1. Introduction

In the digital age, social media has redefined the modes and boundaries of interpersonal communication, while also exposing the contradictions inherent in self-perception and identity construction. From TikTok users meticulously crafting “life moments” to the algorithm-driven performative personas on YouTube, individuals alternate between the roles of “performers” and “pseudo-authentic listeners” in virtual spaces. This dynamic has cast the concept of authenticity—deeply tied to existential concerns and the philosophy of the real—into a state of complex contradiction.

Traditionally, authenticity has been understood as the individual’s pursuit of self-fulfillment through liberation from social norms. However, under the dual forces of technological mediation and capital operation embedded within social media platforms, the boundary between the real and the fabricated has become increasingly blurred. Users are caught in a paradox of “performing the real and rendering performance as real”.

Many scholars have investigated how technological affordances shape self-presentation. For example, Marwick argues that users on social media perform opulent lifestyles to appeal to specific audience preferences [1]. Papacharissi notes that the rise of self-media has increased the diversity and accessibility of social interaction [2]. However, existing research has yet to offer a focused analysis of how platform automation, capital dynamics, and individual practices converge to create the authenticity dilemma.

This paper adopts a methodology combining literature review and case analysis, grounded in sociological theories of self-presentation. It examines how social media imposes three intertwined constraints—technological support, capital logic, and social regulation—on the expression of authenticity. The study aims to offer a critical perspective on “self-worth” for users navigating the contemporary media landscape.

2. The authenticity dilemma in the age of social media

In today’s social media landscape, it is common to see carefully curated “personas” showcasing glamorous vacations, aesthetic home offices, and expensive meals—images of the self crafted not to reflect lived reality, but to fulfill social and psychological needs through the projection of often idealized or inauthentic information. These digital performances are less about truth than about impression management. The phenomenon can be aptly interpreted through Erving Goffman’s dramaturgical theory, which posits that individuals perform roles to maintain social order and influence others’ perceptions in everyday interactions [3]. On social media, this performance takes on heightened significance, as platforms themselves function like perpetual stages—spaces of visibility where the “audience” is always watching, always reacting, and, crucially, always quantifying the self through likes, shares, and follows.

At the core of dramaturgical theory lies the metaphor of “society as theatre”. In this framework, the “front stage” refers to the public-facing, idealized image individuals project to others—such as a polished professional identity on LinkedIn, or an aspirational lifestyle on Instagram. The “back stage”, by contrast, represents a more private domain, where individuals can shed performance and return to less constructed, more spontaneous versions of the self. However, the distinction between front and back stage becomes increasingly blurred in digital spaces, where the boundaries between private and public are not only porous but constantly shifting. For many users, there is no longer a true backstage: even intimate moments—such as family dinners, morning routines, or therapy sessions—are curated and shared, transformed into content. As a result, the notion of “authenticity” on social media becomes less a stable essence and more a patchwork of performances: a constantly adjusted illusion crafted to appear spontaneous and relatable.

This dynamic is further intensified by the rise of the “influencer economy”, in which individuals monetize identity itself. Algorithms play a central role here, shaping visibility and therefore shaping behavior. Users are increasingly nudged toward forms of expression that align with platform logic: easily consumable, visually appealing, emotionally charged, and optimized for virality. Algorithmic preference creates new performative archetypes—such as the hyper-productive “girlboss”, the emotionally vulnerable “healing account”, or the defiant “lying flat” youth who reject overwork culture in favor of existential minimalism. Fitness influencers who emphasize self-discipline and body transformation, or vloggers who aestheticize everyday boredom into a form of “soft rebellion”, become templates of behavior, guiding what is considered desirable, relatable, or authentic. These algorithmically constructed “expected truths” encourage identification and imitation among users, many of whom replicate such behaviors unconsciously in order to achieve visibility or social belonging.

The reproduction of these performance norms also speaks to a deeper issue: the erosion of emotional and psychological depth in online interactions. Social media platforms increasingly demand emotional expression in simplified, digestible formats—short captions, emojis, reaction buttons, and 15-second videos. These low-cost modes of expression prioritize immediacy and recognizability over nuance and introspection. For example, complex emotions such as ambivalence, shame, or moral doubt are difficult to translate into “likes” or “shares”, and thus often go unexpressed. Over time, this tendency may condition users to engage only with emotions that are platform-friendly—easily packaged, visually symbolic, and uncontroversial—leading to a gradual alienation from the full spectrum of human feeling. The emotional labor of maintaining a relatable persona also adds pressure to remain performatively “authentic”, even when one is emotionally depleted or conflicted.

Moreover, this system creates asymmetries of emotional visibility. Certain emotions—such as joy, gratitude, empowerment—are rewarded and elevated, while others—such as grief, envy, or despair—are suppressed or aesthetically stylized into palatable formats. The result is not simply a skewed emotional economy, but a form of emotional discipline, where users learn to conform to prevailing norms of expressibility. This affects interpersonal communication as well: users may begin to struggle with expressing vulnerability in non-digital spaces, or with processing emotions that do not map neatly onto the reaction-based grammar of online platforms. In the long term, the inability to experience or articulate complex emotional states offline may contribute to a sense of emotional flattening, or even digital burnout.

In sum, the digital self is not a spontaneous or transparent reflection of one’s inner life, but a product of layered performance, algorithmic pressure, and emotional economization. Goffman’s front and back stage metaphor remains useful, but in the context of social media, the stage has expanded—and users now carry it with them at all times, rarely stepping out of the spotlight. The challenge, then, is not only to recognize the performative nature of online self-presentation, but to cultivate forms of expression that allow for greater depth, contradiction, and authenticity beyond the limits of the algorithm.

3. Manifestations of authenticity in the digital age

The tension between online and offline identities often creates cognitive dissonance, as individuals struggle to reconcile the person they perform in digital spaces with the realities of their embodied, offline lives. This dissonance can be particularly acute when one's digital persona is idealized, polished, and highly curated—traits that are difficult, if not impossible, to maintain in everyday existence. The gap between who individuals are and who they appear to be online fosters a fragmented sense of self, sometimes resulting in distorted self-perceptions and emotional distress. For instance, some celebrity fans or micro-influencers become deeply immersed in hyper-curated digital worlds, where status is measured in aesthetic perfection and engagement metrics. When faced with the inability to replicate these idealized personas in their physical lives, they may experience psychological symptoms such as depression, envy, social withdrawal, or even nihilistic thoughts. This emotional toll reflects the deeper issue of identity misalignment: the online self is no longer a simple extension of the offline self, but a parallel persona governed by its own logic and pressures.

Michel Foucault’s theory of “self-surveillance”, articulated in Discipline and Punish, finds renewed relevance in contemporary social media environments [4]. Foucault’s notion of the panopticon—a structure in which individuals internalize surveillance and begin to regulate their own behavior—maps onto the digital ecosystem, where users are governed by visible, quantifiable metrics such as views, likes, shares, and comments. These metrics function as mechanisms of control, disciplining users into performing in ways that are socially rewarded. As a result, individuals begin to shape their virtual identities not according to personal authenticity but according to the perceived expectations of the algorithm and their imagined audience. This gives rise to what can be called the “algorithm-driven self”, a subjectivity crafted in response to patterns of visibility and virality. For example, users may repeatedly re-enact trending videos, mimic viral dances, or adopt popular political stances—not necessarily out of genuine interest, but to remain socially relevant and visible in the digital arena.

While digital platforms often advertise themselves as spaces of freedom and self-expression, this promise is undermined by the constraining logics of algorithmic personalization. Users are not navigating an open field of diverse content but are instead funneled into “filter bubbles” that limit their exposure to contrasting perspectives. These algorithmic echo chambers reinforce existing beliefs, tastes, and biases, making it increasingly difficult for users to encounter unfamiliar or dissenting viewpoints. This narrowing of experience has significant psychological and social consequences, especially for identity formation. When the range of acceptable online behavior is shaped by algorithmic favor and peer validation, deviation becomes risky. The fear of losing social capital or being subjected to public criticism can inhibit experimentation, vulnerability, and genuine self-disclosure.

Moreover, the perceived anonymity and distance of online platforms often intensify the harshness of social feedback. Negative comments—ranging from body-shaming to lifestyle critiques—can be brutally direct, targeting not only content but the poster’s very sense of self. This type of feedback disproportionately affects marginalized groups and individuals whose appearances, beliefs, or identities deviate from the norm. The result is a climate of anxiety around self-expression, where authenticity is penalized and conformity is rewarded. Users learn to internalize dominant aesthetic and behavioral norms—whether in terms of beauty standards, consumer choices, or political correctness—and present themselves accordingly. In this sense, digital spaces often function less as platforms for liberated selfhood and more as arenas of internalized discipline and performative compliance.

Thus, far from being a space of emancipation, social media frequently fosters a paradoxical environment where individuals feel both exposed and constrained. They are constantly seen, yet often misunderstood; constantly connected, yet increasingly alienated from their core selves. The curated self becomes a mask that is difficult to remove, even offline, as the metrics of digital worth bleed into real-world self-esteem. Ultimately, the psychological consequences of this performative existence call for a deeper interrogation of the social architectures we inhabit—and how these architectures shape not only what we do, but who we become.

4. Potential solutions

Reconstructing the concept of self-presentation on social media is key to addressing the authenticity dilemma. As the gap between digital identity and offline reality widens, it becomes increasingly necessary to challenge the systems and mindsets that incentivize polished, performative behaviors. Rather than treating authenticity as a fixed state, it should be reframed as an ongoing negotiation between personal intention and structural constraints. In this context, the process of self-presentation is not merely about expression but about ethical engagement—with oneself, with others, and with the digital architectures we inhabit.

At the individual level, “digital disconnection” emerges as a powerful strategy to resist algorithmic capture and reduce overdependence on external validation. Stepping away from the compulsive cycles of checking notifications, refreshing feeds, and curating posts allows users to recalibrate their relationship with the digital world. The Nordic-inspired Joy of Missing Out (JOMO) movement exemplifies this ethos: rather than framing disconnection as deprivation, JOMO reimagines it as liberation—a conscious retreat from digital overstimulation and a return to the sensory richness of lived experience. By choosing to “miss out” on the constant stream of updates, users re-center their attention on inner values and embodied presence, breaking the vicious cycle of “digital dependency and self-alienation” [5]. Practices such as digital detox weekends, nature immersion, journaling, and tech-free hours are increasingly adopted by those seeking to recover mindfulness, rebuild attention spans, and reconstruct identity away from the metrics of digital worth. Importantly, these practices do not suggest a wholesale rejection of social media, but rather a reorientation: one that prioritizes autonomy over algorithmic compulsion.

At the platform level, structural reform is equally crucial. The architecture of digital spaces must be interrogated for the ways in which it shapes and distorts human behavior. While platforms market themselves as neutral facilitators of connection, their opaque algorithms often privilege content that maximizes engagement—frequently through sensationalism, controversy, or unattainable ideals. Transparency in algorithmic decision-making is a necessary first step. By allowing users to understand how their feeds are curated—and by offering more granular control over content filtering and personalization—platforms can return agency to individuals. Moreover, there is a pressing need to challenge the monopolistic capital structures behind these systems. The concentration of algorithmic power in the hands of a few corporate actors enables large-scale behavioral engineering, often without users’ informed consent. Dismantling these capital monopolies requires not only policy interventions and open-source alternatives but also a fundamental rethinking of data ownership and platform accountability. Disrupting the production chain of “data manipulation and fabricated personas” would make digital environments more reflective of diverse human experiences, rather than uniform performances driven by metrics of virality and commercial viability.

At the societal level, cultural narratives surrounding authenticity must be redefined. Mainstream social media aesthetics often elevate hyper-curated perfection, leading to widespread internalization of unattainable ideals. An “anti-polished” cultural movement is thus needed—one that resists the dominant logic of performative display and instead values honesty, messiness, and emotional complexity. Movements such as #RealMe, #NoFilter, or “casual posting” already reflect an emerging pushback against over-curation. However, these gestures risk becoming performative themselves unless grounded in broader cultural change. Advocating for imperfection means normalizing vulnerability, celebrating diverse forms of beauty and success, and legitimizing emotional openness. Educational initiatives play a key role here: media literacy programs that teach users how to decode algorithms, recognize manipulative design, and interrogate metrics of popularity can foster critical digital citizenship. Especially for younger users, who often equate likes with self-worth, developing the capacity to resist superficial validation is essential to cultivating a resilient and integrated sense of self.

Together, these multi-level approaches—individual mindfulness, platform accountability, and cultural revaluation—form a synergistic framework for reimagining digital life. The path toward authenticity is not linear, nor can it be fully disentangled from broader social and technological conditions. Yet by embracing reflective disengagement, structural transparency, and cultural resistance, users and designers alike can move toward a healthier, more ethical, and more human model of social media. In doing so, digital spaces can evolve from sites of performance and discipline into arenas for connection, creativity, and genuine selfhood.

5. Conclusion

Theoretical debates surrounding authenticity remain unresolved, yet its practical dilemmas in the age of social media are undeniable. In an era dominated by technological rationality, advocating for a notion of “limited authenticity” is particularly urgent: embracing imperfection in life and resisting excessive performance of “pseudo-truths” are essential for transforming social media into a public space that genuinely carries real emotions. Only by transcending “performative existence” and returning to the pursuit of an authentic self can humanity preserve its integrity amid the digital tide.

This paper analyzed the authenticity dilemma in social media from the perspectives of technology, capital, and social dynamics, but certain limitations persist. The theoretical framework lacks sufficient depth, particularly in exploring Heidegger’s concept of “being-toward-death” in relation to social media’s “performative existence”. Moreover, the study is constrained by the absence of comprehensive empirical data and comparative analyses across widely used social platforms, which may limit the generalizability of its conclusions.

To address these gaps and deepen the understanding of authenticity in digital social media, future research will further elaborate the theoretical dimensions by integrating communication studies’ “simulacra” theory on cognitive framing with psychological theories of “self-consistency” to better explain the construction and deconstruction mechanisms of authenticity. Additionally, in response to emerging technological frontiers, attention will be given to how innovations such as the metaverse and AI-Generated Content (AIGC) reshape self-presentation paradigms. Systematic investigations into the evolving dynamic between virtual identities—such as “digital avatars”—and the concept of authenticity are warranted to assess whether virtual embodiments may serve as new valid forms of authentic expression.

On the cultural front, localized empirical studies are imperative. Future work should design rigorous quantitative surveys targeting China’s unique social media ecosystem (e.g., WeChat) to deeply analyze the tensions, conflicts, and potential reconciliations between traditional cultural values and individual authenticity demands in the digital era. Such research will provide an indispensable Eastern perspective to the global academic discourse on authenticity.