Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 447

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Platformed racism: the mediation and circulation of an Australian race-based controversy on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube

Matamoros-Fernández, Ariadna·2017·Information, Communication & Society

Abstract

This article proposes the concept ‘platformed racism’ as a new form of racism derived from the culture of social media platforms ‒ their design, technical affordances, business models and policies ‒ and the specific cultures of use associated with them. Platformed racism has dual meanings: first, it evokes platforms as amplifiers and manufacturers of racist discourse and second, it describes the modes of platform governance that reproduce (but that can also address) social inequalities. The national and medium specificity of platformed racism requires nuanced investigation. As a first step, I examined platformed racism through a particular national race-based controversy, the booing of the Australian Football League Indigenous star Adam Goodes, as it was mediated by Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. Second, by using an issue mapping approach to social media analysis, I followed the different actors, themes and objects involved in this controversy to account for the medium specificity of platforms. Platformed racism unfolded in the Adam Goodes controversy as the entanglement between users’ practices to disguise and amplify racist humour and abuse, and the contribution of platforms’ features and algorithms in the circulation of overt and covert hate speech. In addition, the distributed nature of platforms’ editorial practices ‒ which involve their technical infrastructure, policies, moderators and users’ curation of content ‒ obscured the scope and type of this abuse. The paper shows that the concept of platformed racism challenges the discourse of neutrality that characterises social media platforms’ self-representations, and opens new theoretical terrain to engage with their material politics.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/1369118x.2017.1293130

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 39 references

Cited by

See all 447

Metadata

Authors
Matamoros-Fernández, A.
Venue
Information, Communication & Society
Published
2017-02-21
Volume
20
Issue
6
Pages
930-946
ISSN
  • 1369-118X (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-4462
OpenAlex
W2590492326
Cited by
447
References
39
FWCI
62.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Platformed racism: the mediation and circulation of an Australian race-based controversy on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/1369118x.2017.1293130
The paper
Matamoros-Fernández, A. (2017). Platformed racism: the mediation and circulation of an Australian race-based controversy on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. Information, Communication & Society. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2017.1293130

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.