We’re going on a Pokéhunt: The community behind Pokémon Go

 

ABSTRACT: With the advent of Internet-related technology and computer-mediated communication, the way that communities come together and interact with each other has changed radically. We now have infinite online mediums, used to chat, find support or make friends. The community surrounding the casual mobile game Pokémon Go is a great example of a community that comes together both online and offline. This paper will examine the ways in which the Pokémon Go community form a ‘third space’, both on and offline, and look at the civic, social and health opportunities that can arise from such a community.

KEYWORDS: Pokémon Go, casual mobile games, third space, computer-mediated communication, online community, online games, weak ties


Pokémon, of Nintendo fame, is a hugely influential franchise. With over 20 years of history including numerous video games on Nintendo’s many platforms, anime shows and movies, a popular trading card game and more, Pokémon is set in a modern fantasy world, filled with creatures that players can capture and train as they travel about the world. The Pokémon franchise has remained successful with the July 2016 release of Pokémon Go, a ‘location-based augmented reality game where players explore their actual surroundings to capture and evolve creatures in the real world (Niantic, Inc., 2016). Pokémon has always been designed with a community spirit in mind, be it through trading creatures or battling against another player. These elements of the original Pokémon games are present in Pokémon Go. Players can gather at areas frequented by Pokémon, battle gyms or complete raids together. Communication between players is mediated by platforms such as Facebook groups or Discord channels, and, as players become closer to each other, personal online chats and messaging. As Mims (2016) points out, the game is a ‘stealth social’ game – while not explicitly for bringing people together, it does so anyway as those playing it share ideas, tips and progress. This paper will argue that the Pokémon Go is a great example of both a virtual and physical ‘third place’, and that the game has the ability to move a virtual and online communities offline and into a physical setting. It will examine the definition of a third place and how it relates to both the community and the vehicle of the game itself, and how the game can help bring community together and provide civic, social and health opportunities. The game has the possibility to provide great community support and strength.

As a group that engages via computer-mediated communication (CMC), as well as offline and in ‘real life’, the Pokémon Go community can be seen as inhabiting a virtual ‘third space’. Sociologist Ray Oldenburg introduced the concept of the third space in 1999 as a way “to describe the public spaces used for informal social interaction outside of the home and workplace” (Soukup, 2006, p421). These include cafés, churches, parks, hair salons, libraries and clubs.

Oldenburg (1999) describes some key features of third places, which are as follows:

  1. They are on neutral ground;
  2. They are a leveler;
  3. Conversation is the main activity;
  4. They are accessible;
  5. They have ‘regulars’;
  6. They have a low profile;
  7. They are a home away from home; and
  8. The mood is playful.

It can be seen that most of these characteristics are represented within the CMC of the Pokémon Go community, as well as within the gameplay itself.

  1. Neutral ground
    Steinkuehler and Williams (2006, p890) identify games as being “neutral grounds in the sense that there is no default obligation to play”. Unless a player enters into a legal, financial or otherwise agreement (such as in e-sports, an activity not typically linked to casual games such as Pokémon Go) they can start up and quit the game, or leave the community space, as they please.
  2. Leveler
    As is the case in the vast majority of games, all players of Pokémon Go, regardless of social or financial status, previous Pokémon playing experience, start the game on an equal level. An initial player has no Pokémon, no in-game currency and they begin at level 1.
  3. Conversation
    Players talk to each other through such mediums as online grassroots network The Silph Road (Geraghty, 2017) as well as other platforms such as Facebook, Discord and Reddit. The entire purpose of these platforms is to share conversation with other users.
  4. Accessibility
    Virtual communities such as those mediated by Discord, Facebook or Reddit are perpetually accessible, given their online nature. They are accessible directly via one’s home, or on the go via a mobile device or laptop and Internet. The game itself is also playable at any time, and players can go geographically almost anywhere with it.
  5. Regulars
    Whilst the game was very popular when it initially came out, and has gained over 750 million downloads (Carter, 2017) in its first year, users began to report a lack of game content and buggy servers. Despite this, nearly two years later as Geraghty (2017) says, it has retained a ‘surprisingly loyal fanbase’ of about 60 million players. A lot of these players participate in forums such as The Silph Road, Reddit or local Facebook groups, and no doubt form a core group of ‘regulars’ that frequently enjoy playing the game with each other. 
  6. Low profile
    While Pokémon Go might have a bright, colourful and sometimes intense game design, and not fit the low profile criterion visually, the social function of its environment does. The social atmospheres are informal and without pretension, and are not mediated by any kind of official Pokémon organisation.
  7. Home away from home
    Trepte, Reinecke and Juechems (2011) report finding “online gaming may result in strong social ties, if gamers engage in online activities that continue beyond the game and extend these with offline activities”. This is definitely true of a game such as Pokémon Go, with its offline activities (such as hunting for Pokémon or battling gyms together) extending from the interactions that happen online (for example, planning such activities).
  8. Playful mood
    In his seminal text Homo Ludens, the Dutch theorist Huizinga (1955) defines play as “a free activity standing quite consciously outside ‘ordinary’ life as being ‘not serious,’ but at the same time absorbing the player intensely and utterly”. Pokémon Go and its communities fit neatly into this definition, with players discussing strategies, ideas and other relevant information within groups, whilst maintaining an understanding of friendliness and lightheartedness.

As demonstrated above, it can be seen that the Pokémon Go community’s computer-mediated communication can be classified as a third space. But what about its offline communication, and the way players come together when there is nothing virtual except the game itself, played on mobile devices? Sessions (2010, p376) defines a ‘meetup’ as “local, face-to-face gatherings of online community members”. This definition fits Pokémon Go communities well, as they are indeed local due to the geographic element of the game (and players in different suburbs or cities might organize their own personal meetups based on the geographic placement of its community members). Her study shed light on the social implications of virtual community meetups. She notes, “It should not be assumed that meetups are beneficial to the community … in these cases, such communities may lose the benefit of weak ties, and the exchange of resources with weak social ties may be sacrificed” (Sessions, 2010, p376). These weak ties are essential to such a community because they provide diversity to the players. In addition, Constant, Sproull & Kiesler (1996) found that weak ties are essential because information providers gave advice and solved the problems of information seekers, “despite their lack of a personal connection with the seekers”. This technical advice is reflective of the way that players most often interact in forums and groups online, seeking advice and ideas from other players such as where there is an abundance of a certain Pokémon, or if anyone else is experiencing a specific glitch in the game. However, Sessions (2010) goes on to suggest that ‘multiplex’ relationships – which are relationships that are maintained both online and offline – make attendees of such meetups engage more with the online community as a whole, and contributes to creating social capital. Additionally, Trepte, Reinecke and Juechems (2011) suggest “beneficial effects of online gaming on online social capital and offline social support are particularly likely the more users interact both in online and offline settings”. So, whilst not with abandon, players should (and do) continue to ‘meetup’ in offline settings, hunting for Pokémon and battling gyms together.

Pokémon Go also has an effect on the wider community. As Perry (2016) wrote for Business Insider, “The other night, I put down a lure module on a PokéStop (which lures more Pokémon to the stop) in the park across from my apartment. At 10 p.m., with a slight drizzle coming down, several people showed up within minutes.” This is representative of the type of community engagement and spirit that people were playing the game with. Kagi (2017) reported that a visitation to King’s Park, a popular park in Perth, Western Australia, improved 12.5% on the previous year and was the highest visitation on record. This was largely due to the Pokémon Go craze, and players flocked to concentrated areas after rare Pokémon became available in the area. This ‘offline’ use of a digital game reflects the strength of the in-game community.

It can also bring isolated people together, and bring them into the community. One such health phenomenon that Pokémon Go could address is that of the condition hikikomori, of Japan – a severe social withdrawal documented amongst teenagers and adults who experience fear, anxiety and a sense of refusal (Tateno, Park, Kato, Umene-Nakano & Saito, 2012). Individuals who experience hikikomori become recluses in their own homes or rooms. This is almost directly correlated with the availability of the Internet and a growing incidence of Internet addiction. However, with the release of Pokémon Go, there are reports of gamers becoming less sedentary and having improvements in depression and anxiety through physical activity (McCartney, 2016). Tateno et al. (2016) indicate that for some cases of hikikomori, Pokémon Go could provide a rehabilitation opportunity, and suggest placing PokéStops at hikikomori support centres to serve as an adjunct to other psychiatric interventions. This is just one example of how gamification of a community resource could provide advances in care.

There is an ever-increasing amount of discourse about whether or not video games have a positive or negative impact on people’s social lives. Pokémon Go is absolutely beneficial to players for health reasons, due to them getting outside and moving about while playing the game, but it is also beneficial for their social experience as well. As Kaczmarek et al. (2017) found in their study, “Pokémon Go also provides an opportunity for players to interact face-to-face with each other and socialize, which has emerged as a social factor that has been related to greater engagement in games”. The successful gamification of activity brought on by Pokémon Go has allowed people to join strong and welcoming communities they would not otherwise have known existed. Within the community everyone has at least one shared interest – their interest in Pokémon Go – and because of this their social capital is increased. Once social capital has been established amongst the virtual community, it then spills over into offline social capital, as members begin to meet up and play the game together. Gross, Katz and Rice (2003) state that the attributes of a virtual gaming community “have many advantages over physical communities, such as successfully breaking down boundaries of race, gender, ethnicity, and geographic location established in physical communities.” Players talk to each other from across the world as well as locally, creating communities virtually and then taking them offline. As Soukup (2006) states, “the virtual third place should feel like a place that is integrated seamlessly into the existing textures and details of our lived communal experiences.” The communication that occurs in the community spaces takes place in oft-used digital spaces such as social media, further cementing the game and its community as a third space.

References

Carter, C. (2017). Pokémon Go has made $1.2 billion to date, surpasses 750 million downloads. Retrieved from https://www.destructoid.com/pokemon-go-has-made-1-2-billion-to-date-surpasses-750-million-downloads-446609.phtml

Constant, D., Sproull, L. & Kiesler, S. (1996). The kindness of strangers: the usefulness of weak ties for technical advice. Organization Science, 7(2), 119-135.

Geraghty, L. (2017). Pokémon Go no longer has the hype of 2016, but a loyal fanbase remains. Retrieved from http://theconversation.com/pokemon-go-no-longer-has-the-hype-of-2016-but-a-loyal-fanbase-remains-80438

Gross, M., Katz, J., & Rice, R. (2003). Social Consequences of Internet Use: Access, Involvement, and Interaction. Contemporary Sociology, 32(6), 691.

Huizinga, J. (1955). Homo ludens; a study of the play-element in culture. Boston, USA: Beacon Press.

Kagi, J. (2017). Pokémon Go craze drives extra 790,000 visitors to Kings Park in Perth. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-16/spike-in-kings-park-visitor-numbers-after-pokemon-go-craze/8950482

Kaczmarek, L. D., Misiak, M., Behnke, M., Dziekan, M. & Guzik, P. (2017). The Pikachu effect: Social and health gaming motivations lead to greater benefits of Pokémon Go use. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 356-363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.05.031

McCartney, M. (2016). Margaret McCartney: Game on for Pokémon Go. BMJ, 354, 4306. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4306

Niantic, Inc. (2016). Explore! | Pokémon Go. Retrieved from http://www.pokemongo.com/en-au/explore/

Oldenburg, R. (1999). The Great Good Place: cafés, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons and other hangouts at the heart of a community. Cambridge, USA: Da Capo Press.

Perry, A. (2016). The 3 best things about ‘Pokémon GO’. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/the-3-best-things-about-pokemon-go-2016-7

Siegal, J. (2017). Four out of five ‘Pokémon Go’ users have quit. BGR. Retrieved from http://bgr.com/2017/04/03/pokemon-go-popularity-2016-users/

Soukup, C. (2006). Computer-mediated communication as a virtual third place: building Oldenburg’s great good places on the World Wide Web. New Media & Society, 8(3), 421-440. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444806061953

Steinkuehler, C. A. & Williams, D. (2006). Where Everybody Knows Your (Screen) Name: Online Games as ‘‘Third Places’’. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 885-909. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00300.x

Tateno, M., Park, T.W., Kato, T.A., Umene-Nakano, W., Saito, T. (2012). Hikikomori as a possible clinical term in psychiatry: a questionnaire survey. BMC Psychiatry, 12, 169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-12-169

Tateno, M., Skokauskas, N., Kato, T. A., Teo, A. R., Guererro, A. P. S. (2016). New game software (Pokémon Go) may help youth with severe social withdrawal, hikikomori. Psychiatry Research, 246, 848-849. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2016.10.038

Trepte, S., Reinecke, L. & Juechems, K. (2011). The social side of gaming: How playing online computer games creates online and offline social support. Computers in Human Behaviour, 28, 832-839. http://dx.doi.org/0.1016/j.chb.2011.12.003

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

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.