March 14). Incredible moment on social media — East coast schools are walking out, calling on Congress to act on gun violence. @Snapchat’s @SnapMap feature visualising this movement in the most amazing way… [Tweet]. Retrieved from:
https://twitter.com/THETonyMorrison/status/973937933353934849

Abstract

Spatial metaphors were initially drawn upon to help users navigate and understand a new online world with the conception of the Internet. This urbanisation of the digital space has continued to persevere throughout the rapid rise of Web 2.0, with the geotagging of online content, defined by Fendi et al., (2014) as “the process of adding geographical identification metadata”, becoming the new way in which users could integrate their understanding of location to visualise, classify and represent their experience online. Checking-in to a location on Facebook, pinning a location to a photograph posted on Instagram, applying a geofilter on Snapchat, etc. have now become normalised online behaviour to supplement content posted online. These various location-based affordances of Web 2.0 social networking platforms have helped to create this physical spatial substitute and in doing so, supporting the formation of group identities and practices of online communities. This paper specifically looks at Snap Map, Facebook Marketplace and augmented reality gaming app, Pokémon GO and how their integration of location have helped facilitate the way in which users experience a Web 2.0 online world, as well as the implications of sharing this information online.

Keywords

Online communities, Snapchat, Facebook, Pokémon GO, geotagging, location, participatory culture.

Introduction

The conception of the Internet introduced new uses of language and terminology to help users navigate and understand this new online world. One such way was to draw upon spatial metaphors in order to conceptualise their experience. Users navigated this cyberspace as web surfers of an information “superhighway”, creating traffic as they visited various “home” pages at web “addresses”. Aroya (2014) posits that these spatial metaphors became useful instruments to help foster a deeper understanding of this digital realm, with mapping seen as a convenient way in which to visualise, classify and represent this digital landscape. This urbanisation of the digital space has persevered throughout the rapid rise of Web 2.0, which allowed the user to take on a more active role in the production of online content. In particular, the geotagging of online content, defined by Fendi et al., (2014) as “the process of adding geographical identification metadata”, was utilised to integrate location online. As of 2016, data from the Pew Research Center has found that nine out of ten smartphone owners have now enabled location services on their personal devices, up from 74% in 2013 (Anderson, 2016). Once enabled, social networking applications are granted access to a user’s geographic location and able to use this data to generate a folksonomy of content. Upgrades to latest versions of social networking platforms have shifted towards placing more importance on geotagging to help facilitate the way in which social media users experience the online world. They have also helped to foster a sense of community within an interactive Web 2.0 world, by supplementing physical space on social networking platforms, allowing users to create more meaningful content by utilising these location-based features. This may include checking-in on Facebook, adding a location to a photograph on Instagram, or even using a geofilter on Snapchat. Geotagging and other location-based affordances of Web 2.0 social networking platforms create a physical spatial substitute, supporting the formation of group identities and practices of online communities.

This paper will initially look at the proliferation of Web 2.0 online communities, as well as the advent of the smartphone and integration of location-based services and how this has led to a shift in user behaviour towards location-based social networking. I then look at the examples of SnapMap on Snapchat, Facebook Marketplace and Pokémon GO, and how they have integrated geotagging and other location-based affordances to foster a sense of belonging and nurture interaction within these online communities.

Web 2.0 Online Communities

Similar in manner to Baudelaire’s concept of the flâneur (Baudelaire, 2010), user behaviour on the internet originated with individuals surfing various web pages to access and consume information in a sense as mostly a detached observer. This “cyberflâneur” as depicted by Goldate (1998) was initially theorised as a figure who was able to browse various online offerings without the need to contribute or interact. However, Web 2.0 was born out of a need for users to have increasingly autonomous and dynamic online experiences, and with this, a prevalence of communities began to surface and proliferate. Just as Benedict Anderson (1983) in Imagined Communities argued that print capitalism and an increase in access to resources written in the vernacular allowed imagined communities to form and feel a sense of belonging, so too were the formation of online communities on various Web 2.0 social networking platforms. The convergence of technology and asynchronous platforms that facilitate communication have allowed users a more interactive and meaningful online experience. They are now able to easily share content and broadcast their interests/ideas/musings, subsequently interacting and facilitating discussion with like-minded individuals.

Significantly, Aguiton and Cardon (2007) determined that individuals built their self-identity through the ‘continuous search for recognition in the eyes of others,’ and online communities (in place of Anderson’s imagined communities) were the platforms with which to facilitate this emergence of common discourses. Constant upgrades are made to social networking platforms, moving towards a more seamless integration of the online and offline world, with developments often reflective of user behaviour and trends. One such upgrade has been the shift towards incorporating location-based affordances that nurture interaction within online communities.

The Advent of the Smartphone & Location-Based Social Networking

The proliferation of personal devices, particularly the advent of the smartphone, was the catalyst towards a new form of location-based social networking. In early 2013, Facebook made an adjustment to its Application Programming Interface (API), which provided users with the option to enable location-sharing across third party applications (Wilken, 2014). This simplified the way users were able to include their location into a social media update or interaction, and soon, this became the norm in their online behaviour. Another Facebook upgrade in the early 2010s was the ability to incorporate hashtags, or personal tagging, which too became normalised social media behaviour and allowed users to tag, and thus categorise, their content. Users were also able to incorporate geotagging, which Kapko (2014) argues was a way to make mundane longitudes and latitudes meaningful when placed in context with various social media interactions. This convergence of location-based sharing and content tagging normalised user behaviour of creating content that incorporated location as a representation of physical space.

Online communities were also better able to integrate this location-based behaviour in their interactions with others. When users are geographically distanced, the real-time sharing of user location allows online communities to strengthen their sense of rapport as individuals are unified through their provision of their location. The online representation of their physical place in the offline world is a pivotal and personal component of user identity that other members of the community may identify with through their understanding of that physical place. Gruzd (2011) endorses this, in that users need to imagine that they – or others – belong to a community, and this includes the provision of that physical spatial substitute, through the sharing of their location. As with Anderson’s imagined communities, so too can online communities utilising social networking platforms forge a sense of belonging through their commonalities.

The Importance of Location on Snapchat

A social networking platform that is heavily reliant on integrating this location-based online behaviour is Snapchat. Launched in 2011, the social networking platform is comparatively different to alternative social networking platforms. Social networking sites (SNS) have been typically defined by Elison and Boyd (2007) as web-based services that allow individuals to create a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system. Snapchat differs in that it is a smartphone-based application where users are able to share content (privately, or publicly via their stories) in place of a profile, and is only accessible to viewers for a limited time period. Users are unable to leave a long-term record of the content they have generated or a digital footprint, characteristic of other SNS’. Additionally, Kapko (2016) has found that Snapchat elevates the importance of location-based social networking and places it at the forefront of the user experience on the platform. The locations where interactions take place increasingly become an integral part of the social media dialogue (Bernabo-Moreno et al., 2018). This is particularly pertinent for Snapchat, where content is shared sporadically and spontaneously, therefore the inclusion of location supplements that content. Bernabo-Moreno et al. (2018) also believe that geotagging used in this context places further significance and emotional impact on an event, based on the social media user-generated content attached to a location.

Furthermore, an upgrade to Snapchat in 2017 introduced Snap Map, a new feature which allowed users to share their location (and subsequent content) in real-time on a world map available for those that had this feature enabled to view, intending to assist users and facilitate engagement in the offline world. On March 14 2018, Snap Map went viral due to the merging of its functionality with online community engagement when the map was used as a way for high school students to protest school shootings, uniting as a community through the provision of their location online. By marking their place on the Snap Map, they were displaying their stance on opposing gun violence (See Figure 1 and Figure 2). The location-based geotagging as an online representation of their physical location on Snapchat thus provided this online community with a way to form a strong sense of unity and belonging.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Online Communities & Facebook Marketplace

The introduction of the Facebook Marketplace is another example of a Web 2.0 platform that has utilised location-based social networking as a way to facilitate local community engagement. Introduced in 2016, the feature is a hub for users to sell, trade and barter in the same sense as they would in a traditional marketplace in the offline world. Anyone with a Facebook account is able to list various items online, similar in a sense to classified advertisements, and these are listed for other users based on their proximity to the seller. If a user has shared their location and is within close proximity to the seller, their item is likely to be listed higher and individuals can then facilitate a conversation to discuss the transaction further, or exchange an item for a fee. This type of private trading initially began within various Facebook groups, with local communities who were already connected with one another able to facilitate these forms of exchanges (Ku, 2016). By incorporating the figurative traditional marketplace with Facebook’s location-based functionality, this feature may also be interpreted as an extension of offline local communities, as represented online. As with the Snap Map feature on Snapchat, it may also be regarded as first and foremost a proponent that helps to leverage the facilitation of real-time engagement. Kellerman (2016) argues that the only communication medium that rivals the ‘topological flexibility of computer networks’ is place itself, placing precedence on interaction within the real world. Yet these forms of socio-spatial online formations allow verified users to safely interact with others online, before facilitating offline engagement, and continue to strengthen their sense of community. Therefore, it remains pivotal for such developments and upgrades to social networking platforms to continue to prioritise the offline world.

Pokémon GO & the Implications of Location Sharing

Despite the benefits location-based social networking platforms have provided for the formation and sense of belonging within online communities, it is important to consider the implications that may occur as a result of sharing this personal information. There have been privacy concerns raised due to users openly sharing their location and the normality that has been placed on this form of interaction. One such example of this is when the augmented reality game Pokémon GO, was launched in 2016. Pokémon GO incorporates geospatial mapping as part of the gameplay and relies heavily on players sharing their location to progress in the game and proceed throughout the different stages. Players of the game were able to participate in Community Days, where they were able to meet with other players within their local community, as determined by their location-enabled devices, to play a ‘bonus game,’ and for a limited time period, partake in an entirely new experience of the game. The rapid success of the game meant that multitudes of players were knowingly trespassing into private property and causing nuisance in order to progress in the game, with disregard for those that owned or maintained the property (Shum, 2017). As Arora (2014) argues, users exercise cognitive mapping strategies to navigate their virtual environment in the same manner in which they approach real spaces. Although these location-based affordances allow users to integrate the offline and online world, they are not a form of permission to trespass or interfere with private property, just as sharing location on another social networking platform does not provide permission for users to trespass into that offline location. It is this boundary between the two worlds that needs to be closely examined even more so as our personal devices continually upgrade to include new functionality that integrates our location in the offline world with our interactions and behaviours online.

Conclusion

As Web 2.0 social networking platforms continue to develop, we will continually witness advancements in the integration of location-based functionality. As Arora (2017) argues, space has become even more important in reconfiguring and expanding our notions of social practice, both online and offline. No longer will the cyberflâneur web surfer simply be riding the online virtual waves, but will instead be actively seeking out dynamic and interactive rich-content in their experience and interaction online. As geotagging and location-based affordances continue to take their pivotal place in the Web 2.0 online experience, meaningful location functionality should be considered so as to help foster the sense of belonging that takes place within online communities. Users must also remain conscious of their behaviour online as they share their current location using their personal devices and consider the implications doing so may have in terms of privacy and data-sharing. Arora (2014) deems the digital realm as intimate, yet distant. The physical spatial substitute that location-based services provide will continue to allow users to feel a sense of belonging and support the formation of group identities. It will also allow them to continue to have meaningful interactions within their online communities. Web 2.0 will continue to prioritise the autonomous online experience of users and thus feel they are able to share content, including the provision of location via these location-based services. Future imaginings of how this will continue to shift are endless, particularly as technology moves towards the proliferation of wearable devices, as well as facial and fingerprint recognition on our smartphones. Location continues to have an important part in the way we experience the ever-changing technological landscape; as Wilken (2014) surmises, ‘life happens in real time and so should sharing’.

References

Aguiton, C., & Cardon, D. (2007). The Strength of Weak Cooperation: An Attempt to Understand the Meaning of Web 2.0. Communications & Strategies, 65(1).  Retrieved from:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1009070 

Alter, C. (2018, March 14). Student walkouts are basically the only events showing up on Snapchat Map right now #nationalschoolwalkoutday [Tweet]. Retrieved from:
https://twitter.com/CharlotteAlter/status/973974952994013184 

Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined Communities. Reflection on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.

Anderson, M. (2016, January 29). More Americans using smartphones for getting directions, streaming TV. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/01/29/us-smartphone-use/

Arora, P. (2014). Metaphor as Method: Conceptualizing the Internet through Spatial Metaphors. In The Leisure Commons, A Spatial History of Web 2.0. London: Routledge. (pp. 33-51). Retrieved from:
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/curtin/reader.action?docID=1721046&ppg=33&query= 

Baudelaire, C. (2010). The Painter of Modern Life. London: Penguin Books.

Bernabé-Moreno, J, Tejeda-Lorente, A. Porcel, C. Fujita, H. Herrera-Viedma, E. (2018). Quantifying the emotional impact of events on locations with social media. Knowledge-Based Systems, 146, 44-57.
https://doi-org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.1016/j.knosys.2018.01.029 

Elison, N.B and Boyd, D. (2013). Sociality through Social Network Sites. In W.H Dutton (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Internet Studies (pp. 151-172). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fendi, K., Adam, S., Kokkas, N. and Smith, M. (2014). An Approach to Produce a GIS Database for Road Surface Monitoring. APCBEE Procedia, 9, 235-240.

Goldate, S. (1998, May 19). The Cyberflâneur – Space and Places on the Internet. Ceramics Today. Retrieved from:
http://www.ceramicstoday.com/articles/051998.htm 

Gruzd, A. Wellman, B. and Takhteyev, Y. (2011). Imagining Twitter as an Imagined Community. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(10), 1294 – 1318. Retrieved from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002764211409378 

Kapko, M. (2016, April 28). How Snapchat paves the way for future of location marketing. CIO. Retrieved from: https://www.cio.com/article/3062600/marketing/how-snapchat-paves-the-way-for-future-of-location-marketing.html   

Kellerman, A. (2016). The Internet as Space. In Geographic Interpretations of the Internet (pp. 21-33). Retrieved from:
https://link-springer-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/book/10.1007%2F978-3-319-33804-0   

Ku, M. (2016, October 3). Introducing Marketplace: Buy and Sell With Your Local Community. Facebook Newsroom. Retrieved from:
https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2016/10/introducing-marketplace-buy-and-sell-with-your-local-community/ 

Morrison, T. (2018, March 14). Incredible moment on social media — East coast schools are walking out, calling on Congress to act on gun violence. @Snapchat’s @SnapMap feature visualising this movement in the most amazing way… [Tweet]. Retrieved from:
https://twitter.com/THETonyMorrison/status/973937933353934849 

Shum, A., Tranter, K. (2017). Seeing, Moving, Catching, Accumulating: Pokémon GO and the Legal Subject. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law. 30(3), 477-493. Retrieved from:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11196-017-9519-8
 

Wilken, R. (2014). Places nearby: Facebook as a location-based social media platform. New Media & Society. 16(7), 1087-1103. Retrieved from:
http://journals.sagepub.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/doi/abs/10.1177/1461444814543997 


Download Conference Paper as PDF

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Subconsciously Absorbing Information Via Snapchat

Snapchats Success in Facilitating and Maintaining

Ambient Awareness in Users

Jenelle Miles

Curtin University

Abstract

The social media application Snapchat facilitates ambient awareness and actively maintains it in several aspect of the app. Facebook’s position as the leading social network for ambient awareness information has declined and Snapchat is now the main facilitator and maintainer on any social networking platform. This paper explains how Snapchat engrains features in its application to actively maintain ambient awareness, such as; best friends, streaks, filters, stories and Snap Map. The paper will argue these features are vital in the applications success in creating a forum that relies purely on users being interested in the ambient information they receive from other users.

Keywords: Snapchat, ambient awareness, weak ties, strong ties

Introduction 
Many academic articles associate ambient awareness with the social networking site Facebook (Levordashka & Utz, 2016). This paper aims to prove the use of Facebook as a social networking site has changed to one where people are consciously aware of their audience and post less mundane information of their day. Ambient awareness still exists heavily in social media, however the application Snapchat is now the main facilitator and maintainer of this information. Snapchat has introduced many features to promote daily usage of the application and contact between users. The application uses these features to create a sense of community between the users who are connected within the network (Ahmed, 2016) and encourages users to uphold strong ties and heightens the possibility of strengthening weak ties (Kramer, et al. 2014).

 

Discussion

Ambient Awareness is a term associated with the psychology behind social networking sites. Ana Levordashka and Sonja Utz define it as “the awareness social media users develop of their online network in result of being constantly exposed to social information(Levordashka & Utz, 2016, p. 147). This awareness of users online posts slowly works to create a strong connection between the user and their online friends. The term online friend is general because friendship is used on social media sites as a way to classify people users are connected to online. Online friendships represent a “binary, static, and symmetric relationship of equal value between all the directly connected users, which provide only a coarse indication of the nature of the relationship” (Ahmed, 2016, p. 496). This relationship or online friendship can grow stronger if each friend chooses to interact with each other online on a regular basis. A 2008 article in The New York Times highlighted the creation of ambient awareness through Facebook posts, in which small uninformative posts by Facebook friends are often “insignificant on its own, even supremely mundane” (Thompson, 2008, pp. 16). But taken together over time the small unimportant information works together to create an informative set of details about a users life (Thompson, 2008, pp. 16). Thomson writes that ambient awareness was not possible before social media and the way “updates are all visible on a single page in a big row” (Thompson, 2008, pp. 16, 23) means updates aren’t necessarily directed at each individual that is friends with said poster on social media, however each online friend will see the update and mentally catalogue it, whether they consciously realise they are doing it. Thompsons’ article introduced ambient awareness, however its argument that Facebook is the main site for the consumption of ambient information has severely changed since 2008. The concept of ambient awareness is kept alive through social media and the online communities it creates. Online communities are the basis of social networking sites and “require a technological infrastructure with tools and applications to enable user interaction and communication” (Wang, et. al, 2012, p. 782). To uphold online communities users maintain a sense of membership and influence with integration and fulfilment of needs and a shared emotional connection with other users of the same online platform (Blanchard & Markus, 2002, p. 2). Creating ambient awareness while using a social media site works to create a sense of community. It encourages people to share information on a particular platform.

Snapchat is a particular social media platform that relies on ambient awareness existing between users, which create a sense of online community between users of the social media application and the use of the platform itself.
Snapchat is a social media network created in 2011 (Vaterlaus, et al. 2016, p. 595) its existence relies on facilitating and maintaining ambient awareness. Unlike Facebook where posts stay on the site unless users actively delete them, Snapchat users can share snaps (i.e., pictures and short videos that can include text and drawings) with friends that ‘disappear—forever—in a matter of seconds” (Vaterlaus, et al. 2016, p. 595) where “the sender can determine how long the viewer can view the Snap” (Vaterlaus, et al. 2016, p. 595). The application encourages these pictures to be of users everyday activities and mundane tasks and relies on creating ambient awareness between friends. The 187 million users daily (Aslam, 2018)is proof of the platforms popularity. Users can take visuals of what they are currently doing and can add ‘creative tools’ to the image as a way to add supplementary information in which viewers can soak up. These tools include the current weather, location and stickers to convey mood. Each tool appears mundane but can provide adequate information to the photo. Unless a screenshot is taken of a ‘snap’ pictures, messages and videos sent between friends will not be permanently saved and this is a large part of what keeps ambient awareness and therefor Snapchat alive. The applications ability to let users choose who to send data to “has been conceptualized as a more private form of communication and is an escape from the public one-to-many communication that is the default on Facebook” (Vaterlaus, et al. 2016, p. 595). This may encourage users to share mundane images that others may enjoy as they are aware it is not permanent or available for thousands of online friends to view and is likely it will not impact on their personal or professional life.  Snapchat encourages one-to-one conversation between friends because there is less pressure to ensure users are representing themselves in the same way they would do so on Facebook or Twitter where posts reach a larger audience of online friends. Protecting ones reputation online is important even for low profile issues, such as a woman who used Facebook “to make fun of ugly scarves sold in the gift shop she worked in” (Mortiz, 2017, pp. 1). Many tweets that do not align with company values can result in a user being fired from their job due to social media use. Snapchat acts as a ‘safer’ social media platform, where users know their photos and opinions will almost only be shared with a select group of friends of their choosing and not on a Facebook feed.

 

Snapchats popularity as a highly personalised social media application enhances its ability to maintain a strong level of ambient awareness between users and the photos they share. Users may be more likely to share information about their daily life if they know they are only sharing information with a select group and not appearing on a newsfeed style network like Facebook. Snapchat encourages sharing between certain friends by labelling users who connect with each other on the application as ‘friends’ and ‘best friends’ emojis are placed next to each friends name to rank the strength of their Snapchat ‘friendship’ based on how often two people communicate with each other using the application. Users can have up to eight Best Friends, and they’re featured front-and-centre on the ‘Send To’ screen” (Snapchat, 2018, pp. 1) this automatically prompts people to continue an online relationship with the same few users, maintaining the connection and promoting ambient awareness. This division of ‘friends’ and ‘best friends’ creates strong and weak ties between users of the application. Snapchat ‘friends’ can be categorised as weak ties as they provide informational support but are often colleagues or acquaintances (Kramer, et al. 2014, pp. 1), whereas the ‘best friends’ category on Snapchat can be a source of strong ties that provide “both emotional and informational support” (Kramer, et al. 2014, pp. 1) between the users. A study on Snapchat behaviours in 2016 found “research indicates that young adults are motivated to use snap chat and stay connected with family and friends” (Vaterlaus, et al. 2016, p. 596) the ‘best friends’ feature of the app promotes this connection, which maintains online connections and ambient awareness. Ambient awareness is only able to exist when a user is viewing updates, posts or photos from another user on a regular basis, Snapchat ensures ambient awareness is coexistent within the application with ‘streaks’. Snapchats website defines streaks as when two users have Snapped each other within 24 hours for more than three consecutive days”(Snapchat, 2018, pp. 2) as each twenty four hour period passes the number between two people consecutively snapping increases, with the aim to continue the streak. A theme found in the study saw Snapchat is used “to enhance the connection in existing relationships” (Vaterlaus, et al. 2016, p. 598) and streaks are used to do this with the number acting as literal relationship tally. Streaks are a clear promoter of ambient awareness and means at least once a day, everyday for as long as the user is committed to the streak they are receiving a piece of information about a person. This not only promotes ambient awareness but can also encourage online connections even between weak ties. Snapchats ‘stories’ feature allows for ambient awareness to develop between weak ties. “A Story is a collection of Snaps that play in the order they were taken. You and your friends’ Stories cover the last 24 hours, so you can see the day unfold” (Snapchat, 2018, pp.1) this is useful in maintaining ambient awareness between users because even through they may not have sent a direct photo, they can upload a photo to their story for all of their Snapchat friends to see in the twenty four hour period. This story setting acts almost as a newsfeed and means if two people don’t directly Snapchat but view each other’s posts on their story they are still creating ambient awareness between each other. Stories are enablers of online relationships and turning weak ties into strong ties as people can directly reply to a story and if Snapchats are consistent between the two users a streak can begin and daily intake of ambient awareness about each other will occur. When a user uploads a story the option to upload it to our story exists, which enables people from all over the world to see the story they uploaded from their specific region, and if a user is regularly watching ‘our stories’ on a specific part of the world they are gaining information about the culture without consciously realising so.

 

The applications use of ‘my stories’ encourages ambient awareness on a global scale, particularly when it introduced geofilters such as Snap Map.  Snap Map allows users to share their location with one another (Snapchat, 2018, pp. 1). Users have the option of making their location public on Snap Maps, they will appear at the exact street and location they are when active on the app and can choose wether to be seen to all of their Snapchat friends, a select few or none at all. This personal use of Snap Maps actually encourages ambient awareness. Users being able to view where others are during the day is essentially useless information, but over time someone can start to learn daily movements of a friend. As The New York Times article mentioned, ambient awareness was originally coined by how people used Facebook, Facebook is now deemed as too public for users to be constantly posting about their day. Because of this change in sharing, Snapchat is able to facilitate ambient awareness at a private level, as users perceive the app as “reserved for private conversation, rather than a large social network” (Vaterlaus, et al. 2016, p. 600) and they may feel more comfortable sharing their location on a social media application with a slightly smaller online friends base than on a network with a wider audience. Geo filters and submissions to Our Story means users can see what is happening across the world and can create a connection with places they have never physically visited. Users are able to view “sporting events, celebrations, breaking news, and more” (Snapchat, 2018, pp. 1) from their phones, this can be “useful for publishers who often compile reaction lists or for journalists who get a feel for a scene by looking at Snap Maps” (Carman, 2018, pp.4). Snap Maps creates ambient awareness of events and the cultures of different places. It also works to create an ambient awareness connection between users and celebrities via its ‘discover’ section, where users can “keep up to date with breaking news, the big game or your favourite celebs” (Snapchat, 2018, pp1). As prominent figures post content to their stories users can learn more about the figure and a connection is formed because of ambient awareness, even if what he celebrity is doing is mundane, users are still taking in information about them. Author Amanda McClain argues that “social media permits an ostensible link between celebrities and audience members” (McClain, 2013, p. 67) this link creates weak ties between celebrity and user. In one twenty four hour period, the American celebrity Kourtney Kardashian posted a video of her cooking breakfast and two pictures of herself with her children, the weak tie is exists because the user is viewing her posts and ambient awareness is created because they are taking in basic information about her daily life, however the “relationships between celebrities and audience members do not truly exist” (McClain, 2013, p. 67) because the viewing of mundane content, is only a one way relationship. Viewers may forge a connection with the celebrity, however this type of ambient awareness cannot create strong ties as information is only being received one way between the two Snapchat users.

Counter arguments

Arguments to the paper may include the understanding that all types of social media networks allow for the consumption of ambient awareness and there are many other social networking applications that do facilitate and maintain ambient awareness. A 2018 research study estimated “Facebook will lose 2 million users under 25 this year” (Guynn, 2018)and Snapchat will “add 1.9 million users”(Guynn, 2018) in the same age group. This research indicates ambient awareness is maintained in Snapchat because of people in younger age groups, however ambient awareness may still exist heavily on Facebook only with older Internet users facilitating the information.

Conclusion

Snapchats’ introduction of different features into the application such as ‘best friends’ streaks and My Story, encourages users to participate and be daily active users of the application. The point of the network is to create a sense of ambient awareness; weak ties do exist within the application and have the ability to be shaped into strong ties (except in the case of celebrities). Taking in information about others on a regular basis is the definition of ambient awareness and users appear to prefer Snapchat to larger social networking sites such as Facebook because their posts are broadcast on a private level and this actually increases the level of ambient information a user is willing to send and receive. Snapchat appears to be the main contributor to the production and consumption of ambient awareness across all social networking sites

 References

Ahmed , J. (2016).A Semantic Model for Friend Segregation in Online Social Networks. Web Engineering, 16, 495-500. Retrieved from https://link-springer-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-38791-8_36

 

Aslam, S. (2018). Snapchat by the numbers: Stats, Demographics & Fun Facts. Retrieved from https://www.omnicoreagency.com/snapchat-statistics/

 

Blanchard, A., & Markus L. (2002). Sense of Virtual Community- Maintaining The Experience of Belonging. Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Retrieved from https://ieeexplore-ieee-org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=994449&tag=1

 

Carman, A. (2018). You can now watch Snap Maps on the web. Retrieved from https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/12/17003486/snapchat-maps-online-snap-maps

 

Guynn, J. (2018). Snapchat snapping up young users fleeing Facebook. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/2001302697/fulltext/FBD94AC24C354978PQ/1?accountid=10382

 

Kramer, N., & Rosner, L., & Eimler, S., & Winter, S., & Neubaum, G. (2014). Let the Weakest Link Go! Empirical Explorations on the Relative Importance of Weak and Strong Ties on Social Networking Sites. Socities,4, 785-809.  doi:10.3390/soc4040785

 

 

Levordaska, A., & Utz, S. (2016). Ambient Awareness: From random noise to digital closeness in online social networks. Computers in Human Behaviour, 60, 147-154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.037

 

McClain, A. (2013). Keeping Up the Kardashian Brand: Celebrity, Materialism andSexuality. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/curtin/reader.action?docID=1524038&ppg=66

 

Moritz, K. (2017). These Social Media Posts Can Get You Fired. Retrieved from https://www.rewire.org/work/social-media-fired/

 

Snapchat. (2018). About Snap Map. Retrieved from https://support.snapchat.com/en-US/article/snap-map-about

 

Snapchat. (2018).Best friends. Retrieved from https://support.snapchat.com/en-US/a/best-friends

 

Snapchat. (2018). Discover. Retrieved from https://support.snapchat.com/en-US/a/discover

 

Snapchat. (2018). Snapstreaks. Retrieved from https://support.snapchat.com/en-US/a/snapstreaks

 

Snapchat. (2018). About Stories. Retrieved from https://support.snapchat.com/en-US/a/about-stories

 

Thompson, C. (2008). Brave New World of Digital Intimacy. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/magazine/07awareness-t.html?_r=1

 

Vaterlaus, J., & Barnett, K., & Roche, C., & Young, J. (2016). “Snapchat is more personal”: An exploratory study on Snapchat behaviours and young adult interpersonal relationships. Computers in Human Behaviour, 62, 594-601. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.029

 

Wang, H., & Chung, J., & Park, N., & McLaughlin, M.. & Fulk, J. (2012). Understanding Online Community Participation: A Technology Acceptance Perspective. Communication Research, 39, 781-801. DOI: 10.1177/0093650211408593