Talk:Social media

Social media definition

I propose on continuing using Kaplan's definition but rewording the introductory paragraph to better capture Kaplan's ideas.ErickS-NJITWILL (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

After doing some more research, i also found a more basic definition on social media that could complement Kaplan's definition.ErickS-NJITWILL (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

New post: I don't see any reason why any individual or individuals, especially those who wrote a definition in 2010, need to be credited by name in the first paragraph of Wikipedia with defining social media. Thousands of people defined it before Kaplan and Haenlein, nor do they have any particular name-recognition authority in the industry or beyond. They may be right or wrong, but adding their names as part of the definition is self-promotional and unnecessary. If anyone is to be credited by name in the definition, it should be the people who coined the term, like Tina Sharkey or Darrell Berry. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2010/12/09/who-coined-social-media-web-pioneers-compete-for-credit/ Also, the accusation up top that the article is US-centric is not accurate, as the article is full of European references, perhaps even oddly so (Europe is not known for building the top global social media platforms). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:107E:407E:752E:3268:9074:E06 (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Classification of Social Media

I propose creating a special sub-topic for the classification of social media rather than fitting it under social media which also includes "Mobile Social Media" and "Patents". Mobile social media should be under "Classification of Social Media", and "Patents" should be under its own category.ErickS-NJITWILL (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I am currently working on my thesis and noticed that the Kaplan's and Haenlein's classification for social media only has six types rather than seven. It doesn't list "social news networking". Instead of editing it I wanted to confirm this was correct as I only am able to access the full but older version and the abstract of the actual journal article through my school. I was hoping someone else had access to the full, up-to-date version so they could assess its accuracy. Pregxi (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Internet usage effects

There is data that dates back to 2009 and that is quite old. If the point of this section is of keeping data statistics relevant, i propose getting rid of old data in order to keep current ones.04:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)04:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErickS-NJITWILL (talk • contribs)

A proposal to fix buzzword bingo land

Currently, the article is in a dreadful state. It is pretty much unreadable at the moment. The presence of a warning label on the Criticism and Controversy section is quite amusing, given that it is now the most readable part of the article.

I've removed the "Economic impacts of social marketing" section because it was unreadable, a lot of original research and didn't fit into the article at all. Of course, useful bits can still be salvaged from that if we want to. I also pruned a few other bits back that were either too promotional or unreadable dross.

What I'm going to suggest is that we can fix a lot of the issues of this article if we have a think on the talk page about what exactly are good sources for this. I think part of the problem we have with this article is that nobody really is very sure about what social media is. Instead, it might be better if we reflect that uncertainty by writing something like this in the lead:

Social media is a term used in marketing, public relations and a variety of other fields to describe changes in the media environment stemming from increasing use of social networking sites, user generated content, and a range of new interactive services. Social media is of particular interest in marketing as it allows businesses to interact and engage directly with individual customers and is increasingly seen as an important part of a marketing strategy.

Does this seem a reasonable starting point for a description? Obviously, it'd be necessary to sort out sourcing. One potential way of finding good sources for this article is government sources. Governments often have a statutory or policy-based reason to have to explain things clearly (otherwise groups like the Plain English Campaign will come down on them like a ton of bricks). Here are a few government sources I've found which might be useful: US Geological Survey, CDC (the Health Communicator's Social Media Toolkit might be a useful source), HowTo.gov, Business Link (Business Link is a UK government body that gives advice to businesses of all kinds), idea.gov.uk (who advice local government on best practice).

On the private side, there's also IAB UK's social media guide, which doesn't look like it is particularly bullshitty or unclear.

Anyway, I wanted to start a conversation here about how best to improve this article, because it currently gets between 2,000 and 6,000 views a day... and, frankly, it's pretty crappy. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree that the article is a mess and needs massive changes. But disagree that your definition is the right starting point. You've have come from it a POV that says social media is what those marketing types do. Looking at the article, i see information from the technology, academic and human behavioural viewpoints. So from one perspective, social media IS SNS, UGC etc, it's the tech, rather than how marketers use it. I think the articel does need to reflect the term is used differently depending on who is using it. Yes, marketing is a major area of use - and the IAB book is a very good source for that, but there are others Rachelcgen (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Upon first reading through this article, the greatest problem I saw with it is that it looks at social media very disproportionately through a business-centric lens. The only example of use under the Purpose section is a paragraph entirely about social media use by PR professionals. Following this, the entire Managing Social Media and "Building "social authority" and vanity" sections are completely focused on `firms' and `marketing', respectively. I think this article is not a fair and balanced representation of social media and is very slanted toward a business and marketing-type viewpoint. Allethrin (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Both last two editors have said basically the same thing. We might need some expert attention for this article, to show other aspects of this fenomenon that aren't exclusively business-related. Debresser (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

After reading through the article, social media appears to be have a business focus stance. However, i believe is more important to polish up the definition of social media since for the most part this is what is being read by the visitors. While is important to provide examples of social media, examples should not be used as the primary means to define social media. >ErickS-NJITWILL (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys, just read all the talk on this page, and I'm happy to help if I can. I've written three books on social media, have been a regular source for Bloomberg TV and other media, and have access to dozens of the top experts. I'm sure they would be willing to help too. I agree, this page is horrible- not only because of all the lingo and ideas, but also because it doesn't even accurately reflect the business/marketing/PR side of social media that I hear in regular discussions with other experts. What's more, social media is a rather contentious discipline, since it's so new, and there are several major different viewpoints on it. From my perspective, there are very different views from marketing people and PR people. And there are folks who mainly think of social media in terms of Twitter, and others who think of it mainly in terms of Facebook. I don't want to jump in and changeBriancarter73 (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC) anything- but happy to be a resource or to try to help organize a task force of published authors to help you guys if you want. bbcarter@gmail.com Briancarter73 (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys, just read the above Talk remark from 2012 and see that no one has questioned its' bragging tone. So what if someone claims to have written 300 books on social media, has been a regular on BBC, ITV, CBS, RT or has access to untold number of the "top experts"? Should not any comments keep to the question being debated? For the comment about the business/marketing/PR side of social media is clearly at odds with general Talk concerns - that the article needs to show aspects social media that are not exclusively business-related. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.106.42 (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Social Web Share Buttons.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Social Web Share Buttons.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 7 June 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Social Web Share Buttons.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Social Media & Loneliness

Anyone else think this topic is popular enough to get its own article? (We've come a long way since 2007...) Not sure what it would be titled: Social Media Loneliness? Digital Loneliness?

Whatever it is, it's bigger than just "criticism," because some do advocate for social media as an antidote to loneliness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Groupuscule (talk • contribs) 11:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Then again, is it not in the (self)interest of certain social media outlets to present their product/s as 'an antidote to loneliness'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.105.37 (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Notable influencers section may be biased?

I am no expert on social media but the recently added section titled "Notable influencers" may be biased. It is certainly unrepresentative. How does Mark Zuckerberg fit in to it?? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

While the people who are currently on the list have Wikipedia articles and are therefore presumably notable, there is no source or indication why those people in particular were selected for the list, or whether they are more notable than other notable people who work with social media. I agree that the notability is very quesitonable indeed. For one thing, there are only five names in the list, three Americans and two British people, so it's obviously heavily slanted to the US and Britain. This being said, I do not know the field, at all, and won't try to fill the list with more names because I don't have any source indicating which names might be suitable. --bonadea contributions talk 21:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I have now removed the complete section. No information is better than biased information. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Inaccuracies/poor writing in the Mobile Social Media section

In addition to being poorly written, the third paragraph in the Mobile Social Media section is inaccurate. The following sentence is hyperbolic and lacks a reliable source (and is quite frankly untrue; mobile devices are increasingly an important aspect of internet usage but they haven't made other forms obsolete):

"With all the new devices that are arriving at our finger tips, gadgets such as tablets, iPods, phones, and many other new products, there is no use for sitting at home using one's PC; mobile social media has made other sources of internet browsing obsolete, and allows users to write, respond, and browse in real-time.

I am new to Wikipedia editing (I created an account because this article bugged me so much!) so I am not entirely sure what to do. I did a quick copy edit and added some "citation needed" and "clarification needed" tags but I think this section could use a complete re-write from someone with more expertise. Linds e m (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with errors in factual accuracy in the mobile section of social media. The fact that it lacks external references and lack of formal tone usage makes this section stand out as an opinion which calls into questions the objectivity of this section. ErickS-NJITWILL (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Social Media History _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Social Media history, in terms of same sex marriage, is an opinion. Opinions should be kept out of scholarly articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davefilms (talk • contribs) 22:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Changes

The following proposed editions are for my college course Training Systems. My group consists of myself, Justin Galloway, and my partner, Jonathan Marshall. Please review.

What we want to do is combine the introduction section and the section following it entitled “Social Media Classifications”. The classifications section appears to have been a part of the introduction section at one time and flows well. We feel as though this will add to the clarity of the introduction section. We also propose adding a sentence describing how social media has joined the barbershop and backyard fence as places where information is traded and acted on.

We propose to add the following two sentences to the beginning of the Positive Effects section. a. Social media is becoming an essential aspect in communication and marketing within organizations. b. Social media sites, such as Facebook and Twitter, can be used as successful marketing tools because of their mass appeal.

Lastly we would like to remove one of the last sections of the article entitled “Loneliness”. We feel as though it does not require a section of the current article. It can be added to another section but we don’t feel that it adds enough value to the article to have its own section. JET theUFO (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Marsha49 (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)Jonathan Marshall

References

Hi,

I agree with Justin and Jonathan about the need for changes to this site. Specifically, I think that we need to add how social media is becoming an essential aspect in communication and marketing for organizations. For example, Jet Blue and Sephora use twitter strategically to gain attention and serve their customers better.

Jenks27 (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Jenks27, I think it is important to talk about social media as an important tool for marketers and communications in general, but I would not cite specific brands or cases. Best, Zalunardo8 (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the right discussion to post this at, but i think this has to be said: The photo at the top of the article, showing various social medias, is very out of date. It's from 2008! Youtube, Hulu, Groupon, and others are not given enough prominence, and obscure websites are featured too often, seemingly to just fill up the diagram. Because of the abundant amounts of these irrelevant websites, all of the logos are difficult to see. Perhaps a higher resolution could be made? Not to mention that massive websites like Instagram and Vine are not even mentioned, because they did not exist at the time the diagram was made. (9/19/15) by SBB

@71.104.87.104: Very much agree that a higher resolution of that image would be very helpful...it's way too small! Please see the section #Higher resolution of the top image? further down. --Fixuture (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Reason for edits

Hi all, I edited a small portion that could have reference Media Activism in order for the article I am working on in my sandbox to not be an orphan--as this is discouraged by Wikipedia standards. Thanks! Jduden (talk) 05:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)jduden

Influence on Children

Hi all, I think this sentence should be deleted Social media may expose children to images of alcohol, tobacco, and sexual behaviors. Even though this might be true in some level, this applies to the internet in general rather than being an exclusive trait of social media platforms. The topic should be either further explored, or removed in my opinion. What do you think? Cheers, Zalunardo8 (talk) 10:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

phishing link in the footer

The following link pops a phishing warning, so I suggest taking down the spam / phishing link in the footer of the social media article. It appears as *The Museum of Social Media* and links to h**p://w*w.wileyonlinelibrary.com/subject/code/000037/homepage/museum_of_social_media__home.ht** - Museum of scholarly articles on the rise and impact of social media (broke link for your safety) --Austenten (talk) 06:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• I deleted the link, because the linked page seems to be gone anyway. Trivialist (talk) 11:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Adding infomation on Privacy and Employers

I am planning on editing the privacy section. I will add information on employers using social media as a basis for hiring and also for monitoring employees. I am just now getting started on this and will have more in a week or two.

Here is the link to my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Clhenderson99/Sandbox/Social_Media_Privacy_and_Employers

Links

[1](Lihaas (talk) 11:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)).

I’m tired of seeing cartoons being circulated about old people. I have recently joined the ranks of old people and am astounded at their bravery. I feel I am brave. I can entertain and bowl while in excruciating pain knowing I will have pain all the time now. My friends are battling the knowledge that certain death is just around the corner and they never mention it.

They laugh with (not at) their friends. I hate to face what little life there is left without the benefit of a stiff drink or glass of wine (doc’s orders) And I hate the pills they prescribe which have the awful side effects. We are brave just to take them and suffer the consequences. Our minds do not have the vapidness of youth and we have so much wisdom which is completely and utterly ignored by young people in this country. We are the butt of jokes, which actually is better than being totally ignored by the sales clerk with the raised eyebrows and supercilious look. If I looked as I did 50 years ago, she would be fawning over me. I can makeor break her financially and just about every other way. I give her the practiced beatific smile and move on.

Yes, there are certain advantages to being older; being grumpy every now and again and getting away with it, living alone and doing your own thing is a big advantage But being brave is the great accomplishment of old age Brave in the face of impending death and in the face of demanding children who treat us like idiots with their presumption that we owe them our estates and complete obsequiousness

So, please don’t send me any more ghastly cartoons showing seniors in a ridiculous light. We are not incapable or silly. My memory is no worse than my 60 year old son‘s. I am brave. I am invincible-- until death do us part which we all hope to be gentle, but seldom is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.192.68 (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• This is a rant by an unsigned user some time ago, that has nothing at all to do with this article. Can it be deleted? Stringybark (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with Stringybark request Morganglick (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Are moderated web forums and groups part of social media?

I don't see web forums and groups (e.g. Google Groups, Yahoo Groups, StackExchange groups, various 'boards', 'mailing lists', and the many thousands of independently-moderated registered-user discussion sites) mentioned anywhere in this article. Is that because they've been overlooked, are called something else, or are not part of what is thought of as social media? I don't know, I'm just here to find out. I need to know for something I'm writing up.

If you know they belong and you can provide a citation, then write them in. If they are not considered to be, or it is debatable if they are, part of social media, then an explicit sentence would be useful, along the lines of "Moderated discussion groups and forums are not considered to be [or, it is debatable if they are] part of social media for reason x and y [citation link]. Stringybark (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

#governmentshutdown

'On October 2, 2013, the most common hashtag throughout the country was “#governmentshutdown”' – Which country? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geekpie (talk • contribs) 14:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Googled it... United States federal government shutdown of 2013. I've linked this in the article now. – Fayenatic London 12:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Links

>> Azerbaijan accuses OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs of dependence on social networksLihaas (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight

@Fayenatic london: I'd agree -- there should be other such incidents to balance it out (and maybe less emphasis on this one), and I wasn't sure if this were the right spot in the article or it needed (yet) another section. I think in general the article needs reorganization. Any suggestions? valereee (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Valereee: Having helped you to retrieve this material,([2]) I thought I'd tag it but leave it to other editors to decide. – Fayenatic London 13:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

That's fine! I'm planning to work on it -- would like to see it better organized, and one of the things I'd been thinking about for it since that missing person incident was that it was completely missing any mention of how social media has been widely reported as being used/useful in such situations. valereee (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Higher resolution of the top image?

The top image is truly helpful in bringing closer the varieties and diversity of social media but the resolution of the top image is way too small: one can barely discern the logos and some of the labels are unreadable.

(Also in section #Proposed Changes further up a user noted that many of those logos are outdated and that many significant social media sites are missing on it.)

So could you please upload a new version with a higher resolution?

User:Freshbeats is the original uploader (it seems he's also the creator of the image, Brian Solis).

His website has a newer image which has a resolution of 2880x1800.jpg: new image. Sadly there's no info on its copyright status on the website so it would be cool if someone could ask him about it (if freshbeats can't do that).

--Fixuture (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The Internet and cats

Please swing by and help improve this new article! :D--Coin945 (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

wikipedia assignment: social media trustworthy

In my opinion, what works on this article is that it includes sources from many credential people. And it specifically explains the problem of trustworthy in social media. However, I think what does not work is it needs more solution on how can social media be trusted by people. Therefore, I suggest that to be able to trust the social media, there has to be added the quality of content and the responsiveness of the content creator. (reference from Emarketer, ‘What Makes Social Media Trustworthy?’) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.172.111.184 (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Dopamine levels affected by social media

I just wanted to bring light to one reason why people seem to be addicted to social media.

One thing that has lead to Internet addiction is the instant gratification online interfaces can give. For example, a Tweet that is favorited or retweeted seems to validate what someone is going through, and it connects people. It is human nature to want to feel connected to one another and through internet interfaces, it has given us the opportunity to stay connected through a keyboard. The instant gratification is linked to dopamine loops in the brain. Dopamine contributes to several brain functions, such as thinking, moving, sleeping, mood, attention, motivation, seeking and reward. New research, is showing though that dopamine also causes a seeking behavior meaning that it causes people to want, desire, seek out, and search -- and that can be accomplished on the Internet. The article also shows that dopamine loops can be activated through unpredictability and social media is just that -- people never know when they are going to get a text, or have a tweet favorited, or have a picture liked. The unpredictability causes anticipation which just adds to the dopamine loop and keeps people checking social media, which keeps them online instead of talking to the people around them. [96]

Tinaalimaa (talk) 02:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

First use of term

It would be useful for the article to tell us when the term was first used, and who first coined it. 109.145.180.55 (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the survey need to be updated more often. And it also lack of information about what are some of benefits of using social media. I would love to see more details on how survey in 2015 shows that the internet users who uses social networking site has increased. It only shows how many percentage went up. on the other hand, showing surveys was a really good idea to understand easily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.206.151 (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

History Section

Would be better if the history section wasn't a subsection and had more length and more description. Also, it would be nice to actually note how social media and technology improvements correlate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knhende2 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Social Media as an Alternate Reality

Social Media is a way for people to interact with others, but it is also another reality that people tend to live and think is real. In our society today people tend to live through their social media and not through the life around them. We see so many people at dinner or walking in the street looking at their social media and seeing what other people are doing that are miles away from them, then focusing on the people that they are presently with.

This is a topic that i think is important because we use social media as an escape from what is in front of us, but it just makes us miss the life we have in front of us. Eevans11 (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Note that talk pages aren't places for general discussion (WP:FORUM). Also social media keeps being part of this reality - it's just some peculiar aspect / part of it. As of right now what you're speaking about can be found in the section #Effects on interpersonal relationships of the article. If you have anything to add expand that section or create a new one. --Fixuture (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Concentration

Hi, the sentence under the subtitle Concentration needs to be edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.171.130.160 (talk) 03:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Updating definition

Greetings, I have made some revisions to the definition sections of the summary and the article. A number of edits in early September conflicted with the scholarly literature, and thus I worked to correct these inaccuracies. For instance: social media is not a post-2010 phenomenon and thus this shouldn't be suggested, also, real names and psuedonyms are not required for creating a social media profile, see YikYak for example. I have maintained the bullet/number list in the summary that was added; however, if folks would prefer the more traditional paragraph form in the summary I would be fine with this. --Jaobar (talk) 04:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Social Media Privacy

I noticed that on this page there is a lot of information to take in and a lot of it seems to be jumbled. I think we can take a lot of this information and condense it so that it's a little bit easier to understand. Danielleee g (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I've just split the preceding comment out of the section on "Updating definition" and re-titled it for clarity. I also agree with the commenter Danielleee g! ;-) yoyo (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi all. Thanks for re-titling the section, yoyo. @Danielleee g: The section headings for talk pages are automatically generated and bolded by their header level (the # of "=" signs on either side of the section title. If you add a talk page section without those headers, it won't show up in the table of contents and can make it confusing for editors trying to reply to specific sections. You can see a bit on how to do that in the training (links to the talk page section) and if you like you can see the edit where yoyo fixed the header here. I hope this helps. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Privacy rights advocates warn users on social media about the collection of their personal data. Some information is captured without the user's knowledge or consent through electronic tracking and third party applications. Data may also be collected for law enforcement and governmental purposes,[101] by social media intelligence using data mining techniques.[102] Data and information may also be collected for third party use. When information is shared on social media, that information is no longer private. There have been many cases in which young persons especially, share personal information, which can attract predators. It is very important to monitor what you share, and to be aware of who you could potentially be sharing that information with. Teens especially share significantly more information on the internet now than they have in the past. Teen are much more likely to share their personal information, such as email address, phone number, school names and more.[1] Studies suggest that teens are not aware of what they are posting and how much of that information can be accessed by third parties. Other privacy concerns with employers and social media are when employers use social media as a tool to screen a prospective employee. This issue raises many ethical questions that some consider an employer's right and others consider discrimination. Except in the states of California, Maryland, and Illinois, there are no laws that prohibit employers from using social media profiles as a basis of whether or not someone should be hired.[105] Title VII also prohibits discrimination during any aspect of employment including hiring or firing, recruitment, or testing.[106] Social media has been integrating into the workplace and this has led to conflicts within employees and employers.[107] Particularly, Facebook has been seen as a popular platform for employers to investigate in order to learn more about potential employees. This conflict first started in Maryland when an employer requested and received an employee's Facebook username and password. State lawmakers first introduced legislation in 2012 to prohibit employers from requesting passwords to personal social accounts in order to get a job or to keep a job. This led to Canada, Germany, the U.S. Congress and 11 U.S. states to pass or propose legislation that prevents employers' access to private social accounts of employees.[108] It is not only an issue in the workplace, but an issue in schools as well. There have been situations where students have been forced to give up their social media passwords to schools administrators. [2] There are inadequate laws to protect a student's social media privacy, and organizations such as the ACLU are pushing for more privacy protection, as it is an invasion. They urge students who are pressured to give up their account information to tell the administrators to contact a parent and/or lawyer before they take the matter any further. Although they are students, they still have the right to keep their password-protected information private[3]. Many Western European countries have already implemented laws that restrict the regulation of social media in the workplace. States including Arkansas, California, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin have passed legislation that protects potential employees and current employees from employers that demand them to give forth their username or password for a social media account.[109] Laws that forbid employers from disciplining an employee based on activity off the job on social media sites have also been put into act in states including California, Colorado, Connecticut, North Dakota, and New York. Several states have similar laws that protect students in colleges and universities from having to grant access to their social media accounts. Eight states have passed the law that prohibits post secondary institutions from demanding social media login information from any prospective or current students and privacy legislation has been introduced or is pending in at least 36 states as of July 2013.[110] As of May 2014, legislation has been introduced and is in the process of pending in at least 28 states and has been enacted in Maine and Wisconsin.[111] In addition, the National Labor Relations Board has been devoting a lot of their attention to attacking employer policies regarding social media that can discipline employees who seek to speak and post freely on social media sites. There are arguments that privacy is dead and that with social media growing more and more, social media users have become quite unconcerned with privacy. Others argue, however, that people are still very concerned about their privacy, but are being ignored by the companies running these social networks, who can sometimes make a profit off of sharing someone's personal information. There is also a disconnect between social media user's words and their actions. Studies suggest that surveys show that people want to keep their lives private, but their actions on social media suggest otherwise.[4] Danielleee g (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)danielleee_g

Addition to Negative Effects

Three researchers at Blanquerna University, Spain, examined how adolescents interact with social media and specifically . They claimed that interactions on the website encourage representing oneself in the traditional gender constructs, which helps maintain gender stereotypes. The authors of the article noted that females generally show more emotion in their posts and more frequently change their profile pictures; which according to some psychologists can lead to self objectification. While on the other hand, the researchers say that males like to portray themselves as strong, independent, and powerful. Often, the researchers examines, these stereotypes have led to the limiting of one gender identity on social media because the traditional roles have generally been forced upon them in this setting. Users of Facebook generally use their profile to reflect that they are a "normal" person. The authors explain that rise of social media has also made it more common for adolescents to compare themselves to their peers because on social media everyone portrays themselves in a positive light. This, they claim, makes it easy for others to compare their lives against this positive light and feel like their life is worse than the persons online.

Social Media PrivacyI have assigned myself the Social Media #Privacy wiki page. I noticed that the grammar isn't up to par and can be improved. There also seems to be too much information, and I feel that it can be condensed so that it's more manageable and readable. Danielleee g (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Danielleee_g I've found some good sources as well.

References

Added {reflist} to the above comment, so that references will appear here and not at the bottom of the page. --Hordaland (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Useful Sources

Here are some sources I found that could help when editing the article:

• Tortajada; Araüna; Martínez. "Advertising Stereotypes and Gender Representation in Social Networking Sites". Grupo Comunicar. 21.
• Meier, Evelyn; Gray, James. "Facebook Photo Activity Associated with Body Image Disturbance in Adolescent Girls". CYBERPSYCHOLOGY, BEHAVIOR, AND SOCIAL NETWORKING. 17.
• Oberst, Ursala; Chamarro, Andres; Renau, Vanessa. "Gender Stereotypes 2.0: Self-Representations of Adolescents on Facebook". Media Education Research Journal. 24 (48): 81–89.
• De Vies, D; Peter, J. "Women on Display: The Effect of Portraying the Self Online on Women's Self-objectification". Computers in Human Behavior. 29 (4): p1,483-1489.
• "Facebook Involvement, Objectified Body Consciousness, Body Shame, and Sexual Assertiveness in College Women and Men". Sex Roles. 72.
• Holland; McKay; Moretti. "Self–other representations and relational and overt aggression in adolescent girls and boys". Behavioral Sciences and Law. 19. ISSN 0735-3936.
• Tiggerman; Slater. "NetGirls: The Internet, Facebook, and body image concern in adolescent girls". Internet Journal of Eating Disorders. 46. doi:10.1002/eat.22141.
• Barber; Blomfield Neira. "Social networking site use: Linked to adolescents' social self-concept, self-esteem, and depressed mood". Australian Journal of Psychology. 66. doi:10.1111/ajpy.12034.

Sdcox004 (talk) 16:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Hello Everyone, Attached below is the link to my overall review and minor suggestions I have for Danielle's draft for the privacy section of the Social Media article. Sincerely, Elizabeth Paredes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Danielleee_g/sandbox Eparedes97 (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

In the article you should mention how social media can be used in the classroom also the effects it has on students both inside and outside of the classroom. Social media is becoming more prevalent in education for the use of communicating between students, and group projects/discussions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoffma51 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment to Danielleee g

@ Danielleee g: Prof.bgreg here. Thanks for the work you’ve done on this article. Please see my feedback below for the paragraph you wrote on the tensions between the death and varying levels of concern for privacy.

There are arguments that privacy is dead and that with social media growing more and more, social media users have become quite unconcerned with privacy. Others argue, however, that people are still very concerned about their privacy, but are being ignored by the companies running these social networks, who can sometimes make a profit off of sharing someone's personal information.

• The above two sentences should be linked to sources so that they sound less like an opinion and more like a fact. For example, you might write “According to Author T, privacy may be dead. However, Author D has also argued that with the growth of social media, there has been a growth in people who may be unconcerned with privacy at all.” For each sentence, you should draw from a source that has made these arguments and quote the author(s) in order to give them more factual strength. The same goes for the next sentence where you delve into the people who are still concerned with privacy, which begins “Others argue…” Refer to the author(s) who have made these claims and remember to correctly cite your sources using the citation tool in Wikipedia in both sentences.

There is also a disconnect between social media user's words and their actions. Studies suggest that surveys show that people want to keep their lives private, but their actions on social media suggest otherwise.

• For the above sentence, you’ll also want to reference the source(s) / author(s) where you found this information, so you might write “There is also a disconnect between social media user's words and their actions, according to Author F. Study X suggests that surveys show…”.

After you make these changes, the paragraph will read better and will be more in line with the Wikipedia principle for writing in a neutral point of view (NPOV). Looking forward to seeing your edits.

Best, Prof.bgreg (talk) 10:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Reliability of article published by David Publishing

One or more unregistered editors are insisting that this article is a reliable source for the fairly mundane claim that "text was indicated as the most important reason among Internet users." I challenge the reliability of this source and any other source published by David Publishing. I'm laid out my arguments at WP:RSN and I encourage interested editors to participate in the discussion there. ElKevbo (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Why this wikipedia is work for my Argument Essay?

My Argument Essay is talk about Social media should be promoted. Because in this article the writer write about Negative effects that is what I need in my essay. Same with the author I wrote regarding privacy issues, internet fraud, and it also can lead to depression or other self-esteem issues. It also give a lot of datum can be used for reference. And from the references I can find more information for my essay.