Tag Archives: Web 2.0

Social media: from rags to riches


Continuing the discussion about social media, as well as its implications and consequences for the society, I came to think that it is important to discuss a particular case regarding the issue of digital media. Indeed, theoretical perspective and discussions concerning the use of social media cannot be complete without some representative example of social media usage.

In the following lines I will present a case I chose, examine its peculiarities, benefits and shortcomings, discuss it from the “social media” angle and make conclusions.

The case

The case I would like to examine in this post is about Russian opposition leader Alexey Navalnyy, his social media activities, political career and legal prosecution arranged by Russian authorities. Interestingly, “Navalnyy” case can be seen as recent and old simultaneously, given that a politician’s blog which was launched over 7 years ago eventually led to a wide range of political and legal events which took place this summer and autumn. Hence, examining the case of an oppositionist, we can follow the development of Russian digital media sphere and the growth of its influence in the country.

Alexey Navalnyy is a lawyer, political and financial activist. In Russia he is most famous due to his activities during protests in Russia in 2011-2013, and his blogs, tweets and posts in a various social media platforms. Navalnyy came to prominence through his blog which was launched in 2006 with the objective of publishing investigations and viewpoints regarding corruption, abuse of power and illegal activities of Russian state-related individuals – top management of state companies, members of parliament and government, and other country’s power-holders. The oppositionist summarized his intentions stating that “Everyone says corruption is everywhere, but for me it seems strange to say that and then not try to put the people guilty of that corruption away.” The popularity of the blog has grown steadily ever since it was established, having reached over 220000 views per day by October 2013. Livejournal, Russia’s most popular blogging platform and the hosting website of Navalnyy blog, claims Navalnyy to be the second most read blogger in Runet (Russian segment of the Internet).

Although the blog still remains the most popular means of communication for Navalnyy, the politician is also represented in all the major social networking platforms – from Facebook to Twitter. Thus, the target group of Navalnyy are active Internet users (primarily from Moscow), who are interested in political situation in Russia, care about country’s future and determined to make a change. It is important to mention, that currently about 75 per cent of Muscovites have access to the Internet, and thus the popularity of Navalnyy is partially explained by the proliferation of the Internet. Moreover, the rise of Web 2.0 technology, allowing internet users to comment, like, share and discuss the posts and statements of the politician undoubtedly contributed to the increase of popularity and intensity of discussions regarding the general “Navalnyy” topic.



Gathering of Navalnyy proponents in central Moscow prior to the elections

Until 2013, the political system of Russia did not permit public elections of regional governors, as they were appointed by Kremlin and regional parliaments. However, after passing amendments to the existing election law, this ban was lifted, resulting in ability for Russian opposition to put forward their candidates for these politically lucrative positions. Consequently, realizing his popularity and support of potential voters, Alexey Navalnyy announced his interest in participating in Moscow mayor elections in September 2013. Noteworthy is that Moscow is considered to be a separate region in Russia, and thus the mayor of Moscow is technically head of the entire region.

After the aforementioned announcement, Navalnyy released his political program as a blogpost and started actively using social media platforms for promoting his views and political agenda. Moreover, Navalnyy used his blog, Twitter and Facebook accounts (and even Instagram) for gathering people and organizing demonstrations aimed at supporting and promoting him as a potential mayor of the capital city. Navalnyy also used social networking sites as a means of debating with other candidates regarding their statements and political agenda. For example, Navalnyy responded and commented on tweets and Facebook posts of other candidates. Furthermore, the politician regularly posted articles regarding the elections process and other candidates’ views and behavior on his personal blog.

It is worth mentioning that while Navalnyy originally became popular due to his articles on Livejournal blog, the growth of popularity of Twitter and Facebook in the country eventually contributed to the increased focus of the oppositionist on status updates and comments on social networking sites. Although the oppositionist’s blog was undoubtedly the most important means of communication and discussions during the campaign, services such as Twitter and Instagram provided significant number of followers, allowing the politician to not only attract those who don’t read blogs, but also posts short messages and comments regarding ongoing events in efficient and timely fashion.

Interestingly, Russian authorities contributed to the further growth of Navalnyy popularity, accusing him for embezzlement and starting a legal trial against him. The result was that the case was covered by Russian mainstream media, bringing “Navalnyy” topic to the top discussed issues in the state. Realizing the influence of the grass-roots politician, authorities stopped the trial right before the elections, making the issue even more widely discussed. Navalnyy stated after these events that he is not “afraid and these 15 days convinced [him] there is nothing to fear. Let them [authorities] be afraid instead.” As a result, Russian social media was overwhelmed with Navalnyy-related statuses, articles, photos and comments, making the oppositionist undeniably the most popular and discussed persona in Russian segment of the Internet.

The elections took place on the 8th of September 2013 and lead to unexpected results, as Navalnyy managed to obtain a significant number of votes, even though none of the polls or experts predicted more than 10 per cent. Although Kremlin appointee won the elections, Navalnyy managed to get 27 per cent of the votes, thus becoming the most popular opposition candidate in Moscow elections ever.

“Project Navalnyy”


Demonstration of Navalnyy supporters on the 8th of September 2013

The case of Navalnyy is interesting for a number of reasons. The politician became one of the most discussed individuals in the Internet in Russia, and the most popular and famous opposition activist in the country almost exclusively due to his activities in social media. The popularity and support Navalnyy managed to gain by using social media services is even more impressive, given the fact that oppositionist eventually managed to confront established authorities and successfully perform on Moscow mayor elections. The mistakes made by authorities initiating legal trial against politician resulted in coverage of this case by practically all the media in Russia – digital as well as mainstream. However, it was Navalnyy’s active usage of social media platforms to gather people, express opinions, discuss issues and interact with voters, which was the most advantageous  for oppositionist. Most other candidates showed little or no command of the Internet and SNSs. Thus “project Navalnyy” is almost entirely a product of Web 2.0 technology and proliferation of social media services, and changed the dynamic of politician-voters relations, made election candidates more accessible and reachable for ordinary users, and discussions more interactive and up-to date. One may only hope that the Navalnyy campaign is not a one-time event in Russia, and that other determined people who are not indifferent about the country’s future will follow the example of this oppositionist and take advantage of digital media platforms.

Activism: from off to on


Although the Internet as a concept was created over 30 years ago, it’s been only two decades since we saw a true rise of this technology. The proliferation of the network, as well as its integration in the world economics, trade, culture and even politics are undeniable nowadays. The rise of the Internet provided the world with a number of new technologies, such as online banking, social networks, e-democracy, online retail etc.  I already wrote about the concept of  social media, which is considered to be among the most important after-effects of the Internet expansion, and today I would like to take a closer look at the implications and consequences of this phenomenon. There is a significant number of implications of social media, with grass-roots journalism, Internet activism, online marketing and viral content to be among the most notable. In this post I will focus on the online activism, and in particular social media and social movements.

Social movements and the Internet

To begin with, social movements, being a part of civil society, have always played a crucial role in resisting and carrying out a social change. Dealing with specific political, economic, cultural and, most important, social issues, these movements have always been in the forefront of struggle for justice and improvement of the existing social structures [1]. Social movements have always adopted the very advanced technologies which helped them gain support, spread the ideas and agenda, and to raise money [2]. The emergence of Web 2.0 and social media allowed social movements to start to actively use these new tools and improve their communication, coordination and cooperation. Thus, adding to the traditional offline activities, social movements started using the advantages which were offered by the online realm – cheap means of communication, fast information updates, comprehensive coverage of target groups and many more.

Although any Internet-related topic is relatively new and thus evolving, academia nowadays offers a wide range of concepts and explanations regarding online activism of social movements. I do not pretend to choose the most appropriate ones, especially given that it is practically impossible, given that the perception of the Internet generally, and social media in particular differs. Hence, I picked up three concepts, which in my opinion can reflect the most notable implications of the online activism with regard to social media.

Mass-self communication

Manuel Castells talks about the concept of mass self-communication which emerged due to the rise of the Internet, Web 2.0 and social media. Scientist argues that the phenomenon of mass self-communication is “self- generated in content, self-directed in emission and self-selected in reception by many that communicate with many” [3].  The new tools offered by the Internet, primarily social media tools, were instantly adopted by social movements, as the new technologies offered these movements means “to build their autonomy and to confront the institutions of society in their own terms and around their own projects” [4]. More than that, the diffusion of the Internet, wireless communication and social media eventually changed the very organizational structure of social movements, making them more decentralized and democratic by their nature.

Hence, the proliferation of mass self-communication and the Internet among people all over the world gave social movements a chance to “enter the public space through a variety of different channels” [5]. More than that, social media offered social movements a range of tools and platforms to reach global audiences with minimal costs and coordinate cooperate and communicate fast and cheap.

Power and counter-power

matrixI find Manuel Castells’ concept of power and counter-power useful when it comes to online activism. The theory implies the confrontation of elites and non-elites, which can be seen in this case as the confrontation of online activists (social movements) and established elites and systems in general.

One of the most important steps for political movement in achieving its goals has always been to be represented in media with broad audiences and significant influence [6]. Although social media is gaining in influence and spreads all over the world, mainstream media, such as state-owned channels, still remain “the main channel of communication between the political system and citizens” [7]. Hence, one shouldn’t overestimate the role of social media. Although the development of new technologies has diminished the role of traditional media, the latter is still influential and strong.  However, social media offer social movements alternative ways to proliferate their ideas and ways to gain support without presence in mainstream media. And in this respect, the online world and social media has contributed to the rise and influence of social movements.


Christian Fuchs suggests conceptualizing social movements as self-organizing systems. This lets us look at online activism and social media from a different angle. Fuchs states that “social self- organization in a broad sense can be understood as re-creation or self-reproduction of society…Social self-organization is based on cooperation, participation, self-determination, and grassroots democracy” [8]. Social self-organization is “the principle of bottom-up social organization that stimulates the capacity to act” [9]. Undeniably social media offer the necessary tools for online activists to implement the principles of self-organization efficiently and advantageously for society.

Blogs, social networks and other manifestations of social media are self-organizing systems by their nature. In addition, social movements always emerged as signs of grass-roots democracy, thus the rise of social media was a natural contribution for social movements. The discussions and arrangements made on social media platforms, such as Facebook or Twitter, are way more efficient and less time-consuming than the traditional means of socialization and planning. More than that, online activism requires fast organization and sometimes instant reaction to certain events, which can be easily achieved through the means of social media. And lastly, the Internet in general and social media in particular also affect “the relationship between groups and movements and their principal targets: government, citizens, and mainstream media” [10].

Occupy Wall Street


There is a huge number of social movements presented online. Occupy Wall Street is among the most recent ones, and perfectly exemplifies the advantages a movement can get using social media. Vast proliferation of the ideas, online discussions, sharing video, audio and photo content, creation of online petitions and arranging events through the means of such social media platforms as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube – this is a short list of the tools used by this movement to reach its goals. Although the movement achieved practically nothing, I do believe it sets a good example for future social movements and online activists. Regardless of the outcome, the powers and influence which can be gained through the means of social media are undeniable and will eventually change the world for the better.


[1] Fuchs, Christian. 2008. Social theory in the Information Age. New York: Routledge. P 81

[2] Wejnert, Barbara. “Integrating models of diffusion of innovations: a conceptual framework.” Annual review of sociology 28.1 (2002): 297-326.

[3] Castells, Manuel. 2011. Communication Power: mass relationships in the network society. In Media and Society, ed. James Curran, 9. London: Bloomsbury.

[4] Castells, Manuel. 2011. Communication Power: mass relationships in the network society. In Media and Society, ed. James Curran, 10. London: Bloomsbury.

[5] Castells, Manuel. 2009. Communication power. New York: Oxford University Press. P 303

[6] Loader, Brian D., and Mercea, Dan. 2012. Social media and democracy: innovations in participatory politics. New York: Routledge.

[7] Castells, Manuel. 2011. Communication Power: mass relationships in the network society. In Media and Society, ed. James Curran, 4. London: Bloomsbury.

[8] Fuchs, Christian. 2008. Social theory in the Information Age. New York: Routledge. P 31

[9] Fuchs, Christian. 2008. Social theory in the Information Age. New York: Routledge. P 18

[10] Chadwick, Andrew. 2006. Internet politics: states, citizens, and new communication technologies. New York: Oxford University Press. P 118

Imgur: ‘An image hosting service that doesn’t suck’


Photography, having started off as a hobby of a privileged group of people over a century ago, is now seen as an integral part of daily practices by millions of people worldwide. Mass-produced cameras and mobile phones made the process of taking photos a popular, cheap, and undeniably convenient activity. Consequently, the avalanche of photos taken on the planet (and in outer space too) created a significant demand for the services where people can upload their photos, share them with friends (or the rest of humanity), get feedback and comments, etc. Thus, following the logics of the economics “demand creates supply”, the need of photo-related services was successfully satisfied on multiple levels. As of this writing there are thousands of photo-sharing services, each with its own niche, target groups and functions. Although the overwhelming majority of these services copy the features of one another, the true leaders of the industry have their unique face and specific structure, making them appealing to people and thus popular and widely spread services. This post will focus on one of the leaders of the Internet photo-sharing – Imgur.



The phrase in the headline belongs to Alan Schaaf, the founder of Imgur, and was used to describe the motivations behind creating another photo-sharing website. The usability problems encountered in similar services, as well as the lack of some necessary features forced a student in Ohio to raise a question – “if there is no good enough service on the market, why don’t I create one myself?” That is how one of the biggest companies in the industry with over 70 million unique users and 300 million uploaded images in 2012 alone was founded. Interestingly, Imgur was launched as recently as 2009, thus its exponential growth to date is truly impressive. Indeed, what makes this site so attractive, what is so special about its structure, so unique about its tools and features that compels people to type Imgur into their browsers? In this post I will take a closer look at the structure and design of Imgur and try to deduce how these affect the social behavior of its users and attract people to use the site.


A number of scholars have already pointed out the most common and widespread design patterns and structures of Imgur-alike services. Liking (and disliking), commenting on posts, geo-tagging and sharing with friends on other social networks are among the most common features which to a some extent exist on most of these services[1]. Additionally, the very fact that the overwhelming majority of such services have both desktop and mobile versions is not surprising[2]. Furthermore, given that Imgur-alike services are the creations of Web 2.0, features such as harnessing collective intelligence, viral-ism in all its manifestations, the constant change of old features and adding of new ones, and “innovation in assembly” are integral parts of these services[3].  Hence, I decided to dedicate this post to more particular and specific features of Imgur. Moreover, if all the services have a similar number and quality of tools, it is the special features that set them apart which in turn make them more appealing and help them reach and grow their target audiences.

The core idea of Imgur is to host photos uploaded by users. The uniqueness of Imgur is that the the images are not removed from the site as long as they are getting at least 1 view every 6 months.  Hence, the service is motivating people to post something interesting for other users. Although this particular feature of Imgur may seem a minor detail, for some users the fact that their photos stick around for a long time may be a contributing factor to upload more interesting images and hence increase the overall popularity of the service.

Another specific feature of the service is “April fools’ jokes”, which seem to be unique for photo-sharing sites of that kind. The concept implies that every Fool’s day the company releases a special entertaining feature, allowing people to make fun of themselves and others. For instance, in 2011 the service implemented the Catification feature, allowing users to automatically add cats to any uploaded image by just clicking on them.

Catification feature

The company then released 2 more fools’ features the following years. One could argue that this detail is insignificant, however I believe that users not only expect functionality from the service, but also entertainment, something which Imgur has successfully harnessed in order to gratify the needs of its audience.

The final specific feature of the site is a make-a-meme button, allowing users to create images superimposed with text for humorous effect. The site provides a wide range of images for generating memes as well as galleries of successful and popular image macros. Given the unprecedented growth of popularity of memes on the Internet over the last couple of years, this tool which not only allows users to look at these images, but also create their own is undoubtedly set to soar in popularity.

Business is business

For a long time the company supported itself with individual small donations provided by users. However with the growth of its popularity and a consequent increase in money required to support the existence of free photo-hosting, Imgur decided to change its financial policies and implement a number of tools allowing the company to generate bigger revenues. Advertising, pro accounts, merchandise and commercial hosting were implemented. I don’t think this event was unexpected for users, given the logic that an enormous amount of money is needed to support the site. Moreover, the very fact that Imgur has over 70 million unique users indicates the large potential revenues from advertising that the company may yield. However, it is noteworthy that on-site advertising, mostly implemented via sponsored images is not disturbing to users, hence I think that the advertising strategy of the service was wise and user-oriented. Imgur never officially announced its plans to increase the amount of advertising and I doubt they will in the future. Why? Because Imgur ‘is an image hosting service that doesn’t suck’.

[1] Crumlish, Christian, and Erin Malone. Designing social interfaces: Principles, patterns, and practices for improving the user experience. Yahoo Press, 2009.

[2] Ibid.

[3] O’reilly, Tim. “What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software.” Communications & strategies 1 (2007): 17.

What is so “social” in social media?


The exponential growth of the Internet over the last two decades as well as the development of so-called Web 2.0 gave birth to an interesting phenomenon of Social Media. In this this blogpost I will elaborate on this concept, give definitions and try to understand what social media actually is.

To begin with, I believe I should introduce myself. My name is Roman Rogozhnikov and I am a student of a master program in Digital Media at Uppsala University. I was born and raised in Russia and received my bachelor’s degree in Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO-University). I studied political science for 4 years and a bit more than a year ago realized that political process in the online realm is something what I am really interested in. Internet activism, usage of social media for political campaigns and e-democracy – these are the areas of particular interest for me. Hence, the path I chose by studying digital media in Sweden is not surprising. More than that, my interest in social media as a concept as well as its applications in offline activities is something I am passionate about, and that is why writing posts regarding social media is seen by me as a perfect opportunity to deepen my knowledge within my area of interest.

So what is social media? There is a bunch of definitions both on the Internet and in academic articles. I do not think that my fellow readers will be interested in going through a hundred scientific definitions of the same phenomenon. Instead, I would focus on two definitions which help us perceive social media from different angles.

To start with I would like to use the explanation of what is social media provided by Kaplan & Haenlein. They state that “social media is a group of Internet-based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0 and that allow the creation and exchange of User Generated Content”[1]. Hence the authors draw a line between the terms Web 2.0 and social media, claiming that Web 2.0 should only be considered as a platform for the evolution and development of social media, rather than a synonymous term. I absolutely agree with the authors given that not all the user-generated content is social media, although all the social media is a user-generated content.

Another perspective is given by Boyd & Ellison, who emphasize 3 pillars on which the concept of social media is based[2]. Firstly, social media is a web-based service constructing a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system. This should be  clear if you take into consideration the fact that in order to use practically any social media one should create a profile and some information from this profile, at least a nickname, is public by default. Secondly, Social media is a service which articulates a list of other users with whom they share a connection. This statement is supported by the name of the concept itself, as the word “social” must imply some kind of social and inter-personal communication. And thirdly, social media is a service which allows users to view and traverse their lists of connections and those made by other users within the system. This is the most questionable statement of the definition given that some of the social media networks do not allow users to view one’s connections. Nevertheless, the principle of “social” within the concept of social media implies interconnectedness and constant interaction of users.

Hence, we can clearly see that even two out of thousands of definitions of social media can give us different perspectives on this phenomenon. Why? Because it is a new and thus an evolving concept. Moreover, it is comprehensive and overwhelming. Additionally, the broader definition includes wider range of networks, hence it is sometimes a matter of definition whether some webpage can be considered social media or not. In my opinion the combination of the aforementioned definitions allow us to include in the discussion practically all the social media networks currently in existence. In the following posts I will try to elaborate on this.

[1] Kaplan, Andreas M. and Michael Haenlein. 2010. “Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media.” Business horizons 53(1):59-68

[2] Boyd, Danah M. and  Nicole B. Ellison. 2007. “Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13(1):210-230