Catch 22: The Paradox of Social Media Affordances and Stigmatized Online Support Groups
This study highlights the challenges of computer-mediated communication for vulnerable individuals and groups, by studying boundary work in stigmatized communities online. Five stigmatized online communities with different affordances were studied: (1) “pro-ana” blogs; (2) an infertility discussion...
Main Authors: | , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
SAGE Publishing
2020-12-01
|
Series: | Social Media + Society |
Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120984476 |
id |
doaj-03be0eb63ce34289a07a06840247619c |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-03be0eb63ce34289a07a06840247619c2020-12-27T00:33:26ZengSAGE PublishingSocial Media + Society2056-30512020-12-01610.1177/2056305120984476Catch 22: The Paradox of Social Media Affordances and Stigmatized Online Support GroupsDaphna Yeshua-Katz0Ylva Hård af Segerstad1Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, IsraelUniversity of Gothenburg, SwedenThis study highlights the challenges of computer-mediated communication for vulnerable individuals and groups, by studying boundary work in stigmatized communities online. Five stigmatized online communities with different affordances were studied: (1) “pro-ana” blogs; (2) an infertility discussion board; (3) a Facebook group for bereaved parents; and (4) two WhatsApp groups for Israeli veterans of war with post-traumatic stress disorder. In-depth interviews with members and administrators ( n = 66) revealed that social media affordances such as low anonymity and high visibility may marginalize those living with stigma. While research literature applauds social media for allowing the formation and maintenance of social capital, our study highlights the paradox caused by these very same affordances. To offer safe and functioning environments of support, the communities must guard against impostors whose presence threatens their safe havens. Simultaneously, this may make these groups inaccessible to those who truly need support and remove such groups from the public eye.https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120984476 |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Daphna Yeshua-Katz Ylva Hård af Segerstad |
spellingShingle |
Daphna Yeshua-Katz Ylva Hård af Segerstad Catch 22: The Paradox of Social Media Affordances and Stigmatized Online Support Groups Social Media + Society |
author_facet |
Daphna Yeshua-Katz Ylva Hård af Segerstad |
author_sort |
Daphna Yeshua-Katz |
title |
Catch 22: The Paradox of Social Media Affordances and Stigmatized Online Support Groups |
title_short |
Catch 22: The Paradox of Social Media Affordances and Stigmatized Online Support Groups |
title_full |
Catch 22: The Paradox of Social Media Affordances and Stigmatized Online Support Groups |
title_fullStr |
Catch 22: The Paradox of Social Media Affordances and Stigmatized Online Support Groups |
title_full_unstemmed |
Catch 22: The Paradox of Social Media Affordances and Stigmatized Online Support Groups |
title_sort |
catch 22: the paradox of social media affordances and stigmatized online support groups |
publisher |
SAGE Publishing |
series |
Social Media + Society |
issn |
2056-3051 |
publishDate |
2020-12-01 |
description |
This study highlights the challenges of computer-mediated communication for vulnerable individuals and groups, by studying boundary work in stigmatized communities online. Five stigmatized online communities with different affordances were studied: (1) “pro-ana” blogs; (2) an infertility discussion board; (3) a Facebook group for bereaved parents; and (4) two WhatsApp groups for Israeli veterans of war with post-traumatic stress disorder. In-depth interviews with members and administrators ( n = 66) revealed that social media affordances such as low anonymity and high visibility may marginalize those living with stigma. While research literature applauds social media for allowing the formation and maintenance of social capital, our study highlights the paradox caused by these very same affordances. To offer safe and functioning environments of support, the communities must guard against impostors whose presence threatens their safe havens. Simultaneously, this may make these groups inaccessible to those who truly need support and remove such groups from the public eye. |
url |
https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120984476 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT daphnayeshuakatz catch22theparadoxofsocialmediaaffordancesandstigmatizedonlinesupportgroups AT ylvahardafsegerstad catch22theparadoxofsocialmediaaffordancesandstigmatizedonlinesupportgroups |
_version_ |
1724370073807749120 |