Living in digital space: Everyday life on Twitter
Article Sidebar
269)
Main Article Content
Authors
Abstract
383
New media tools and the corresponding digital networks have begun to take part in the centre of our daily lives, thereby caused a practice of everyday life in digital space. In Twitter, a network in which users are involved through the machines, the concepts such as life, time, space, rhythm have developed. This study focuses on the constitution of everyday life in digital space. Twitter is a digital space that users do their everyday life practices in this network and are involved in through the machines. A sample of 10 Turkish users was selected with social network analysis to discover everyday life practices in this digital space. The content produced by this sample was observed employing digital ethnography and analysed by the sociology of everyday life. It is observed that Twitter creates its own rhythm. Observations show in Twitter that tactics have been produced, and strategies have been tried to be turned down with these tactics and acted rhythmic practices as forms of production and consumption in everyday life. People tend to follow similar others on Twitter, and accordingly, content is being produced for an imaginary community.
Keywords
References
Agamben, G. (1993). Infancy & History The destruction of experience. London, New York: Verso.
Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined communities. London, New York: Verso.
Awan, F. & Gauntlett, D. (2013). Young people’s uses and understandings of online social networks in their everyday lives. Young, 21(2), 111-132. https://www.doi.org/10.1177/1103308813477463
Bakardjieva, M. (2005). Internet society: The Internet in everyday life. London: Sage.
Bakardjieva, M. & Smith, R. (2001). The Internet in everyday life: Computer networking from the standpoint of the domestic user. New Media & Society, 3(1), 67-83. https://www.doi.org/10.1177/1461444801003001005
Bastian M., Heymann S. & Jacomy M. (2009). Gephi: an open-source software for exploring and manipulating networks. In International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. Retrieved from https://gephi.org/publications/gephi-bastian-feb09.pdf
Berger P. L. & Luckmann T. (1991). The social construction of reality. London: Penguin Books.
Boellstorff, T., Nardi, B., Pearce, C. & Taylor, T. L. (2012). Ethnography and virtual worlds. A handbook of method. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bogers, T. & Björneborn, L. (2013). Micro-serendipity: Meaningful coincidences in everyday life shared on Twitter. In iConference 2013 Proceedings (pp. 196-208). https://www.doi.org/10.9776/13175
Bollen, J., Gonçalves, B., Ruan, G. & Mao, H. (2011). Happiness is assortative in online social networks. Artificial life, 17(3), 237-251. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.0784.pdf
Bovone, L. (1989). Theories of everyday life: A search for meaning or a negation of meaning. Current Sociology, 37(1), 41-61. https://www.doi.org/10.1177/001139289037001006
Boyd, D., Golder, S. & Lotan, G. (2010). Tweet, tweet, retweet: Conversational aspects of retweeting on Twitter. In 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1-10). https://www.doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2010.412
Brownlie, J. & Shaw, F. (2019). Empathy rituals: Small conversations about emotional distress on Twitter. Sociology, 53(1), 104-122. https://www.doi.org/10.1177/0038038518767075
Bruns, A. & Moe, H. (2016). Twitter’da iletişimin yapısal katmanları. [Structural layers of communication on Twitter] In K. Weller, A. Bruns, J. Burgess, M. Mahrt & C. Puschmann (Eds.), Twitter ve toplum [Twitter and society] (pp. 62-79). İstanbul: Kafka.
Cantek, L. (2013). İsyan günlerinde mizah: Dertsiz baş, yarasız ağaç olmaz. Birikim, 291-292, 84-89.
Currarini, S. & Mengel, F. (2016). Identity, homophily and in-group bias. European Economic Review, 90, 40-55. https://www.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2088744
De Certeau, M. (2009). Gündelik hayatın keşfi I. [The practice of everyday life I]. Ankara: Dost.
De Choudhury, M. (2011). Tie formation on Twitter: Homophily and structure of egocentric networks. In Third International Conference on Social Computing IEEE (pp. 465-470). https://www.doi.org/10.1109/PASSAT/SocialCom.2011.177
De Ridder, S. (2015). Are digital media institutions shaping youth’s intimate stories? Strategies and tactics in the social networking site Netlog. New Media & Society, 17(3), 356-374. https://www.doi.org/10.1177/1461444813504273
English, C. (2013). Online social media in everyday life in Ireland: A qualitative exploration of media use among Irish 25-30 year-olds during a time of crisis. Ph.D. thesis, Dublin City University.
Feenberg, A. & Bakardjieva, M. (2004). Virtual community: no ‘killer implication’. New Media & Society, 6(1), 37-43. https://www.doi.org/10.1177/1461444804039904
Foucault, M. (2014). Özne ve iktidar [Dits et Écrits]. İstanbul: Ayrıntı
García-Gavilanes, R., Quercia, D. & Jaimes, A. (2013). Cultural dimensions in Twitter: Time, individualism and power. In Proceedings of the 7th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (pp. 195-204). Retrieved from https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM13/paper/view/6102
Goffman, E. (2012). Günlük yaşamda benliğin sunumu [The presentation of self in everyday life]. İstanbul: Metis.
Gruzd, A., Wellman, B. & Takhteyev, Y. (2011). Imagining Twitter as an imagined community. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(10), 1294-1318. https://www.doi.org/10.1177/0002764211409378
Halberstam, Y. & Knight, B. (2016). Homophily, group size, and the diffusion of political information in social networks: Evidence from Twitter. Journal of Public Economics, 143, 73-88. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2016.08.011
Honeycutt, C. & Herring, S. C. (2009). Beyond microblogging: Conversation and collaboration via Twitter. In 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE (pp. 1-10). https://www.doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2009.89
Ibrahim, Y. (2015). Instagramming life: Banal imaging and the poetics of the everyday. Journal of Media Practice, 16(1), 42-54. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/14682753.2015.1015800
Iosifidis, P. & Wheeler, M. (2016). Public spheres and mediated social networks in the western context and beyond. UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Irak, D. (2016). A close-knit bunch: Political concentration in Turkey’s Anadolu Agency through Twitter interactions. Turkish Studies, 17(2), 336-360. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/14683849.2016.1138287
Java, A., Song, X., Finin, T. & Tseng, B. (2007). Why we Twitter: understanding microblogging usage and communities. In Proceedings of the 9th WebKDD and 1st SNA-KDD 2007 workshop, ACM (pp. 56-65). https://www.doi.org/10.1145/1348549.1348556
Kavoura, A. (2014). Social media, online imagined communities and communication research. Library Review, 63(6/7), 490-504. https://www.doi.org/10.1108/LR-06-2014-0076
Kwak, H., Chun, H. & Moon, S. (2011). Fragile online relationship: a first look at unfollow dynamics in Twitter. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM (pp. 1091-1100). https://www.doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979104
Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H. & Moon, S. (2010). What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World Wide Web, ACM (pp. 591-600). https://www.doi.org/10.1145/1772690.1772751
Lefebvre, H. (2010). Modern dünyada gündelik hayat [Everyday life in modern world]. İstanbul: Metis.
Lefebvre, H. (2012). Gündelik hayatın eleştirisi I [Critique of everyday life I]. İstanbul: Sel.
Lefebvre, H. (2013). Gündelik hayatın eleştirisi II. Gündelik hayat sosyolojisinin temelleri [Critique of everyday life II: Foundations for a sociology of the everyday]. İstanbul: Sel.
Lefebvre, H. & Regulier, C. (1999). The rhythmanalytical project. Rethinking Marxism, 11(1), 5-13. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/08935699908685562
Liu, F. (2010). The Internet in the everyday lifeworld: a comparison between high‐school students in China and Norway, Comparative Education, 46(4), 527-550. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2010.519483
Manovich, L. (2009). The practice of everyday (media) life: From mass consumption to mass cultural production? Critical Inquiry, 35(2), 319-331. https://www.doi.org/10.1086/596645
Mark, N. (1998). Birds of a feather sing together. Social Forces, 77(2), 453-485. https://www.doi.org/10.2307/3005535
Marwick, A. E. & Boyd, D. (2010). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114-133. https://www.doi.org/10.1177/1461444810365313
McGarry, A., Jenzen, O., Eslen-Ziya, H., Erhart, I. & Korkut, U. (2019). Beyond the iconic protest images: the performance of ‘everyday life’ on social media during Gezi Park. Social Movement Studies, 18(3), 284-304. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2018.1561259
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L. & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415-444. https://www.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
Meyer, K. (2008). Rhythms, streets, cities. In K. Goonewardena, S. Kipfer, R. Milgrom & C. Schmid (Eds.), Space, Difference, Everyday Life: Reading Henri Lefebvre (pp. 147-160). New York: Routledge.
Miller, F., Davis, K. & Partridge, H. (2019). Everyday life information experiences in Twitter: a grounded theory. Information Research, 24(2), paper 824. Retrieved from http://InformationR.net/ir/24-2/paper824.html
Murthy, D. (2013). Twitter. Social communication in the Twitter age. Cambridge: Polity.
Noë, N., Whitaker, R. M., Chorley, M. J. & Pollet, T. V. (2016). Birds of a feather locate together? Foursquare checkins and personality homophily. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 343-353. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.01.009
Pink, S. & Leder Mackley, K. (2013). Saturated and situated: Expanding the meaning of media in the routines of everyday life. Media, Culture & Society, 35(6), 677-691. https://www.doi.org/10.1177/0163443713491298
Recuero, R., Araujo, R. & Zago, G. (2011). How does social capital affect retweets? In Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. Retrieved from http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM11/paper/view/2807
Riemer, F. J. (2009). Ethnography research. In S. D. Lapan & M. T. Quartoroli (Eds.), Research essentials: An introduction to design and practices (pp. 203-221). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Šćepanović, S., Mishkovski, I., Gonçalves, B., Hieu, N. T. & Hui, P. (2016). Interplay of homophily and communication in online social networks: Wikipedia-based semantic metric application on Twitter. arXiv. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.08207.pdf
Smith, M., Ceni A., Milic-Frayling, N., Shneiderman, B., Mendes Rodrigues, E., Leskovec, J. & Dunne, C. (2010). NodeXL: a free and open network overview, discovery and exploration add-in for Excel 2007/2010/2013/2016. Retrieved from http://nodexl.codeplex.com/
Takhteyev, Y., Gruzd, A. & Wellman, B. (2012). Geography of Twitter networks. Social Networks, 34, 73-81. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2011.05.006
Thulin, E., Vilhelmson, B. & Schwanen, T. (2020). Absent friends? Smartphones, mediated presence, and the recoupling of online social contact in everyday life. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 110(1), 166-183. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2019.1629868
Topak, O. (2017). The making of a totalitarian surveillance machine: Surveillance in Turkey under AKP rule. Surveillance & Society, 15(3/4), 535-542. https://www.doi.org/10.24908/ss.v15i3/4.6614
Metrics
|
|
Details
Article Details
RIGHTS TRANSFER
By submitting the article for evaluation and subsequent publication in Communication & Society, the AUTHOR exclusively assigns the rights of public communication, reproduction, distribution and sale for commercial exploitation to the University of Navarra through its Publications Service, for the maximum legal term in force -the entire life of the author and seventy years after his death or declaration of death-, in any country, and in any of the current and future edition modalities, both in print and electronic versions.
In the event that the article is not accepted for publication , this transfer of rights lapses with the communication of the refusal to the AUTHOR.
The AUTHOR affirms that the article is unpublished, that it has not been sent simultaneously to another publication medium and that the rights have not been transferred exclusively previously. He is responsible to the University of Navarra through its Publications Service for the authorship and originality of his work, as well as for all pecuniary charges that may arise for the University of Navarra through its Publications Service, in favor of third parties due to actions, claims or conflicts arising from the breach of obligations by the AUTHOR.
