Who Can be Seen in Social Media Content

A 60–90 minute activity exploring how digital audiences respond differently to online content based on the perceived identity of the poster. Participants analyse anonymised real posts, coding the tone and targets of public comments. Through observation, mapping, and discussion, the workshop uncovers how social norms, bias, and platform culture influence online visibility and expression. It promotes critical awareness of privilege, representation, and the role of algorithms in shaping digital interactions.

Use only public content (no private profiles).
Anonymize all identifying elements (blur names, @handles, profile photos, and personal details).
Exclude minors and any potentially vulnerable individuals.
Make it clear that this is an analytical and educational exercise — participants should not try to identify or contact the users shown.
Set group respect rules and give a content note (e.g., for body image, gender, skin colour, etc.).

Preparation

Select 6–8 anonymized public posts (can be from different platforms). Choose content that varies across:

Perceived identity traits of the author (e.g., gender, age, body visibility, clothing style).
Type of content (opinions, tutorials, selfies, activism, humor, sports, music, promotional…).
Level of self-exposure (face/body shown, personal tone vs. assertive stance, etc.).

1. Warm-up

Flash question to the group:

What kinds of posts tend to get the most praise? What kind of posts gets the most criticism?

Note initial ideas on a flipchart or board.

2. Group Observation and Coding

Each group receives 2–3 anonymized posts and fills out a quick coding sheet:

Template: Observation coding sheet

3. Mapping in groups

Each group presents their posts/results on a big poster/wall close to each other. Each group adds a sticky note or marker, indicating:

Their Reaction Index
Key content and traits (e.g., “Selfie + body visible”, “political opinion”, “skill tutorial”)

This visualizes patterns across posts.

Reflection

The facilitator leads a group conversation with questions such as:

Which types of posts received the most positive or negative reactions? Why?
Did appearance (body size, perceived gender, clothing) affect the tone of comments? How?
When were ideas or skills the focus, rather than the person’s appearance?
What unspoken rules or expectations of the platform became visible?
Based on what you observed, who seems to be safer — and who less — when expressing themselves online?
What role do personal characteristics (like gender, appearance, or background) and the content of their messages play in how they are treated?”Where did you notice signs of bias (sexism, racism, classism, fatphobia, ableism...)?
What did we not see — and how might that affect the visibility or safety of the poster?
How would things change if the format or platform were different (e.g., video vs. text, YouTube vs. Instagram)?

Closing & Transfer (5 min)

What’s one thing you’re taking away from this activity?
What practical action could you take to make digital spaces more inclusive (e.g., community guidelines, peer support, moderation practices)?

Key take aways

Recognise that online reactions are not neutral and depend on perceived identity traits.
Be aware of platform logics + social norms that shape public engagement.
Use a shared vocabulary to discuss representation, privilege, and digital visibility.

Variations

Mock-up version: Create fictional profiles based on real comment trends.
Focus themes: Limit to music, politics, fashion, or only visual identity.
Platform comparison: Show the same content on two platforms and compare reactions.

Handbook: More than Go with the Flow

A handbook on Digital Citizenship Education, created in the frame of the project DIYW-ROAD/Competendo. Digital Youth Work - rights-sensitive, open, accessible, democratic.
Unless otherwise stated, authors and editors of the methods published in the project are Elisa Rapetti, Markus José Plasencia Kanzler, and Nils-Eyk Zimmermann