The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Technology Firms Shape Political Communication: The Work of Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, and Google With Campaigns During the 2016 U.S. Presidential Cycle
Abstract
This article offers the first analysis of the role that technology companies, specifically Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, and Google, play in shaping the political communication of electoral campaigns in the United States. We offer an empirical analysis of the work technology firms do around electoral politics through interviews with staffers at these firms and digital and social media directors of 2016 U.S. presidential primary and general election campaigns, in addition to field observations at the 2016 Democratic National Convention. We find that technology firms are motivated to work in the political space for marketing, advertising revenue, and relationship-building in the service of lobbying efforts. To facilitate this, these firms have developed organizational structures and staffing patterns that accord with the partisan nature of American politics. Furthermore, Facebook, Twitter, and Google go beyond promoting their services and facilitating digital advertising buys, actively shaping campaign communication through their close collaboration with political staffers. We show how representatives at these firms serve as quasi-digital consultants to campaigns, shaping digital strategy, content, and execution. Given this, we argue that political communication scholars need to consider social media firms as more active agents in political processes than previously appreciated in the literature.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Moreover, while social media companies such as Facebook and Google have billed themselves in the United States as only selling ad space, research shows that they are much more active in shaping campaign communications than previously known (103).”
From Physical and virtual repertoires of contention (2022) · cites this paper as [103]
Citations
Cites
The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information
Pasquale, F. (2015) · doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674736061 · Cited by 3,796
The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media
van Dijck, J. (2013) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199970773.001.0001 · Cited by 2,688
Gillespie, T. (2010) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444809342738 · Cited by 2,522 · cited 2×
“…of the platforms offered by Facebook and Google shape what political and other actors do with them, specifically in terms of how design and algorithms shape the visibility of content and therefore public attention (Braun, 2015; Chadwick, 2013; Gillespie, 2010; Thorson & Wells, 2016; Webster, 2014).”
BackgroundThe culture of connectivity: a critical history of social media
(2013) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.50-6579 · Cited by 2,117
Infrastructure studies meet platform studies in the age of Google and Facebook
Plantin, J.-C., Lagoze, C., Edwards, P. N., & Sandvig, C. (2018) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444816661553 · Cited by 1,663
The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information
(2016) · Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.1177/0094306116641409c · Cited by 1,334
Does Internet Use Affect Engagement? A Meta-Analysis of Research
Boulianne, S. (2009) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/10584600902854363 · Cited by 1,013
The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power
Chadwick, A. (2013) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199759477.001.0001 · Cited by 1,000
The hybrid media system: politics and power
Chadwick, A. (2014) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.51-6974 · Cited by 841
Governing with the news: the news media as a political institution
(1998) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.35-5468 · Cited by 785
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Dayan D., 1994, Media events
- Halpern S., 2017, How he used facebook to win. The New York Review of Books
- Langlois G., 2013, Culture Machine, 14
- McAdam D., 2014, The origins of our fractured society: Racial politics and social movements in post-war America
- Nielsen R. K., 2017, New Media & Society
- Tufekci Z., 2015, Journal on Telecommunications & High Technology Law, 13, 203
- Webster J. G., 2014, Cambridge
Cited by
Sorted by citations
(2019) · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2019.1573914 · Cited by 719
Bossetta, M. (2018) · Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly · doi:10.1177/1077699018763307 · Cited by 882
Social media as public opinion: How journalists use social media to represent public opinion
McGregor, S. C. (2019) · Journalism · doi:10.1177/1464884919845458 · Cited by 401
Self-citationWeChat as infrastructure: the techno-nationalist shaping of Chinese digital platforms
Plantin, J., & de Seta, G. (2019) · Chinese Journal of Communication · doi:10.1080/17544750.2019.1572633 · Cited by 328
Social Media, Echo Chambers, and Political Polarization
Barberá, P. (2020) · Social Media and Democracy · doi:10.1017/9781108890960.004 · Cited by 373
Metadata
- Authors
- Kreiss, D., & MCGREGOR, S. C.
- Affiliations
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- University of Utah (US)
- Venue
- Political Communication
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2017-10-26
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 155-177
- ISSN
- 1058-4609 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-7675
- OpenAlex
- W2766265131
- Cited by
- 398
- References
- 43
- Citations by year
- 2026: 31 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 61 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 54 · 2020: 86 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 3
- FWCI
- 88.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Political Communication (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Microsoft Research
- University of Missouri
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Keywords
- technology companies, 2016 US presidential election, political campaigns, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Microsoft, online advertising, social networking sites, lobbying, corporate political activity
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
