This article interrogates platform-specific bias in the contemporary algorithmic media landscape through a comparative study of the representation of pregnancy on the Web and social media. Online visual materials such as social media content related to pregnancy are not void of bias, nor are they very diverse. The case study is a cross-platform analysis of social media imagery for the topic of pregnancy, through which distinct visual platform vernaculars emerge. The authors describe two visualization methods that can support comparative analysis of such visual vernaculars: the image grid and the composite image. While platform-specific perspectives range from lists of pregnancy tips on Pinterest to pregnancy information and social support systems on Twitter, and pregnancy humour on Reddit, each of the platforms presents a predominantly White, able-bodied and heteronormative perspective on pregnancy.
AielloGWoodhouseA (2016) When corporations come to define the visual politics of gender. Journal of Language and Politics15(3): 351–366.
3.
BardzellS (2010) Feminist HCI: Taking stock and outlining an agenda for design. In: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems – CHI ‘10(2) (ed. MynattE, et al.), Atlanta, GA, 10–15 April 2010, pp. 1301–1310. New York: ACM Press. DOI: 10.1145/1753326.1753521.
4.
BechmannA (2017) Keeping it real: From faces and features to social values in deep learning algorithms on social media images. In: Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (ed. BuiT), Waikoloa Village, Hawaii, 4–7 January 2017, pp. 1–9. DOI: 10.24251/HICSS.2017.218.
5.
BrubakerSJ (2007) Denied, embracing, and resisting medicalization: African American teen mothers’ perceptions of formal pregnancy and childbirth care. Gender and Society21(4): 528–552.
6.
BucherT (2018) If…Then: Algorithmic Power and Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
ColomboG (2018) The design of composite images: Displaying digital visual content for social research. PhD Dissertation, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy.
10.
Costanza-ChockS (2018) Design justice: Towards an intersectional feminist framework for design theory and practice. In: Proceedings of the Design Research Society 2018 (2) (ed. StorniC, et al.), Limerick, 25–28 June 2018, pp. 529–540. London: The Design Research Society. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3189696(accessed 11 May 2019).
CrenshawK (1989) Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum 1989: 139.
DworkinSLWachsFL (2004) “Getting your body back”: Postindustrial fit motherhood in shape fit pregnancy magazine. Gender and Society18(5): 610–624.
15.
EarleS (2003) “Bumps and boobs”: Fatness and women’s experiences of pregnancy. Women’s Studies International Forum26(3): 245–252.
16.
GibbsMMeeseJArnoldM, et al. (2015) #Funeral and Instagram: Death, social media, and platform vernacular. Information, Communication and Society3(18): 255–268.
17.
HallS (1992) Race, culture, and communications: Looking backward and forward at cultural studies. Rethinking Marxism5(1): 10–18.
18.
HelmondA (2015) The platformization of the web: Making web data platform ready. Social Media + Society1(2): 1–11. DOI: 10.1177/2056305115603080.
19.
HighfieldTLeaverT (2016) Instagrammatics and digital methods: Studying visual social media, from selfies and GIFs to memes and emoji. Communication Research and Practice2(1): 47–62.
20.
MagnetS (2011) When Biometrics Fail: Gender, Race, and the Technology of Identity. Durham: Duke University Press.
21.
MarresNWeltevredeE (2013) Scraping the social? Issues in real-time social research. Journal of Cultural Economy6(3): 313–335.
22.
MarshallHWoollettA (2000) Fit to reproduce? The regulative role of pregnancy texts. Feminism and Psychology10(3): 351–366.
23.
MauriMCiuccarelliP (2016) Designing diagrams for social issues. In: Proceedings of DRS 2016, Design Research Society 50th Anniversary Conference 3(5) (eds LloydPBohemiaE), Brighton, UK, 27–30 June 2016, pp. 941–958. London: The Design Research Society. Available at: http://www.drs2016.org/185/(accessed 5 December 2019).
NashM (2011) “You don’t train for a marathon sitting on the couch”: Performances of pregnancy ‘fitness’ and ‘good’ motherhood in Melbourne, Australia. Women’s Studies International Forum34(1): 50–65.
26.
NashM (2012) Weighty matters: Negotiating ‘fatness’ and ‘in-betweenness’ in early pregnancy. Feminism and Psychology22(3): 307–323.
27.
NiedererS (2019) Networked Content Analysis: The Case of Climate Change. Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures. Available at: http://bit.ly/ToD_Niederer(accessed 19 December 2019).
28.
NiedererSColomboG (2019). Visual methodologies for networked images: Designing visualizations for collaborative research, cross-platform analysis, and public participation. Diseña (14): 40–67. DOI: 10.7764/disena.14.40-67.
29.
NobleSU (2018) Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. New York City: New York University Press.
30.
O’NeilC (2016) Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy. New York: Crown.
31.
PaterR (2016) The Politics of Design: A (Not So) Global Manual for Visual Communication. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers.
32.
PearceWÖzkulaSMGreeneAK, et al. (2020) Visual cross-platform analysis: Digital methods to research social media images. Information, Communication and Society23: 161–180.
33.
RiederB (2005) Networked control: Search engines and the symmetry of confidence. International Review of Information Ethics3: 26–32.
34.
RogersR (2013) Digital Methods. Cambridge: MIT Press.
35.
RogersR (2019) Doing Digital Methods. London: Sage Publishing.
36.
RothL (2009) Looking at Shirley, the ultimate norm: Colour balance, image technologies, and cognitive equity. Canadian Journal of Communication34(1): 111–136. DOI: 10.22230/cjc.2009v34n1a2196.
37.
SandvigCHamiltonKKarahaliosK, et al. (2014) Auditing algorithms: Research methods for detecting discrimination on Internet platforms. Paper presented at ‘Data and Discrimination: Converting Critical Concerns into Productive Inquiry’, a preconference at the 64th Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, 22 May 2014, Seattle, WA.
38.
SayakhotPCarolan-OlahM (2015) Internet use by pregnant women seeking pregnancy-related information: A systematic review. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth16(1): 65.
SteyerlH (2018) A sea of data: Pattern recognition and corporate animism (forked version). In: ApprichCChunWCramerFSteyerlH (eds) Pattern Discrimination. Germany: Meson Press, pp. 16–22. Available at: https://meson.press/books/pattern-discrimination/(accessed 4 December 2018).
41.
TiidenbergK (2015) Selfies| Odes to heteronormativity: Presentations of femininity in Russian-speaking pregnant women’s Instagram accounts. International Journal of Communication9: 1746–1758.
42.
TiidenbergKBaymNK (2017) Learn it, buy it, work it: Intensive pregnancy on Instagram. Social Media + Society3(1): 1–13. DOI: 10.1177/2056305116685108.
WarnerM (1991) Introduction: Fear of a queer planet. Social Text29(1991): 3–17. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/466295(accessed 10 May 2019).
