Photographer Lennart Nilsson’s archive to open for research and public access

University of Gothenburg

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

 

image: 

The book A Child is Born

First edition of the American version, 1966. Delacorte Press/Seymour Lawrence, New York, New York.

view more 

Credit: Delacorte Press/Seymour Lawrence, New York, New York.

The University of Gothenburg has been funded 1.3 million SEK by the Hasselblad Foundation to take over the extensive archive of photographer Lennart Nilsson. The archive is one of Sweden’s most significant photographic legacies and contains a life’s work that transformed how we understand the human body, science and the role of photography in society.

The initiative means that Lennart Nilsson’s archive will be preserved long-term at the Gothenburg University Library and will be made accessible for research and the public. At the same time, the archive will be connected to the internationally recognised research environment in photography developed through collaboration between HDK-Valand at the University of Gothenburg and the Hasselblad Foundation.

Reached a global audience 
Lennart Nilsson is one of Sweden’s most influential photographers, not least through his unique and long-standing collaboration with medical research.

“Preserving his archive is not only about safeguarding an extraordinary life’s work. It is also about enabling a deeper understanding of a creative practice that spans several decades and helped bring scientific knowledge to a broad public,” says Niclas Östlind, Professor of Photography at HDK-Valand.

Lennart Nilsson’s most well-known work is the book A Child Is Born (1965), which depicts foetal development from conception to birth. The book has been translated into more than twenty languages and is one of the most widely distributed photography books in the world. The images have also sparked important discussions about research ethics, perspectives on gender and reproduction, and the role of photography in scientific knowledge production.

“His work, at the intersection of photography and medical research, has had a major impact on how images shape knowledge and societal understanding. Lennart Nilsson’s legacy is very close to our hearts, and we welcome that the archive will now be preserved and made accessible for research and the public,” says Kalle Sanner, Executive Director of the Hasselblad Foundation. 

A vital part of our collective memory 
The archive, previously managed by Lennart Nilsson’s stepdaughter Anne Fjellström, contains a large number of negatives, slides, as well as books, magazines and an extensive personal archive including correspondence, notes and documents. The material spans from the 1940s until Nilsson’s death in 2017, offering insight into both his working process and the period in which he was active.

The initiative also highlights the broader issue of how photographic heritage should be preserved.

“Photography plays a crucial role in our collective memory. Universities, more than many other societal actors, can contribute to advanced knowledge and deeper understanding in this area,” says Niclas Östlind.

In order to make the material searchable and accessible, it needs to be catalogued and adapted to the university library’s system – work that will now begin. The aim is for the archive to be accessible to researchers, students and the public by 2029.

Once the archive has been incorporated into the university’s collections, the Gothenburg University Library will be responsible for its long-term management.

“It is truly fantastic that, together with HDK-Valand and the Hasselblad Foundation, we have been able to bring this to fruition. In doing so, we are taking on a national responsibility for the photographic cultural heritage, closely connected to the education and research conducted at the university,” says Morgan Palmqvist, Library Director. 

 

Lennart Nilsson, Stockholm, 2016.

Credit

Photo: Nicho Södling

 

Women outperform men when confidence is measured in intelligence testing, study finds

University College Cork

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsApp
Email

• Findings show that women outperform or match men in key cognitive tasks when confidence is measured alongside performance.

• The study challenges long-standing gender stereotypes that women are less competitive or confident than men.

• The study finds that standard intelligence tests may misrepresent ability by ignoring how confident people feel about their answers.

A major new study reveals that women outperform men in aligning confidence with correctness, particularly in intelligence-related tasks.

The research challenges long-held assumptions about gender differences in intelligence, competitiveness and financial literacy, offering fresh insights into how confidence, not just correctness, shapes performance.

The research, conducted by researchers at University College Cork, University of Cape Town and Georgia State University, overturns a long-standing generalisation in empirical economics that women are statistically less competitive than men.

The study also finds that financial incentives significantly affect performance on fluid intelligence tests, challenging the assumption that test-takers are always equally motivated.

Beyond right and wrong: Confidence matters

Study participants competed for cash rewards, and on average, female participants earned more than males. The study found that women process the confidence of their answers more accurately than men when tackling uncertain or risky test questions related to intelligence – because male subjects were over-confident about their answers and over-competed.

These findings challenge prior policy advice that women should be more competitive, suggesting instead that efforts should focus on encouraging greater self-awareness and more calibrated confidence among men.

When it comes to financial literacy, women show greater accuracy in confidence than their male counterparts.

Professor Don Ross, Professor in the School of Society, Politics, and Ethics at University College Cork, said. “These findings challenge the outdated narrative that women are inherently less competitive. Our results show that women are often more accurate in judging their confidence under pressure - and that matters. When measured properly, women show strong intelligence, compete and take risks when it makes sense to do so, and display high levels of financial literacy.”

“It is not the case that women lack the confidence to take on the risks of competition: they respond exactly as any risk averse agent should – it’s that society often encourages men to be overconfident,” Professor Ross said.

Key findings of the study include:

• Confidence is often misread: Claims that women are under-confident in domains like intelligence, competitiveness, and financial literacy are shown to be based on flawed performance metrics. When measured correctly, women show stronger alignment between confidence and correctness.
• Incentives drive performance: Participants performed significantly better on fluid intelligence tests when financially motivated. This suggests that test results can understate ability when motivation is not evenly distributed or assumed.
• Confidence matters but is rarely measured: Standard tests typically record only the “most likely” answer, ignoring how sure individuals are about their responses. This can misrepresent understanding, especially in complex or ambiguous tasks.
• Cognitive inequality is shaped by cultural scaffolding: The study highlights the importance of social and cognitive scaffolds - such as language, tools, and interaction - which vary by culture and socioeconomic background. These structures play a vital role in shaping confidence, cognition, and test performance.
• Smarter by design: The researchers developed a testing interface that requires individuals to report their confidence levels alongside their answers. This boosted cognitive performance, particularly for women and Black participants, indicating that these groups are often underestimated by conventional testing methods.

Rethinking measurement

The study calls for a reassessment of how cognitive skills, particularly fluid intelligence, are measured and interpreted — both in research and in policy-making. It argues for broader definitions of intelligence that include self-awareness, the use of tools, and the ability to assess uncertainty - factors critical for real-world problem-solving.

“A lack of total certainty doesn’t mean someone is less intelligent. In fact, the ability to recognise uncertainty and seek support - like organising information or using language as a mental tool - is itself a sign of higher-order thinking,” Professor Don Ross said.

With intelligence playing a central role in educational and economic outcomes, improving how we evaluate it could help address broader issues like inequality and access.

---

Journal

Journal of Political Economy

DOI

10.1086/738345 

Method of Research

Observational study

Subject of Research

People

‘We can have a better digital world’: Global campaign targets ‘enshitification’ of social media

Copyright AP Photo, File

By Anna Desmarais

Published on 28/03/2026 - EURONEWS

A platform becomes ‘enshitified’ when it introduces paid features or

 subscriptions that makes a user’s experience worse than it used to be.

A viral video by the Norwegian Consumer Council (NCC) is drawing attention to a growing concern about the decline in quality across popular digital platforms.

A self-described “professional enshitificator” deliberately adds pop-ups to websites, schedules ad breaks into YouTube videos, and installs disruptive phone updates.

The video, which has amassed millions of views, is part of a wider global campaign warning about “enshitification,” the degradation of online platforms or services that were once user-friendly.

Over 70 advocacy groups from the United States, the European Union, and Norway sent letters to politicians in over 14 countries, asking for stronger enforcement against “enshitification”.

“We can have a better digital world,” a February letter from the NCC to EU officials reads. “We must rebalance power between consumers, Big Tech and alternative service providers.”

What is enshitification?

Journalist Cory Doctorow was the first to coin the term ‘enshitification’ in 2023. He argued that platforms are first good to their users, then abuse them to make things better for their business customers.

Eventually, platforms will then abuse their business partners to claw back all the money for themselves.

In practice, this means a handful of platforms expose users to advertising, paywalls or subscriptions for features that were once free, said Finn Lützow-Holm Myrstad, the NCC’s director of digital policy.

​”It’s a deliberate process, a deliberate choice by companies to take advantage of the fact that we're locked in and that we then don't have other choices,” Myrstad said.

There is no universally agreed threshold for when a service becomes “enshitified,” making it a matter of personal judgement, Myrstad added.

Related

• Is social media addictive by design and can you beat the algorithm?

The NCC report points to Facebook as one example, arguing that the platform has changed its original purpose of connecting friends and family in favour of prioritising promoted content and advertising in a “deliberate effort to increase profits”.

The Facebook feed “now includes forced advertisement breaks, vast amounts of AI slop, and various other content,” the report said.

‘Enshitification’ is easier to do with digital products because they can be easily modified in ways that physical products cannot, Myrstad said. That means many digital products have seen anti-consumer and anti-competitive practices proliferate.

Platforms are not worsening user experience on purpose, but if they have to choose between better service and monetisation, they will put profits first, according to Paul Richter, a fellow at the Bruegel think tank.

“Every single time that competition decreases I think that just makes it easier for these platforms to provide a lower standard of service to users,” Richter said.

Platforms ‘lock the consumer in’

In the early days of social media, intense competition forced platforms to appeal simultaneously to users, creators and advertisers. Over time, however, mergers and acquisitions concentrated the market, reducing the pressure to compete, both Myrstad and Richter said.

Both point to Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram in 2012 as a pivotal moment. One that, had it been blocked, might have preserved stronger competition between platforms.

A key driver of this dynamic is the so-called network effect, where a platform’s value increases as more people use it, the NCC report found..

Social media users are reluctant to leave if their favourite creators are not elsewhere, while creators hesitate to move without an audience, Richter said.

Related

• How deepfake scams are reaching record levels by targeting social media users

There are also practical ties keeping users on big social media platforms, such as staying in touch with family or following local groups and events, with few viable alternative platforms that they can move to, the report notes.

As a result, users have limited ability to “vote with their feet” and switch to better services, Myrstad and Richter said.

Companies also introduce switching costs, which are the time, effort or money required to move to a competitor, the report said.

“If they had allowed, for example, users to more easily move from the service, they would be much more responsive to consumer dissatisfaction,” Myrstad said. “They do everything they can to both lock the consumers in.”

To break this cycle, Myrstad and Richter said platforms need incentives to prioritise users again, which could include the emergence of viable alternative platforms.

However, Richter warns that market forces alone are unlikely to do this and that governments will need to step in.

What already exists to counter enshitification?

Europe has some existing legislation that covers some issues brought up by ‘enshitification’. The Digital Markets Act (DMA), for example, includes interoperability requirements that force major “gatekeepers” such as Apple and Google to open up key operating system features to competitors, Richter said.

This could help create a more competitive social media environment, allowing users on new platforms to interact with contacts on established ones such as Facebook, he added.

However, he warned that these interoperability rules alone will not fully lower the barriers to entry for new players.

That is where the Digital Services Act (DSA) comes in. The EU’s rules for online platforms require companies to share data, assess how their design choices impact society, and work with regulators to mitigate risks.

Companies that fail to comply can face fines of up to 6 percent of their global turnover, which Richter argues is enough financial incentive to follow the rules.

Relate

Existing laws like data protection and consumer protection regulations have the potential to address enshitification, but enforcement has been too weak and slow, Myrstad said.

“There needs to be a big price to pay for anti-competitive practices,” he said. “What we see is that the fines that are being levied are not functioning as a deterrent.”

Myrstad said he is hopeful that the upcoming Digital Fairness Act (DFA) will provide legal protections against “deceptive design, addictive mechanisms, and a few other challenges that are part of enshitification.”

The council has not heard back from the European politicians it contacted regarding its enshitificaiton campaign, though Myrstad noted some action in North America.

He encouraged more governments to take on the issue.

“Just reading the [online] comments [on the video] there is overwhelming support for this,” Myrstad said. “This should really create the political momentum for politicians to really address this problem, because there’s clearly huge interest in this.”

Euronews Next reached out to the Commission to see whether any action to counter enshitification is happening, but did not receive a reply.

Robert Reich: How Do We Protect Children From Becoming Addicted To Social Media?

March 28, 2026 
By Robert Reich

My granddaughter began scrolling on a cellphone when she was around 2 years old, her index finger repeatedly swiping across its face as if she were already a teenager.

Some of the 18-year-olds in my classes at Berkeley seem to suffer withdrawal symptoms when I ask them to put away their phones.

I see young people in restaurants sitting with other young people, none saying a word to each other as they lose themselves in their devices.

Are they addicted? Yes, if you define addiction as getting such a dopamine rush that they feel compelled to use their cellphones for hours at a time.

How similar is this to a nicotine addiction? And — as was a central question 30 years ago when Big Tobacco was being sued — is Big Tech intentionally designing its product to hook young people?

The answer appears to be that the addictions are quite similar, and Big Tech is just as culpable as Big Tobacco.

On Wednesday, in California, a young woman prevailed in a lawsuit against social media giants Meta Platforms and Google’s YouTube, in which she accused them of designing their apps to be as addictive and harmful to adolescents as cigarettes. Jurors found the tech companies to be negligent in having failed to provide adequate warnings about the potential dangers of their products.

What seemed to persuade the jury were features that Meta and YouTube had built into their software like infinite scroll, algorithmic recommendations, and autoplay videos — designed to get young users to compulsively engage with the platforms.

Internal company documents from Meta and YouTube executives showed they knew of and discussed the negative effects of their products on children.

In fact, this case and many others likely to follow in its wake (more than 3,000 other similar lawsuits are pending in California courts against Meta, YouTube, Snapchat and TikTok) are rooted in the litigation against Big Tobacco 30 years ago, in which plaintiffs argued that the tobacco corporations created addictive products that harmed their users.

I’m old enough to remember when U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Luther Terry issued the first landmark report warning that cigarette smoking causes cancer and other diseases, on January 11, 1964. I was a teenager then, quietly debating with myself whether to look cool by having a cigarette dangling from my lips.

The report, titled Smoking and Health: Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General, sparked a national shift in public health — leading in 1965 to mandatory warnings on cigarette packages. The report and the warnings, and the hullabaloo surrounding them, put me off smoking.

Almost 60 years later, in 2024, U.S. Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy called for adding warning labels to social media, explaining that the platforms were associated with mental health harms for adolescents. He wrote:

“The mental health crisis among young people is an emergency — and social media has emerged as an important contributor.

Adolescents who spend more than three hours a day on social media face double the risk of anxiety and depression symptoms, and the average daily use in this age group, as of the summer of 2023, was 4.8 hours. Additionally, nearly half of adolescents say social media makes them feel worse about their bodies.

It is time to require a surgeon general’s warning label on social media platforms, stating that social media is associated with significant mental health harms for adolescents.”


He’s right. A surgeon general’s warning label would remind parents and adolescents that social media may be unsafe.

Evidence from tobacco studies show that warning labels can increase awareness and change behavior. When asked if a warning from the surgeon general would prompt them to limit or monitor their children’s social media use, 76 percent of people in one recent survey of Latino parents said yes.

But we shouldn’t stop there, and Big Tech shouldn’t be able to use warning labels as a defense to future lawsuits claiming social media addiction among young people.

Meta, YouTube, and other social media platforms must redesign their products to be less addictive to minors. Yet, as with Big Tobacco, they’re unlikely to do this unless liability judgments against them start mounting substantially.

In the 1998 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, the major tobacco companies agreed to pay over $200 billion to 46 states, five territories, and the District of Columbia to settle lawsuits over smoking-related health costs. The settlement imposed strict marketing restrictions and funded anti-smoking campaigns.

Now, cigarettes are prohibited in most workplaces and public spaces. The Food and Drug Administration restricts tobacco sales to individuals 21 or older. Additional rules under consideration target menthol flavors and reduce nicotine levels.

We need to protect our kids from social media no less strictly. Why not ban children under 16 from using social media, prohibit its use in schools, and have Big Tech pay for anti-social media campaigns directed at young people?

In December, Australia issued a ban on young people using social media. Malaysia, Spain, and Denmark are considering similar rules. American children deserve no less.

This article was published at Robert Reich’s Substack

Robert B. Reich is Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley and Senior Fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies, and writes at robertreich.substack.com. Reich served as Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration, for which Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the twentieth century. He has written fifteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock", "The Work of Nations," and"Beyond Outrage," and, his most recent, "The Common Good," which is available in bookstores now. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine, chairman of Common Cause, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and co-creator of the award-winning documentary, "Inequality For All." He's co-creator of the Netflix original documentary "Saving Capitalism," which is streaming now.

 

University of East London expert helps shape national screen time guidance as PM vows support for parents

University of East London

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

Government answers parents’ calls for support on screen time with new guidance on keeping meal and bedtimes screen-free and limiting to an hour a day for 2- to 5-year-olds

· First of its kind, evidence-backed advice has been developed with Children's Commissioner Dame Rachel de Souza and leading experts to help navigate challenges of raising children in digital world

· Suggests simple screen-free swaps to help families build healthy habits from the earliest years, available free online and through Best Start Family Hubs

Parents of young children are facing a constant battle with screens. Now, for the first time, the government is stepping in with clear, trusted guidance to help families navigate it.

Following weeks of engagement with over a thousand parents who called for clear support on how much screen time is too much, and how to build healthy habits, the government is delivering on its promise to provide judgement-free, practical support if they need it.

Some will oppose stepping in, but we are clear: if the choice is between standing back or supporting parents to keep children safe, this government will always act.

Currently, parents are left to navigate fast-moving technology alone – with a quarter (24%) of parents of 3- to 5-year-olds finding it hard to control their child’s screen time, and 98% of two-year-olds watching screens every day.

This underlines the need for support, which is why we are giving parents the clear, trusted tools they need to cut through uncertainty and conflicting advice online.

The new guidance is available for free on the Best Start in Life website, with key tips including:

· Under 2s: Avoiding screen time other than for shared activities that encourage bonding, interaction and conversation.

· 2- to 5-year-olds: Trying to keep it to no more than one hour a day. Avoid at mealtimes and in the hour before bed.

· Content: Choosing slow-paced, age-appropriate content. Fast-paced, social media-style videos and AI toys or tools should be avoided for young children.

· Co-viewing: Watching or using screens together - talking, asking questions, and engaging with the content - is better for children's development than solo screen use.

This also forms part of wider action to support all children's wellbeing in the digital world – running alongside the government’s consultation on further measures to keep children safe online.

The University of East London has played a key role in shaping new government guidance on children’s screen use, with Professor Sam Wass contributing as a leading expert to the national advisory group.

Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, said:

“Parenting in a digital world can feel relentless. Screens are everywhere, and the advice is often conflicting.

“My government will not leave parents to face this battle alone. Our new guidance cuts through the noise with clear, common-sense tips to keep children safe and make sure healthy habits are baked in from the start.

“There will be some who will oppose us doing this. But whether it’s navigating technology, tackling the cost of living or balancing the demands of family life, I will always stand on the side of parents doing their best for their children.”

Professor Sam Wass, University of East London, Director of the Institute for the Science of Early Years, said:

“Children’s screen use in the early years is changing rapidly, not just in how much they watch, but in the type of content they engage with.

“Young brains process sights and sounds very differently from adults, and early experiences can have lasting effects on attention, learning and emotional wellbeing.

“Guidance like this helps families make informed choices about media use, supporting healthy development and stronger family connections. This is an area where our understanding is changing fast, and where small changes can make a big difference.”

Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson, said:

"Every child deserves the chance to grow up safe, healthy and full of possibility - and this government is determined to ensure that happens.

"I know how hard it is to navigate parenting in a world full of screens. They're unavoidable, but it often feels impossible to tell whether you're getting the balance right.

"That's why we're giving parents the clear, trusted support they've asked for – so families can make informed choices, and children can have the childhood they deserve."

Health and Social Care Secretary, Wes Streeting, said:

"Every parent and carer wants what's best for their child, and that starts with giving them the healthiest possible start in life.

"We know that sleep, play and face-to-face interaction are fundamental to how children grow, learn and thrive. Screens, when overused in those crucial early years, can get in the way of all of that.

"The early years are a critical period for development. That's why we are acting now, to give parents the clear, practical tools they've been asking for - backed by the best available evidence.”

A report by early years charity Kindred Squared found that 28% of UK children starting reception cannot use a book properly, with many attempting to "swipe" or tap physical pages like a tablet.

With 90% of children’s development happening before the age of five, parents are being supported to make safe screen swaps like reading bedtime stories together or playing simple games at mealtimes.

The suggested swaps prioritise straightforward activities to help children with the social, emotional and language skills to give them the best start in life, so they can start school ready to learn.

The guidance is underpinned by the findings of an expert panel led by the Children’s Commissioner Dame Rachel de Souza and Professor Russell Viner, a paediatrician and expert in children’s health.

The panel reviewed the latest scientific evidence on screen use in under-5s, and found that long periods of time spent on screens alone can get in the way of activities critical for development like sleep, physical activity, creative play, and interaction with parents.

But not all screen use is equal. The evidence shows that watching screens with an engaged adult where parents talk and ask questions is linked to better cognitive development than solo use, that slow-paced content is far better for development than fast-paced social media-style videos, and that time limits shouldn’t apply in the same way for screen-based assistive technologies to support children with special educational needs and disabilities.

Dame Rachel de Souza, Children's Commissioner, said:

"Children are growing up in a world where screens are everywhere. Parents tell me they want clear, non-judgemental information about why limiting screen use is important, given in a way that reflects the realities of their daily lives.

“That’s why I was pleased to co-chair the group advising the government for this first piece of guidance on screen time for children under five, setting out why it's so important to avoid particular kinds of screen time, and how.

"Young children need their parents to be confident in managing their screen use, but often this can be overwhelming for parents learning to navigate this. My hope is that this guidance helps to cut through the conflicting advice available and prioritise children’s development and wellbeing, as well as their safety."

Russell Viner, Professor in Adolescent Health, University College London, said:

"The evidence tells us that how young children spend their time really matters for their development.

“Too much solo screen time can crowd out the things that make the biggest difference - sleep, play, physical activity and talking with parents and carers.

"This guidance gives parents straightforward, evidence-based advice. The panel know that screens are part of modern life. We want to help parents feel confident about getting the balance right for their young children."

Frank Young, CEO of Parentkind said:

"It is right to recognise screen time as a battle for parents. Being a parent is tough and we need to help parents to reduce the amount of time very young children spend staring at screens, and especially social media style videos.

“This is a huge issue for parents who face huge challenges when it comes to screens and their children. Many parents struggle which is why we need to help parents without pointing the finger.

“This is one of the biggest issues parents face so we welcome the support for parents."

Today's guidance is the latest step in the government’s plan to break down barriers to opportunity.

Central to this is the rollout of Best Start Family Hubs, with hundreds of new hubs set to open across the country next week, bringing parenting advice, services and community support closer to families who need it most. The screen time guidance will be available through the hubs, giving parents access to the advice face-to-face as well as online.

The guidance is also supported by The Dollywood Foundation UK, home of Dolly Parton's Imagination Library which sends free age-appropriate books to children aged 0-5 in parts of the country through the government’s Best Start Family Hubs.

Steve Korris, Executive Director, The Dollywood Foundation UK, said:

“We’re so proud that the Imagination Library is partnering with families and Best Start Family Hubs in some parts of the UK to help little ones get the Best Start in Life.

“Dolly has always said you can never get enough books into the hands of enough children, because a book can spark dreams, grow imagination, and open up a whole world of possibility.

“Those precious screen-free moments spent reading together can nurture language, curiosity, and a lifelong love of learning that children carry with them into school and far beyond.”

Proposed measures in the government’s wider consultation on social media include a minimum age for social media, raising the digital age of consent, overnight curfews for certain age groups, restrictions on AI chatbots for young people, and whether school mobile phone guidance should be made statutory. New legal powers taken through the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill will allow the government to act quickly on the outcomes of the consultation.

 

How our reactions shape what is perceived as ethical on social media

Abo Akademi University

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChat
WhatsAppEmail

Social media have become an integral part of everyday life for most people. Many of us follow companies on social media and react to images and campaigns that resonate with us.

Each post and each “like” also contributes to a continuous exchange between companies and consumers about what is regarded as ethical, valuable and legitimate on social media. These findings are presented in a new doctoral thesis from Åbo Akademi University, where Anna Granstedt explores how organisations and users together shape norms and values on platforms such as Instagram.

Although social media are now one of the most important marketing arenas, we still know surprisingly little about the ethical issues that emerge there. Granstedt’s thesis demonstrates that ethics on social media is neither fixed nor stable, but instead a fluid phenomenon that is continuously renegotiated in real time through everyday communication between companies and users.

“Ethics is not established through rules set out in a manual, but through how companies communicate, how users react, and how platform algorithms prioritise certain messages over others,” says Anna Granstedt.

In her research, Granstedt shows that companies often use ethically framed messages, such as sustainability or inclusion, to enhance their reputation and to be perceived as responsible. These messages can generate what she calls ethical value – a perception among recipients that the sender is acting morally and that they themselves benefit from the interaction. At the same time, the company’s objective may primarily be to increase visibility and sales, rather than to pursue genuinely ethical work.

Consumers also play an active role. They interpret and reuse companies’ messages through selfies, hashtags and their own stories, which can reinforce, alter or entirely reinterpret the companies’ intentions.

“In this way, customers actively contribute to shaping what a brand stands for, and their interpretations can quickly have a greater impact than the company’s own communication.

Ethics on social media is therefore not merely a matter of messaging, but of how messages are received and translated into shared norms,” emphasises Granstedt.

The findings indicate that social media should not be regarded as simple marketing channels, but rather as social spaces where perceptions of ethics are created and renegotiated.

“Companies that aim to succeed in the long term need to understand the rules that develop on these platforms and recognise that they evolve quickly,” says Anna Granstedt.

Anna Granstedt defended her doctorate thesis in international marketing at Åbo Akademi University on 20 March 2026. Read the full thesis: Power and perception: Discursive construction of ethics, ethical value and legitimacy in social media marketing.

---

Subject of Research

People