Earlier this month, I met a class of high school students to learn more about how they use Snapchat stories. I already blogged about my impressions from our discussion – today I want to share the results from the survey the students kindly answered for me. I plan to visit more high schools to get more data, because obviously 35 responses is a small sample, but it certainly gives me an idea of how young people use Snapchat stories. Only one student swore he never used Snapchat, and only two others said they used it less than weekly. As you can see, the vast majority (31 out of 35 students, or 89%) say they use Snapchat every day. Most of them, 25 students or 71%, use it several times a day.

Frequency of use in a class of 35 Norwegian high school students, 1 June 2016.
Frequency of use in a class of 35 Norwegian high school students, 1 June 2016.

Perhaps not so surprisingly, 89% of the students said they had used Snapchat on that particular day. I would have said that figure might be skewed since having a professor visiting to talk about Snapchat would likely encourage you to open the app, but it exactly matches the number of students who say they use Snapchat every day.

Everyone who had used Snapchat that day had sent one or more snaps, and most had watched stories from friends or celebrities that they followed: 80% had watched a story that day, and 83% had watched a story in the last week. Posting their own Stories was far less common. Only 20% had posted a Story on that day, although 54% had done so in the last week.

Snapchat-survey-what-did-you-do-on-Snapchat

Watching the global content was even less common. 26% watched a Live Story that day and 60% had done so in the last week. (I can’t believe I didn’t write down what Live Story was showing that day!! Research fail…) The Discover channel was not popular. Only 4 of the 35 students (11%) had watched it that day, and just 20% (7 students) in the last week.

Since I met these students, Snapchat has changed the interface for Live Stories and Discover Channels so that the two look much more similar. Live stories are curated from snaps from regular users. Like most of these students, I rarely watch Discover channels, which are the big media channels: Mashable, CNN, Buzzfeed, Seventeen and so on. Here in  Norway we don’t see Snapchat’s own news channel. Live Stories used to be separated out, but have now been merged with the Discover channels and given graphics that make it hard to tell the difference between the two.

This is how Snapchat looked on 17 June 2016.    Snapchat-stories-screen-14-June-2016

The first of the screenshots above is from 17 June, the second is from 24 June. In the second one, it’s a little hard to see, but the second Story in the set of rectangles at the top is actually a Live Story about Brexit. The others are standard mostly-text news stories from Mashable, Cosmopolitan and the Daily Mail, with a video or animated image at the top and text when you scroll down. I’m guessing this change was done to get more users to read Discover channels (which allow for ads) — but I’m guessing it might just mean people ignore Live Stories as well. I shall have to visit more high schools, and maybe return to the first one, in the autumn to find out.

I also asked what kind of stories students who made stories usually made. Most use still images, many use videos. Not many try to create a narrative (“en sammenhengende fortelling”) with a sequence – most simply share random moments throughout the day.

Snapchat-survey-what-kind-of-stories

In the dataset you’ll also find written answers which I have translated but not yet analysed. Feel free to dig in. Here it is on Google Sheets, and here it is on Figshare.

If you want to use the data, go ahead, but please share any results with me! It’s licenced under a CC-BY licence, so use it however you like so long as you cite me: 

Rettberg, Jill Walker (2016): Survey of Norwegian High School Students about Use of Snapchat Stories. figshare. https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.3464267.v4


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Screenshot of a paragraph from a New York Times article published May 12, 2026. Text reads: "The price of tomatoes -tart bursts of flavor in salads and sandwiches — surged nearly 40 percent in April from a year ago on a combination of bad weather, high tariffs and climbing transportation costs."
AI STORIES

Genre glitches and unexpected promotional phrases as a sign of AI writing

A genre glitch is a characteristic of LLM-assisted writing where the text suddenly switches genre, typically inserting a short promotional phrase full of sensory details into an informational text. Genre glitches occur when a word in the generated text is heavily associated with a genre or context that is markedly […]

Top of a ransom note from Shinyhunters hacking group. Text reads: "SHINYHUNTERS rooting your systems since '19 ;) ShinyHunters has breached Instructure (again). Instead of contacting us to resolve it they ignored us and did some "security patches"."
Networked Politics University politics

UiB self-hosts the open source version of Canvas, so wasn’t affected by the breach

On May 1st Canvas announced a security breach, and then yesterday the system was hacked. The login page was replaced by a ransom note: if universities don’t pay up by 12 May, student data will be released. Here’s what the login page looked like yesterday: Way back in 2015, when […]

AI and algorithmic culture Networked Politics

AI-generated images, fascist aesthetics: Dieselbrølet and Heimatstrom

My German is pretty dodgy, so when I first saw Heimatstrom on Bluesky, shared by Roland Meyer, a professor of visual culture at Universität Zürich’s Digital Society Initiative, I misinterpreted it and thought it was a far-right campaign. But no, Heimatstrom is a group of left-wing environmentalists using fascist AI […]

Photo of a billboard ad at Oslo S train station showing a smiliing conductor and the text "Du må ikke sove. Joda, bare sov du."
AI STORIES

“Du må ikke sove”: a floating motif detached from its meaning (or: LLMs can write Norwegian but miss cultural references)

There’s a new ad for the train between Stavanger and Oslo in Norway that uses a line from Arnulf Øverland’s famous anti-fascist poem Du må ikke sove (“You must not sleep”). Du må ikke sove, you must not sleep, the ad says. And then it flips it, jovially, joda, bare […]

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.