Effective voice: Beyond exit and affect in online communities
Open accessAbstract
Online communities provide ample opportunities for user self-expression but generally lack the means for average users to exercise direct control over community policies. This article sets out to identify a set of strategies and techniques through which the voices of participants might be better heard through defined mechanisms for institutional governance. Drawing on Albert O. Hirschman’s distinction between “exit” and “voice” in institutional life, it introduces a further distinction between two kinds of participation: effective voice, as opposed to the far more widespread practices of affective voice. Effective voice is a form of individual or collective speech that brings about a binding effect according to transparent processes. Platform developers and researchers might explore this neglected form of voice by introducing mechanisms for authority and accountability, collective action, and community evolution.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Gillespie, T. (2010) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444809342738 · Cited by 2,522 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Atop the protocols stand platforms—the consumer-facing sites and apps—whose collective name evokes a flat neutrality belied by their unprecedented power and commercial agendas (Gillespie, 2010).”
BackgroundCode Forking, Governance, and Sustainability in Open Source Software
Nyman, L., & Lindman, J. (2013) · Technology Innovation Management Review · doi:10.22215/timreview/644 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Whose Voice Do We Hear in the Marketplace? Evidence from Consumer Complaining Behavior
Raval, D. (2020) · Marketing Science · doi:10.1287/mksc.2018.1140 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Colglazier, C., TeBlunthuis, N., & Shaw, A. (2024) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v18i1.31316 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- Authors
- Frey, S., & Schneider, N.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Davis (US)
- University of Colorado Boulder (US)
- Corresponding author
- Frey, Seth
- Venue
- New Media & Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2021-09-19
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 2381-2398
- ISSN
- 1461-4448 (ISSN-L)
- 1461-7315
- OpenAlex
- W3088473954
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 4.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- New Media & Society (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- Open Society Foundations (Open Society Fellowship)
- National Science Foundation (1917908, 2020751)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Media and Digital Communication
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
- Keywords
- exit and voice, online communities, community governance, user participation, collective action, community evolution, platform governance
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
