7 Social Media Refusal

Social Media Refusal

It is basically impossible to reclaim a full version of privacy online, unless you live off the grid, pay cash for everything, have no assets or friends, etc. And even then, someone could always be watching you. So, for all practical purposes, it is impossible to live in the world without some form of a digital footprint.

However, some people do engage in selective social media refusal, meaning they quit some social media sites. The most popular site to quit in a fury is Facebook. Almost half of facebook users surveyed said they had seriously considered leaving the platform at some point, but only 1 in 10 people actually stay off for good.

When people quit Facebook (delete their account), Facebook removes all identifying metadata so people can no longer publicly see your profile or any of the spaces you’ve posted in the past. But, Facebook does not remove the content itself, so it is stored on a server somewhere in case you ever decide to reactive your account (and chances are, you will).

May people who make a big public display about how they are quitting Facebook or Snapchat or whatever platform “FOR GOOD” are displaying what scholars call consumer citizenship. That means the person uses their non-user status (their status as the person who deleted their Facebook account) as a form of self-identity. Some people quit because it is uncool, so their status as a non-user would suggest they are “above” that. Some people quit because they dislike the privacy policies Facebook uses, so they quit to show their political identity around issues of privacy. For some people, quitting becomes a site of everyday resistance that signals to others their value systems.

In 1994, a sociologist named Thorstein Veblen created a concept called conspicuous consumption. This is the idea that people display their status through goods. For example, if you want to be seen as a hipster, you’ll probably spend money at thrift stores instead of high-end fashion stores. If you want people to think you’re rich, you might buy a nice car. The point is, you display your status through goods.

Social media scholar Laura Portwood-Stacer adapted this term for people who quit social media, referring to the big dramatic public posts some people make when they quit social media as “conspicuous NON-consumption.” Her research shows that people who make a big display of quitting are using their status as a non-user as a “positional good” that helps them display their status as either “above” social media usage or as someone who is living a particular set of politics. Or, as Raiin Wilson puts it:

Portwood-Stacer’s research also showed that people tended to have negative connotations of people who quit social media. The most common perceptions people had about friends who quit were:

1. The quitter was engaging in a political/activist act. Some viewed this favorably, but most thought there were other ways to show those same politics.
2. People were upset because they thought that the quitter did not value their friendship. Since most people share personal details on social media, they felt that someone choosing not to read their updates meant the quitter was closing off an important part of their communication.
3. People thought the quitter was an elitist who thought they were better than everyone else, and perhaps not surprisingly, had negative connotations with the quitter.
4. People though the quitter was just seeking attention, either in the form of people begging them not to leave the platform/asking what is wrong, or allowing their presence to be more notable when they inevitably returned.