COVID-19 now and then: Reflections on mobile communication and the pandemic

This editorial introduces the special issue on COVID-19 and mobile communication, arguing that the pandemic redefined mobile communication from “communication while on the move” to a broader, networked resource for emotional connection, care-at-a-distance, and access to services. It situates mobile communication within infrastructural politics shaped by government and corporate interventions (e.g., contact-tracing mandates, broadband provision), and highlights how inequalities in access to networks and devices conditioned people’s capacities to comply with public health measures and maintain social ties. The introduction frames key questions for a post-pandemic world: what lessons from enforced mobilities/immobilities challenge traditional roles of mobile media; how mobile mediation changes experiences of public, domestic, and distant spaces; what sustainable futures of urban networked mobility might look like; and which pandemic-era shifts in work, play, health, and sociability will persist.

The editorial synthesizes scholarship that positions mobile communication at the intersection of end-user devices and enabling infrastructures. It draws on: Ling (2015) to define mobile communication beyond fixed locations; Campbell (2013) and Frith & Özkul (2019) to extend the concept beyond portable devices; Horst (2013) on infrastructures as dynamic, politically and economically conditioned processes; classic work on micro- and hyper-coordination (Ito et al., 2005; Ling et al., 1999); and perspectives on interface design and usability (Norman, 2013). It also references historical accounts of infrastructural fears and pandemics (Frith et al., 2022; Coleman & Mari, 2023; Crosby, 2003), and emerging debates on screen time and locative play post-pandemic (Hjorth & de Souza e Silva, 2023). This body of work contextualizes how infrastructural visibility/invisibility, politics, and cultural meanings shape mobile media adoption, appropriation, and public perceptions during crises.

As an editorial introduction, this article does not present original empirical methods. It synthesizes and thematically organizes contributions in the special issue and outlines the methodological diversity across them. Reported approaches include: qualitative semi-structured interviews via mobile/online platforms and phone calls to reach low-connectivity rural participants (Rohman & Pitaloka, 2023); autoethnography and textual analysis of WhatsApp group chats plus interviews (Deshbandhu & Sahni, 2022); visual analysis of Douyin short videos documenting transnational journeys (He & Zhang, 2022); online surveys of location-based game players (Andrade & Nery Filho, 2022); and document/popular press analysis (Gekker, 2022; Frith et al., 2022). The editorial adopts a “mobile methods” lens, emphasizing that methods are shaped by platform affordances, infrastructural conditions, and pandemic constraints on in-person data collection.

- Mobile communication became a critical resource for care, work, education, and sociality amid enforced immobilities. Its effectiveness depended on both devices and enabling infrastructures, revealing and amplifying inequities in access and literacy. - Infrastructural politics shaped participation: government mandates (e.g., contact-tracing), corporate platform design, and broadband/cellular provisioning determined who could connect and how. - Creative appropriations emerged among displaced, emplaced, and marginalized communities: phones served as primary interfaces for telemedicine, payments, deliveries, testing-site locating, and education; schools extended Wi-Fi via boosted signals and Wi-Fi-enabled buses. - Connectivity inequities were stark: up to one-third of rural U.S. residents lived in cellular/internet “dead zones,” necessitating travel to connected areas to participate in online life (Siegler, 2020). COVID-19 was the third leading cause of death in the U.S. (CDC, 2022), underscoring the stakes of mediated access to health information and services. - Platform/interface design mattered: Google Maps’ COVID-19 layer inadequately supported mobility decisions (non-integrated navigation, opaque administrative boundaries, occluding core map info), prompting recommendations for bottom-up data, personalization, and alerts (Gekker, 2022). - Locative games adapted to distancing: Pokémon Go enabled remote play (e.g., remote raid passes, extended interaction distances), shifting player strategies toward either monetized resources or time investment; in Northeast Brazil, remote play sometimes increased participation and safety amid broader urban risks (Andrade & Nery Filho, 2022). - Transnational and affective mobilities: Chinese international students used Douyin to document journeys home, performing and sharing emotions (anxiety, pride, solidarity), and fostering togetherness across distances (He & Zhang, 2022). - Mobile media as care infrastructure: WhatsApp and WeChat supported mutual aid, fact-checking, resource coordination (oxygen, meds), digital kinship, and intergenerational support; older adults in Wuhan adopted WeChat with help from family/community, with uptake shaped by socio-economic geography (Yu et al., 2023; Deshbandhu & Sahni, 2022). - Nationalism and trust influenced contact-tracing adoption in Indonesia and Vietnam, especially among users with disabilities; government framing around collective protection bolstered uptake, particularly once apps integrated vaccination status (Rohman & Pitaloka, 2023). - Historical continuities: infrastructural fears (from telephones in 1918 to 5G today) co-evolve with technologies and pandemics, shaped by the invisibility of infrastructures and cultural anxieties (Coleman & Mari, 2023; Frith et al., 2022).

The special issue’s synthesis shows that the pandemic reoriented mobile communication from optional convenience to essential infrastructure for social, emotional, and material life. This addresses the core question of how COVID-19 reshaped mobile media’s roles by demonstrating that access, literacy, and infrastructural provisioning condition agency in crises. The findings highlight that: networks and infrastructures are culturally and politically embedded; platform design and governance influence public health responses; and mobile media support “care-at-a-distance” beyond clinical health to include emotional support and community resource distribution. Historical analyses contextualize recurring infrastructural fears, suggesting proactive public communication is needed to counter conspiracy narratives. The cross-context comparisons (Global North/South; urban/rural; age cohorts; gamers; international students) underscore the locality of responses and the necessity of equity-focused design and policy to ensure inclusive mobilities in future crises.

Life has largely returned to pre-pandemic routines, but mobile-mediated practices in health, work, and sociality are likely to persist, especially where personal computers are scarce. Telehealth and mobile platforms (e.g., WhatsApp) have normalized remote care and coordination. Pandemic-era surveillance and sensing (contact tracing, thermal imaging, gait recognition) pose ongoing privacy and ethical challenges, raising questions about their post-pandemic purpose. The editorial argues for continued scrutiny of the legal, social, and ethical implications of mobile technologies and emphasizes that mobile communication is a value-laden resource that can be regulated, shared, or withheld. The collected lessons aim to prepare scholars and policymakers to foster equitable, resilient mobile communication infrastructures and practices for future pandemics.

As an editorial introduction, this article synthesizes a curated set of studies rather than presenting new empirical data. The scope is bounded by the selected contributions and cannot comprehensively represent all regions, populations, or platforms. Findings are context-specific and shaped by local infrastructural conditions, socio-economic factors, and platform ecosystems. Methodological summaries are secondary reports of each article’s approach, not independent evaluations.