Sharing Content Online: the Effects of Likes and Comments on Linguistic Interpretation.

In Patrick Connolly, Sandy Goldberg & Jennifer Saul (eds.), Conversations Online. Oxford: Oxford University Press (forthcoming)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Bystander information is information about others’ attitudes towards a text (i.e. about whether they agree or disagree with it). Social media platforms force bystander information upon us when we read posts thereon. What effect does this have on how we respond to what we read? The dominant view in the literature is that it changes our minds (the so-called “bandwagon effect”). Simplifying a little: if we see that most people agree (disagree) with what a post says, we are more likely to agree (disagree) with what it says. This paper argues that we should take seriously a competitor view and care about the difference between it and the dominant view. The competitor view proposes that bystander information changes what a text seems to us to say: although bystander information may lead us to change what attitude we express toward a post, that’s not because we’ve changed our attitude toward any fixed content (i.e. fixed thing that the post says). This paper argues that, if this competitor view is correct, then social media is likely to be an especially hazardous place for the practice of sharing content.

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Sharing as speech act.Emanuele Arielli - 2018 - Versus 127:243-258.
Blockchain Framework for Social Media DRM Based on Secret Sharing.M. Kripa, A. Nidhin Mahesh, R. Ramaguru & P. P. Amritha - 2020 - International Conference on Information and Communication Technology for Intelligent Systems 195:451-458.
From Storytelling to Facebook.Alberto Acerbi - 2022 - Human Nature 33 (2):132-144.
Qualities of sharing and their transformations in the digital age.Andreas Wittel - 2011 - International Review of Information Ethics 15 (9):2011.

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-07-04

Downloads
190 (#104,194)

6 months
97 (#46,495)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Alex Davies
University of Tartu

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Echo chambers and epistemic bubbles.C. Thi Nguyen - 2020 - Episteme 17 (2):141-161.
How Twitter gamifies communication.C. Thi Nguyen - 2021 - In Jennifer Lackey (ed.), Applied Epistemology. Oxford University Press. pp. 410-436.
The dynamics of vagueness.Chris Barker - 2002 - Linguistics and Philosophy 25 (1):1-36.
Communicating in contextual ignorance.Alex Davies - 2021 - Synthese 199 (5-6):12385-12405.

View all 14 references / Add more references