How rules of action shape social media use

Where all media communicate through rules of notice, interactive media are fundamentally defined by their structural possibilities – what might be called "rules of action " – which significantly influence how users communicate and behave.[1] These rules consist of affordances, which are the possibilities for action emerging from the interplay between users and platforms, and defaults, which are the predetermined settings used automatically "in the absence of a choice made by the user."[2] Although most apps give users the ability to change defaults (such as privacy settings), platforms often leverage defaults because most consumers "will not take the time and energy to explore fully the options and capabilities of the technologies."[3] Designers also frequently make non-default choices, like turning off notifications or deleting an account, intentionally "non-intuitive and burdensome."[4]

Designers of social media apps, often making choices that reflect their own biases, embed values into these systems, which in turn results in "the creation and transformation of values" for users.[5] The choices regarding which users' needs are prioritized in the design process are inherently political. Platforms employ these mechanisms as a form of "hypernudging," carefully designing architectures to alter behavior in predictable ways, maximizing revenue through engagement.[6]

Rules of action found in all social media

Social media is best understood as a collection of capabilities, or affordances, overlaid on various platforms. Instagram, for instance, is a platform for visual and video media with a social media overlay, while Scratch is a gaming platform with a social media overlay. The core functions that define social media, and must operate as defaults for the platform to function as such, are consuming content, publishing content and interacting with content.

• Consuming content: The ability to consume content lets users see posts from others, typically through a "Feed" or "Stream."[7] Designers often try to maximize consumption by creating mechanisms that "reduce any friction in consumption". The feature known as "infinite scroll," a standard design practice, is crucial here as it "eliminates natural breaking points in a user flow," making it difficult for users to stop consuming, and contributing to the feeling that children "spend too much time online and find it hard to stop."[8] Because users, particularly adolescents, "strategically curate and select content to present a carefully constructed positive self-image," mere exposure to this positively biased and "idealized content" can trigger upward social comparison processes, which may negatively affect body image and well-being.[9]
• Publishing content: The ability to publish content enables users to generate and post media or status updates. Compared to consuming content, publishing facilitates active usage, encompassing activities like posting a status update, picture or video.[10] Except in the case of fully anonymous and ephemeral platforms, this creates a persistent profile that must be supervised and maintained. For adolescents, the profile is a major focus, as they dedicate "significant time in crafting and managing their online persona."[11] The potential for any user to amass a large audience encourages practices of "self-branding," involving the use of techniques traditionally associated with consumer brands to attract attention and status.[12]
• Interacting with content: The ability to interact with content allows users to engage with others' posts through actions such as Liking, sharing, commenting and remixing, often in ways visible to or affecting others. This activity links the consuming feed with the publishing profile. When these interactions are quantified, though "numerical indicators of status in the form of friend lists, comments, and likes, which can be easily counted and compared,"[13] it can create a powerful reinforcement structure, where social feedback shapes users' morals and values.[14] Platforms capitalize on this by prioritizing interactions that signal greater effort; for example, Facebook's algorithm treated reactions, particularly the "angry" emoji, as significantly more valuable than 'likes,' and replies were weighted even more heavily.[15] This system reinforces content and behaviors that generate high engagement, even if it’s divisive or outrage-provoking.[16]

Some forms of interaction, such as commenting on others’ content, can create "a stronger social obligation to respond because of the norm of reciprocity," and is positively linked with greater well-being compared to consuming or publishing content.[17] However, the same interactivity that builds connections can facilitate negative outcomes, such as the spread of misinformation or toxicity, especially when amplification mechanisms are used.[18] Users do, however, sometimes make resistant or negotiated use of interaction tools and metrics; for instance, on Reddit, users often "disregard the rules about voting" and instead "make, and enforce, their own rules, norms, and ethics around it,"[19] while activists have manipulated the “linked comments” feature on TikTok to draw attention to particular issues and accounts.[20]

Divergent rules of action across different social networks

Social networks also exhibit specific rules of action that vary widely, shaping their unique cultures and communicative outcomes. Here are some of the more common affordances and default that differ across different platforms:

• Symmetrical vs. asymmetrical connection: The mode of connection—whether symmetrical (mutual agreement, like on Facebook) or asymmetrical (one-way following, like on X or YouTube)—dictates network structure and information flow. Symmetrical networks are typically small, dense and socially homogeneous, often perceived as safer. Conversely, asymmetrical networks, particularly on YouTube, encourage the development of massive, one-directional audiences, facilitating a "microcelebrity" culture centered on niche topics and allowing actors built around fringe ideas to create intimate parasocial relationships with audiences.[21]
• Content temporality (persistence vs. ephemerality): The feature of persistence means content can operate in "timeless time," with interactions taking place long after publication. Conversely, ephemerality (content that disappears, such as Snapchat Stories) "generates a sense of urgency and artificial scarcity," compelling immediate attention and routine checking.[22] Ephemerality can encourage a lower threshold for personal sharing, leading to intimacy, as users feel comfortable sharing "‘ugly’ pictures of themselves, with double chins and self-exposure."[23]
• Anonymity and moderation: The degree of anonymity or pseudonymity allowed influences the content shared. Users may seek out "anonymous spaces to experiment with their current identities."[24] The absence of moderation is critical for the spread of certain content, such as conspiracy theories, in closed systems like messenger apps.[25]
• Delivery structure (network vs. commons): The way content is delivered shapes the user experience profoundly. Network-based platforms (like Facebook or X) primarily deliver content from accounts the user has connected to. This structure, guided by algorithms prioritizing engagement, tends to elicit the emergence of echo chambers and polarized networks, often driven by unfollowing perceived "unimportant" news, which can inadvertently lead to the loss of "cross-ideology social ties."[26] Conversely, Commons-based platforms (like TikTok) sample content from the entire platform, where algorithmic recommendation is more central than following behavior. This enables "virality-from-nowhere," where content can be seen by millions without the creator needing a pre-existing audience. TikTok’s design, which provides the user with no choice over the content on the "For You Page," favors simplicity and immediate reward, instantly playing "highly ranked content".[27]

[1] Davis, K. (2023) Design Matters: Why We Should Resist Using Social Media Shorthand. CLA Alliance.

[2] Brown, O., Smith, L. G., Davidson, B. I., & Ellis, D. A. (2022). The problem with the internet: An affordance-based approach for psychological research on networked technologies. Acta Psychologica, 228, 103650.

[3] Charmaraman, L., & Grevet Delcourt, C. (2021, May). Prototyping for social wellbeing with early social media users: Belonging, experimentation, and self-care. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-15).

[4] Lupiáñez-Villanueva, F., et al. (2022) Behavioural study on unfair commercial practices in the digital environment: dark patterns and manipulative personalisation. European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency (EISMEA).

[5] Costanza-Chock, S. (2020). Design practices:“nothing about us without us”. Design Justice.

[6] Viljoen, S., Goldenfein, J., & McGuigan, L. (2021). Design choices: Mechanism design and platform capitalism. Big data & society, 8(2), 20539517211034312

[7] Trekels, J., & Telzer, E. H. (2025). The Swiss cheese model of social cues: a theoretical perspective on the role of social context in shaping social media’s effect on adolescent well-being. Journal of Communication, jqaf001.

[8] (2023) Disrupted Childhood: The Cost of Persuasive Design. 5Rights Foundation.

[9] Verduyn, P., Gugushvili, N., & Kross, E. (2022). Do social networking sites influence well-being? The extended active-passive model. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 31(1), 62-68

[10] Verduyn, P., Gugushvili, N., & Kross, E. (2022). Do social networking sites influence well-being? The extended active-passive model. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 31(1), 62-68.

[11] Trekels, J., & Telzer, E. H. (2025). The Swiss cheese model of social cues: a theoretical perspective on the role of social context in shaping social media’s effect on adolescent well-being. Journal of Communication, jqaf001.

[12] Nesi, J., Choukas-Bradley, S., & Prinstein, M. J. (2018). Transformation of adolescent peer relations in the social media context: Part 2—application to peer group processes and future directions for research. Clinical child and family psychology review, 21(3), 295-319

[13] Nesi, J., Choukas-Bradley, S., & Prinstein, M. J. (2018). Transformation of adolescent peer relations in the social media context: Part 2—application to peer group processes and future directions for research. Clinical child and family psychology review, 21(3), 295-319

[14] Brady, W. J., McLoughlin, K., Doan, T. N., & Crockett, M. J. (2021). How social learning amplifies moral outrage expression in online social networks. Science Advances, 7(33), eabe5641.

[15] Merrill, J.B., & Oremus W. (2021) Five points for anger, one for a ‘like’: How Facebook’s formula fostered rage and misinformation. The Washington Post.

[16] Robertson, C. E., Del Rosario, K., Rathje, S., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2023). Changing the incentive structure of social media may reduce online proxy failure and proliferation of negativity. Brain and Behavioral Sciences, 47(e81).

[17] Verduyn, P., Gugushvili, N., & Kross, E. (2022). Do social networking sites influence well-being? The extended active-passive model. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 31(1), 62-68.

[18] Van Bavel, J. J., Robertson, C. E., Del Rosario, K., Rasmussen, J., & Rathje, S. (2024). Social media and morality. Annual review of psychology, 75(1), 311-340.

[19] Graham, T., & Rodriguez, A. (2021). The sociomateriality of rating and ranking devices on social media: A case study of Reddit’s voting practices. Social Media+ Society, 7(3), 20563051211047667.

[20] DiBenedetto, C. (2024) How blue comments turned the TikTok algorithm into a protest tool. Mashable.

[21] Theocharis, Y., Cardenal, A., Jin, S., Aalberg, T., Hopmann, D. N., Strömbäck, J., ... & Štětka, V. (2021). Does the platform matter? Social media and COVID-19 conspiracy theory beliefs in 17 countries. new media & society, 146144482110456.

[22] (2023) Disrupted Childhood: The Cost of Persuasive Design. 5Rights Foundation.

[23] Fasting, M., & Schofield, D. (2023). Snapshots of learning: exploring the meaning making potential of everyday visual literacy practices. Learning, Media and Technology, 1-16

[24] Charmaraman, L., & Grevet Delcourt, C. (2021, May). Prototyping for social wellbeing with early social media users: Belonging, experimentation, and self-care. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-15).

[25] Theocharis, Y., Cardenal, A., Jin, S., Aalberg, T., Hopmann, D. N., Strömbäck, J., ... & Štětka, V. (2021). Does the platform matter? Social media and COVID-19 conspiracy theory beliefs in 17 countries. new media & society, 146144482110456.

[26] Cinelli, M., Morales, G. D. F., Galeazzi, A., Quattrociocchi, W., & Starnini, M. (2020). Echo chambers on social media: A comparative analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.09603.

[27] Zhang, A. X., Bernstein, M. S., Karger, D. R., & Ackerman, M. S. (2024). Form-from: A design space of social media systems. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 8(CSCW1), 1-47.