This document discusses several theories related to understanding the impact of digital technologies on society: 1. It introduces the concepts of technological determinism and technological constructivism, which see technology respectively as an autonomous force shaping society or as tools that can be used for good or bad depending on how people use them. 2. It then discusses early views on the internet's impact, including fears it would make people numb or divide society, as well as optimism it could connect people and empower social movements. 3. Several frameworks for analyzing digital technologies and their social implications are presented, including extending theories from Marx, Foucault, and Goffman to the digital context, as well as new emerging theories like networked

1. Week 2 – Socio-
Digital Theories;
Explaining the
Impact of the Digital

2. Quick Note on
Participation

3. Technological Determinism
 Technological Determinism is the view that technology (e.g., railroad, electricity, or
digital media) is the crucial driver of history and of social change.
 Regards ALL social, cultural, economic, and political as being caused by
technological change.
 Technology = autonomous force that shapes society around it
• E.g., Assembly Line
• E.g., Internet
• Internet Centrism –belief that the internet (its reach, interactivity, uncontrollability)
would change the world, especially in obtaining knowledge and establishing networks or
social connections
• Ignores the importance of other technologies in changing the world –e.g., telephone,
television, steam engine, etc.

4. Technology as Tools
• Countering technological determinism is the
view that technologies are merely tools rather
than agents.
• Tools can be used for good or bad purposes
– it is not the tool that determines social,
culture, economy, or politics but the
people who use them and how they use
them.
• Society in general shapes the internet
more than the other way around (Curran
2012a)
• E.g., Dot Com Bubble and Burst

6. Internet’s
Impact on
Society –
Early Views
 Scholars feared that people would become slaves to technology and
digital solutions
 Feared that people would see technological progress as the same as
human progress
 Technology creates one-sided focus on efficiency and economic
advancement at the cost of moral, ethical and environmental
considerations
 E.g., Pipeline developments
 Digital media has has negative implications
1. It creates too much information (garbage in, garbage out), that
people will not be able to process
2. Will most likely be (mis)used for abusive purposes (e.g.,
cyberbullying, stalking and enhanced surveillance/control);
3. Society will become more fragmented and polarised (e.g., SM does
not actually empower people. Weakens and divides us – Freedom
Convoy, vaccinations, COVID-19, MeToo, Johnny Depp vs. Amber
Heard etc.)
4. Only makes us lonelier. What connections we make online might
merely be illusions of any real companionship.
Digital
Pessimists

7. Do Digital
Technologies Make Us
Numb?

8. Internet’s
Impact on
Society –
Early
Views
 The advancement of technology will make the world a
fantastic place full of collaboration, connection and
empowerment
 Negroponte (1995: 227) - “every technology or gift of science
has a dark side” - Did not see this as a bad thing because there
are more positives,
 Digital media are effective tools for liberation,
empowerment, self-actualisation, and participation.
 When events or disasters happen today, we learn about it first
through digital media.
 E.g., metoo movement, early signs of COVID in Whuan,
China; Vaccine development, etc.
 Wael Ghonim on the Egyptian revolution in 2011 “if you want
to liberate a society, just give them the internet. If you want to
have a free society, just give them the internet. (CNN 2011)”
Digital
Optimists

9. Do always-on gadgets
and social media
disconnect people
from true
togetherness?
In what ways is social
life extended or
enriched by SM and
digital tools? In what
ways do we miss out?

10. Theorizing
the
Internet
and Digital

11. Extending Social Theories
• Cons – “Disposable Theory” by Manual Castells: Argues that we need
to discard theories once it has outlived its usefulness in illuminating
the social world – we need a pragmatic use of theory not dogmatic
• Should be continue to use grand theories invented 200 years ago
before we could ever even conceive a digital world?
• Pros – Ideas in some grand social theories can be applied or
appropriated to the digital context. Often digital context is an
extension of other social contexts.

12. Digital Marxist Theory
 Adaptation of Marxist concepts and concerns to understanding digital
society/social life.
 For example; we can frame mega corporations like Facebook as capitalist
organizations and digital relations between platform companies and SM users
embody the digital economy.
 These reworkings of Marxist theory help explain key conflicts and tensions in
digital society.
 Some commentators see digital technology as a site of exploitation and social
control

14. Digital
Foucauldian
Theory
 Digital sociologist have extended Foucault’s theories on
government and disciplinary power to explore the
surveillant characteristics of digital technologies
 E.g., Foucault’s (prison + school) panopticon regards
separating the crowd into a collection of individuals
lives that can be carefully monitored and
categorized. The awareness that any individual may
be watched continuously creates self-regulation.
 Other scholars extend Foucault’s agentic uses of digital
technologies – people make choices to wear surveillant
technology (smartphone, Fitbit, apple watch) – engaging
in participatory surveillance
 WHY?
 Extension – rather than architecture as dictating the
forms of surveillance (e.g., dome panopticon), the digital
age relies on infrastructural forms of surveillance that
are networked and remote, watching over data entities
rather than physical bodies)

16. Digital Symbolic Interactionalism
Erving Goffman’s Presentation of Self in everyday life can be
used to understand social media and identity:
• Presentation of Self = the conscious or unconscious process
through which people try to control the impressions other
people form of them. The goal is for one to present
themselves the way in which they would like to be thought
of by the individual or group they are interacting with
• Impression Management = a conscious
or subconscious process in which people attempt to
influence the perceptions of other people about a person,
object or event by regulating and controlling information
in social interaction
• Front stage – Fixed presentation where the actor knows
they are being watched. The actor formally performs and
adheres to conventions that have meaning to the audience
(e.g., behaviour at a funeral).
• Back stage - Actions are not to please anyone but the self.
Where actors can step out of character
Bourdieu’s concepts have also been extended such as:
• Field - Social world as being divided up into a variety of
distinct arenas or “fields” of practice like art, education,
religion, law to online field
• Social Capital – the ability for people to exert power on the
group or individuals. Depending on the field in which it
functions, capital can present itself in three fundamental
guises: economic, social, cultural and now, digital

17. Ging (2019)
– Theorizing
Masculinities
online

18. The Impact of the Internet on Society
Castells (2014)
10

19. Emerging Digital
Theories
• New theories are being created to help
us make sense of the digital world and
all its implications.
• Some theories include:
• Network Publics
• Affordances Framework
• Uses and Gratifications Theory

20. SNS as
Networked
Publics
• Developed by Danah boyd in 2010.
• Defines digital spaces as networked publics –
• Networked publics are publics that are
restructured by networked technologies. As
such, they are simultaneously (1) the space
constructed through networked technologies
and (2) the imagined collective that emerges as
a result of the intersection of people, technology,
and practice (boyd, 2010: 1).

21. Networked Publics and
their Uses (boyd, 2010)
• What makes Networked Publics unique from Offline (Physical)
Publics?
• The way networked publics are structured shape distinct
affordances that shape how people engage on them
• SNS serve many functions, just like regular publics BUT the
way technologies structure them introduces distinct
affordances that shape how people engage
• Introduce new possibilities for interaction
• New dynamics emerge that shape participation
• Networked publics’ affordances do not dictate participant
behaviours, but they do configure digital environments in ways
that shape participant engagement

22. Let’s Examine this
Further
• What kind of SM is
Instagram,
Facebook, TikTok,
LinkedIn, Etsy,
Reddit, Twitter?
• Who primarily uses
these SM?
• What features of
these SNS serve
these specific
functions?

23. What Makes
SNS
Networked
Publics?
(boyd, 2010)
• Features and capabilities vary across SNS and
provide different public and private
communication channels
• boyd focuses on four types of features that play
a salient role in constructing SNS as networked
publics
1. Profiles
2. Friends lists
3. Public commenting tools
4. Stream-based updates
 All in all, SNS are publics because of the ways they
provide interaction and information

24. The Affordances of
Networked Technologies
(boyd, 2010)
• boyd identifies four affordances
that play a significant role in
configuring networked publics:
1. Persistence
2. Replicability
3. Scalability
4. Searchability

25. Impact of Interpersonal Dynamics
on Networked Publics
boyd (2010)
• Three dynamics play a central
role in shaping networked
publics:
1. Invisible audiences
2. Collapsed contexts
3. Blurring of public and
private
• Changes brought by networked
technologies are more pervasive
than offline publics - Online does
not have the same restrictions as
physical spaces

26. As social network sites and other
genres of social media become
increasingly widespread, the
distinctions between networked
publics and publics will become
increasingly blurry. Thus, the
dynamics mapped out here will not
simply be constrained to the
domain of the digital world, but
will be part of everyday life… In
essence, people are learning to
work within the constraints and
possibilities of mediated
architecture, just as people have
always learned to navigate
structures as part of their daily
lives
(boyd, 2010: 15-16).

28. The Affordances of Social Media Platforms
Bucher & Helmond (2017)
• Features = “are ‘communicational actors’ in the sense that they ‘produce
meanings and meaningfulness’” (p. 234)
• What they afford differs
• Assign a variety of other possibilities and interpretations
• Affordances = multivalent concept; used to describe what material
artifacts allow people to do
• No single way communication scholars come to understand concept
of affordances
1. Affordances as relational property
2. Perceived affordances
3. Technology affordances
4. Social affordances
5. Communicative affordances

29. The Affordances of Social Media
Platforms
Bucher & Helmond (2017)
• Features = are communicational tools that produce meanings and meaningfulness
(e.g., like button, share button, comments, etc.)
• What they implicate (afford) differs
• Can also indicate a variety of other possibilities and interpretations
• Affordances = multivalent concept; used to describe what material artifacts allow
people to do.
1. Affordances as relational property
2. Perceived affordances
3. Technology affordances
4. Social affordances
5. Communicative affordances

30. Affordances
as
Relational
Property
• First used by Gibson – originally referenced
specific kind of relationship between an animal
and the environment
• Affordances then understood as a relational
property to understand the ways different species
inhabit their surroundings (the possibilities for
action surrounding environment provides)
• E.g., Fire provides warmth, light, necessary for
cooking. It can also cause injury – what fire
affords depends on its relation to a specific
individual
• Affordances are invariant – they do not change –
what changes is how people may or may not
perceive the affordances offered (e.g., some see
lemons, others see lemonade)
• Affordance do not cause behaviour, they constrain
and control it

31. Perceived Affordances
• Norman (1988) defined affordances = “the perceived and actual properties of the thing, primarily
those fundamental properties that determine just how the thing could possibly be used”
• Explore relationship between human cognition and the design of devices and everyday things
• Perceived affordance = how the user is to interact with the device
• Modified Gibson’s relational approach by accommodating design interests, things can be designed
in ways that encourage or constrain specific actions (e.g., designing park benches with anti-
skateboard guards OR designing the “like” button on SM)
• Unlike Gibson, Norman described affordances as properties of things
• The key is whether users actually perceive (see/understand) the intended possibilities in the
design

32. Technology
Affordances
• Gaver (1991) defined affordances = “properties of
the world defined with respect to people’s
interaction with it”
• Agrees with Norman, but makes separation
between affordances and their perceptual
information available about them = affordances
can be both perceptible and hidden
 Differences between types of technological
affordances also affect the social conventions
surrounding them (E.g.,, moving from dial-up
Internet to high-speed bandwidth could
drastically change the use and culture of email
or even communication more generally).

33. Social Affordances
Social affordances = the possibilities
that technological change afford for
social relations and social structure
(Wellman, 2001); they are the social
structures that take shape in
association with a given technical
structure (Postigo, 2016)
Wellman used the term to talk
about the ways in which the
Internet may influence everyday life
and describe how changes in
broadband create new possibilities
for communication

34. Communicative
Affordances
• Hutchby (2001) conceived “affordances” as a
middle term, considering the ways
technologies are socially constructed and
situated as well as materially constraining and
enabling
• Communicative affordances = the
possibilities for action that emerge from
given technological forms; affordances as
functional and relational
• Focus specifically on impact of technology
for communication (Schrock, 2015)
• Perspective moves away from Norman’s
perspective, instead focusing on more high-
level abstractions of what digital devices afford

35. What is the utility of
the affordance
framework for
Internet research?

36. 1. Thinking about the social
media platforms you use,
what types of affordances do
they offer?
2. What is the utility of the
affordance framework for
Internet research?

37. The Impact of the Internet on Society
Castells (2014)
5

39. Can digital media
satisfy an individual’s
needs? If so, what
needs and how?

40. Uses and Gratification Theory
• U&G theory = understanding the effects of media on people
• Explains how people use digital media for their own needs and if these
needs are being fulfilled
• Blumler & Katz (1974) sought to identify the needs fulfilled by watching
television
1. Surveillance - need to know what is going on in the world
2. Personal identity - need for defining our identity and sense of self
3. Personal relationships - need to interact with others
4. Diversion - need for escape, entertainment, and relaxation
• U&G theory has been applied in almost every field of life

41. Media Specific Needs:
• Types of needs and gratifications for media technologies:
1. Cognitive needs - acquiring information and knowledge as well as for better
understanding various concepts and issues (thirst for knowledge)
2. Affective needs - to satisfy their emotional needs
3. Personal integrative needs - credibility and reassure status - related to lifestyle and
self-esteem
4. Social integrative needs - integrate, connect, and socialize with others
5. Tension free needs - people sometimes use media to escape from the real world,
which can relieve stress and tension
• There may differences in what an individual wants from media and what they get from
media
• Gratifications sought (GS) versus gratifications obtained (GO)

42. What do you think is
the utility of U&G
theory for Internet
research?

43. Limitations of Uses and Gratification
Theory
1. Conceptualization of U&G been critiqued – concepts may be unclear,
terminology confusing, applied too broadly
2. U&G behind considering technological progress
• Facebook like is still being researched as the most popular feature,
despite being replaced by the timeline function and new “reactions”
features.
3. Needs (GS) and outcome (GO) need to be considered independently
• while social media can gratify a number of needs, the outcomes of such
use do not necessarily equate to positive or negative outcomes

44. EXAMPLE: Uses and Gratifications Theory and
Pokémon GO
Hamari et al. (2018)
• Location based games (LBG) and augmented reality games (ARGs)
• Create hybrid spaces that challenge dichotomy of the physical
and the digital

45. Uses and Gratifications of Pokémon GO
Hamari et al. (2018)
• Goal of study = investigate relationship between gratifications
people derive from Pokémon Go and their intention to continue
playing and spending money on them
o Tension-release/hedonic = enjoyment
o Affective/sensual = nostalgia, challenge
o Cognitive/utilitarian = outdoor activity, challenge
o Social integrative/social = socialization, outdoor activity
o Personal integrative/symbolic = trendiness, competition
• Investigating potential U&G can aid predicting use and
continued use

46. Uses and Gratifications of Pokémon GO
Hamari et al. (2018)
Methodology
• Collected data from a web-based survey of people who play/have played
Pokémon Go
• Survey was posted via Twitter and Facebook groups
• 1190 respondents in final sample
• Composition: 698 males/492 females, most participants between
ages 16 and 35

47. Uses and Gratifications of Pokémon GO
Hamari et al. (2018)
Findings
 In general, users of Pokémon Go experience the gratifications: enjoyment, challenge, nostalgia, and
outdoor experiences
 Those who derive more gratifications are more likely to purchase in-game content. This indicates that
the more needs the game was meeting, the more likely it was that users make in-app purchases
• Users wishing to extend their social experience or maintain existing social gameplay might experience
the free game as insufficient
 If individuals think their needs are being met without paying money, they won’t extend these
needs and gratifications obtained, they instead, make the choice to spend money on the game to
access a variety of additional features (i.e., prolonged play sessions, social prestige, in-game
advancement)
• Surprising finding: trendiness and privacy concerns were not associated with playing Pokémon Go
• Privacy concerns did not impact participants continued use intentions or purchase intentions
• Perhaps this was because users were not as aware of their data being collected or maybe individuals
have high levels of trust and confidence in the brand to know their data are in safe hands

48. End of Week 2
Next week: Digital Divide and Understanding Inequalities Online