In my previous post, I described my social media scrapbook – a tiny, private archive where I save conversations that I care about.
The implementation is mine, but the ideas aren’t: cultural heritage institutions have been thinking about how to preserve social media for years. There’s decades of theory and practice behind digital preservation, but social media presents some unique challenges.
Institutional archiving has different constraints to individual collections – institutions serve a much wider audience, so their decisions need consistency and boundaries. My own scrapbook is tiny and personal, and comparing it alongside institutional efforts really highlights the differences and difficulties. It’s why I usually call it a “s…
In my previous post, I described my social media scrapbook – a tiny, private archive where I save conversations that I care about.
The implementation is mine, but the ideas aren’t: cultural heritage institutions have been thinking about how to preserve social media for years. There’s decades of theory and practice behind digital preservation, but social media presents some unique challenges.
Institutional archiving has different constraints to individual collections – institutions serve a much wider audience, so their decisions need consistency and boundaries. My own scrapbook is tiny and personal, and comparing it alongside institutional efforts really highlights the differences and difficulties. It’s why I usually call it a “scrapbook”, not an “archive”: it’s informal and a bit chaotic, and that’s fine because it’s only for me.
In this post, I’ll explain what I see as the key issues facing institutional social media archiving: what can be saved, what resists preservation, and how context is so hard to keep.
Table of contents
What exists and what can be saved
Social media exists at a scale that’s hard to comprehend: billions of posts, with millions more being added each day.
This makes it difficult for anyone to choose what to preserve, because any one person can only know a tiny fragment of the whole. Making a choice inevitably introduces selection bias, and I’ve spoken to many people who’d like to avoid that bias by “collecting everything” – but that’s far beyond the capacity of any institution.
Since they can’t collect everything, institutions create rules – collection policies that define what’s in-scope. These rules are meant to ensure consistency, fairness, and reduce individual bias, but they force archivists to draw boundaries in a medium that inherently resists them.
Social media isn’t a sequence of isolated posts; it’s a dense, interconnected graph. A single post only makes sense in context – the replies, the people, the topic du jour. How much of this context do you gather? How many hops out do you follow? Do you save the whole thread, every reply, every linked account? How do you prevent scope creep from sucking in everything?
My personal scrapbook is subjective and inconsistent, because the only audience is me. My “collection policy” is pure vibes – I save threads I think are interesting; I keep posts that I find moving; I prune replies that are embarrassing or unhelpful. If I’m inconsistent or I delete the wrong thing, nobody else is affected.
Institutions can’t be that casual. They need durable, defensible rules about where their collection starts and ends. On social media, where every post is context to a larger tangle of conversation, drawing that boundary is a major challenge.
Private and disappearing content
Social media archiving efforts often concentrate on publicly available, long-lasting content, which excludes other types of material – even though they make up an ever-growing proportion of social media. Two major categories stand out:
- Private social media – direct messages, private accounts, closed groups, paywalled forums.
- Ephemeral features – content that deliberately disappears or expires. Think Snapchat, Instagram Stories, or one-time messages.
Collecting this material is difficult. Technically, it’s behind authentication walls or interfaces that most web archiving tools can’t reach. And even if you save it, can you share it? Ethically, archivists must be careful not to violate social norms or user expectations.
It isn’t impossible, and I’ve seen a handful of projects capture private and ephemeral media – for example, researchers analysing Instagram Stories and their use in political campaigns. These efforts rely on a patchwork of methods: accessing content through user logins, browser plugins, even taking screenshots. They tend to be small, targeted, and short-lived.
My scrapbook has a small amount of private content, mostly conversations between me and locked accounts on Twitter. I’m comfortable with that because I was part of those conversations, and it’s a private archive. I’m not sharing it with anybody else, so I don’t think my friends would begrudge me keeping a copy. I haven’t saved any ephemeral content.
Private and ephemeral posts have a different dynamic from public timelines. People can be more personal, vulnerable, and candid when they know their posts can’t be seen by anyone, forever. Maybe those moments won’t appear in social media archives – but if so, we should acknowledge that limitation, and what stories it leaves out.
Social media is more than just posts, words, and images – it’s the experience. The interface, interaction design, and the algorithms that shape our feeds are rarely captured in archives.
For example, consider TikTok and the rise of vertical-swipe video. Because the next video is just a swipe away, creators structure their content to hook you immediately, and keep your attention throughout – a shift from the slower pace of older videos. If you only save the video file and not the swiping experience, it’s harder to understand why the creator made those choices.
Even more elusive is the “algorithm”, the black box that decide what posts appear in our timeline. These algorithms shape culture itself – amplifying some voices, suppressing others, deciding which ideas can spread – but their inner workings are deliberately opaque and impossible to archive. Their behaviour is a closely-guarded commercial secret.
A purely technical approach to preserving the experience is doomed to fail – but that doesn’t mean all is lost. We can document how these experiences shaped the flow of content: screenshots, screen recordings, detailed descriptions. Oral histories can give future audiences a sense of what it was like to exist in these digital ecosystems.
One of my favourite parts of any archive is the everyday. Often, something isn’t written down because it seems “obvious” at the time – but decades later, that knowledge has vanished. Social media is evolving quickly, and now is the time to capture these experiences. Future generations, looking back once the landscape settles, will want to understand the path that led there.
Rules, resistance, and responsibility
What if platforms resist preservation?
In the early 2000s, many platforms were far more supportive of digital preservation. Public APIs were common, scraping was largely tolerated, and some companies even collaborated with heritage institutions.
Twitter is the poster child of this sort of corporate endorsement. Their public API allowed a flourishing ecosystem of third-party clients and research projects; researchers could easily assemble datasets; the Library of Congress even attempted to preserve every public tweet between 2006 and 2017. The project stalled and remains largely inaccessible today – but it would never even get started in 2025.
Today, most platforms resist being preserved, archived, or downloaded en masse. APIs are restricted or paywalled, rate limits are strict, and scraping is aggressively blocked. The rise of generative AI has accelerated this trend, as companies realise their data is valuable for model training. Why give it away for free when you can ask for money?
Reddit is the most recent example. They blocked the Internet Archive after some AI companies used it to access posts for free – posts for which Google pays Reddit millions to access.
Attempts to preserve content programmatically are increasingly limited, which makes it difficult to archive at scale. In my scrapbook, I replace APIs with entering data by hand, but that’s only practical if you’re saving a small amount of data.
Do people want to be preserved?
A lot of web archiving has historically ignored consent. If something is on the public web, many archives consider it eligible for capture – but preserving a post means it’s preserved forever. Embarrassing thoughts or personal pictures can’t be deleted once they’ve been archived.
Not everyone would agree to their posts being permanently preserved, even if they use services like the Wayback Machine. We see this in the popularity of private accounts, closed forums, and ephemeral posts – people want control over how and when their posts are seen. Generative AI and the use of social media for model training has made people even more sensitive about their data.
The general public often ignores copyright and privacy – how many people use images they found online with no regard for the creator? – but institutions hold themselves to a higher standard.
A strict ethical stance would require explicit consent from every creator. Institutions often use donor agreements, where you allow them to keep your material and sign away the right to remove it afterwards – but that solution is hard to scale to social media, where a single conversation may involve dozens of people.
It would also mean losing huge amounts of historically valuable material. It would exclude orphaned accounts, abandoned platforms, and users who have died or lost their password. And web archives preserve content from companies, politicians, and public figures, helping keep them accountable – but these figures would rarely consent to archiving they don’t control.
One interesting approach is Bluesky’s proposal User Intents for Data Reuse, letting users declare how they want their posts to be reused, such as for AI training or archiving. Technology alone is not the solution – you also need enforcement – but this feels like a step in the right direction.
I like the idea of a balanced approach – collecting material from public figures is fair game; anything from private citizens needs explicit consent. Of course, that’s easier said than done, and it’s tricky to codify that as a well-defined rule – but to me, “anything publicly available” feels increasingly insufficient as an ethical guideline.
In my personal scrapbook, I don’t have a formal consent process – something I feel comfortable with because my archive is small, private, and only my own reference. My guiding rule is “don’t be a creep”. I don’t save anything I think the original author would be uncomfortable knowing I kept.
Laws and legislation
Consent is a preference, but legislation is a hard boundary. Digital collections are affected by a patchwork of laws – copyright, privacy, data protection rules like the right to erasure, and even content-related restrictions. Institutions must ensure their collections comply with all relevant laws, even if those obligations conflict with the goals of long-term preservation.
Social media archiving is especially tricky. Automated, bulk collection can easily capture illegal or sensitive content, and mistakes may go unnoticed.
That’s why I prefer a targeted, human-reviewed approach. It slows you down, but reading all the material allows archivists to catch potential issues before content becomes a liability.
Understanding what you’ve saved
How do you search your collection?
An archive is useless if you can’t look at what you’ve saved. This is often a problem in social media archives: we can save posts at incredible speeds, but we can’t search them in any meaningful way.
Web archiving often saves page-by-page, one page per post, like the Wayback Machine. This scales beautifully for capture, but terribly for discovery. You can retrieve a post if you know its URL, but you can’t find everything about a single topic or written by a given author.
Traditional archives solve this with cataloguing: humans write descriptions, and researchers use those to find what they need. But that model can buckle if you try to save social media at scale: machines can save thousands of posts in the time it takes a human to describe just one.
In my personal scrapbook, I add keyword tags to every conversation. They’re fast, informal, and effective. If I want something specific, I can filter by tag and find it instantly. Since I’m the only person who uses these tags, I can define them in a way I like and change them when I decide. If I was in an institutional context, I’d use a controlled vocabulary like LCSH or MeSH.
These light-touch keywords feel like a realistic middle ground: human-scale data that’s quick to apply, but rich enough to cut through the fog.
Who’s the person behind the profile?
Identity on social media is a hard problem. Many accounts are anonymous or pseudonymous, and most people have accounts scattered across multiple platforms. This makes it tricky to track somebody’s presence on social media, because there’s rarely a mapping between a person’s real-world identity and the accounts they use online. Often, this anonymity is intentional.
This ambiguity creates a big headache for support teams at social media companies. When somebody asks for help regaining access to an account because they’ve lost the password or been hacked, how can the platform be sure they’re the real owner? That question is even harder to answer if you’re outside the company.
Institutions and researchers care about identity because it provides context and authority: who wrote this, and how much can we trust their words? Social media makes this hard, because many usernames don’t tell you anything about the person behind them. Although institutions have tools to connect people across records, you need to know who the person is first!
My personal scrapbook sidesteps this complexity. Nearly all of the conversations it contains are with friends I know well, so I can easily connect their identities across different services.
Implicit knowledge, cultural context, and memes
Social media relies on shared knowledge: current events, in-jokes, and memes. Without this context, the meaning of a post can fade – or an entirely new meaning can take its place.
This isn’t a new problem – all human communication requires context – but social media takes it to eleven. The pace and brevity are a fertile breeding ground for memes whose origins disappear almost immediately. Log off for a day, and you’ll return to posts that make no sense at all. You missed the moment that sparked the meme. Imagine how much harder it is to understand if you arrive years – or decades – later.
You can try to fill in the gap with catalogue descriptions, but that’s only possible if somebody understands the references well enough to describe them. With social media’s scale and speed, it’s impossible for anybody to know all the jokes, memes, and ideas that might affect a post.
In my personal scrapbook, I rely on my memory to provide that context. I don’t write longer descriptions, and I don’t know how much I’ll remember. Some posts that made sense in 2020 may be baffling in 2030, others will still be crystal clear. Only one way to find out!
We won’t save everything, but we can save something
Perhaps we can’t preserve social media perfectly, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. Every archive ever assembled is incomplete, but they still have immense value. Capturing public posts, threads, or conversations – even if we lose some of the context or ephemeral content – helps preserve a record of cultural history that could otherwise be lost.
Social media archiving may be a new endeavour for large institutions, but it’s not a new idea. There are small, ad-hoc projects happening everywhere, and there’s lots of prior art to learn from. Just today I came across Posty, a tool for creating archive a Mastodon account as a static site.
I’m always excited when I see people building tools to save tiny corners of the web – posts from a single account, fanworks from a tight-knit community, or shared advice from a community wiki. Whenever a platform disappears or looks shaky, there’s a renewed interest to minimise the loss.
Social media archiving will never be perfect, but it’s possible, and I’m excited to see how institutions rise to the challenge.