research-article

Automatic Archiving versus Default Deletion: What Snapchat Tells Us About Ephemerality in Design

Authors:

Christopher L. Welker,

Natalya N. Bazarova,

Dan CosleyAuthors Info & Claims

CSCW '16: Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing

Pages 1662 - 1675

https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2819948

Published: 27 February 2016 Publication History

Abstract

Unlike most social media, where automatic archiving of data is the default, Snapchat defaults to ephemerality: deleting content shortly after it is viewed by a receiver. Interviews with 25 Snapchat users show that ephemerality plays a key role in shaping their practices. Along with friend-adding features that facilitate a network of mostly close relations, default deletion affords everyday, mundane talk and reduces self-consciousness while encouraging playful interaction. Further, although receivers can save content through screenshots, senders are notified; this selective saving with notification supports complex information norms that preserve the feel of ephemeral communication while supporting the capture of meaningful content. This dance of giving and taking, sharing and showing, and agency for both senders and receivers provides the basis for a rich design space of mechanisms, levels, and domains for ephemerality.

References

[1]

Liam J. Bannon. 2006. Forgetting as a feature, not a bug: the duality of memory and implications for ubiquitous computing. CoDesign 2, 1: 3–15. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15710880600608230

[2]

Joseph B. Bayer, Nicole Ellison, Sarita Y. Schoenebeck, Emily B. Falk. 2015. Sharing the Small Moments: Ephemeral Social Interaction on Snapchat. Information, Communication & Society, 1-22. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.10843

[3]

Natalya N. Bazarova, Jessie G. Taft, Yoon Hyung Choi, and Dan Cosley. 2012. Managing impressions and relationships on Facebook: Self-presentational and relational concerns revealed through the analysis of language style. Language and Social Psychology 32, 2: 121–141. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0261927X12456384

[4]

Susan Bluck and Nicole Alea. 2002. Exploring the functions of autobiographical memory: Why do I remember the autumn. In Critical advances in reminiscence work: From theory to application, Jeffrey Dean Webster and Barbara K. Haight (eds.). Springer Publishing Company, 61–75.

[5]

Alvan Bregman and C Haythornwaite. 2001. Radicals of presentation in persistent conversation. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1-10. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2001.926499

Digital Library

[6]

Pei-Yu Chi, Xiao Xiao, Keywon Chung, and Carnaven Chiu. 2009. Burn your memory away: one-time use video capture and storage device to encourage memory appreciation. In CHI '09 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2397-2406. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1520340.1520342

Digital Library

[7]

Robert B. Cialdini. 1993. Influence: The psychology of persuasion. New York: Morrow.

[8]

Herbert H. Clark and Susan E. Brennan. 1991. Grounding in communication. In Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, Lauren B. Resnick, John M. Levine and Stephanie D. Teasley (eds.). American Psychological Association, 127–149.

[9]

Steve Duck, Deborah J. Rutt, Margaret H. Hurst, and Heather Strejc. 1991. Some evident truths about conversations in everyday relationships: All communications are not created equal. Human Communication Research 18, 2: 228–267. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.14682958.1991.tb00545.x

[10]

Thomas Erickson and Wendy A. Kellogg. 2000. Social translucence: an approach to designing systems that support social processes. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 7, 1 (March 2000), 59-83. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/344949.345004

Digital Library

[11]

Mattias Esbjörnsson, Oskar Juhlin, and Mattias ã–stergen. 2003. Motorcycling and social interaction: design for the enjoyment of brief traffic encounters. In Proceedings of the 2003 international ACM SIGGROUP conference on Supporting group work (GROUP '03). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 8594. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/958160.958174

Digital Library

[12]

Benjamin C. M. Fung, Ke Wang, Rui Chen, and Philip S. Yu. 2010. Privacy-preserving data publishing: A survey of recent developments. ACM Comput. Surv. 42, 4, Article 14 (June 2010), 53 pages. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1749603.1749605

Digital Library

[13]

Shelly L. Gable, Harry T. Reis, Emily A. Impett, and Evan R. Asher. 2004. What do you do when things go right? The intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive events. Personality and Social Psychology 87, 2: 228. http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.228

[14]

William W. Gaver. 1991. Technology affordances. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '91), Scott P. Robertson, Gary M. Olson, and Judith S. Olson (Eds.). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 79-84. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/108844.108856

Digital Library

[15]

Erving Goffman. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. Random House.

[16]

Daena J. Goldsmith and Leslie A. Baxter. 1996. Constituting relationships in talk a taxonomy of speech events in social and personal relationships. Human Communication Research 23, 1: 87–114. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.14682958.1996.tb00388.x

[17]

Rebecca Gulotta, William Odom, Jodi Forlizzi, and Haakon Faste. 2013. Digital artifacts as legacy: exploring the lifespan and value of digital data. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1813-1822. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2466240

Digital Library

[18]

Jeffrey T. Hancock, Catalina Toma, and Nicole Ellison. 2007. The truth about lying in online dating profiles. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 449-452. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240697

Digital Library

[19]

Bernie Hogan. 2010. The presentation of self in the age of social media: Distinguishing performances and exhibitions online. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 30, 6: 377-386. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/0270467610385893

[20]

Gordon Hull, Heather Richter Lipford, and Celine Latulipe. 2011. Contextual gaps: Privacy issues on Facebook. Ethics and Information Technology 13, 4: 289–302. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10676-0109224-8

Digital Library

[21]

Anne Kaun, and Stiernstedt Fredrik. 2014. Facebook time: Technological and institutional affordances for media memories. New Media & Society 16, 7: 1154– 1168. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444814544001

[22]

David S. Kirk and Abigail Sellen. 2010. On human remains: Values and practice in the home archiving of cherished objects. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 17, 3, Article 10 (July 2010), 43 pages. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1806923.1806924

Digital Library

[23]

Paul M. Leonardi and Diane E. Bailey. 2008. Transformational technologies and the creation of new work practices: Making implicit knowledge explicit in task-based offshoring. Management Information Systems Quarterly 32, 2: 411–436.

Digital Library

[24]

Michael Massimi and Ronald M. Baecker. 2011. Dealing with death in design: developing systems for the bereaved. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 10011010. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979092

Digital Library

[25]

Michael Massimi, William Odom, Richard Banks, and David Kirk. 2011. Matters of life and death: locating the end of life in lifespan-oriented hci research. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 987-996. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979090

Digital Library

[26]

Viktor Mayer-Schönberger. 2011. Delete: the virtue of forgetting in the digital age. Princeton University Press.

Digital Library

[27]

Helen Nissenbaum. 2009. Privacy in context: Technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford University Press.

Digital Library

[28]

Helen Nissenbaum. 2011. A contextual approach to privacy online. Daedalus 140, 4: 32–48.

[29]

William Odom, Richard Banks, David Kirk, Richard Harper, Siân Lindley, and Abigail Sellen. 2012. Technology heirlooms?: considerations for passing down and inheriting digital materials. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 337-346. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2207723

Digital Library

[30]

William Odom, James Pierce, Erik Stolterman, and Eli Blevis. 2009. Understanding why we preserve some things and discard others in the context of interaction design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1053-1062. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518862

Digital Library

[31]

William Odom, Abi Sellen, Richard Harper, and Eno Thereska. 2012. Lost in translation: understanding the possession of digital things in the cloud. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 781-790. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2207789

Digital Library

[32]

Sandra Petronio. 2012. Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. Suny Press.

[33]

Artemio Ramirez and Kathy Broneck. 2009. 'IM me': Instant messaging as relational maintenance and everyday communication. Social and Personal Relationships 26, 2–3: 291–314. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/0265407509106719

[34]

Franziska Roesner, Gill T. Brian, and Tadayoshi Kohno. 2014. Sex, lies, or kittens? Investigating the use of snapchat's self-destructing messages. Financial Cryptography and Data Security, 8437: 64–76. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45472-5_5

[35]

Abigail J. Sellen and Steve Whittaker. 2010. Beyond total capture: a constructive critique of lifelogging. Commun. ACM 53, 5 (May 2010), 70-77. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1735223.1735243

Digital Library

[36]

Stuart J. Sigman. 1991. Handling the Discontinuous Aspects of Continuous Social Relationships: Toward Research on the Persistence of Social Forms. Communication Theory 1, 2: 106–127. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.14682885.1991.tb00008.x

[37]

Victoria Schwanda Sosik and Natalya N. Bazarova. 2014. Relational maintenance on social network sites: How Facebook communication predicts relational escalation. Computers in Human Behavior 35:124–131. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.044

[38]

Jeffrey W. Treem and Paul M. Leonardi. 2012. Social media use in organizations: Exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Communication Yearbook 36: 143–189. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2129853

[39]

Steve Whittaker. 2003. Theories and methods in mediated communication. In The Handbook of Discourse Processes, Arthur C. Graesser, Morton Ann Gernsbacher and Susan R. Goldman (eds.). Routledge, 243–286.

[40]

Scott Wright. 2012. From third place to third space: Everyday political talk in non-political online spaces. Javnost-the Public 19, 3: 5–20. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/13183222.2012.11009088

[41]

Bin Xu, Alvin Chin, Hao Wang, Lele Chang, Ke Zhang, Fangxi Yin, Hao Wang, Li Zhang. Physical Proximity and Online User Behavior in an Indoor Mobile Social Networking Application. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Cyber, Physical and Social Computing (CPSCom 2011). IEEE, 273–282. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/iThings/CPSCom.2011.

Digital Library

[42]

Xuan Zhao and Siân E. Lindley. 2014. Curation through use: understanding the personal value of social media. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2431-2440. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557291

Digital Library

[43]

Xuan Zhao, Niloufar Salehi, Sasha Naranjit, Sara Alwaalan, Stephen Voida, and Dan Cosley. 2013. The many faces of facebook: experiencing social media as performance, exhibition, and personal archive. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1-10. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2470656

Digital Library

Cited By

Jeung HLee S(2024)How Features on Instagram Affect Flow and SatisfactionJournal of Digital Contents Society10.9728/dcs.2024.25.9.238125:9(2381-2399)Online publication date: 30-Sep-2024
https://doi.org/10.9728/dcs.2024.25.9.2381
Faccio EReggiani MRocelli MCipolletta S(2024)Issues Related to the Use of Visual Social Networks and Perceived Usefulness of Social Media Literacy During the Recovery Phase: Qualitative Research Among Girls With Eating DisordersJournal of Medical Internet Research10.2196/5333426(e53334)Online publication date: 2-Jul-2024
https://doi.org/10.2196/53334
Yao YTaylor SLeiser Ransom S(2024)Who’s Viewing My Post? Extending the Imagined Audience Process Model Toward Affordances and Self-Disclosure Goals on Social MediaSocial Media + Society10.1177/2056305123122427110:1Online publication date: 22-Jan-2024
https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231224271
Show More Cited By

Automatic Archiving versus Default Deletion: What Snapchat Tells Us About Ephemerality in Design
1. Human-centered computing

Recommendations

"You Don't Have To Know My Past": How WeChat Moments Users Manage Their Evolving Self-Presentation
CHI '20: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Most social media platforms record, display, and archive users' personal histories. This persistence of posts over time can be problematic, as users' self-presentation goals and network composition change, but old content remains. In this paper, we ...
Share First, Save Later: Performance of Self through Snapchat Stories
CHI '17: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

As the third most popular social network among millennials, Snapchat is well known for its picture and video messaging system that deletes content after it is viewed. However, the Stories feature of Snapchat offers a different perspective of ephemeral ...
Media, Meaning, and Context Loss in Ephemeral Communication Platforms: A Qualitative Investigation on Snapchat
CSCW '17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing

Most social media platforms are persistent in nature, enabling users to re-visit content at their discretion. Platforms with design features that support ephemeral communications, such as Snapchat, have become increasingly popular. During the course of ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

CSCW '16: Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing

February 2016

1866 pages

ISBN:9781450335928

DOI:10.1145/2818048

General Chairs:
Darren Gergle
Northwestern University
,
Meredith Ringel Morris
Microsoft Research
,
Program Chairs:
Pernille Bjørn
University of Copenhagen
,
Joseph Konstan
University of Minnesota

Copyright © 2016 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Sponsors

SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 27 February 2016

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Funding Sources

NSF IIS

Conference

CSCW '16

Sponsor:

SIGCHI

CSCW '16: Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing

February 27 - March 2, 2016

California, San Francisco, USA

Acceptance Rates

CSCW '16 Paper Acceptance Rate 142 of 571 submissions, 25%;

Overall Acceptance Rate 2,235 of 8,521 submissions, 26%

Upcoming Conference

CSCW '25

Sponsor:
sigchi

Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing

October 18 - 22, 2025

Bergen , Norway

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

85
Total Citations
View Citations
790
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)117
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)18

Reflects downloads up to 12 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Jeung HLee S(2024)How Features on Instagram Affect Flow and SatisfactionJournal of Digital Contents Society10.9728/dcs.2024.25.9.238125:9(2381-2399)Online publication date: 30-Sep-2024
https://doi.org/10.9728/dcs.2024.25.9.2381
Faccio EReggiani MRocelli MCipolletta S(2024)Issues Related to the Use of Visual Social Networks and Perceived Usefulness of Social Media Literacy During the Recovery Phase: Qualitative Research Among Girls With Eating DisordersJournal of Medical Internet Research10.2196/5333426(e53334)Online publication date: 2-Jul-2024
https://doi.org/10.2196/53334
Yao YTaylor SLeiser Ransom S(2024)Who’s Viewing My Post? Extending the Imagined Audience Process Model Toward Affordances and Self-Disclosure Goals on Social MediaSocial Media + Society10.1177/2056305123122427110:1Online publication date: 22-Jan-2024
https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231224271
Kim JWolfe RChordia IDavis KHiniker A(2024)"Sharing, Not Showing Off": How BeReal Approaches Authentic Self-Presentation on Social Media Through Its DesignProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36869098:CSCW2(1-32)Online publication date: 8-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3686909
Kumar PZimmer MVitak J(2024)A Roadmap for Applying the Contextual Integrity Framework in Qualitative Privacy ResearchProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36537108:CSCW1(1-29)Online publication date: 26-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3653710
Marsh ALerner A(2024)Privacy Norms of Transformative Fandom: A Case Study of an Activity-Defined CommunityProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36373888:CSCW1(1-29)Online publication date: 26-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3637388
Reddy AKumar P(2024)‘A Teaspoon of Authenticity’: Exploring How Young Adults BeReal on Social MediaProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642690(1-14)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3642690
Ringel S(2024)Studying Absence: The Ephemerality of Digital News ContextsDigital Journalism10.1080/21670811.2023.2296555(1-15)Online publication date: 26-Jan-2024
https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2023.2296555
Lew ZFlanagin A(2024)Self-effects and public commitment on social mediaComputers in Human Behavior10.1016/j.chb.2024.108200156:COnline publication date: 9-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108200
Klik E(2023)Ephemeral design: Platform capitalism and the making of a featureNew Media & Society10.1177/1461444823116493426:12(7195-7211)Online publication date: 26-Apr-2023
https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231164934
Show More Cited By

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents