Study finds no clear definition of social media among public

Social media shapes daily life in ways that feel both obvious and hard to define. It connects people, spreads information, and fills spare moments. Yet a new study suggests that even frequent users do not fully agree on what social media actually is, or where its boundaries begin and end.

Researchers at Aston University set out to answer a simple question that proved far more complex. What counts as social media, and how do people truly feel about it? Their findings show a wide gap between public understanding, academic definitions, and policy discussions.

Social media is often described as a space for sharing content, interacting with others, and building communities online. That definition sounds straightforward, but in practice, it becomes blurred.

The research team, led by PhD researcher Evelyn Murray along with Dr Charlotte Pennington, Dr Daniel Shaw, and Professor Michael Larkin, surveyed nearly 1,000 active users. Participants came from different age groups and backgrounds, offering a broad view of public opinion.

Murray found that definitions vary widely. Some focus on communication, while others emphasize content sharing or networking. As technology evolves, these features overlap across platforms.

“I began by trying to determine ‘what is social media?’ and when I tried, I found massive discrepancy between definitions that left platforms being included or excluded based on subjective characteristics,” Murray said.

This lack of agreement means that the term “social media” often acts as a catch-all phrase, even when platforms serve very different purposes.

Participants in the study showed strong agreement on a small group of platforms. Instagram, Facebook, X, TikTok, and Snapchat were almost universally identified as social media.

Beyond those, opinions quickly diverged. Some platforms that meet common academic criteria were rarely labeled as social media by users.

Roblox, for example, allows users to create avatars, interact, and chat within millions of user-generated games. Despite its strong social features, many participants did not consider it social media.

Wikipedia presents a similar case. It relies on user-generated content and public collaboration, yet it is rarely viewed as a social platform.

These gaps highlight a key issue. What researchers classify as social media does not always match how people experience it. That mismatch can shape how studies are interpreted and how policies are designed.

The question of definition carries real consequences. Governments and institutions are increasingly debating rules around social media use, especially for young people.

If policymakers rely on broad or unclear definitions, regulations may miss the mark. A rule aimed at limiting social media could unintentionally include platforms used for education or communication.

Dr Pennington stressed the importance of clarity. “The effects of social media on young people’s mental health are central to current public debate and policy proposals, including bans for under-16s. However, our research shows that the term ‘social media’ itself is poorly understood.”

This confusion raises concerns about how effective or fair new policies might be. Without a shared understanding, rules risk becoming too broad or failing to address real issues.

Public discussion about social media often feels divided. Some view it as harmful, while others focus on its benefits. The study found that most people hold a more balanced perspective.

Participants recognized several positive aspects. Many described social media as easy to use and widely accessible. It helps people stay informed about news and events. It also allows users to build and maintain relationships across distances.

Entertainment plays a major role as well. People turn to these platforms for humor, creativity, and relaxation. Some also use them to share ideas, learn new skills, or find opportunities.

At the same time, concerns remain strong. Participants widely agreed that social media can be addictive and time-consuming. Many pointed to the spread of misinformation as a serious issue.

Other commonly cited risks included disrupted sleep, increased comparison with others, and exposure to cyberbullying. These concerns reflect the emotional and psychological impact that social media can have over time.

One of the study’s most important insights is that perception depends heavily on how a person uses a platform. Social media is not a single experience.

For some, it is a way to stay in touch with family. For others, it becomes a source of stress or distraction. The same platform can offer both connection and pressure, depending on how it is used.

Participants often described this dual nature. Social media can feel helpful in one moment and overwhelming in the next. This balance makes it difficult to label as purely good or bad.

The findings suggest that understanding social media requires looking beyond simple categories. It involves examining how different features affect users in different ways.

The study also explored how people respond to different definitions of social media. Participants preferred explanations that were clear and inclusive.

Simpler definitions, which focused on basic ideas like sharing and interaction, received higher levels of agreement. More technical or restrictive definitions were less popular.

This preference highlights a gap between academic language and everyday understanding. People tend to favor definitions that match their lived experience rather than formal descriptions.

Both adults and younger users showed similar patterns. Despite differences in age and usage, they agreed on what made a definition easy to understand.

Technology continues to evolve, and so do the platforms people use. New features blur the lines between categories that once seemed clear.

A messaging app may include social feeds. A gaming platform may allow real-time conversation. A knowledge site may rely on user collaboration. Each of these elements overlaps with traditional ideas of social media.

This constant change makes it harder to maintain a fixed definition. It also means that public understanding will likely continue to shift.

Murray hopes the research encourages a more careful approach. “I hope this research encourages a more careful and precise use of the term ‘social media’ in both policy and academic work.”

These resources examine how social media is defined, how users interpret platforms and how researchers assess possible effects.

Social Media: Defining, Developing, and Divining: Develops a definition intended to remain useful as platforms and communication technologies evolve. (Atlantic Journal of Communication, 2015)

Social by definition: How users define social platforms and why it matters: Investigates users’ descriptions of platforms and their relationship with perceived social opportunities and resources. (Telematics and Informatics, 2021)

Social Media Elements, Ecologies, and Effects: Reviews the features and contexts that shape social media experiences beyond treating platforms as uniform environments. (Annual Review of Psychology, 2020)

Social media use and its impact on adolescent mental health: An umbrella review of the evidence: Compares reviews of mental-health research and discusses inconsistent findings and measurement problems. (Current Opinion in Psychology, 2022)

Review: Social media use and adolescent mental health – an umbrella review and power analysis: Synthesizes more recent reviews and explores whether statistical power helps explain disagreement across findings. (Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 2026)

Research findings are available online in the journal Psychology of Popular Media.

The original story "Study finds no clear definition of social media among public" is published in The Brighter Side of News.

Like these kind of feel good stories? Get The Brighter Side of News' newsletter.