The digital ephemeral turn: queer theory,privacy,and the temporality of risk

Abstract

Social media’s shift from storing media permanently by default, to supporting increasingly diverse temporalities of display and interaction has important implications for understanding the political economy of the digital. In this article, I use queer theory to complicate the normative dimensions of the privacy discourses that popularly frame digital ephemerality, suggesting instead that we understand the ephemeral as redistributing the pleasures and dangers of risk. To demonstrate, I do a close reading of the functions, design choices, and aesthetics of popular digital communication platforms, which increasingly provide the affective texture and context for everyday life. Using Snapchat and Apple’s Find My Friends and iMessage as case studies, I highlight a profitable dynamic between promiscuous exposure and monogamous retrenchment.

Keywords

Apple ephemeral media privacy queer theory risk social media Snapchat temporality

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Albury

Byron

(2016) Safe on my phone? Same-sex attracted young people’s negotiations of intimacy, visibility, and risk on digital hook-up apps. Social Media + Society 2(4): 1–10.

Andrews

(2012) I Know Who You Are and I Saw What You Did: Social Networks and the Death of Privacy. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Angwin

(2014) Dragnet Nation: A Quest for Privacy, Security, and Freedom in a World of Relentless Surveillance. New York: Times Books.

Ankerson

(2012) Writing web histories with an eye on the analog past. New Media & Society 14(3): 384–400.

Ankerson

(2015) Read/write the digital archive: strategies for historical web research. In: Hargittai

Sandvig

(eds) Digital Research Confidential: The Secrets of Studying Behavior Online. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 29–54.

Arora

(2018) Decolonizing privacy studies. Television & New Media. Epub ahead of print 26 October. DOI: 10.1177/1527476418806092.

Arora

Scheiber

(2017) Slumdog romance: Facebook love and digital privacy at the margins. Media, Culture & Society 39(3): 408–422.

Barnes

(2006) A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States. First Monday 11(9): 0466.

Bogost

Montfort

(2007) New media as material constraint. An introduction to platform studies. In: Electronic Techtonics: Thinking at the Interface. Proceedings of the First International HASTAC Conference, Durham, NC: Lulu Press, 19–21 April, pp. 176–193.

10.

Borneman

(1996) Until death do us part: Marriage/death in anthropological discourse. American Ethnologist: The Journal of the American Ethnological Society 23: 215–238.

11.

Brügger

(2009) Website history and the website as an object of study. New Media & Society 11(1–2): 115–132.

12.

Chaykowski

(2017) Snapchat’s big weakness: the olds. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kathleenchaykowski/2017/03/01/snapchats-big-weakness-the-olds/(accessed 30 June 2018).

13.

Cho

Rivera-Sánchez

Lim

(2009) A multinational study on online privacy: global concerns and local responses. New Media & Society 11: 395–416.

14.

Chun

WHK

(2016) Updating to Remain the Same: Habitual New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

15.

Clough

(2000) Autoaffection: Unconscious Thought in the Age of Technology. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

16.

Clough

(2012) In the aporia of ontology and epistemology: toward a politics of measure. The Scholar & Feminist Online. Available at: http://sfonline.barnard.edu/feminist-media-theory/in-the-aporia-of-ontology-and-epistemology-toward-a-politics-of-measure/ (accessed 8 December 2016).

17.

Clough

Gregory

Haber

, et al. (2015) The datalogical turn. In: Vannini

(ed.), Non-Representational Methodologies: Re-envisioning Research. New York: Routledge, pp. 146–164.

18.

Conquergood

(2002) Performance studies: interventions and radical research. The Drama Review 46(2): 145–156.

19.

Cooper

(2017) Family Values: Between Neoliberalism and the New Social Conservatism. Brooklyn, NY: Zone Books.

20.

Dean

(2009) Unlimited Intimacy: Reflections on the Subculture of Barebacking. Chicago, IL; London: University of Chicago Press.

21.

D’Emilio

(1993) Capitalism and gay identity. In: Abelove

Barale

Halperin

(eds) The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader. New York: Routledge, pp. 467.

22.

Freeman

(2010) Time Binds: Queer Temporalities, Queer Histories. Durham, NC: Duke University Press Books.

23.

Goldberg

(2016) Antisocial media: digital dystopianism as a normative project. New Media & Society 18(5): 784–799.

24.

Goodman

(2012) Sonic Warfare: Sound, Affect, and the Ecology of Fear. Cambridge, MA: London: The MIT Press.

25.

Gordon

(2008) Ghostly Matters: Haunting and the Sociological Imagination. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

26.

Griffin

(2017) Feeling Normal: Sexuality and Media Criticism in the Digital Age. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

27.

Haber

(2016) Queer Facebook? Digital sociality and queer theory. In: Daniels

Gregory

Cottom

(eds) Digital Sociologies. Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 387–399.

28.

Halberstam

(2005) In a Queer Time and Place: Transgender Bodies, Subcultural Lives. New York: New York University Press.

29.

Hansen

MBN

(2015) Feed-forward: On the Future of Twenty-first-century Media. Chicago, IL; London: University of Chicago Press.

30.

Hartman

(2017) The poetic timestamp of digital erotic objects. Psychoanalytic Perspectives 14(2): 159–174.

31.

Hartman

(1997) Scenes of Subjection: Terror, Slavery, and Self-making in Nineteenth-century America. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

32.

Hathaway

(2016) How did the dog face become Snapchat’s ‘hoe filter’? Available at: https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/snapchat-dog-filter-hoe-thot/ (accessed 3 December 2017).

33.

Hoyle

Das

Kapadia

, et al. (2017) Was my message read? Privacy and signaling on Facebook messenger. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI ’17. New York: ACM, pp. 3838–3842. Available at: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/3025453.3025925 (accessed 9 May 2017).

34.

Hymowitz

Carroll

Wilcox

, et al. (2013) Knot Yet: The Benefits and Costs of Delayed Marriage in America. Charlottesville, VA: National Marriage Project, University of Virginia.

35.

Ingraham

(2015) Snapchat cuts off third-party apps, releases its first transparency report. The Verge. Available at: https://www.theverge.com/2015/4/2/8335917/snapchat-transparency-report-third-party-app-access (accessed 29 January 2017).

36.

Jones

(2004) The Internet and the Afterlife. OMEGA – Journal of Death and Dying 49(1): 83–88.

37.

Jurgenson

(2013) Pics and it didn’t happen. In: The New Inquiry. Available at: https://thenewinquiry.com/pics-and-it-didnt-happen/

38.

Kember

(2016) iMedia: The Gendering of Objects, Environments and Smart Materials. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

39.

Kirkpatrick

(2010) The Facebook Effect: The Inside Story of the Company That Is Connecting the World. New York: Simon & Schuster.

40.

Liang

Shen

(2017) Privacy protection and self-disclosure across societies: A study of global Twitter users. New Media & Society 19(9): 1476–1497.

41.

Lynden

Rasmussen

(2017) Exploring the impact of ‘read receipts’ in mobile instant messaging. Tidsskrift for Medier, Erkendelse Og Formidling 5(1). Available at: https://tidsskrift.dk/mef-journal/article/view/28781 (accessed 9 May 2017).

42.

Maheshwari

(2017) Snapchat pornography to test advertisers’ tolerance for risk. The New York Times, 10 March. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/10/business/media/snapchat-porn-advertising.html

43.

Maney

(2017) Snap’s IPO might be a huge win for privacy. Newsweek. Available at: http://www.newsweek.com/2017/02/24/snapchat-snap-ipo-privacy-555764.html (accessed 3 May 2017)

44.

Marwick

Boyd

(2014) Networked privacy: How teenagers negotiate context in social media. New Media & Society 16(7): 1051–1067.

45.

Mohn

(2017) How to plan a safe trip for gay and transgender travelers. The New York Times, 30 January. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/business/how-to-plan-a-safe-trip-for-gay-and-transgender-travelers.html (accessed 30 May 2017).

46.

Muñoz

(1996) Ephemera as evidence: introductory notes to queer acts. Women & Performance: A Journal of Feminist Theory 8(2): 5–16.

47.

Muñoz

(2009) Cruising Utopia: The Then and There of Queer Futurity. New York: New York University Press.

48.

Murphy

(2012) Are private Facebook messages becoming public?. Available at: https://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/tech/social-media/facebook-private-messages/index.html (accessed 5 December 2017).

49.

Murray

Ankerson

(2016) Lez takes time: designing lesbian contact in geosocial networking apps. Critical Studies in Media Communication 33(1): 53–69.

50.

Nielsen Media

Impact

Reach

Duplication

(2015) ‘Nielsen Total Media Fusion/GfK MRI Survey of The American Consumer 9/1/2015–9/30/2015 (Television, Internet, and Mobile)’. Available at: https://www.snapchat.com/ads (accessed 30 May 2017).

51.

Nissenbaum

(2009) Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life. Stanford, CA: Stanford Law Books.

52.

Payne

(2014) The Promiscuity of Network Culture: Queer Theory and Digital Media. New York: Routledge.

53.

Plantin

Lagoze

Edwards

, et al. (2018) Infrastructure studies meet platform studies in the age of Google and Facebook. New Media & Society 20(1): 293–310.

54.

Puar

(2007) Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

55.

Puar

(2012) Coda: the cost of getting better suicide, sensation, switchpoints. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 18(1): 149–158.

56.

Roesner

Gill

Kohno

(2014) Sex, lies, or kittens? Investigating the use of Snapchat’s self-destructing messages. In: Christin

Safavi-Naini

(eds) Financial Cryptography and Data Security, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin: Springer, pp. 64–76. Available at: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-662-45472-5_5

57.

Scannell

(1986) Radio Times: The Temporal Arrangements of Broadcasting in the Modern World. Available at: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED294542 (accessed 5 November 2018).

58.

Sender

(2006) Queens for a day: queer eye for the straight guy and the neoliberal project. Critical Studies in Media Communication 23(2): 131–151.

59.

Sharma

(2014) In the Meantime: Temporality and Cultural Politics. Durham: Duke University Press Books.

60.

Shaviro

(2015) No Speed Limit: Three Essays on Accelerationism. University of Minnesota Press.

61.

Spiegel

(2012) Let’s chat. Available at: https://www.snap.com/en-US/news/post/lets-chat (accessed 6 November 2018).

62.

Stockton

(2009) The Queer Child, or Growing Sideways in the Twentieth Century. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

63.

Tinder (2017) Introducing tinder gold – a first-class swipe experience. Available at: http://blog.gotinder.com/introducing-tinder-gold-a-first-class-swipe-experience/

64.

Utz

Muscanell

Khalid

(2015) Snapchat elicits more jealousy than Facebook: a comparison of Snapchat and Facebook use. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking 18(3): 141–146.

65.

Vara

(2014) Who’s Real Enough for Facebook? The New Yorker, 2 October. Available at: http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/whos-real-enough-facebook

66.

Vaterlaus

Barnett

Roche

, et al. (2016) ‘Snapchat is more personal’: An exploratory study on Snapchat behaviors and young adult interpersonal relationships. Computers in Human Behavior 62: 594–601.

67.

Virilio

(2006) Speed and Politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT University Press.

68.

Waddell

(2016) The allure of privacy or the desire for self-expression? Identifying users’ gratifications for ephemeral, photograph-based communication. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking 19(7): 441–445.

69.

Warner

(2002) Publics and Counterpublics. New York; Cambridge, MA: Zone Books.

70.

Wood

(2013) Scrubbed. New York Magazine, 16 June. Available at: http://nymag.com/news/features/online-reputation-management-2013-6/

71.

Chang

Welker

, et al. (2016) Automatic archiving versus default deletion: what Snapchat tells us about ephemerality in design. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, CSCW ’16, San Francisco, CA, 27 February–2 March. New York: ACM, pp. 1662–1675.