Pew Internet published an interesting survey last year looking at how parents and teenagers think about the writing they do in their spare time – online, on phones, and by hand – and the writing they do at school. The most interesting find is that young people don’t think of most online communication as “writing”:

Fully 85% of all teens engage at least occasionally in some form of electronic personal communication, which includes text messaging, sending email or instant messages, or posting comments on social networking sites. Although participation in these activities is
widespread, a majority (60%) of teens who send these communications do not consider them to be ìwriting.î

The reasons they give for this not being writing range from its not being long enough to its being a conversation, not writing – and certainly they have a point. Online writing is often different from traditional writing.

I wonder whether that’s because they genuinely find that online writing is different from traditional writing – or because they’re used to their school system not acknowledging their online culture as valid?


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

5 thoughts on “teenagers don’t think of online writing as “writing”

  1. […] Jill Walker Rettberg skriver p?• sin blogg om en unders??kning fr?•n Pew Internet d?§r det visat sig att 60% av alla ungdomar inte betraktar sitt digitala skrivande som riktigt ”skrivande”. Walker avslutar med att fr?•ga sig om det beror p?• att det skiljer sig s?• markant fr?•n traditionellt skrivande eller om det kan h?§nga ihop med utbildningsv?§sendets attityd gentemot formen.¬† […]

  2. Anne

    Det er vel de samme elevene som ikke innser at de leser nynorsk nÂr de leser Are Kalv¯. 🙂

  3. Eirik

    I’m not sure, but I assume we differentiate between writing a book, a paper or a short story, and writing a SMS, a post-it-note or an email?

    There is/must be a gradient ladder from casual to hard core? From scribbling in the sand to being William Shakespeare.

    All the small pieces of text we all write down continuously, does not make us all hard core writers? I think I agree with the kids; I hardly ever write anything. I’m just casually but frequently forming letters in sequence to amuse myself and others. Communication through text isn’t necessary chiseled in stone as writing?

  4. Jill Walker Rettberg

    Perhaps in all our talk of oral and conversational aspects of internet communication we’ve sort of eluded the point – maybe it makes no more sense to think of what I’m doing now as “writing in a social, conversational medium” than it would to think of it as “conversation that happens to be written”?

    I think rather than correcting teenagers for misunderstanding what writing is we should see this as an opportunity to rethink our categories.

  5. Christian

    Dear Jill,

    the question concerning the written character of online communication is very ambigous, indeed. As you have shown the term “writing” can in fact refer to manifold things. Yet, there is clearly a difference between “writing” understood as a medium and as conception. Writing as a medium principally alludes to the medial contrast between spoken and written language. In other words, digital communication is for the most part (e.g. blogging, twittering, texting) “writing” simply because you use a keyboard rather than your voice to type in letters, and you read rather than hear the signs perceived. Yet, the teenagers in the PEW study seemed to have in mind a different kind of concept, i.e. conceptual literality. Here, “writing” aligns with the qualities of its prototypical text genre, e.g. novel (written prose). You mentioned that the teenagers who did not consider their online communication to be “writing” included criteria such as length, closure, one-sidedness, etc. In this context, we should realize that the difference between oral and written language, such as the contast between spoken and written text or discourse (or, for that matter, between oral and literal narratives) is not at all one of binary opposition, but rather one of degrees. Interestingly enough, the PEW question reveals teenagers’ personal assessment of the degree of conceptual orality and literacy they think is involved in their personal communicative acitivities on the internet. I guess you are right in assumung that with the recent upraise of more responsive and interactive forms of online communication, traditional concepts of writing are about to be reshaped by concepts of “writings”. Maybe asasynchronous, semiotically-hybrid types of internet conversations, defining a new digital literality bridging the traditional views of prototypical spoken (prose) and written discourse (face-to-face conversation).

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.