research-article

Open access

Constructing Authenticity on TikTok: Social Norms and Social Support on the "Fun" Platform

Authors:

Nazanin AndalibiAuthors Info & Claims

Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Volume 5, Issue CSCW2

Article No.: 430, Pages 1 - 29

https://doi.org/10.1145/3479574

Published: 18 October 2021 Publication History

Abstract

Authenticity, generally regarded as coherence between one's inner self and outward behavior, is associated with myriad social values (e.g., integrity) and beneficial outcomes, such as psychological well-being. Scholarship suggests, however, that behaving authentically online is complicated by self-presentation norms that make it difficult to present a complex self as well as encourage sharing positive emotions and facets of self and discourage sharing difficult emotions. In this paper, we position authenticity as a self-presentation norm and identify the sociomaterial factors that contribute to the learning, enactment, and enforcement of authenticity on the short-video sharing platform TikTok. We draw on interviews with 15 U.S. TikTok users to argue that normative authenticity and understanding of TikTok as a "fun" platform are mutually constitutive in supporting a "just be you" attitude on TikTok that in turn normalizes expressions of both positive and difficult emotions and experiences. We consider the social context of TikTok and use an affordance lens to identify anonymity, of oneself and one's audience; association between content and the "For You" landing page; and video modality of TikTok as factors informing authenticity as a self-presentation norm. We argue that these factors similarly contribute to TikTok's viability as a space for social support exchange and address the utility of the comments section as a site for both supportive communication and norm judgment and enforcement. We conclude by considering the limitations of authenticity as social norm and present implications for designing online spaces for social support and connection.

References

[1]

Nazanin Andalibi. 2020. Disclosure, Privacy, and stigma on social media: Examining non-disclosure of distressing experiences. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 27, 3, Article 18 (June 2020), 43 pages.

Digital Library

[2]

Nazanin Andalibi and Andrea Forte. 2018. Announcing pregnancy loss on Facebook: A decision-making framework for stigmatized disclosures on identified social network sites. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '18), April 21--26, 2018, Montreal QC, Canada. ACM, New York, NY, Paper 158, 1--14.

Digital Library

[3]

Nazanin Andalibi and Andrea Forte. 2018. Responding to sensitive disclosures on social media. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 25, 6, Article 31 (December 2018), 29 pages.

Digital Library

[4]

Nazanin Andalibi and Patricia Garcia. 2021. Sensemaking and coping after pregnancy loss: The seeking and disruption of emotional validation online. In PACM on Human Computer Interaction, 5, CSCW1, Article 127, April 2021. New York, NY. 31 pages.

Digital Library

[5]

Nazanin Andalibi, Oliver L. Haimson, Munmun De Choudhury, and Andrea Forte. 2018. Social support, reciprocity, and anonymity in responses to sexual abuse disclosures on social media. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact., 25, 5, Article 28 (October 2018), 35 pages.

Digital Library

[6]

Anonymous. (1998). To reveal or not to reveal: A theoretical model of anonymous communication. Communication Theory, 8, 4, 369--475.

[7]

Kristine Ask and Crystal Abidin. 2018. My life is a mess: Self-deprecating relatability and collective identities in the memification of student issues. Information, Communication & Society, 21, 6, 834--850.

[8]

Godfrey T. Barrett-Lennard. 1998. Carl Rogers' Helping System: Journey and Substance. Sage, London, UK.

[9]

Kristen Barta. 2019. Reclaiming Publicness in the Face of Sexual Assault: Social Media, Disclosure, and Visibility (Communication). PhD Dissertation. University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

[10]

Joseph B. Bayer, Penny Trieu, and Nicole B. Ellison. 2020. Social media elements, ecologies, and effects. Annual Review of Psychology, 71, 471--497.

[11]

Natalya N. Bazarova, Yoon Hyung Choi, Victoria Schwanda Sosik, Dan Cosley, and Janis Whitlock. 2015. Social sharing of emotions on Facebook: Channel differences, satisfaction, and replies. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW '15), March 14--18, 2015, Vancouver BC, Canada. ACM, New York, NY, 154--164.

Digital Library

[12]

Elena Botella. 4 Dec 2019. TikTok admits it suppressed videos by disabled, queer, and fat creators. Slate. Retrieved from https://slate.com/technology/2019/12/tiktok-disabled-users-videos-suppressed.html

[13]

Moira Burke, Cameron Mariow, and Thomas Lento. 2009. Feed me: Motivating newcomer contribution in social network sites. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '09). ACM, New York, NY, 945--954.

Digital Library

[14]

Brant. R. Burleson and Erina L. MacGeorge. 2002. Supportive communication. In Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, 3rd ed., Mark L. Knapp and John A. Daly, Eds. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 374--424.

[15]

Caleb T. Carr and Rebecca A. Hayes. 2015. Social media: Defining, developing, and divining. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 23, 1, 46--65.

[16]

Caleb T. Carr, D. Yvette Wohn, and Rebecca A. Hayes. 2016. Like as social support: Relational closeness, automaticity, and interpreting social support from paralinguistic digital affordances in social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 385--393.

Digital Library

[17]

Robert B. Cialdini and Melanie R. Trost. 1998. Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. In The Handbook of Social Psychology, Daniel T. Gilbert, Susan T. Fiske, and Gardner Lindzey (Eds.). McGraw Hill, Boston, MA, 151--192.

[18]

Jenny L. Davis and James B. Chouinard. 2016. Theorizing affordances: From request to refuse. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 36, 4, 241--248.

[19]

Sofia Dewar, Schinria Islam, Elizabeth Resor, and Niloufar Salehi. 2019. Finsta: Creating "fake" spaces for authentic performance. In Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '19). ACM, New York, NY, Paper LBW1214, 1--6.

Digital Library

[20]

Nicole B. Ellison, Lindsay Blackwell, Cliff Lampe, and Penny Trieu. 2016. ""The question exists, but you don't exist with it": Strategic anonymity in the social lives of adolescents. Social Media and Society, 2, 4.

[21]

Nicole B. Ellison and danah m. boyd. (2013). Sociality through social network sites. In The Oxford Handbook of Internet Studies. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 151--172.

[22]

Sandra K. Evans, Katy E. Pearce, Jessica Vitak, and Jeffrey W. Treem. 2017. Explicating affordances: A conceptual framework for understanding affordances in communication research. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22, 1, 35--52.

Digital Library

[23]

Leon Festinger. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 2, 117--140.

[24]

Amanda L. Forest and Joanne V. Wood. 2012. When social networking is not working: Individuals with low self-esteem recognize but do not reap the benefits of self-disclosure on Facebook. Psychological Science, 23, 3, 295--302.

[25]

Jesse Fox and Bree McEwan. 2017. Distinguishing technologies for social interaction: The perceived social affordances of communication channels scale. Communication Monographs, 84, 3, 298--318.

[26]

Georgia Gaden and Delia Dumitrica. 2015. The "real deal": Strategic authenticity, politics and social media. First Monday, 20, 1 (January 2015).

[27]

Dawn R. Gilpin, Edward T. Palazzolo, and Nicholas Brody. 2010. Socially mediated authenticity. Journal of Communication Management, 14, 3, 258--278.

[28]

Barney G. Glaser and Ansel L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine, Chicago, IL.

[29]

Daena J. Goldsmith. 2004. Communicating Social Support. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

[30]

Mark S. Granovetter. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 6, 1360--1380. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/2776392

[31]

Kishonna L. Gray. 2012. Intersecting oppressions and online communities: Examining the experiences of women of color in Xbox Live. Information, Communication and Society, 15, 3, 411--428.

[32]

Gabrielle Grow and Janelle Ward. 2013. The role of authenticity in electoral social media campaigns. First Monday, 18, 4 (April 2013).

[33]

Oliver L. Haimson and Anna Lauren Hoffmann. 2016. Constructing and enforcing "authentic" identity online: Facebook, real names, and non-normative identities. First Monday, 21, 6 (June 2016).

[34]

Hanno Hardt. 1993. Authenticity, communication, and critical theory. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 10, 1, 49--69.

[35]

Rebecca A. Hayes, Caleb T. Carr, and Donghee Yvette Wohn. 2016. One click, many meanings: Interpreting paralinguistic digital affordances in social media. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 60, 1, 171--187.

[36]

Natalie Ann Hendry. 2020. Young women's mental illness and (in-)visible social media practices of control and emotional recognition. Social Media + Society, 6, 4.

[37]

Eren E. Hollenbaugh and Marcia K. Everett. 2013. The effects of anonymity on self-disclosure in blogs: An application of the online disinhibition effect. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18, 3, 283--302.

[38]

Martin Holt and Christine Griffin. 2003. Being gay, being straight and being yourself. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 6, 3, 404--425.

[39]

How TikTok recommends videos #ForYou. 18 June 2020. TikTok. Retrieved from https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/how-tiktok-recommends-videos-for-you

[40]

Harry M. Johnson. 1960. Sociology: A Systematic Introduction. Harcourt, Brace and World, New York, NY.

[41]

Katrina P. Jongman-Sereno and Mark R. Leary. 2019. The enigma of being yourself: A critical examination of the concept of authenticity. Review of General Psychology, 23, 1, 133--142.

[42]

Akane Kanai. 2019. On not taking the self seriously: Resilience, relatability and humour in young women's Tumblr blogs. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 22, 1, 60--77.

[43]

Nadia Karizat, Dan Delmonaco, Motahare Eslami, and Nazanin Andalibi. 2021. Algorithmic folk theories and identity: How TikTok users co-produce knowledge of identity and engage in algorithmic resistance. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW '21). October 23--27, held virtually. ACM, New York, NY, 26 pages.

Digital Library

[44]

Melanie Kennedy. 2020. "If the rise of the TikTok dance and e-girl aesthetic has taught us anything, it's that teenage girls rule the internet right now": TikTok celebrity, girls and the Coronavirus crisis. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 23, 6, 1069--1076.

[45]

Michael. H. Kernis and Brian. M. Goldman. 2006. A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity: Theory and research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 6, 283--357.

[46]

Robert E. Kraut and Paul Resnick. 2011. Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence-based Social Design. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Digital Library

[47]

Venla Kuuluvainen and Pekka Isotalus. 2015. Words and beyond: Members' experiences of the supportive communication and helping mechanisms of Al-Anon groups. Journal of Groups in Addiction & Recovery, 10, 3, 204--223.

[48]

Noam Lapidot-Lefler and Azy Barak. 2012. Effects of anonymity, invisibility, and lack of eye-contact on toxic online disinhibition. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 2, 434--443.

Digital Library

[49]

Mark R. Leary. 1996. Self-presentation: Impression Management and Interpersonal Behavior. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

[50]

Mark R. Leary and June Price Tangney. 2003. The self as an organizing construct in the behavioral and social sciences. In Handbook of Self and Identity, Mark R. Leary and June Price Tangney (Eds.). Guilford Press, New York, NY, 3--14.

[51]

Thomas R. Lindlof and Bryan C. Taylor. 2011. Qualitative Communication Research Methods (3rd ed). Sage, Los Angeles, CA.

[52]

Eden Litt. 2012. Knock, knock. Who's there? The imagined audience. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 56, 3, 330--345.

[53]

Bingjie Liu and Jin Kang. 2017. Publicness and directedness: Effects of social media affordances on attributions and social perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 70--80.

Digital Library

[54]

Xiao Ma, Nazanin Andalibi, Louise Barkhuus, and Mor Naaman. 2017. "People are either too fake or too real": Opportunities and challenges in tie-based anonymity. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '17), May 6--11, 2017, Denver, CO. ACM, New York, NY, 1781--1793.

Digital Library

[55]

Alice E. Marwick and danah boyd. 2010. "I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately": Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media and Society, 13, 1, 114--133.

[56]

Megan McCluskey. 22 July 2020. Black TikTok creators say their content is being suppressed. Time. Retrieved from https://time.com/5863350/tiktok-black-creators/

[57]

Caitlin McLaughlin and Jessica Vitak. 2012. Norm evolution and violation on Facebook. New Media and Society, 14, 2, 299--315.

[58]

Kembrew McLeod. 1999. Authenticity within hip-hop and other cultures threatened with assimilation. Journal of Communication, 49, 4, 134--150.

[59]

Juan-Carlos Molleda. 2010. Authenticity and the construct's dimensions in public relations and communication research. Journal of Communication Management, 14, 3, 223--236.

[60]

Our mission. 2020. TikTok. Retrieved from https://www.tiktok.com/about?lang=en

[61]

William Foster Owen. 1985. Metaphor analysis of cohesiveness in small discussion groups. Small Group Research, 16, 3, 415--424.

[62]

Tom Postmes, Russell Spears, and Martin Lea. 2000. The formation of group norms in computer-mediated communication. Human Communication Research, 26, 3, 341--371.

[63]

Hua Qian and Craig R. Scott. 2007. Anonymity and self-disclosure on weblogs. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 4, 1428--1451.

[64]

Leonard Reinecke and Sabine Trepte. 2014. Authenticity and well-being on social network sites: A two-wave longitudinal study on the effects of online authenticity and the positivity bias in SNS communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 95--102.

Digital Library

[65]

Greg Roumeliotis, Yingzhi Yang, Echo Wang, and Alexandra Alper. 1 Nov. 2019. Exclusive: U.S. opens national security investigation into TikTok - sources. Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tiktok-cfius-exclusive/exclusive-u-s-opens-national-security-investigation-into-tiktok-sources-idUSKBN1XB4IL

[66]

Lauren Scissors, Moira Burke, and Steven Wengrovitz. 2016. What's in a like?: Attitudes and behaviors around receiving likes on Facebook. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW '16), ACM, New York, NY, 1501--1510.

Digital Library

[67]

Susie Scott. (2004). Researching shyness: A contradiction in terms? Qualitative Research, 4, 1, 91--105.

[68]

Kennon M. Sheldon, Richard M. Ryan, Laird J. Rawsthorne, and Barbara C. Ilardi. 1997. Trait self and true self: Cross-role variation in the big-five personality traits and its relations with psychological authenticity and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 6, 1380--1393.

[69]

Ellen Simpson and Bryan Semaan. 2020. For you, or for ?you"?: Everyday LGBTQ+ encounters with TikTok. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interac., 4, CSCW3, Article 252 (December 2020), 34 pages.

Digital Library

[70]

Susan Sontag. 1977. On Photography. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, United Kingdom.

[71]

Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin. 1994. Grounded theory methodology-an overview. In Handbook of Qualitative Research, Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds). Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 273--285.

[72]

John Suler. 2004. The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 7, 3, 321--326.

[73]

Peggy A. Thoits. 2011. Mechanisms linking social ties and support to physical and mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 52, 2, 145--161.

[74]

Jeffrey W. Treem, and Paul M. Leonardi. 2012. Social media use in organizations: Exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Communication Yearbook, 36, 143--189.

[75]

Suvi Uski and Airi Lampinen. 2016. Social norms and self-presentation on social network sites: Profile work in action. New Media and Society, 18, 3, 447--464.

[76]

Sonya Utz. 2011. Social network site use among Dutch students: Effects of time and platform. In Networked Sociability and Individualism: Technology for Personal and Professional Relationships, Francesca Comunello (Ed.), IGI Global, 103--125.

[77]

Jacqueline Ryan Vickery. 2015. "I don't have anything to hide, but ? ": The challenges and negotiations of social and mobile media privacy for non-dominant youth. Information Communication and Society, 18, 3, 281--294.

[78]

Jessica Vitak and Jinyoung Kim. 2014. "'You can't block people offline." In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW '14), February 15--19, 2014, Baltimore, MD, USA. ACM, New York, NY, 461--474.

Digital Library

[79]

Erin A. Vogel, Jason P. Rose, Lindsay R. Roberts, and Katheryn Eckles. 2014. Social comparison, social media, and self-esteem. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 3, 4, 206--222.

[80]

Sophie F. Waterloo, Susanne E. Baumgartner, Jochen Peter, and Patti M. Valkenburg. 2018. Norms of online expressions of emotion: Comparing Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and WhatsApp. New Media and Society, 20, 5, 1813--1831.

[81]

Gabriel Weimann and Natalie Masri. 2020. Research note: Spreading hate on TikTok. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, 14 pages.

[82]

Timothy D. Wilson and Elizabeth W. Dunn. 2004. Self-knowledge: Its limits, value, and potential for improvement. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 1, 493--518.

[83]

Langdon Winner. 1986. Do artifacts have politics? In In the Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology, Langdon Winner (Ed.) University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 19--39.

[84]

Alex M. Wood, Alex P. Linley, John Maltby, Michael Baliousis, and Stephen Joseph. 2008. The authentic personality: A theoretical and empirical conceptualization and the development of the authenticity scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55, 3, 385--399.

[85]

Kevin B. Wright, Amy Janan Johnson, Daniel R. Bernard, and Joshua Averbeck. 2011. Computer-mediated social support: Promises and pitfalls for individuals coping with health concerns. In The Routledge Handbook of Health Communication (2nd ed.), Teresa L. Thompson, Roxanne Parrott, and Jon F. Nussbaum (Eds.). Routledge, New York, NY, 349--362.

[86]

Sijia Xiao, Danae Metaxa, Joon Sung Park, Karrie Karahalios, and Niloufar Salehi. 2020. Random, messy, funny, raw: Finstas as intimate reconfigurations of social media. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '20). ACM, New York, NY, 1--13.

Digital Library

[87]

Joanna C. Yau and Stephanie M. Reich. 2018. "It's just a lot of work": Adolescents' self-presentation norms and practices on Facebook and Instagram. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 29, 1, 196--209.

[88]

Xuan Zhao, Cliff Lampe, and Nicole B. Ellison. 2016. The social media ecology: User perceptions, strategies and challenges. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16), May 7--12, 2016, San Jose, CA. ACM, New York, NY, 89--100.

Digital Library

[89]

Raymond Zhong and Sheera Frenkel. 2020. A third of TikTok's U.S. users may be 14 or under, raising safety questions. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/14/technology/tiktok-underage-users-ftc.html

[90]

Chengyan Zhu, Xiaolin Xu, Wei Zhang, Jianmin Chen, and Richard Evans. 2020. How health communication via TikTok makes a difference: A content analysis of TikTok accounts run by Chinese provincial health committees. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17, 1, 192.

Cited By

Ma LJiang Q(2024)Swiping more, thinking less: Using TikTok hinders analytic thinkingCyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace10.5817/CP2024-3-118:3Online publication date: 24-Jun-2024
https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2024-3-1
Yeniceler Kortak İ(2024)Yeni Bir Haber Mecrası Olarak TikTok Platformunun DeğerlendirilmesiYeni Medya Dergisi10.55609/yenimedya.1426723Online publication date: 29-Apr-2024
https://doi.org/10.55609/yenimedya.1426723
Owens E(2024)Teens on TikTok: Understanding Young People’s Digital Agency as PracticeInternational Research in Children's Literature10.3366/ircl.2024.056217:2(174-188)Online publication date: Jun-2024
https://doi.org/10.3366/ircl.2024.0562
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Constructing Authenticity on TikTok: Social Norms and Social Support on the "Fun" Platform
1. Human-centered computing
  1. Collaborative and social computing
    1. Empirical studies in collaborative and social computing

Recommendations

Ignore the Affordances; It's the Social Norms: How Millennials and Gen-Z Think About Where to Make a Post on Social Media
CSCW

How do Millennial and Gen-Z young adults decide between competing social media when choosing where to post? Previous research argues that decisions can be modeled based on these users' Goals, and the Affordances, Features1, and Social Norms of those ...
Online social support for young people

As social media websites have grown in popularity, public concern about online victimization has grown as well; however, much less attention has focused on the possible beneficial effects of online social networks. If theory and research about in-person ...
Social Media and College-Related Social Support Exchange for First-Generation, Low-Income Students: The Role of Identity Disclosures
CSCW

First-generation, low-income (FGLI) students face barriers to college access and retention that reproduce socioeconomic inequities. These students turn to social media for college-related social support. However, while students can reap benefits from ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction

Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction Volume 5, Issue CSCW2

CSCW2

October 2021

5376 pages

EISSN:2573-0142

DOI:10.1145/3493286

Editor:
Jeff Nichols
Apple Inc., United States

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2021 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 18 October 2021

Published in PACMHCI Volume 5, Issue CSCW2

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

54
Total Citations
View Citations
13,340
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)5,303
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)581

Reflects downloads up to 27 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Ma LJiang Q(2024)Swiping more, thinking less: Using TikTok hinders analytic thinkingCyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace10.5817/CP2024-3-118:3Online publication date: 24-Jun-2024
https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2024-3-1
Yeniceler Kortak İ(2024)Yeni Bir Haber Mecrası Olarak TikTok Platformunun DeğerlendirilmesiYeni Medya Dergisi10.55609/yenimedya.1426723Online publication date: 29-Apr-2024
https://doi.org/10.55609/yenimedya.1426723
Owens E(2024)Teens on TikTok: Understanding Young People’s Digital Agency as PracticeInternational Research in Children's Literature10.3366/ircl.2024.056217:2(174-188)Online publication date: Jun-2024
https://doi.org/10.3366/ircl.2024.0562
Guerrero-Sierra HNiño CWilches-Tinjacá J(2024)Javier Milei, Tiktok y la construcción del patán políticoJAVIER MILEI, TIKTOK, AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE POLITICAL BOORAnálisis Político10.15446/anpol.v37n108.11695337:108(74-102)Online publication date: 10-Oct-2024
https://doi.org/10.15446/anpol.v37n108.116953
Vahed SGoanta COrtolani PSanfey A(2024)Moral judgment of objectionable online content: Reporting decisions and punishment preferences on social mediaPLOS ONE10.1371/journal.pone.030096019:3(e0300960)Online publication date: 25-Mar-2024
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300960
Vicari SDitchfield H(2024)Platform visibility and the making of an issue: Vernaculars of hereditary cancer on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and TwitterNew Media & Society10.1177/14614448241229048Online publication date: 19-Feb-2024
https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448241229048
Turvy A(2024)Reading latent values and priorities in TikTok's community guidelines for childrenInternational Journal of Cultural Studies10.1177/13678779241276884Online publication date: 28-Sep-2024
https://doi.org/10.1177/13678779241276884
Wang CSher SChung C(2024)From Viral Content to Real-Life Cuisine and Beyond: Examining Teenagers' Interactions with TikTok Food Videos and the Influence on their Food PracticesProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36869288:CSCW2(1-30)Online publication date: 8-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3686928
Kim JWolfe RChordia IDavis KHiniker A(2024)"Sharing, Not Showing Off": How BeReal Approaches Authentic Self-Presentation on Social Media Through Its DesignProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36869098:CSCW2(1-32)Online publication date: 8-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3686909
Das DGandhi DSemaan B(2024)Reimagining Communities through Transnational Bengali Decolonial Discourse with YouTube Content CreatorsProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36869008:CSCW2(1-36)Online publication date: 8-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3686900
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Article

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents