Managing Two Selves on One Screen: WhatsApp’s Multi-Account Feature, Digital Identity Segmentation, and Escalating Platform Rationality

The expansion of WhatsApp’s multi-account feature, especially its more visible cross-platform adoption in 2026, offers an important case for examining how digital platforms increasingly organize everyday communication around identity management. What appears at first glance to be a simple user convenience—the ability to operate two accounts on one device—actually reflects deeper transformations in platform design, labor organization, social expectations, and communication norms. This article argues that multi-account functionality is not merely a technical adjustment. It is a socio-technical response to the growing demand for clearer boundaries between professional, personal, entrepreneurial, familial, and transnational communication spheres. In this sense, the feature provides a useful contemporary example of how communication platforms adapt to fragmented social life while also reinforcing new forms of discipline and availability.

The article explores the feature through three major theoretical lenses: Bourdieu’s theory of field, capital, and habitus; world-systems theory; and institutional isomorphism. These frameworks make it possible to move beyond a narrow discussion of interface design and instead situate the feature within broader struggles over symbolic order, platform competition, labor flexibility, and global digital dependence. Methodologically, the article uses qualitative platform analysis, interpretive socio-technical analysis, and conceptual comparison. It treats the feature as a digital artifact embedded in wider institutional and behavioral changes rather than as an isolated product update.

The analysis finds that multi-account functionality supports users’ need to separate roles while simultaneously normalizing permanent role-switching. It reduces friction in communication management, enhances the efficiency of digital self-presentation, and assists micro-entrepreneurs, professionals, and mobile workers. Yet it may also deepen expectations of constant responsiveness and extend platform logic into more parts of daily life. The article concludes that WhatsApp’s multi-account feature is best understood as part of a larger transition in platform society: from single-profile participation to managed identity portfolios. This transition is highly relevant to management studies, digital sociology, media theory, and technology policy because it reveals how ordinary platform features reshape social boundaries, organizational behavior, and the governance of communication.

Introduction

Digital communication platforms have become central infrastructures of social and economic life. They are no longer limited to casual messaging among friends and family. Instead, they function as layered environments where people negotiate employment, maintain customer relationships, coordinate logistics, manage side businesses, join study groups, sustain family obligations, and participate in communities that stretch across cities, nations, and time zones. In this environment, the individual user is rarely only one thing. A person may simultaneously be a worker, parent, freelancer, student, consultant, seller, citizen, and friend. The challenge is not only communication volume, but communication differentiation.

In earlier phases of mobile messaging, users often handled this complexity by carrying more than one device, maintaining separate applications, relying on dual-SIM practices, or informally mixing different audiences in one account. These arrangements were functional but imperfect. They created confusion, blurred role boundaries, and imposed both cognitive and organizational burdens. Over time, platforms were pushed to respond to this complexity. WhatsApp’s multi-account feature, allowing two accounts on one device, can therefore be read as a practical answer to a larger structural problem: how to manage distinct identities within a single mobile platform without forcing users to exit and re-enter entirely separate communication worlds.

This matters academically because platform features are never only technical tools. They organize behavior. They define what counts as normal communication. They shape temporal expectations about reply speed and accessibility. They make some forms of role separation easier while making others more difficult. A feature that lets a user shift between accounts does more than save time. It helps formalize the idea that one individual should be able to inhabit multiple communication roles smoothly and continuously within the same platform environment. Such a development speaks directly to debates in management, organizational communication, media studies, and digital sociology.

From a management perspective, the feature is especially significant because modern work increasingly exceeds the boundaries of formal office systems. Communication now flows through mobile channels, informal networks, and hybrid arrangements that connect employees, contractors, students, entrepreneurs, customers, and institutions. The separation of “work” and “life” has become less stable, but the desire for practical boundaries has not disappeared. Multi-account design can therefore be interpreted as a managerial technology of segmentation. It helps users impose order on overlapping demands. At the same time, it may reinforce the expectation that they remain available across multiple roles with minimal delay.

From a technology perspective, the feature also indicates how mature platforms innovate not only through dramatic inventions but through interface adjustments that respond to the social realities of use. In saturated platform markets, seemingly modest changes can become strategically important because they reduce user friction, improve retention, and increase dependency. A messaging platform that becomes more adaptable to different roles becomes harder to abandon.

This article asks a central question: what does WhatsApp’s multi-account feature reveal about the changing relationship between digital identity, organizational behavior, and platform rationality? To answer this, the article develops a conceptual argument grounded in Bourdieu, world-systems theory, and institutional isomorphism. It shows that multi-account functionality is not simply about convenience. It is about the institutionalization of segmented identity management as a normal expectation of platform use. The article further argues that this shift reflects larger pressures in global digital capitalism: role fragmentation, entrepreneurial self-organization, mobile labor, and the expansion of platform governance into everyday life.

The article is structured as follows. First, it presents the theoretical background through three complementary frameworks. Second, it explains the interpretive method used in the analysis. Third, it examines the feature as a socio-technical response to identity segmentation, labor flexibility, and institutional competition. Fourth, it identifies the main findings and implications for management, technology, and platform society. Finally, it concludes by suggesting that the future of communication platforms lies not in unified digital selves but in increasingly organized portfolios of identity.

Background

Bourdieu: Field, Capital, and Habitus in Platform Communication

Pierre Bourdieu’s work offers a valuable foundation for understanding digital communication not merely as message exchange but as participation in structured social fields. A field is a relational space in which actors compete for forms of capital and legitimacy. Communication platforms can be interpreted as such spaces. Users enter them with unequal resources, different goals, and socially formed dispositions. They do not act randomly. Their practices are shaped by habitus, meaning the durable ways of perceiving and acting that emerge from social conditions.

In the context of WhatsApp, users bring with them multiple positions from different fields: professional, familial, commercial, academic, and social. One account may serve as a site for economic capital, where a small business owner speaks with clients, suppliers, and delivery partners. Another may function within the field of kinship or friendship, where symbolic and emotional exchanges dominate. The need for multi-account use emerges because these fields are not identical and often involve distinct expectations of tone, timing, disclosure, and authority.

Bourdieu also helps explain why boundary control matters. Different fields value different kinds of capital. A person who appears highly responsive and formal in a professional setting may wish to appear relaxed and intimate in a personal setting. Mixing audiences can threaten symbolic coherence. A platform feature that allows users to maintain two accounts can thus be seen as a tool for preserving differentiated forms of self-presentation and field-specific legitimacy. It supports the management of symbolic boundaries.

At the same time, Bourdieu warns against seeing this as purely liberating. Habitus adapts to structures. If platforms normalize multi-role switching, users may internalize the expectation that successful digital life requires constant management of multiple communication identities. What begins as helpful segmentation may become a new discipline. The user learns to operate a portable communication habitus, always ready to move from one field to another without friction. This can produce efficiency, but it can also deepen self-monitoring.

World-Systems Theory: Global Hierarchies and Digital Infrastructure

World-systems theory, associated especially with Immanuel Wallerstein, provides a macro-level framework for situating platforms within global inequalities. In this view, the modern world economy is structured through unequal relations among core, semi-peripheral, and peripheral zones. Technologies are not distributed or governed evenly. Platform infrastructures, standards, updates, and dependency patterns often reflect the strategic interests of dominant technological actors.

WhatsApp’s expansion and feature development take place within a global communication order in which a small number of large firms shape the conditions of connection for billions of users. Messaging platforms serve not just consumers in affluent urban centers but migrants, transnational families, micro-entrepreneurs, students, informal workers, and small organizations across very different social contexts. The significance of a multi-account feature therefore cannot be understood only through affluent consumer convenience. In many regions, one device must support multiple lives because hardware costs, connectivity limitations, and work patterns make role consolidation common.

From a world-systems perspective, the feature reflects how global platforms adapt to diverse user realities while deepening infrastructural dependence. In many semi-peripheral and peripheral contexts, messaging applications serve as informal business tools, educational channels, health coordination spaces, and family lifelines. A multi-account system supports these mixed functions, especially where users move between formal and informal economies. It can strengthen economic inclusion and practical flexibility. Yet it also consolidates platform centrality. The more roles a single application can absorb, the more indispensable it becomes.

This double movement is important. On one hand, the feature may empower users by reducing the need for multiple devices or awkward workarounds. On the other hand, it extends the reach of a dominant platform into domains that might otherwise remain institutionally separate. The platform becomes the infrastructure through which multiple social worlds are managed. World-systems theory helps reveal that convenience and dependence can grow together.

Institutional Isomorphism: Why Platforms Converge

Institutional isomorphism, developed by DiMaggio and Powell, explains why organizations within the same field often become similar over time. They do so through coercive, normative, and mimetic pressures. Coercive pressures come from regulation and dependence. Normative pressures come from professional standards. Mimetic pressures arise under uncertainty, when organizations copy successful peers.

This framework is highly relevant to platform evolution. Messaging platforms compete in environments where user expectations are shaped by cross-platform comparison. Features no longer belong only to one application. If users come to expect role segmentation, account portability, cross-device use, stronger privacy, or better account-switching, platforms that fail to provide these capabilities may appear outdated or inefficient. Feature adoption thus becomes partially mimetic.

WhatsApp’s multi-account expansion can be interpreted through this logic. In a mature communication market, platforms face pressure not only to innovate but to keep pace with changing norms of usability and identity management. Users increasingly expect flexibility. They compare workarounds, system compatibility, and ease of switching. Under these conditions, adding multi-account functionality is not simply a creative act. It is also an institutional response to an environment where role separation has become a recognized standard of digital usefulness.

Normative pressures matter as well. Hybrid work, mobile entrepreneurship, creator economies, and distributed coordination have changed assumptions about what communication tools should do. A messaging platform is increasingly judged by whether it accommodates real social complexity. The feature can therefore be read as part of a broader institutional alignment in which platforms absorb organizational practices and users adapt their behavior accordingly.

Taken together, Bourdieu, world-systems theory, and institutional isomorphism allow a richer interpretation. Bourdieu explains how the feature relates to social positioning and symbolic boundary management. World-systems theory shows how it operates within uneven global communication infrastructures. Institutional isomorphism explains why such a feature becomes normal across competing platforms. Together they frame the multi-account feature not as a minor technical change but as a meaningful development in digital social organization.

Method

This article adopts a qualitative, interpretive, and conceptually driven method. It does not seek to measure user satisfaction statistically or to test a narrowly operational hypothesis. Instead, it analyzes WhatsApp’s multi-account feature as a socio-technical artifact that reveals wider changes in platform design, communication practices, and institutional logic. The method combines three elements: platform feature analysis, theoretical interpretation, and contextual comparison.

First, the study uses platform feature analysis. This means examining what the feature does at the interface and practice level: it allows two separate WhatsApp accounts to operate on one device, reduces switching friction, visually identifies the active account, and addresses role separation between personal and work-related communication. Such analysis treats product design as socially meaningful. Interface changes are understood not only in terms of usability but also in terms of what kinds of practices they enable, normalize, or discourage.

Second, the article applies theoretical interpretation. Rather than analyzing the feature as a neutral convenience, it reads the feature through concepts drawn from Bourdieu, world-systems theory, and institutional isomorphism. The purpose is not to force the case into theory but to illuminate different dimensions of its significance. Bourdieu clarifies the role of social distinction, symbolic control, and field-specific communication. World-systems theory reveals how global infrastructures mediate local flexibility. Institutional isomorphism explains how platform competition and user expectation shape convergence in feature design.

Third, the article uses contextual comparison. It places the feature within broader developments in communication culture, such as hybrid work, side-business growth, creator economies, mobile entrepreneurship, and the normalization of multiple identities across digital environments. The comparison is conceptual rather than statistical, drawing on established research about digital labor, self-presentation, mobile media, and organizational communication. This allows the article to move from one feature toward a broader argument about the direction of platform society.

The method is appropriate for three reasons. First, the topic concerns meaning as much as functionality. The importance of the feature lies not only in what it technically enables, but in what it symbolically represents and behaviorally encourages. Second, the article is interested in a current platform development whose wider implications are still emerging. Qualitative interpretation is therefore useful for identifying conceptual patterns early. Third, the research question is interdisciplinary. It sits at the intersection of media studies, management, sociology, and technology studies, making a flexible interpretive approach more suitable than a narrowly bounded experimental design.

At the same time, limitations should be acknowledged. The article does not rely on interviews, ethnography, or large-scale user data. It cannot claim universal behavioral outcomes. Instead, it offers an analytically grounded interpretation of a contemporary platform feature. Its value lies in theoretical depth, conceptual clarity, and relevance to ongoing debates about communication and digital organization.

Analysis

1. The Feature as a Response to Role Fragmentation

The first analytical point is that multi-account design responds to a real increase in role fragmentation. The contemporary mobile user often manages overlapping obligations that cannot easily be collapsed into one communication identity. This is especially visible in hybrid work cultures, freelance labor, small business activity, academic coordination, and transnational family life. Messaging no longer belongs to a single social sphere.

In this context, the feature functions as a practical mechanism of segmentation. It allows users to assign different relational networks to different accounts without carrying multiple devices or relying on awkward duplications. This is not trivial. Segmentation helps reduce message confusion, lowers the risk of sending inappropriate content to the wrong audience, and supports more stable expectations about responsiveness. Professional messages can be answered in one tone; personal messages in another. One account can remain visible during working hours, while the other can be treated more selectively.

From a management perspective, this segmentation resembles the division of communication channels within organizations. Different streams of information are separated so that coordination becomes more efficient. Yet here the organization is not only external. The individual becomes the manager of their own communication architecture. The self is organized as a portfolio of channels. The device becomes a site of miniaturized organizational design.

Bourdieu helps explain why this matters. Different social fields demand different performances. Mixing them can produce symbolic instability. A user who sells products, supervises a team, and participates in family life may wish to preserve distinct modes of speech, timing, and visibility. The feature protects these distinctions. It helps maintain field-specific legitimacy.

2. Convenience and Discipline

A second analytical point is that convenience and discipline often arrive together. Platform design tends to present features as user empowerment, and this is often partly true. Multi-account use can reduce stress, simplify switching, and support healthier role separation. It may especially benefit users who previously depended on cumbersome workarounds. But convenience also reorganizes expectations.

When switching becomes easy, constant switching becomes thinkable. The platform no longer merely permits multiple roles; it makes their simultaneous management seem normal. Users may begin to feel that there is less justification for delayed replies, lost messages, or blurred boundaries because the technical means of separation now exist. Employers, clients, peers, and even family members may assume better organization and faster responsiveness. The result can be a subtle intensification of communication labor.

This is a familiar pattern in digital capitalism. Tools that promise efficiency often redistribute responsibility downward. The platform solves one problem while creating a new behavioral norm. Calendar apps make scheduling easier but can also increase expectations of availability. Collaboration tools improve coordination but can extend work into evenings and weekends. Multi-account messaging may similarly help users separate domains while increasing the demand that they manage each domain more actively.

In Bourdieu’s terms, this is where habitus adapts. Users learn not just to communicate, but to curate communication roles. They internalize the logic of organized segmentation. This can become part of what competent digital adulthood now looks like: keeping the right account active, managing boundaries gracefully, and switching identities without visible friction.

3. Platform Expansion Through Identity Portfolios

A third analytical point is that the feature strengthens platform centrality by expanding the number of social roles that one application can support. A platform grows not only when it gains more users, but also when it captures more functions of each user’s life. Multi-account functionality is important in this regard because it allows the platform to host multiple relational worlds that might otherwise remain divided across devices or services.

This is where world-systems theory becomes useful. In many parts of the world, one smartphone is a shared or economically significant asset. Users may not wish to purchase multiple devices for separate identities. A feature that enables multiple accounts on one phone can therefore be highly practical and inclusive. It may support micro-enterprises, educational access, family care, and cross-border communication. The same infrastructure becomes more adaptable to diverse conditions of life.

Yet this adaptability also deepens infrastructural dependence. The more personal, commercial, and organizational communication is concentrated within one dominant platform, the more difficult it becomes to leave or diversify. The user’s “communication portfolio” is still contained within the platform’s architecture. Separation exists, but it exists under a common system of governance.

This is a central paradox of platform modernity. Flexibility does not necessarily reduce dependence. In fact, it often increases it. By becoming more responsive to varied social realities, a platform embeds itself more deeply in those realities.

4. Organizational Communication Outside the Organization

A fourth analytical point concerns how the feature reflects the movement of organizational communication beyond formal organizational systems. In many workplaces, especially small firms, distributed teams, informal businesses, and project-based arrangements, communication happens through messaging apps rather than through dedicated enterprise platforms. Even in formal institutions, messaging often supplements official channels.

The multi-account feature recognizes this reality. It implicitly accepts that “work communication” may take place on a mainstream social messaging platform and that users need mechanisms to manage such traffic separately. This is significant because it shows how the boundary between consumer apps and organizational tools continues to weaken.

For management scholars, this raises several questions. What happens when work communication is routed through infrastructures designed primarily for social interaction? How do professionalism, authority, privacy, and recordkeeping change in such environments? Does account separation make work communication more manageable, or does it simply make informal work systems more sustainable?

The answer is likely mixed. On one hand, the feature helps users distinguish work and personal exchanges more clearly, which can improve coordination and reduce emotional spillover. On the other hand, it may stabilize the migration of work into platforms not originally designed for formal organizational governance. Instead of solving boundary problems institutionally, organizations may rely more heavily on individuals to manage them through platform settings.

5. Mimetic Pressure and the Standardization of Flexibility

A fifth analytical point is that the feature reflects the standardization of flexibility across digital platforms. Institutional isomorphism suggests that under uncertainty, organizations imitate practices that appear legitimate and effective. In communication markets, users compare platforms continuously. They expect features to travel. A platform that lacks role-separation tools risks seeming outdated.

As a result, flexibility itself becomes standardized. The ability to switch accounts, separate audiences, and maintain multiple identities is no longer exceptional. It becomes part of what a mature platform is supposed to offer. This isomorphism is significant because it shows how user behavior, organizational needs, and competitive strategy converge around similar design solutions.

But standardized flexibility is still governed flexibility. Platforms decide how many accounts are possible, how switching works, what visual cues are shown, and what kinds of separation are formally recognized. In other words, users gain options, but only within predesigned architectures. The sociology of platforms must therefore ask not only whether features increase flexibility, but how they define the acceptable forms of flexibility.

6. The Moral Economy of Being Reachable

A sixth analytical point concerns the moral economy of reachability. Modern communication is not judged only by technical connection but by perceived responsiveness. People increasingly evaluate one another through patterns of timing, visibility, and silence. To be reachable is often interpreted as to be responsible, attentive, or professional. To be unreachable can appear careless, resistant, or disorganized.

Multi-account design subtly reorganizes this moral economy. It allows users to say, in effect, “this number is for this relationship, and that number is for another.” This can protect boundaries. Yet it can also make communication obligations more legible and thus more enforceable. Once channels are differentiated, each audience may expect tailored attention.

This is particularly relevant for entrepreneurs, consultants, teachers, student coordinators, and service workers whose reputations depend on message handling. The feature can help them appear orderly and professional. But it may also intensify the sense that every relational sphere deserves its own managed access point, thereby multiplying emotional and temporal obligations.

7. From Unified Identity to Managed Identity Portfolios

The final analytical point is that the feature illustrates a broader shift in digital culture from unified identity to managed identity portfolios. Early visions of online identity often asked whether people had one “real” self or many mediated selves. That question is becoming less useful. The practical issue today is not whether people have multiple selves, but how platforms enable the operational management of those selves.

A portfolio is not complete fragmentation. It is organized plurality. The user does not become two different people in an ontological sense. Rather, the user becomes an administrator of differentiated access points, audiences, and expectations. This is a managerial model of identity.

That is why the topic matters beyond messaging. It signals where digital platforms are heading. Future communication systems are likely to provide more refined controls over audience segmentation, account layering, visibility settings, and context-sensitive interaction. WhatsApp’s multi-account feature is one step in this direction. It reveals that the next phase of platform design is not simply more connection, but more structured connection.

Findings

Several key findings emerge from the analysis.

First, the multi-account feature is best understood as a response to social complexity rather than as a minor convenience update. It addresses the increasingly common reality that one person inhabits multiple communication roles that cannot easily be merged into a single account. This makes the feature relevant to contemporary management, digital sociology, and media studies.

Second, the feature supports symbolic boundary management. Through Bourdieu’s framework, it becomes clear that different social fields demand different communicative performances. Separate accounts help users preserve legitimacy across these fields by organizing tone, timing, visibility, and relational expectations more carefully.

Third, the feature reveals how platform flexibility and platform dependence can expand together. From a world-systems perspective, multi-account functionality is especially valuable in settings where one device supports many social and economic tasks. It can reduce barriers and support inclusion. At the same time, it increases the platform’s role as infrastructure for multiple dimensions of everyday life.

Fourth, the feature shows how communication platforms increasingly absorb functions once handled by separate devices, institutions, or organizational systems. This indicates a broader movement toward platform centralization in which one app becomes a host for personal, economic, educational, and administrative communication.

Fifth, institutional isomorphism helps explain why such features become normal. Platforms converge around similar tools because users expect flexibility, organizations normalize hybrid communication, and competitors imitate one another under uncertainty. Flexibility becomes an industry standard.

Sixth, the feature may improve boundary control without guaranteeing boundary protection. The ability to separate accounts can reduce confusion and support healthier organization, but it can also reinforce expectations of constant responsiveness. The burden of managing communication overload may remain with the individual user.

Seventh, the feature reflects the rise of identity portfolios as a dominant form of digital self-management. Rather than assuming that one account should represent one person in all contexts, platforms increasingly recognize and structure the plurality of everyday roles.

These findings suggest that even modest platform updates deserve serious academic attention. They reveal how technology adapts to social change while also helping define the terms of that change.

Conclusion

WhatsApp’s multi-account feature offers a powerful example of how contemporary platform design responds to the fragmentation of social and professional life. What seems like a simple usability enhancement is in fact a condensed expression of wider structural developments: hybrid work, entrepreneurial self-management, global mobile dependence, institutional convergence, and the normalization of segmented identity.

By using Bourdieu, this article showed that the feature supports the maintenance of field-specific legitimacy and the management of symbolic boundaries. By using world-systems theory, it demonstrated that the feature should be understood within uneven global infrastructures where one platform often carries many social and economic functions. By using institutional isomorphism, it explained why such functionality emerges as a standard expectation in competitive communication environments.

The central argument of the article is that the importance of the multi-account feature lies not only in what it permits technically, but in what it normalizes socially. It normalizes the idea that individuals should manage multiple communication identities within a single platform architecture. It reflects a transition from unified digital presence to organized identity portfolios. This transition may help users handle complex realities more effectively, but it also risks intensifying expectations of permanent role-switching and continuous reachability.

For management studies, the case demonstrates how communication technologies increasingly shift organizational burdens onto individuals, who must act as managers of their own message ecosystems. For technology studies, it shows that platform power often grows through subtle feature design rather than dramatic technological rupture. For sociology, it confirms that digital infrastructures are deeply involved in the production of contemporary selves.

The wider lesson is that platform society develops through ordinary interface decisions. A second account on one phone may appear small, but it reveals a large transformation in how communication, labor, and identity are being organized. As platforms continue to evolve, future research should pay close attention to the politics of segmentation: who benefits from role separation, who bears the burden of managing it, and how platforms define the acceptable architecture of modern social life.

Hashtags

#DigitalCommunication #PlatformSociety #WhatsApp #TechnologyStudies #ManagementTheory #BehavioralEconomics #DigitalIdentity #MobilePlatforms #OrganizationalCommunication

References

• Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Harvard University Press.

• Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice. Stanford University Press.

• Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Harvard University Press.

• boyd, d. (2014). It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens. Yale University Press.

• Castells, M. (2010). The Rise of the Network Society. Wiley-Blackwell.

• Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2017). The Mediated Construction of Reality. Polity.

• DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.

• Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Doubleday.

• Hochschild, A. R. (1997). The Time Bind: When Work Becomes Home and Home Becomes Work. Metropolitan Books.

• Ling, R. (2012). Taken for Grantedness: The Embedding of Mobile Communication into Society. MIT Press.

• Nieborg, D. B., & Poell, T. (2018). The platformization of cultural production: Theorizing the contingent cultural commodity. New Media & Society, 20(11), 4275-4292.

• Poell, T., Nieborg, D., & van Dijck, J. (2019). Platformisation. Internet Policy Review, 8(4), 1-13.

• Shubik, M. (1971). The dollar auction game: A paradox in noncooperative behavior and escalation. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 15(1), 109-111.

• Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform Capitalism. Polity.

• Turkle, S. (2011). Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. Basic Books.

• van Dijck, J. (2013). The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media. Oxford University Press.

• Wallerstein, I. (2004). World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction. Duke University Press.

• Wellman, B., & Rainie, L. (2012). Networked: The New Social Operating System. MIT Press.