Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 79 references

Burst: Collaborative Curation in Connected Social Media Communities

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Burst: let trusted friends route posts to the right audience

desk verdict A genuine design contribution that deserves a serious referee, but the field study is a feasibility demo rather than a demonstration: the abstract overreaches, the stats are sloppy, and the protocol itself manufactured the trust structure. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.19768 v1 pith:W3SKKSH5 submitted 2025-08-27 cs.HC

Yutong Zhang , Taeuk Kang , Sydney Yeh , Anavi Baddepudi , Lindsay Popowski , Tiziano Piccardi , Michael S. Bernstein This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords socialmediadesigncollaborativecurationburstingtrustedteamsaudienceselectionfieldstudyonlinecommunitiespsychologicalsafety
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that social media's split into private group chats and public squares is not inevitable, and introduces Burst, a design where every post first appears only to a small trusted "team." The team—and later other members—can "burst" the post, each burst counting as an endorsement toward a channel-specific threshold; a post appears in a larger channel only after enough endorsements. A ten-day field study with 36 participants found that 75% of participants burst at least once, an average of 8.14 bursts per person, and only 36% of posts stayed inside their starting team. Survey and interview data report that the trusted-team start lowered hesitancy to post and that participants treated bursting as a meaningful middle tier of contribution between reacting and replying. The authors' claim is that this structure creates a participatory curation culture, with content flowing between many semi-public communities rather than only between private and fully public extremes.

What carries the argument

The core mechanism is the burst threshold: each channel has a size-proportional threshold, and a post appears in that channel only after that many distinct users have endorsed it through the burst action. Around it sit four supporting features: "Your Team," a private reviewer group where all posts originate; anonymous bursts, which reduce social pressure on curators; poster-controlled channel suggestions and blocks, which give the author influence over where content may travel; and a #everyone channel with the highest threshold, representing full public reach. The threshold turns cross-posting from a unilateral, norm-violating act into a collective vote, and it is the piece that carries the

What would settle it

Run a replication where team formation and channel-joining are optional rather than required, with participants recruited from different universities or from an anonymous online population, and measure whether the 75% burst rate and 36%-stays-in-team figure reproduce. If burst actions drop to near-zero once the requirement to invite three curators is removed, or if posts almost never leave the starting team when teammates are strangers, the central claim that the design creates participatory curation would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that curation can be a first-class social media action rather than an invisible algorithmic process. In Burst, content is not posted directly to a global feed: it begins visible only to the author's trusted team, and viewers nominate it outward by bursting, with each channel requiring a threshold of endorsements before it will show the post; larger channels require more endorsements. The field study's headline numbers are that 27 of 36 participants burst at least one post, participants performed 297 burst actions over ten days, and 64% of posts burst into at least one channel beyond the starting team. Qualitative data adds the mechanism's intended effect: posters said th

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the engagement measured in this ten-day, single-campus study—where everyone was required to invite at least three people to their team and to join three channels, and where many participants already knew each other—reflects the burst design itself rather than the mandatory setup or pre-existing trust.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Social media platforms can support a middle layer of semi-public communities, letting content graduate from trusted groups to bounded larger audiences without jumping straight to viral public exposure.
  • Curation becomes a mainstream user behavior with an intermediate effort level: more involved than a reaction, less involved than a reply, and available to people who do not create content themselves.
  • Cross-posting is reframed as a positive, expected act, potentially reducing the stigma and apology culture around sharing content across communities.
  • The burst mechanic is portable: the same threshold-and-endorsement structure can be embedded in existing space-based platforms such as Slack, so the design does not require a full new network to be tested.
  • If deployed at scale, burst thresholds need to be hardened against coordinated manipulation, for example through diversity-aware threshold algorithms, a direction the paper explicitly proposes.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • One test the paper leaves open is whether the trust loop survives cold-start conditions: in this study participants came from a single institution and often knew each other, so a replication with anonymous strangers would tell whether the burst mechanic itself, rather than offline familiarity, drives curatorial participation.
  • The anonymity of bursts could hide reciprocal exchange: several participants described bursting as "I help yours, you help mine," but the paper does not analyze whether bursts form reciprocal pairs; a network-level test could check whether curation becomes a gift economy or a one-way broadcast.
  • Threshold policy is a tunable control knob the study only samples at one setting; varying thresholds experimentally could map the trade-off between reach (low thresholds) and content filtering (high thresholds), and might reveal a tipping point where channels either starve or flood.
  • Ten days is short enough that novelty effects could inflate engagement; a longer deployment would be needed to see whether participatory curation persists after the initial excitement of a research app wears off.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Burst, a social media design in which posts are initially visible only to a user's small trusted team and are then routed to progressively larger channels only after enough team members 'burst' the post. A mobile app implements the design, and a ten-day field study (N=36) collects activity logs, pre/post surveys, and 16 interviews. The reported behavioral findings are that 75% of participants burst at least once, 297 burst actions occurred, and only 36% of posts remained solely within the poster's team; interview and survey data are used to argue that Burst lowered posting anxiety, supported audience-appropriate sharing, and created a meaningful middle layer between private groups and public squares. The paper frames this as demonstrating a participatory curation culture and discusses limitations around scale, duration, and sample homogeneity.

Significance. The design contribution is genuinely interesting: Burst operationalizes a middle ground between small private groups and large public feeds, and the multi-channel threshold mechanism is a concrete, implementable alternative to retweet/algorithmic distribution. The study is a genuine field deployment rather than a lab simulation, and the behavioral logs are useful evidence that the interaction is learnable and voluntarily used: 75% of participants burst despite no requirement to do so, and the distribution of actions in Table 2 shows bursting sits between reacting and replying. The qualitative analysis is extensive and well-integrated. However, the paper's central claim that Burst 'enabled' a participatory curation culture goes beyond what the design of the study can support, because the trusted-team-plus-multiple-channel structure was mandated by the onboarding protocol and no baseline or control condition isolates the burst mechanic. The authors candidly acknowledge the homogeneity of the sample ('everything was close to home', Section 6), but they do not test whether the trust loop depends on pre-existing ties. These issues are load-bearing for the abstract's 'demonstrate' but ar

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.2 and Section 5.1] The central evaluative claim is underdetermined by the study design. Section 4.2 states: 'we required participants to invite at least three users to join their team as curators and to join at least three channels based on their interests.' This mandate manufactures the exact structural precondition for bursting (a small trusted team that can route content into multiple channels), and there is no baseline or control arm in which users could post directly to channels or in which team formation was not required. The 75% burst participation reported in Section 5.1 is therefore evidence that the protocol can produce burst usage, not that the burst mechanic, rather than the mandated structure, novelty, or compensation, enabled a participatory curation culture. I recommend either (a) reframing the contribution as a feasibility and usage study of a design concept, (b) adding a minimal control co
  2. [Sections 5.1-5.3 (survey percentages)] The attitudinal claims rest on inconsistently reported denominators. Section 4.1 says 36 participants completed both pre- and post-study surveys, but percentages such as 72.41%, 68.97%, and 65.52% in Section 5.1 imply a denominator of 29. Sections 5.2 and 5.3 report percentages such as 63%, 47%, 53%, and 79% without stating the number of respondents or whether these are item-level response counts. This makes the survey-based claims about comfort, audience match, and satisfaction impossible to verify. Please report item-level Ns, missing-data patterns, and exact survey items (e.g., in an appendix), and treat the percentages as estimates with appropriate uncertainty.
  3. [Section 6 (limitations)] The paper explicitly concedes that the participant pool was culturally homogeneous, drawn from a single institution, and that team members often had pre-existing ties ('everything was close to home'). This is not merely a generalizability caveat: the core mechanism of Burst is that users feel safe posting to a trusted team and that the team's curation is prosocial. If the trust loop is produced by shared campus context and swift trust rather than by the thresholded burst design, the qualitative evidence of 'safe posting' (Section 5.2) does not transfer to the broader settings the paper motivates (Section 1). The limitation is acknowledged but not tested. At minimum, the paper should include an analysis comparing participant behavior or attitudes for teams composed of known peers versus those formed purely through the onboarding process, or explicitly restrict the contribution claim to th
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 4 caption] The caption says 'On average, participants generated a maximum of 40 bursts, with an average of 15.79 bursts per day.' Given 297 total burst actions over ten days and 36 participants, the aggregate daily rate is about 0.8 bursts per participant per day. Please clarify which population and time unit this number refers to, or correct it.
  2. [Section 4.3] The thematic analysis is described as performed by one author on the first five transcripts, with codes then refined. Please report whether other authors coded transcripts independently, and if so, provide agreement metrics. If the analysis was single-coded throughout, say so explicitly.
  3. [Section 6] The first paragraph says the evaluation focused on 'approximately one week,' but the study is described elsewhere as ten days. Align the wording.
  4. [Figure 3(e)] The figure shows a burst progress of '2/1' for a channel that requires one burst; this is visually confusing because progress exceeds the threshold. Use an example where the numerator is below or at the threshold unless intentionally illustrating an already-burst state.
  5. [References] Reference [21] (Dzimianski et al. on ISG15) appears unrelated to the sentence about WhatsApp/Discord/private communication. Please verify the citation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper's central claim rests on observational field-study data, and its self-citations are contextual rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper does not contain a derivation, fitted model, or predictive pipeline whose outputs reduce to its inputs. The central claim—that Burst 'enabled a participatory curation culture'—is supported by logged behaviors (e.g., 75% of participants burst at least once), survey responses, and interviews. No parameter is fitted to the outcome and then renamed as a prediction; no equation reproduces the claimed result by construction. The paper cites the authors' prior work (Form-From [77], Cura [33], and Bernstein et al. [8]), but these citations are used to frame the design space or to motivate future safeguards, not to prove the field-study findings. The design itself is not equivalent to its evaluation. Concerns about mandatory onboarding, the homogeneous single-university sample, and the lack of a control or baseline are real threats to causal attribution and generalizability, but they are internal-validity or external-validity limitations, not circularity. Under the stated rules, no specific circular step can be quoted or exhibited, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The design rests on two untested psychological assumptions (trust in small teams as curators; size-proportional thresholds as a quality filter). The study imposes mandatory participation floors, and all attitudinal conclusions assume self-reports are valid measures. No numbers are fitted to data, so the free-parameter list is short: the unspecified threshold scaling and the mandated onboarding quotas.

free parameters (2)
  • Channel burst threshold function = Unspecified proportionality constant
    Thresholds are 'proportional to the number of active members' (Section 3.2), but the scaling constant is never stated and the study never varies thresholds, so observed engagement levels may partly reflect the chosen values.
  • Onboarding quotas (team members, channel memberships) = At least 3 each
    Mandatory participation floor set by the research team (Section 4.2); inflates the baseline engagement that the study then interprets as organic adoption.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Users trust small trusted groups to curate which of their content ought to be seen by others.
    Stated as a hypothesis in Section 3.1 ('we further hypothesize that they trust those groups to curate'); it is the psychological premise the whole design rests on.
  • domain assumption Size-proportional burst thresholds protect larger channels from low-quality content.
    Section 3.2 sets thresholds proportional to member count; the claim that larger thresholds require 'broader support' is assumed, not tested at scale.
  • domain assumption Self-reported survey and interview responses are valid measures of comfort, hesitancy, and satisfaction.
    All attitudinal conclusions in Section 5 rely on 36 (or fewer) respondents' self-reports with no behavioral validation or baseline comparison.
invented entities (2)
  • Burst (peer-curation routing mechanism)
    purpose: Routes posts across channels of varied size through anonymous peer votes gated by size-proportional thresholds, with a private team as the mandatory seed audience.
    The mechanism is the paper's own invention; its only evidence is the in-paper field study, and no external deployment, benchmark, or falsifiable prediction outside this study is provided.
  • Your Team (per-user private reviewer group)
    purpose: Initial trusted audience that reviews and votes on every post before it can reach any channel.
    Introduced as a design necessity ('Burst requires a place for content to be reviewed', Section 3.2); the paper notes Burst could work without it, so its necessity is asserted, not tested.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Burst: Collaborative Curation in Connected Social Media Communities." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W3SKKSH5

@misc{pith2026250819768,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Burst: Collaborative Curation in Connected Social Media Communities},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W3SKKSH5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.19768}
}
read the original abstract

Positive social interactions can occur in groups of many shapes and sizes, spanning from small and private to large and open. However, social media tends to binarize our experiences into either isolated small groups or into large public squares. In this paper, we introduce Burst, a social media design that allows users to share and curate content between many spaces of varied size and composition. Users initially post content to small trusted groups, who can then burst that content, routing it to the groups that would be the best audience. We instantiate this approach into a mobile phone application, and demonstrate through a ten-day field study (N=36) that Burst enabled a participatory curation culture. With this work, we aim to articulate potential new design directions for social media sharing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.19768 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Burst is a social media design that centers post curation as an intentional and socially distributed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. All feed views in Burst display posts in reverse chronological order, with the newest posts appearing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Within the Burst app, we provide the user with the capability to (a) create and join channels, (b) join [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Participants explored the app without any requirement to use the burst feature during the study. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Channel connections, constructed by burst across multiple channels, are represented here by the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Christopher Alexander. 1977. A pattern language: towns, buildings, construction . Oxford university press

    work page 1977

  2. [2]

    Eytan Bakshy, Solomon Messing, and Lada A Adamic. 2015. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science 348, 6239 (2015), 1130–1132

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Eytan Bakshy, Itamar Rosenn, Cameron Marlow, and Lada Adamic. 2012. The role of social networks in information diffusion. In Proceedings of the 21st international conference on World Wide Web . 519–528

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Alixandra Barasch and Jonah Berger. 2014. Broadcasting and narrowcasting: How audience size affects what people share. Journal of Marketing Research 51, 3 (2014), 286–299

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Michael A Beam, Jeffrey T Child, Myiah J Hutchens, and Jay D Hmielowski. 2018. Context collapse and privacy management: Diversity in Facebook friends increases online news reading and sharing. New media & society 20, 7 (2018), 2296–2314

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    W Lance Bennett and Alexandra Segerberg. 2012. The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Information, communication & society 15, 5 (2012), 739–768

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Michael S Bernstein, Mark S Ackerman, Ed H Chi, and Robert C Miller. 2011. The trouble with social computing systems research. In CHI’11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 389–398

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Michael S Bernstein, Adam Marcus, David R Karger, and Robert C Miller. 2010. Enhancing directed content sharing on the web. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 971–980

    work page 2010

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    Giovanni Boccia Artieri, Stefano Brilli, and Elisabetta Zurovac. 2021. Below the radar: Private groups, locked platforms, and ephemeral content—Introduction to the special issue. Social Media+ Society 7, 1 (2021), 2056305121988930

    2021

  2. [10]

    Danah Boyd. 2008. Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life.YOUTH, IDENTITY, AND DIGITAL MEDIA, David Buckingham, ed., The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning, The MIT Press, Camb...

    2008

  3. [11]

    Danah Boyd. 2010. Social network sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, and implications. InA networked self. Routledge, 47–66. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 9, No. 7, Article CSCW382. Publication date: November 2025. Burst: Collaborative Curation in Conne...

    2010

  4. [12]

    Danah Boyd, Scott Golder, and Gilad Lotan. 2010. Tweet, tweet, retweet: Conversational aspects of retweeting on twitter. In 2010 43rd Hawaii international conference on system sciences . IEEE, 1–10

    2010

  5. [13]

    Danah M Boyd and Nicole B Ellison. 2007. Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of computer-mediated Communication 13, 1 (2007), 210–230

    2007

  6. [14]

    William J Brady, Killian McLoughlin, Tuan N Doan, and Molly J Crockett. 2021. How social learning amplifies moral outrage expression in online social networks. Science Advances 7, 33 (2021), eabe5641

    2021

  7. [15]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77–101

    2006

  8. [16]

    Brian S Butler and Xiaoqing Wang. 2012. The cross-purposes of cross-posting: Boundary reshaping behavior in online discussion communities. Information Systems Research 23, 3-part-2 (2012), 993–1010

    2012

  9. [17]

    Bill Buxton. 2010. Sketching user experiences: getting the design right and the right design . Morgan kaufmann

    2010

  10. [18]

    Manuel Castells. 2015. Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the Internet age . John Wiley & Sons

    2015

  11. [19]

    Sauvik Das and Adam Kramer. 2013. Self-censorship on Facebook. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media , Vol. 7. 120–127

    2013

  12. [20]

    Michela Del Vicario, Alessandro Bessi, Fabiana Zollo, Fabio Petroni, Antonio Scala, Guido Caldarelli, H Eugene Stanley, and Walter Quattrociocchi. 2016. The spreading of misinformation online. Proceedings of the national academy of Sciences 113, 3 (2016), 554–559

    2016

  13. [21]

    John V Dzimianski, Florine EM Scholte, Éric Bergeron, and Scott D Pegan. 2019. ISG15: it’s complicated. Journal of molecular biology 431, 21 (2019), 4203–4216

    2019

  14. [22]

    Ragnhild Eg, Özlem Demirkol Tønnesen, and Merete Kolberg Tennfjord. 2023. A scoping review of personalized user experiences on social media: The interplay between algorithms and human factors. Computers in Human Behavior Reports 9 (2023), 100253

    2023

  15. [23]

    Nicole Elyukin. 2021. Behind the scenes: self-presentation on Instagram versus Finsta. (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    Reza Farahbakhsh, Angel Cuevas, and Noël Crespi. 2016. Characterization of cross-posting activity for professional users across Facebook, Twitter and Google+. Social Network Analysis and Mining 6 (2016), 1–14

    2016

  17. [25]

    Nicolás E Díaz Ferreyra, Tobias Hecking, Esma Aïmeur, Maritta Heisel, and H Ulrich Hoppe. 2022. Community detection for access-control decisions: Analysing the role of homophily and information diffusion in Online Social Networks. Online social networks and media 29 (2022), 100203

    2022

  18. [26]

    Richard Fletcher and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen. 2017. Are news audiences increasingly fragmented? A cross-national comparative analysis of cross-platform news audience fragmentation and duplication. Journal of communication 67, 4 (2017), 476–498

    2017

  19. [27]

    Was it something I said?

    Sherice Gearhart and Weiwu Zhang. 2015. “Was it something I said?”“No, it was something you posted!” A study of the spiral of silence theory in social media contexts. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 18, 4 (2015), 208–213

    2015

  20. [28]

    Tarleton Gillespie. 2018. Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press

    2018

  21. [29]

    Jorge Gonçalves. 2011. Groupster: Narrowcasting on social networking sites. Master’s Thesis, University of Madeira (2011)

    2011

  22. [30]

    Jonathan Grudin. 1988. Why CSCW applications fail: problems in the design and evaluationof organizational interfaces. In Proceedings of the 1988 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work . 85–93

    1988

  23. [31]

    Jonathan Grudin. 1994. Groupware and social dynamics: Eight challenges for developers. Commun. ACM 37, 1 (1994), 92–105

    1994

  24. [32]

    Jurgen Habermas. 1991. The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. MIT press

    1991

  25. [33]

    Wanrong He, Mitchell L Gordon, Lindsay Popowski, and Michael S Bernstein. 2023. Cura: Curation at Social Media Scale. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CSCW2 (2023), 1–33

    2023

  26. [34]

    Sohyeon Hwang and Jeremy D Foote. 2021. Why do people participate in small online communities? Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2 (2021), 1–25

    2021

  27. [35]

    Jane Im, Jill Dimond, Melody Berton, Una Lee, Katherine Mustelier, Mark S Ackerman, and Eric Gilbert. 2021. Yes: Affirmative consent as a theoretical framework for understanding and imagining social platforms. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in compu...

    2021

  28. [36]

    Jane Im, Sonali Tandon, Eshwar Chandrasekharan, Taylor Denby, and Eric Gilbert. 2020. Synthesized social signals: Computationally-derived social signals from account histories. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–12

    2020

  29. [37]

    Henry Jenkins. 2013. Spreadable media: Creating value and meaning in a networked culture. New York University (2013). Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 9, No. 7, Article CSCW382. Publication date: November 2025. CSCW382:28 Yutong Zhang et al

    2013

  30. [38]

    Shagun Jhaver, Seth Frey, and Amy X Zhang. 2023. Decentralizing platform power: A design space of multi-level governance in online social platforms. Social Media+ Society 9, 4 (2023), 20563051231207857

    2023

  31. [39]

    Chenyan Jia, Michelle S Lam, Minh Chau Mai, Jeffrey T Hancock, and Michael S Bernstein. 2024. Embedding democratic values into social media AIs via societal objective functions. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 8, CSCW1 (2024), 1–36

    2024

  32. [40]

    Sanjay Kairam, Mike Brzozowski, David Huffaker, and Ed Chi. 2012. Talking in circles: selective sharing in google+. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1065–1074

    2012

  33. [41]

    Chaitanya Kaligotla, Enver Yücesan, and Stephen E Chick. 2016. The impact of broadcasting on the spread of opinions in social media conversations. In 2016 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC) . IEEE, 3476–3487

    2016

  34. [42]

    Kawaljeet Kaur Kapoor, Kuttimani Tamilmani, Nripendra P Rana, Pushp Patil, Yogesh K Dwivedi, and Sridhar Nerur

  35. [43]

    Nicolas Kokkalis, Chengdiao Fan, Thomas Breier, and Michael S Bernstein. 2017. Founder Center: Enabling Access to Collective Social Capital. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. 2010–2022

    2017

  36. [44]

    James A Landay, Jason I Hong, et al. 2003. The design of sites: patterns, principles, and processes for crafting a customer- centered Web experience. Addison-Wesley Professional

    2003

  37. [45]

    Daniel B le Roux and Douglas A Parry. 2020. The town square in your pocket: exploring four metaphors of social media. In Responsible Design, Implementation and Use of Information and Communication Technology: 19th IFIP WG 6.11 Conference on e-Business, e-Services, and e-Societ...

    2020

  38. [46]

    Eden Litt and Eszter Hargittai. 2016. The imagined audience on social network sites. Social Media+ Society 2, 1 (2016), 2056305116633482

    2016

  39. [47]

    Philipp Lorenz-Spreen, Bjarke Mørch Mønsted, Philipp Hövel, and Sune Lehmann. 2019. Accelerating dynamics of collective attention. Nature communications 10, 1 (2019), 1759

    2019

  40. [48]

    Paul Benjamin Lowry, Tom L Roberts, Nicholas C Romano Jr, Paul D Cheney, and Ross T Hightower. 2006. The impact of group size and social presence on small-group communication: Does computer-mediated communication make a difference? Small Group Research 37, 6 (2006), 631–661

    2006

  41. [49]

    Kaitlin Mahar, Amy X Zhang, and David Karger. 2018. Squadbox: A tool to combat email harassment using friendsourced moderation. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–13

    2018

  42. [50]

    Ben Marder, Adam Joinson, Avi Shankar, and Kate Thirlaway. 2016. Strength matters: Self-presentation to the strongest audience rather than lowest common denominator when faced with multiple audiences in social network sites. Computers in Human Behavior 61 (2016), 56–62

    2016

  43. [51]

    Alice Marwick and Danah Boyd. 2011. To see and be seen: Celebrity practice on Twitter. Convergence 17, 2 (2011), 139–158

    2011

  44. [52]

    Alice E Marwick and Danah Boyd. 2011. I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New media & society 13, 1 (2011), 114–133

    2011

  45. [53]

    D Meyerson. 1996. Swift Trust and Temporary Groups.Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research/Thousand Oaks (1996)

    1996

  46. [54]

    Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann. 1974. The spiral of silence a theory of public opinion. Journal of communication 24, 2 (1974), 43–51

    1974

  47. [55]

    Zizi Papacharissi. 2010. A networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites . Routledge

    2010

  48. [56]

    Z Papacharissi. 2010. A private sphere: Democracy in a digital age. Polity (2010)

    2010

  49. [57]

    EC Rajendra-Nicolucci and Ethan Zuckerman. 2021. An Illustrated Field Guide to Social Media (p. 119). Knight First Amendment Institute

    2021

  50. [58]

    Howard Rheingold. 2000. The virtual community, revised edition: Homesteading on the electronic frontier . MIT press

    2000

  51. [59]

    Adi Robertson. 2019. How the biggest decentralized social network is dealing with its Nazi problem. https://www.theverge. com/2019/7/12/20691957/mastodon-decentralized-social-network-gab-migration-fediverse-app-blocking Accessed: 2024-10-29

    2019

  52. [60]

    Jan Sawicki, Maria Ganzha, Marcin Paprzycki, and Yutaka Watanobe. 2023. Reddit CrosspostNet—studying Reddit communities with large-scale Crosspost graph networks. Algorithms 16, 9 (2023), 424

    2023

  53. [61]

    Nathan Schneider, Primavera De Filippi, Seth Frey, Joshua Z Tan, and Amy X Zhang. 2021. Modular politics: Toward a governance layer for online communities. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW1 (2021), 1–26

    2021

  54. [62]

    Clay Shirky. 2008. Here comes everybody: The power of organizing without organizations. Alien Lane (2008)

    2008

  55. [63]

    Nouran Soliman, Hyeonsu B Kang, Matthew Latzke, Jonathan Bragg, Joseph Chee Chang, Amy Xian Zhang, and David R Karger. 2024. Mitigating Barriers to Public Social Interaction with Meronymous Communication. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing System...

    2024

  56. [64]

    Garima Srivastav and Ankit Gupta. 2017. Going private in public: A study on shift in behavioral trend using facebook. Computers in Human Behavior 73 (2017), 55–63

    2017

  57. [65]

    Joëlle Swart, Chris Peters, and Marcel Broersma. 2019. Sharing and discussing news in private social media groups: The social function of news and current affairs in location-based, work-oriented and leisure-focused communities. Digital journalism 7, 2 (2019), 187–205

    2019

  58. [66]

    Yla Tausczik and Xiaoyun Huang. 2019. The impact of group size on the discovery of hidden profiles in online discussion groups. ACM Transactions on Social Computing 2, 3 (2019), 1–25

    2019

  59. [67]

    Allan S Taylor. 2022. Authentic Self-Representation. In Authenticity as Performativity on Social Media . Springer, 51–79

    2022

  60. [68]

    It’s common and a part of being a content creator

    Kurt Thomas, Patrick Gage Kelley, Sunny Consolvo, Patrawat Samermit, and Elie Bursztein. 2022. “It’s common and a part of being a content creator”: Understanding How Creators Experience and Cope with Hate and Harassment Online. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI conference on huma...

    2022

  61. [69]

    Petter Törnberg. 2022. How digital media drive affective polarization through partisan sorting. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119, 42 (2022), e2207159119

    2022

  62. [70]

    Petter Törnberg, Diliara Valeeva, Justus Uitermark, and Christopher Bail. 2023. Simulating social media using large language models to evaluate alternative news feed algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.05984 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Zeynep Tufekci. 2017. Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest . Yale University Press

    2017

  64. [72]

    Justin C Velten, Rauf Arif, and Delane Moehring. 2017. Managing disclosure through social media: How Snapchat is shaking boundaries of privacy perceptions. The Journal of Social Media in Society 6, 1 (2017), 220–250

    2017

  65. [73]

    Fernanda B Viegas and Judith S Donath. 1999. Chat circles. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 9–16

    1999

  66. [74]

    Jessica Vitak. 2012. The impact of context collapse and privacy on social network site disclosures.Journal of broadcasting & electronic media 56, 4 (2012), 451–470

    2012

  67. [75]

    Soroush Vosoughi, Deb Roy, and Sinan Aral. 2018. The spread of true and false news online. science 359, 6380 (2018), 1146–1151

    2018

  68. [76]

    Sijia Xiao, Danaë 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 (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’20...

    2020

  69. [77]

    Amy X Zhang, Michael S Bernstein, David R Karger, and Mark S Ackerman. 2024. Form-From: A Design Space of Social Media Systems. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 8, CSCW1 (2024), 1–47

    2024

  70. [78]

    Amy X Zhang, Grant Hugh, and Michael S Bernstein. 2020. PolicyKit: building governance in online communities. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology . 365–378. Received October 2024; revised April 2025; accepted August 2025 Pr...

    2020

  71. [2018]

    Information systems frontiers 20 (2018), 531–558

    Advances in social media research: Past, present and future. Information systems frontiers 20 (2018), 531–558

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.