History of the hashtag

Instructions: click on the symbols / buttons to view details

A HiStory of the Hashtag

How has the evolution of hashtags on social media platforms consolidated its role as a tool for the democratization of speech nowadays?

Nayla Bouka, Natalie Kolkiewicz, Šárka Neumannová, Franziska Neumayr

Hashtags and affective publics: mobilizing collective emotion

Hashtags as digital storytelling tools

Algorithmic bias and limitations

The blurring of traditional authority

July 2013

October 2007

1988

Roman times

July 2009

1960s

#BlackLivesMatter

First use

Entrance in tech

Ancient beginnings

Twitter

#sandiegofire

Creation of a Black-centered political-movement-building project called #BlackLivesMatter in response to the acquittal of Trayvon Martin’s murderer

Formal establishment of hashtags on Twitter (X), anything with # in front became hyper-linked, move further accentuated when the platform introduced ‘Trending Topics’

Nate Ritter, started posts with #sandiegofire (to inform people about the wildfires at the time in the area)

From 'Libra' to Hashtag: evolution from a weight symbol to its potential to organize information

First use of ‘tags’ on platform Internet Relay Chat to group messages, images, content, and video into categories

True entrance in the technological world, symbol used in 'touch-tone phones'

Case Study: #BlackLivesMatter

CONCLUSION

Demographics behind #BLM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Comparative analysis of Brown & Floyd

Contents of tweets

CASE STUDY: #BLACKLIVESMATTER

The case study analysis draws on datasets comparing the major peaks of the #BlackLivesMatter movement, from 2013 to 2020. The first dataset, collected by Summers et al. (2014), comprises tweets mentioning “Ferguson” spanning August to November 2014. The second dataset includes public tweets from May 27, 2020, to August 7, 2020, following Floyd’s death, offering a comparable timeframe for analysis. Additional insights are sourced from Pew Research Center’s report on Americans' views of activism on social media (2023) and a study published in Social Media + Society on how movements gain traction online.

By comparing these datasets, this study seeks to identify patterns in public engagement, shifts in discourse, and the role of algorithmic biases in amplifying or suppressing hashtags over time. This investigation sheds light on whether movements like #BlackLivesMatter demonstrate the democratizing potential of hashtags—or reveal their limitations as fleeting tools in the digital public space.

"Although social media has led to a paradigm shift for advocacy by increasing the effectiveness, the speed and the outreach of social campaigns, many still fail to reach far beyond the communities for which they advocate." (Olteanu, Weber, Gatica-Perez)

In other words, a growing body of research identifies minority groups as being the ones to primarily engage with issues that are of concern to them. This may prove to be a setback to the democratization of free speech, especially in regard to hashtags as the tool that enables and consolidates this process.

Following a characterization of the demographics behind the #BlackLivesMatter movement, the authors’ hypothesis was confirmed: the debate was largely held among African Americans (making up roughly 60 percent of active users of the hashtag). Peak windows were also identified, with hashtag engagement being high for a span of 4 days - this is most often triggered by the killing of an African-American by the US police. Therefore, while acknowledged as a useful tool for the democratization of speech, hashtags may also prove to be a setback in some regards, as they tend to exacerbate participation for salient issues and of specific demographic groups (those concerned).

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

The #BlackLivesMatter case study reinforces the dual nature of hashtags as both powerful tools for democratizing speech and mechanisms with inherent limitations. Through their ability to rapidly amplify public attention, hashtags democratize access to discourse, inviting diverse participation and facilitating decentralized conversations. However, as highlighted in our findings, this impact is often constrained by short-lived engagement, with activism concentrated in brief "peak windows" before rapidly declining. Algorithmic biases further exacerbate these limitations, favoring ephemeral virality over sustained dialogue. Despite enabling widespread involvement, the majority of contributions are minimal, leaving only a small core of users to sustain movements over time. This imbalance reflects the persistent concentration of influence within the digital public sphere, challenging the broader democratization ideal. Additionally, polarization within online discourse, often tied to the demographic and thematic specificity of hashtags, restricts their ability to foster cross-boundary dialogue, limiting exposure to diverse perspectives and long-term structural impact.

CONCLUSION

The Paradox of Hashtags in Democratizing Speech

While hashtags have undeniably become crucial tools for the democratization of speech, their impact often lacks long-term sustainability. They thrive on the “horizontal” dynamics of digital networks, as Gabriel Tarde’s theory of crowds and Zizi Papacharissi’s concept of “affective publics” demonstrate, allowing users to organize collective expression rapidly and emotionally. Through mechanisms like “bridging” and emergent storytelling (Dawson, Page), hashtags enable diverse voices to amplify their messages, bypassing traditional power structures and fostering participatory democracy. Ultimately, hashtags represent a paradox: they are powerful instruments for democratized speech, yet their impact is often ephemeral.

Analyzing the support/opposition of the Black Lives Matter movement on Twitter

Analyzing the content of tweets under the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag

Analyzing the longevity of the movement

co-occurrance networks in 2014

The evolution of Hashtag Usage in the BLM Movement

Comparison of tweets related to law enforcement posted following the murders of Michael Brown in 2014 and George Floyd in 2020 Results: More hashtags related to police and law enforcement in 2020 than in 2014 ⇒ spreading conversations about police brutality and criminal justice reform more polarization and discussions in segmented, politicized groups in 2020 ⇒ less exposure to diverse perspectives on police reforms (echo chambers)

co-occurrance networks in 2020