Social media governance: Platforms in conflict — the strategies of operators and the tactics of users

This study is a close inspection of three cases of everyday political conflict and the ways these conflicts are negotiated on social media platforms. It examines users' struggles for freedoms of expression, identity, and safety; and reveals that whilst high-profile conflicts are useful for uncovering the machinations of platform governance, they provide a poor foundation for lasting reform. In response users are found to have developed shrewd, tactical opportunities to leverage the systems of social media platforms to supplant, and circumvent, inadequate reforms and agitate for better outcomes

Is social media responsible for your safety during a disaster?

Given the popularity of Facebook and Twitter, it’s not surprising so many people use social media in crises such as floods, fires and earthquakes. Facebook has introduced Safety Check, a new tool for users in disaster-affected areas to notify their network of “friends” of their safety and check on their family and friends. Facebook will send a notification to users who may be affected by a disaster, based on the location in their profile and geolocation data collected by apps. People can then confirm they are safe or report that they are outside of the affected area. When a user confirms they are safe, Facebook will post this on their timeline and notify their friends..

Agenda-setting revisited: Social media in mainstream journalism

In political journalism, the battle over agenda-setting between journalists and their sources has been described using many metaphors and concepts. Herbert Gans saw it as a dance where the two parties competed for leadership, arguing that sources usually got the lead. We address the question of how social media, in particular Twitter, contribute to media agenda-building and agenda-setting by looking at how tweets are sourced in election campaign coverage in Australia, Norway and Sweden. Our findings show that the popularity of elite political sources is a common characteristic across all countries and media. Sourcing from Twitter reinforces the power of the political elites to set the agenda of the news media – they are indeed “still leading the dance”. Twitter content travels to the news media as opinions, comments, announcements, factual statements, and photos. Still, there are variations that must be explained both by reference to different political and cultural characteristics of the three countries, as well as by the available resources and journalistic profiles of each media outlet

Agenda-setting revisited : Social media and sourcing in mainstream journalism

In political journalism, the battle over agenda-setting between journalists and their sources has been described using many metaphors and concepts. Herbert Gans saw it as a dance where the two parties competed for leadership, arguing that sources usually got the lead. We address the question of how social media, in particular Twitter, contribute to media agenda-building and agenda-setting by looking at how tweets are sourced in election campaign coverage in Australia, Norway and Sweden. Our findings show that the popularity of elite political sources is a common characteristic across all countries and media. Sourcing from Twitter reinforces the power of the political elites to set the agenda of the news media – they are indeed “still leading the dance”. Twitter content travels to the news media as opinions, comments, announcements, factual statements, and photos. Still, there are variations that must be explained both by reference to different political and cultural characteristics of the three countries, as well as by the available resources and journalistic profiles of each media outlet

What do we mean when we talk about transparency? Towards meaningful transparency in commercial content moderation

This paper seeks to provide greater specificity to demands for transparency in the commercial content moderation practices of digital platforms. We identify gaps in knowledge through a thematic analysis of 380 survey responses from individuals who have been the subject of content moderation decisions. We argue that meaningful transparency should be understood as a component of a communicative process of accountability (rendering account) to independent stakeholders. We make specific recommendations for platforms to provide people with clear information about decisions that affect them, including what content is moderated, which rule was breached, and a description of the people and automated processes responsible for identifying content and making the decision. Beyond providing more information to individuals about particular decisions, however, we note the major challenge of improving understanding of content moderation at a systems level. General demands for greater transparency should be reframed to focus on enhanced access to large-scale disaggregated data that can enable new methods and collaborations between academia, civil society, and journalists to make these systems more understandable and accountable