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 thre...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Social media + society 2024-08, Vol.10 (3)
Main Authors: Christin, Angèle, Bernstein, Michael S., Hancock, Jeffrey T., Jia, Chenyan, Mado, Marijn N., Tsai, Jeanne L., Xu, Chunchen
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Complex organizations
Decision making
Mass media
Social media
Well being
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites
container_end_page
container_issue 3
container_start_page
container_title Social media + society
container_volume 10
creator Christin, Angèle
Bernstein, Michael S.
Hancock, Jeffrey T.
Jia, Chenyan
Mado, Marijn N.
Tsai, Jeanne L.
Xu, Chunchen
description 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/20563051241274668
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_b2dc8d17efce47d3856af5e8a2f2e136</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_20563051241274668</sage_id><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_b2dc8d17efce47d3856af5e8a2f2e136</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>3111665606</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-d261t-327717f2654da540ecbc977ef38eb53af64143828e87dd2ee17b78f2fdbe2a813</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNplkM1KAzEURoMoWLQP4G7A9dTcZPKjOy1WCxUF6zpkkptxyrSpyXTh29uxgoKre_k4nMUh5ALoBECpK0aF5FQAq4CpSkp9REbDVg7j8Z__lIxzXlFKQUkJuhqRu_mmx7SxXTFL1vW7hPmmWL5jMY3rLfbtpikWsWldLmIoXqNr9-QT-tYWL53tQ0zrfE5Ogu0yjn_uGXmb3S-nj-Xi-WE-vV2UnknoS86UAhWYFJW3oqLoanetFAausRbcBllBxTXTqJX3DBFUrXRgwdfIrAZ-RuYHr492ZbapXdv0aaJtzfcQU2Ns6lvXoamZd9rDXu6wUp5rIW0QqC0LDIHLvevy4Nqm-LHD3JtV3A0ZsuEAIKWQdKAmByrbBn8JoGbIbv5l5198rXKb</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3111665606</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Internal Fractures: The Competing Logics of Social Media Platforms</title><source>Publicly Available Content Database</source><source>Social Science Premium Collection</source><source>Sage Journals GOLD Open Access 2024</source><source>Sociology Collection</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><creator>Christin, Angèle ; Bernstein, Michael S. ; Hancock, Jeffrey T. ; Jia, Chenyan ; Mado, Marijn N. ; Tsai, Jeanne L. ; Xu, Chunchen</creator><creatorcontrib>Christin, Angèle ; Bernstein, Michael S. ; Hancock, Jeffrey T. ; Jia, Chenyan ; Mado, Marijn N. ; Tsai, Jeanne L. ; Xu, Chunchen</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2056-3051</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2056-3051</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/20563051241274668</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Complex organizations ; Decision making ; Mass media ; Social media ; Well being</subject><ispartof>Social media + society, 2024-08, Vol.10 (3)</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2024</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2024. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution – Non-Commercial License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><orcidid>0000-0002-4491-4117 ; 0000-0002-7437-2013</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/20563051241274668$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/3111665606?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,21394,21395,21966,25753,27344,27853,27924,27925,33611,33774,34530,37012,43733,44115,44590,44945,45333</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Christin, Angèle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bernstein, Michael S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hancock, Jeffrey T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jia, Chenyan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mado, Marijn N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tsai, Jeanne L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xu, Chunchen</creatorcontrib><title>Internal Fractures: The Competing Logics of Social Media Platforms</title><title>Social media + society</title><description>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.</description><subject>Complex organizations</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Mass media</subject><subject>Social media</subject><subject>Well being</subject><issn>2056-3051</issn><issn>2056-3051</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>AFRWT</sourceid><sourceid>ALSLI</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><sourceid>HEHIP</sourceid><sourceid>M2R</sourceid><sourceid>M2S</sourceid><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNplkM1KAzEURoMoWLQP4G7A9dTcZPKjOy1WCxUF6zpkkptxyrSpyXTh29uxgoKre_k4nMUh5ALoBECpK0aF5FQAq4CpSkp9REbDVg7j8Z__lIxzXlFKQUkJuhqRu_mmx7SxXTFL1vW7hPmmWL5jMY3rLfbtpikWsWldLmIoXqNr9-QT-tYWL53tQ0zrfE5Ogu0yjn_uGXmb3S-nj-Xi-WE-vV2UnknoS86UAhWYFJW3oqLoanetFAausRbcBllBxTXTqJX3DBFUrXRgwdfIrAZ-RuYHr492ZbapXdv0aaJtzfcQU2Ns6lvXoamZd9rDXu6wUp5rIW0QqC0LDIHLvevy4Nqm-LHD3JtV3A0ZsuEAIKWQdKAmByrbBn8JoGbIbv5l5198rXKb</recordid><startdate>202408</startdate><enddate>202408</enddate><creator>Christin, Angèle</creator><creator>Bernstein, Michael S.</creator><creator>Hancock, Jeffrey T.</creator><creator>Jia, Chenyan</creator><creator>Mado, Marijn N.</creator><creator>Tsai, Jeanne L.</creator><creator>Xu, Chunchen</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Sage Publications Ltd</general><general>SAGE Publishing</general><scope>AFRWT</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>WZK</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4491-4117</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7437-2013</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202408</creationdate><title>Internal Fractures: The Competing Logics of Social Media Platforms</title><author>Christin, Angèle ; Bernstein, Michael S. ; Hancock, Jeffrey T. ; Jia, Chenyan ; Mado, Marijn N. ; Tsai, Jeanne L. ; Xu, Chunchen</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-d261t-327717f2654da540ecbc977ef38eb53af64143828e87dd2ee17b78f2fdbe2a813</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Complex organizations</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Mass media</topic><topic>Social media</topic><topic>Well being</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Christin, Angèle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bernstein, Michael S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hancock, Jeffrey T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jia, Chenyan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mado, Marijn N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tsai, Jeanne L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xu, Chunchen</creatorcontrib><collection>Sage Journals GOLD Open Access 2024</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest research library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Sociology Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Social media + society</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Christin, Angèle</au><au>Bernstein, Michael S.</au><au>Hancock, Jeffrey T.</au><au>Jia, Chenyan</au><au>Mado, Marijn N.</au><au>Tsai, Jeanne L.</au><au>Xu, Chunchen</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Internal Fractures: The Competing Logics of Social Media Platforms</atitle><jtitle>Social media + society</jtitle><date>2024-08</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>10</volume><issue>3</issue><issn>2056-3051</issn><eissn>2056-3051</eissn><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.</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/20563051241274668</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4491-4117</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7437-2013</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2056-3051
ispartof Social media + society, 2024-08, Vol.10 (3)
issn 2056-3051
2056-3051
language eng
recordid cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_b2dc8d17efce47d3856af5e8a2f2e136
source Publicly Available Content Database; Social Science Premium Collection; Sage Journals GOLD Open Access 2024; Sociology Collection; Sociological Abstracts
subjects Complex organizations
Decision making
Mass media
Social media
Well being
title Internal Fractures: The Competing Logics of Social Media Platforms
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T02%3A16%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Internal%20Fractures:%20The%20Competing%20Logics%20of%20Social%20Media%20Platforms&rft.jtitle=Social%20media%20+%20society&rft.au=Christin,%20Ang%C3%A8le&rft.date=2024-08&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=3&rft.issn=2056-3051&rft.eissn=2056-3051&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/20563051241274668&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_doaj_%3E3111665606%3C/proquest_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-d261t-327717f2654da540ecbc977ef38eb53af64143828e87dd2ee17b78f2fdbe2a813%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3111665606&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_sage_id=10.1177_20563051241274668&rfr_iscdi=true