In the Web 2.0 era, consumers of media are no longer mere recipients of digital content, but rather active commentators and cocreators online. However, the Internet rule predicts that 90% of users are passive ‘lurkers’, 9% edit content, and 1% actually create content. This study investigates Finns’ social media activities that apply to content creation, as well as the level of content engagement and sharing. The data come from Statistics Finland and are representative of the Finnish population between the ages of 16 and 74. The results show that Finnish users perceive themselves predominantly as occasional commentators of social media posts. Dissecting the social media activities users engage in, commenting posts is the most popular activity. Gender, age, and education best explain the differences between the types of social media activities investigated. Overall, the study shows that Finns actively engage in different types of online activities as well as the pervasiveness of sociodemographic variables in Finland.
AnJQuerciaDCrowcroftJ (2013) Fragmented social media: A look into selective exposure to political news. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on World Wide Web Companion, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 13–17 May 2013, pp. 51–52. New York, NY: ACM.
2.
AndrejevicM (2011) Surveillance and alienation in the online economy. Surveillance & Society8(3): 278–287.
3.
BarnesR (2015) Understanding the affective investment produced through commenting on Australian alternative journalism website New Matilda. New Media & Society17(5): 810–826.
4.
BechmannALomborgS (2013) Mapping actor roles in social media: Different perspectives on value creation in theories of user participation. New Media & Society15(5): 765–781.
5.
BelkR (2014a) Sharing versus pseudo-sharing in Web 2.0. The Anthropologist18(1): 7–23.
6.
BelkR (2014b) You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online. Journal of Business Research67(8): 1595–1600.
7.
BlankG (2013) Who creates content? Stratification and content creation on the Internet. Information, Communication & Society16(4): 590–612.
8.
BlankGGroseljD (2014) Dimensions of Internet use: Amount, variety, and types. Information, Communication & Society17(4): 417–435.
9.
BrakeDR (2014) Are we all online content creators now? Web 2.0 and digital divides. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication19(3): 591–609.
10.
BrunsA (2016) Prosumption, Produsage. The International Encyclopedia of Communication Theory and Philosophy. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Inc, pp. 1–5.
11.
CarrollERomanoJ (2011) Your Digital Afterlife: When Facebook, Flickr and Twitter are your Estate, What’s your Legacy?Berkeley: New Riders.
12.
Carron-ArthurBCunninghamJAGriffithsKM (2014) Describing the distribution of engagement in an internet support group by post frequency: A comparison of the 90-9-1 principle and Zipf’s law. Internet Interventions1(4): 165–168.
13.
CasemajorNCoutureSDelfinM, et al. (2015) Non-participation in digital media. Media, Culture & Society37(6): 850–866.
14.
CorreaT (2010) The participation divide among “online experts”: Experience, skills and psychological factors as predictors of college students’ web content creation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication16(1): 71–92.
15.
CrawfordK (2009) Following you: Disciplines of listening in social media. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies23(4): 525–535.
FayardALWeeksJ (2014) Affordances for practice. Information and Organization24(4): 236–249.
18.
FüllerJMühlbacherHMatzlerK, et al. (2009) Consumer empowerment through internet-based co-creation. Journal of Management Information Systems26(3): 71–102.
19.
GerodimosRJustinussenJ (2015) Obama’s 2012 Facebook campaign: Political communication in the age of the like button. Journal of Information Technology & Politics12(2): 113–132.
20.
GibsonRKLusoliWWardS (2005) Online participation in the UK: Testing a ‘contextualised’ model of Internet effects. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations7(4): 561–583.
21.
HamptonKGouletLSRainieL, et al. (2011) Social Networking Sites and Our Lives. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
HargittaiEWalejkoG (2008) The participation divide: Content creation and sharing in the digital age. Information, Communication & Society11(2): 239–256.
24.
HassJK (2007) Economic Sociology. An Introduction. London: Routledge.
25.
HeinonenK (2011) Consumer activity in social media: Managerial approaches to consumers’ social media behavior. Journal of Consumer Behaviour10(6): 356–364.
26.
HoffmannCPLutzCMeckelM (2015) Content creation on the internet: A social cognitive perspective on the participation divide. Information, Communication & Society18(6): 696–716.
27.
HoltonAEBaekKCoddingtonM, et al. (2014) Seeking and sharing: Motivations for linking on Twitter. Communication Research Reports31(1): 33–40.
28.
HoweJ (2008) Crowdsourcing: Why the power of the crowd is driving the future of business. New York: Crown Publishing Group.
29.
JohnNA (2012) Sharing and Web 2.0: The emergence of a keyword. New Media & Society15(2): 167–182.
30.
KafaiYB (2010) World of Whyville: An introduction to tween virtual life. Games and Culture5(1): 3–22.
31.
KaplanAMHaenleinM (2010) Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons53(1): 59–68.
32.
KatzEBlumlerJGGurevitchM (1973) Uses and gratifications research. Public Opinion Quarterly37(4): 509–523.
33.
KeipiTKoiranenIKoivulaA, et al. (2018) Assessing the social media landscape: Online relational use-purposes and life satisfaction among Finns. First Monday23(1). Available at: http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/8128/6615(accessed 5 January 2018).
34.
KozinetsRVDe ValckKWojnickiAC, et al. (2010) Networked narratives: Understanding word of mouth marketing in online communities. Journal of Marketing74(2): 71–89.
35.
KsiazekTB (2018) Commenting on the news: Explaining the degree and quality of user comments on news websites. Journalism Studies19(5): 650–673.
36.
KümpelASKarnowskiVKeylingT (2015) News sharing in social media: A review of current research on news sharing users, content, and networks. Social Media + Society1(2): 1–14.
37.
LampinenA (2015) Deceptively simple: Unpacking the notion of “Sharing”. Social Media + Society1(1): 1–2.
38.
LiZ (2016) Psychological empowerment on social media: Who are the empowered users?Public Relations Review42(1): 49–59.
39.
LinWYZhangXJungJY, et al. (2013) From the wired to wireless generation? Investigating teens’ Internet use through the mobile phone. Telecommunications Policy37(8): 651–661.
40.
LiteratI (2016) Interrogating participation across disciplinary boundaries: Lessons from political philosophy, cultural studies, art, and education. New Media & Society18(8): 1787–1803.
41.
LittE (2013) Measuring users’ internet skills: A review of past assessments and a look toward the future. New Media & Society15(4): 612–630.
42.
LittEHargittaiE (2016) The imagined audience on social network sites. Social Media + Society2(1): 1–12.
43.
LutzC (2016) A social milieu approach to the online participation divides in Germany. Social Media & Society2(1): 1–14.
44.
LutzCHoffmannCP (2017) The dark side of online participation: Exploring non-passive and negative participation. Information, Communication & Society20(6): 876–897.
45.
MalinenS (2015) Understanding user participation in online communities: A systematic literature review of empirical studies. Computers in Human Behavior46: 228–238.
46.
MeltzerK (2015) Journalistic concern about uncivil political talk in digital news media: Responsibility, credibility, and academic influence. The International Journal of Press/Politics20(1): 85–107.
47.
MoodC (2010) Logistic regression: Why we cannot do what we think we can do, and what we can do about it. European Sociological Review26(1): 67–82.
NonneckeBPreeceJ (2003) Silent participants: Getting to know lurkers better. In: LuegCFisherD (eds), From Usenet to CoWebs: Interacting with Social Information Spaces. London: Springer, pp. 110–132.
50.
PearceKERiceRE (2013) Digital divides from access to activities: Comparing mobile and personal computer internet users. Journal of Communication63(4): 721–744.
51.
RäsänenP (2008) The persistence of information structures in Nordic countries. The Information Society24(4): 219–228.
52.
RäsänenPKoiranenI (2016) Changing patterns of ICT use in Finland–The senior citizens’ perspective. In: ZhouJSalvendyG (eds), Human Aspects of IT of the Aged Population. Design for Aging. Switzerland: Springer, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 9754, pp. 226–237.
53.
SantanaAD (2016) Controlling the conversation: The availability of commenting forums in online newspapers. Journalism Studies17(2): 141–158.
54.
SchauHJGillyMC (2003) We are what we post? Self-presentation in personal web space. Journal of Consumer Research30(3): 385–404.
55.
SchradieJ (2011) The digital production gap: The digital divide and Web 2.0 collide. Poetics39(2): 145–168.
56.
ShaoG (2009) Understanding the appeal of user-generated media: A uses and gratification perspective. Internet Research19(1): 7–25.
57.
Statistics Finland (2015) Taulukoita [Tables]. Väestön tieto- ja viestintätekniikan käyttö. Helsinki: Statistics Finland. Available at: http://www.stat.fi/til/sutivi/tau.html(accessed 14 November 2017).
58.
Statistics Finland (2016) Väestön tieto-ja viestintätekniikan käyttö [The population’s use of information and communication technologies]. Available at: http://www.stat.fi/til/sutivi/meta.html(accessed 11 November 2017).
59.
StoycheffELiuJWibowoKA, et al. (2017) What have we learned about social media by studying Facebook? A decade in review. New Media & Society19(6): 968–980.
60.
SundarSSLimperosAM (2013) Uses and grats 2.0: New gratifications for new media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media57(4): 504–525.
61.
Van DeursenAJAMVan DijkJAGM (2014a) The digital divide shifts to differences in usage. New Media & Society16(3): 507–526.
62.
Van DeursenAJAMVan DijkJAGM (2014b) Digital Skills: Unlocking the Information Society. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
63.
Van DijckJ (2009) Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content. Media, culture & society31(1): 41–58.
64.
Van DijckJPoellT (2013) Understanding social media logic. Media and Communication1(1): 2–14.
65.
Van MierloT (2014) The 1% rule in four digital health social networks: An observational study. Journal of Medical Internet Research16(2): e33.
66.
VargoSLLuschRF (2004) Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. The Journal of Marketing68(1): 1–17.
67.
WeiLHindmanDB (2011) Does the digital divide matter more? Comparing the effects of new media and old media use on the education-based knowledge gap. Mass Communication and Society14(2): 216–235.
68.
WilliamsR (2012) Using the margins command to estimate and interpret adjusted predictions and marginal effects. The Stata Journal12(2): 308–331.
69.
YamamotoMKushinMJDalisayF (2015) Social media and mobiles as political mobilization forces for young adults: Examining the moderating role of online political expression in political participation. New Media & Society17(6): 880–898.
