CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 16Social Media and PoliticsMedia and Digital CommunicationEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Empowered or Constrained in Platform Governance? An Analysis of Twitter Users’ Responses to Elon Musk’s Takeover

Open access
Wang, Rui, Zhang, Yini, Suk, Jiyoun, Holland Levin, Sara·2024·Social Media + Society
DOI 10.1177/20563051241277606
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Centering on social media’s public- and profit-oriented nature, this study theorizes how social media users are empowered and constrained when participating in platform governance through user-initiated expressions on platforms. The empirical analysis focuses on user responses before and after Elon Musk’s official acquisition of Twitter, utilizing cluster analysis and topic modeling to examine the volume and content of related discourses among different Twitter user groups. Our results point to user constraint in platform governance. Although a diverse set of users, such as partisans, bots, and cryptocurrency enthusiasts, spoke up, they had diverging and sometimes conflicting objectives; and partisans dominated the conversations. There was an upsurge in user volume and activity level post-acquisition among liberal users, whose critical voices on platform governance might have bolstered platform business. Potential bots also increased in volume and amplified political topics. Our findings shed light on the challenges of user-driven platform governance, underscoring the complex interplay between platform users, economy, and governance.

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 · 10.1177/20563051241277606

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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?

  • Entre los principales cambios de Twitter/X están el sistema de verificación y las modificaciones en el algoritmo.

    “Entre los principales cambios están el sistema de verificación y las modificaciones en el algoritmo.”

    From Twitter/X en la campaña presidencial de 2021 en Ecuador: interacciones digitales y su proyección en la polarización política de las siguientes campañas (2025) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2024

    The passage on user participation (section labelled Abstract; page unavailable) describes a proposed change to Twitter’s verification fee, from $20 to $8. The Discussion mentions algorithms as part of platform governance, but the passages do not identify specific modifications to Twitter/X’s algorithm among the changes made after the takeover. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Desde la transformación de Twitter en 2022 y su renombre como X, la plataforma ha tenido cambios significativos que han impactado la comunicación política digital.

    “Desde la transformación de Twitter en 2022 y su renombre como X, la plataforma ha tenido cambios significativos que han impactado la comunicación política digital (Wang et al., 2024).”

    From Twitter/X en la campaña presidencial de 2021 en Ecuador: interacciones digitales y su proyección en la polarización política de las siguientes campañas (2025) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2024

    The Abstract places Musk’s takeover in 2022 and the rebranding as X in 2023. The Results and Discussion document changes in political discussion among Twitter users after the takeover, including partisan responses and shifts in topics. They do not establish an impact on digital political communication beyond the platform. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 53

  1. Alaimo C., Kallinikos J. (2017). Computing the everyday: Social media as data platforms. The Information Society, 33(4), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2017.1318327 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Ante L. (2023). How Elon Musk’s Twitter activity moves cryptocurrency markets. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 186, 122112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122112 · DOI
  3. Archer A. M., Clinton J. (2018). Changing owners, changing content: Does who owns the news matter for the news? Political Communication, 35(3), 353–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2017.1375581 · DOI
  4. Barberá P., Casas A., Nagler J., Egan P. J., Bonneau R., Jost J. T., Tucker J. A. (2019). Who leads? Who follows? Measuring issue attention and agenda setting by legislators and the mass public using social media data. American Political Science Review, 113(4), 883–901. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055419000352 · DOI
  5. Bennett W. L. (1998). The uncivic culture: Communication, identity, and the rise of lifestyle politics. PS: Political Science & Politics, 31(4), 741–761. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096500053270 · DOI
  6. Bennett W. L., Segerberg A. (2013). The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Cambridge University Press. a [...] of the connective action thesis advanced by b [...] achieve. Efforts such as those proposed by c [...] sustained and collective efforts over time d [...] users persistently push their efforts
  7. Bessi A., Ferrara E. (2016). Social bots distort the 2016 U.S. presidential election online discussion. First Monday, 21(11). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v21i11.709 a [...] are likely agents in social media discourse b [...] content aimed at influencing public opinion · DOI
  8. Blei D. M. (2003). Latent Dirichlet Allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3 993–1022.
  9. Boyd D., Golder S., Lotan G. (2010, January). Tweet, Tweet, retweet: Conversational aspects of retweeting on Twitter. In 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1–10). IEEE. a [...] and share information in networked contexts b [...] for content creation and circulation
  10. Broniatowski D. A., Jamison A. M., Qi S., AlKulaib L., Chen T., Benton A., Quinn S. C., Dredze M. (2018). Weaponized health communication: Twitter bots and Russian trolls amplify the vaccine debate. American Journal of Public Health, 108(10), 1378–1384. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304567 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Bucher T. (2018). The algorithmic imaginary: Exploring the ordinary affects of Facebook algorithms. In Beer D. (Ed.), The social power of algorithms (pp. 30–44). Routledge. a [...] and protect their voices and identities b [...] ), and user intentions
  12. Christner C., Urman A., Adam S., Maier M. (2022). Automated tracking approaches for studying online media use: A critical review and recommendations. Communication Methods and Measures, 16(2), 79–95.
  13. Cinelli M., Etta G., Avalle M., Quattrociocchi A., Di Marco N., Valensise C., Galeazzi A., Quattrociocchi W. (2022). Conspiracy theories and social media platforms. Current Opinion in Psychology, 47, 101407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101407 · DOI
  14. Davis J. L. (2020). How artifacts afford: The power and politics of everyday things. MIT Press. a [...] factors such as technological literacy b [...] and reasons for using the platform c [...] represent one side’s voice over time
  15. Delacroix S., Lawrence N. D. (2019). Bottom-up data trusts: Disturbing the ‘one size fits all’approach to data governance. International Data Privacy Law, 9(4), 236–252. a [...] power asymmetry between platforms and users b [...] power dynamics between platforms and users
  16. Duffy B. E., Meisner C. (2023). Platform governance at the margins: Social media creators’ experiences with algorithmic (in) visibility. Media, Culture & Society, 45(2), 285–304.
  17. Flew T. (2021). Regulating platforms. John Wiley & Sons. a [...] “platform” is multifaceted and polysemantic b [...] pronounced economic and communicative power c [...] to contain the spread of misinformation d [...] to Twitter’s significant network effects
  18. Freelon D., McIlwain C., Clark M. (2018). Quantifying the power and consequences of social media protest. New Media & Society, 20(3), 990–1011. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816676646 a [...] and response from other sectors of society b [...] on this organizing capacity of social media · DOI
  19. Fukuyama F., Richman B., Goel A. (2021). How to save democracy from technology: Ending big tech’s information monopoly essays. Foreign Affairs, 100(1), 98–110.
  20. Gallwitz F., Kreil M. (2022). Investigating the validity of botometer-based social bot studies. In Ceolin D., Tulin M., Caselli T. (Eds.), Multidisciplinary international symposium on disinformation in open online media (pp. 63–78). Springer International Publishing.
  21. Gillespie T. (2018a). Custodians of the internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press. a [...] for information in the 21st century b [...] (NGOs) in shaping platform governance c [...] and affect platform policies and economics d [...] their competing values and objectives e [...] platforms critical mediators of information f [...] shifts in what people seem to want to do” g [...] which often remains opaque to the users
  22. Gillespie T. (2018b). Regulation of and by platforms. In Burgess J., Marwick A., Poell T. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social media (pp. 254–278). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473984066 a [...] in determining content and features b [...] a logical component in platform governance c [...] seen as unwarranted impositions by others d [...] power dynamics between platforms and users · DOI
  23. Gorwa R. (2019). What is platform governance? Information, Communication & Society, 22(6), 854–871. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1573914 a [...] (NGOs) in shaping platform governance c [...] by governments, and co-regulation by NGOs · DOI
  24. Grinberg N., Joseph K., Friedland L., Swire-Thompson B., Lazer D. (2019). Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Science, 363(6425), 374–378. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau2706 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Guerrero-Solé F. (2017). Community detection in political discussions on Twitter. Social Science Computer Review, 35(2), 244–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439315617254 · DOI
  26. Haimson O. L., Hoffmann A. L. (2016). Constructing and enforcing” authentic” identity online: Facebook, real names, and non-normative identities. First Monday, 21(6). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v21i6.6791 · DOI
  27. Helberger N., Pierson J., Poell T. (2018). Governing online platforms: From contested to cooperative responsibility. The Information Society, 34(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2017.1391913 b [...] of expressive activities within platforms c [...] preferring diverse platforms over others” d [...] contentious nature of platform governance · DOI
  28. Helberger N. (2020). The political power of platforms: How current attempts to regulate misinformation amplify opinion power. Digital Journalism, 8(6), 842–854.
  29. Jang H., Barrett B., McGregor S. C. (2023). Social media policy in two dimensions: Understanding the role of anti-establishment beliefs and political ideology in Americans’ attribution of responsibility regarding online content. Information, Communication & Society, 27(6), 1047–1072.
  30. Jiang J., Chen E., Yan S., Lerman K., Ferrara E. (2020). Political polarization drives online conversations about COVID-19 in the United States. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(3), 200–211.
  31. Langley P., Leyshon A. (2017). Platform capitalism: The intermediation and capitalization of digital economic circulation. Finance and Society, 3(1), 11–31. https://doi.org/10.2218/finsoc.v3i1.1936 a [...] vary by service type and business model b [...] into valuable data for the platform · DOI · Paper page
  32. Maier D., Waldherr A., Miltner P., Wiedemann G., Niekler A., Keinert A., Pfetsch B., Heyer G., Reber U., Häussler T., Schmid-Petri H., Adam S. (2018). Applying LDA topic modeling in communication research: Toward a valid and reliable methodology. Communication Methods and Measures, 12(2–3), 93–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2018.1430754 · DOI
  33. Mills S. (2021). #DeleteFacebook: From popular protest to a new model of platform capitalism? New Political Economy, 26(5), 851–868. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2020.1858777 a [...] both government and corporate structures b [...] an alternative model of platform capitalism · DOI
  34. Mutz D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge University Press.
  35. Noble S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression. In Algorithms of oppression. New York University Press. a [...] ), racial identity b [...] values, further constraining user voices c [...] voices risk oppression by algorithms
  36. Poell T., Nieborg D., van Dijck J. (2019). Platformisation. Internet Policy Review, 8(4), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.4.1425 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Pröllochs N. (2022). Community-based fact-checking on Twitter’s Birdwatch platform. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 16, 794–805. https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v16i1.19335 a [...] breach the platform’s community guidelines b [...] and polarization within the user community · DOI
  38. Rohe K., Zeng M. (2020). Vintage factor analysis with Varimax performs statistical inference (arXiv: 2004.05387). arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2004.05387 · arXiv
  39. Sadowski J. (2019). When data is capital: Datafication, accumulation, and extraction. Big Data & Society, 6(1), 2053951718820549. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951718820549 a [...] be aggregated and monetized as user data b [...] are crucial for social media platforms c [...] user data underpin platform capitalism · DOI · Paper page
  40. Safak V., Sridhar A. (2022). Elon Musk’s Twitter takeover: Politician accounts (arXiv: 2205.08491). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2205.08491 a [...] of Musk and Republican politicians b [...] politicians lost liberal followers · DOI
  41. Shuster S. M., Campos-Castillo C., Madani N., Joseph K. (2024). Who supports Bernie? Analyzing identity and ideological variation on Twitter during the 2020 democratic primaries. PLoS One, 19(4), e0294735.
  42. Srnicek N. (2017). Platform capitalism. John Wiley & Sons. a [...] vary by service type and business model b [...] shaping strategic decision-making c [...] of data streams is of paramount interest d [...] data, generating revenue for the platforms
  43. Suk J., Abhishek A., Zhang Y., Ahn S. Y., Correa T., Garlough C., Shah D. V. (2021). #MeToo, networked acknowledgment, and connective action: How “empowerment through empathy” launched a social movement. Social Science Computer Review, 39(2), 276–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439319864882 · DOI
  44. Suk J., Zhang Y., Yue Z., Wang R., Dong X., Yang D., Lian R. (2023). When the personal becomes political: Unpacking the dynamics of sexual violence and gender justice discourses across four social media platforms. Communication Research, 50(5), 610–632. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502231154146 a [...] their competing values and objectives b [...] #MeToo activists and anti-feminists alike · DOI
  45. Tufekci Z. (2013). “Not this one”: Social movements, the attention economy, and microcelebrity networked activism. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(7), 848–870. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213479369 · DOI · Paper page
  46. van Dijck J. (2013). The culture of connectivity: A critical history of social media. Oxford University Press. a [...] buycotting in support of a platform change b [...] technology, and governance practices c [...] , p. 23). Similarly, d [...] sphere to engage in public discussion e [...] be considered users’ “ultimate leverage” f [...] the platform’s original community spirit g [...] user interactions on social media platforms h [...] and reasons for using the platform i [...] to Twitter’s significant network effects j [...] which often remains opaque to the users k [...] can be regarded as a form of governance
  47. van Dijck J., Poell T. (2013). Understanding social media logic (SSRN Scholarly Paper 2309065). https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2309065 a [...] and affect platform policies and economics b [...] activities, they wield the power of numbers c [...] produce more user attention and engagement d [...] the voices are expressive and unanimous
  48. van Dijck J., van Poell T., de Waal M. (2018). The platform society: Public values in a connective world. Oxford University Press. a [...] for information in the 21st century b [...] the platform c [...] source of revenue in the platform economy
  49. Wagner M. W., Collins T. P. (2014). Does ownership matter? Journalism Practice, 8(6), 758–771. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2014.882063 · DOI
  50. Wang R., Walter D., Ophir Y. (2024). Not all bots are created equal: The impact of bots classification techniques on identification of discursive behaviors around the COVID-19 vaccine and climate change. Social Science Computer Review, 42(2), 394–415. a [...] tool implemented in previous studies (e.g., b [...] topically mixed or inconsistent messages
  51. Wells C., Shah D., Lukito J., Pelled A., Pevehouse J. C., Yang J. (2020). Trump, Twitter, and news media responsiveness: A media systems approach. New Media & Society, 22(4), 659–682. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819893987 · DOI
  52. Woolley S. C., Howard P. N. (2018). Computational propaganda: Political parties, politicians, and political manipulation on social media. Oxford University Press.
  53. Zhang Y., Chen F., Rohe K. (2022). Social media public opinion as flocks in a murmuration: Conceptualizing and measuring opinion expression on social media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 27(1), Article zmab021. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmab021 a [...] and share information in networked contexts b [...] on the same issue from various networks · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, R., Zhang, Y., Suk, J., & Holland Levin, S.
Affiliations
  • University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
  • University of Connecticut (US)
  • University of Connecticut, USA
Corresponding author
Wang, Rui
ORCID
Venue
Social Media + Society
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2024-07
Volume
10
Issue
3
ISSN
2056-3051 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1177/20563051241277606
OpenAlex
W4402546581
Cited by
16
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 8
FWCI
13.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Social Media + Society (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Media and Digital Communication
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
platform governance, Twitter, Elon Musk, Twitter acquisition, user empowerment, social media users, partisanship, bots, user discourse, platform business

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