内部断裂:社交媒体平台的竞争逻辑

IF 5.5 1区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Social Media + Society Pub Date : 2024-08-21 DOI:10.1177/20563051241274668
Angèle Christin, Michael S. Bernstein, Jeffrey T. Hancock, Chenyan Jia, Marijn N. Mado, Jeanne L. Tsai, Chunchen Xu
{"title":"内部断裂:社交媒体平台的竞争逻辑","authors":"Angèle Christin, Michael S. Bernstein, Jeffrey T. Hancock, Chenyan Jia, Marijn N. Mado, Jeanne L. Tsai, Chunchen Xu","doi":"10.1177/20563051241274668","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Social media platforms are too often understood as monoliths with clear priorities. Instead, we analyze them as complex organizations torn between starkly different justifications of their missions. Focusing on the case of Meta, we inductively analyze the company’s public materials and identify three evaluative logics that shape the platform’s decisions: an engagement logic, a public debate logic, and a wellbeing logic. There are clear trade-offs between these logics, which often result in internal conflicts between teams and departments in charge of these different priorities. We examine recent examples showing how Meta rotates between logics in its decision-making, though the goal of engagement dominates in internal negotiations. We outline how this framework can be applied to other social media platforms such as TikTok, Reddit, and X. We discuss the ramifications of our findings for the study of online harms, exclusion, and extraction.","PeriodicalId":47920,"journal":{"name":"Social Media + Society","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Internal Fractures: The Competing Logics of Social Media Platforms\",\"authors\":\"Angèle Christin, Michael S. Bernstein, Jeffrey T. Hancock, Chenyan Jia, Marijn N. Mado, Jeanne L. Tsai, Chunchen Xu\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20563051241274668\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Social media platforms are too often understood as monoliths with clear priorities. Instead, we analyze them as complex organizations torn between starkly different justifications of their missions. Focusing on the case of Meta, we inductively analyze the company’s public materials and identify three evaluative logics that shape the platform’s decisions: an engagement logic, a public debate logic, and a wellbeing logic. There are clear trade-offs between these logics, which often result in internal conflicts between teams and departments in charge of these different priorities. We examine recent examples showing how Meta rotates between logics in its decision-making, though the goal of engagement dominates in internal negotiations. We outline how this framework can be applied to other social media platforms such as TikTok, Reddit, and X. We discuss the ramifications of our findings for the study of online harms, exclusion, and extraction.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47920,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Media + Society\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Media + Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051241274668\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Media + Society","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051241274668","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

社交媒体平台往往被理解为具有明确优先权的巨无霸。相反,我们将它们分析为复杂的组织,在截然不同的使命理由之间徘徊。以 Meta 为例,我们对该公司的公开资料进行了归纳分析,发现了影响平台决策的三种评价逻辑:参与逻辑、公共辩论逻辑和福祉逻辑。这些逻辑之间存在明显的权衡,往往导致负责这些不同优先事项的团队和部门之间产生内部冲突。我们研究了最近的一些案例,展示了 Meta 如何在决策过程中轮换使用不同的逻辑,尽管在内部谈判中参与的目标占主导地位。我们概述了这一框架如何应用于其他社交媒体平台,如 TikTok、Reddit 和 X。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Internal Fractures: The Competing Logics of Social Media Platforms
Social media platforms are too often understood as monoliths with clear priorities. Instead, we analyze them as complex organizations torn between starkly different justifications of their missions. Focusing on the case of Meta, we inductively analyze the company’s public materials and identify three evaluative logics that shape the platform’s decisions: an engagement logic, a public debate logic, and a wellbeing logic. There are clear trade-offs between these logics, which often result in internal conflicts between teams and departments in charge of these different priorities. We examine recent examples showing how Meta rotates between logics in its decision-making, though the goal of engagement dominates in internal negotiations. We outline how this framework can be applied to other social media platforms such as TikTok, Reddit, and X. We discuss the ramifications of our findings for the study of online harms, exclusion, and extraction.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Social Media + Society
Social Media + Society COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
3.80%
发文量
111
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Social Media + Society is an open access, peer-reviewed scholarly journal that focuses on the socio-cultural, political, psychological, historical, economic, legal and policy dimensions of social media in societies past, contemporary and future. We publish interdisciplinary work that draws from the social sciences, humanities and computational social sciences, reaches out to the arts and natural sciences, and we endorse mixed methods and methodologies. The journal is open to a diversity of theoretic paradigms and methodologies. The editorial vision of Social Media + Society draws inspiration from research on social media to outline a field of study poised to reflexively grow as social technologies evolve. We foster the open access of sharing of research on the social properties of media, as they manifest themselves through the uses people make of networked platforms past and present, digital and non. The journal presents a collaborative, open, and shared space, dedicated exclusively to the study of social media and their implications for societies. It facilitates state-of-the-art research on cutting-edge trends and allows scholars to focus and track trends specific to this field of study.
期刊最新文献
Can Social Media Engagement Predict Election Results? Bandwagon Effects of Tweets About US Senate Candidates Politicians Under Fire: Citizens’ Incivility Against Political Leaders on Social Media Telehealth “Verzuz” Radical Telehealing: Reimagining Social Media as Virtual Healing Spaces for Black Communities Queerness and Mental Health in India: An Intersectional Approach to Sensitive Social Media Disclosures Understanding the Motivations of Young Adults to Engage in Privacy Protection Behavior While Setting Up Smartphone Apps: A Cross-Country Comparison Between Romania and Germany
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1