The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Understanding Social Media Logic
Open accessAbstract
Over the past decade, social media platforms have penetrated deeply into the mechanics of everyday life, affecting people's informal interactions, as well as institutional structures and professional routines. Far from being neutral platforms for everyone, social media have changed the conditions and rules of social interaction. In this article, we examine the intricate dynamic between social media platforms, mass media, users, and social institutions by calling attention to social media logic—the norms, strategies, mechanisms, and economies—underpinning its dynamics. This logic will be considered in light of what has been identified as mass media logic, which has helped spread the media's powerful discourse outside its institutional boundaries. Theorizing social media logic, we identify four grounding principles—programmability, popularity, connectivity, and datafication—and argue that these principles become increasingly entangled with mass media logic. The logic of social media, rooted in these grounding principles and strategies, is gradually invading all areas of public life. Besides print news and broadcasting, it also affects law and order, social activism, politics, and so forth. Therefore, its sustaining logic and widespread dissemination deserve to be scrutinized in detail in order to better understand its impact in various domains. Concentrating on the tactics and strategies at work in social media logic, we reassess the constellation of power relationships in which social practices unfold, raising questions such as: How does social media logic modify or enhance existing mass media logic? And how is this new media logic exported beyond the boundaries of (social or mass) media proper? The underlying principles, tactics, and strategies may be relatively simple to identify, but it is much harder to map the complex connections between platforms that distribute this logic: users that employ them, technologies that drive them, economic structures that scaffold them, and institutional bodies that incorporate them.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
“However, several scholars have highlighted that PSOs are increasingly dependent on digital platforms and social media logic (Olsson & Eriksson, 2016;van Dijck & Poell, 2013).”
From Exploring the Challenges of Generative AI on Public Sector Communication in Europe (2025) · cites this paper as van Dijck & Poell, 2013
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
Gillespie, T. (2010) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444809342738 · Cited by 2,522 · cited 1×
“As American media studies scholar Tarleton Gillespie explains, the programmability of social interaction has become paradigmatic in a media environment dominated by platforms: we now rely on the algorithmic assessment of information just as we used to rely on credentialed experts or scientific evidence in the discours…”
BackgroundConnection strategies: Social capital implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2011) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444810385389 · Cited by 1,349 · cited 1×
“Unlike the television schedules of mass media logic, technological programmability in social media logic is hard to analyze in part because algorithms are proprietary and thus kept a secret, and partly because they are constantly adapted to evolving business models and user practices [24,26].”
BackgroundGillespie, T. (2014) · Media Technologies · doi:10.7551/mitpress/9042.003.0013 · Cited by 1,016
The like economy: Social buttons and the data-intensive web
Gerlitz, C., & Helmond, A. (2013) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444812472322 · Cited by 871
Cited by
Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big Data between scientific paradigm and ideology
Van Dijck, J. (2014) · Surveillance & Society · doi:10.24908/ss.v12i2.4776 · Cited by 2,203
Self-citationThe Affordances of Social Media Platforms
Bucher, T., & Helmond, A. (2018) · The SAGE Handbook of Social Media · doi:10.4135/9781473984066.n14 · Cited by 1,083
Kaye, D. B. V., Chen, X., & Zeng, J. (2021) · Mobile Media & Communication · doi:10.1177/2050157920952120 · Cited by 500
Known or knowing publics? Social media data mining and the question of public agency
Kennedy, H., & Moss, G. (2015) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/2053951715611145 · Cited by 148
Heuristics of the algorithm: Big Data, user interpretation and institutional translation
Bolin, G., & Andersson Schwarz, J. (2015) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/2053951715608406 · Cited by 107
The Rise of Germany's AfD: A Social Media Analysis
Serrano, J. C. M., Shahrezaye, M., Papakyriakopoulos, O., & Hegelich, S. (2019) · Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Social Media and Society · doi:10.1145/3328529.3328562 · Cited by 62
The importance of influential users in (re)producing Swedish far-right discourse on Twitter
Åkerlund, M. (2020) · European Journal of Communication · doi:10.1177/0267323120940909 · Cited by 59
The Platformization of Violence: Toward a Concept of Discursive Toxicity on Social Media
Recuero, R. (2024) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/20563051231224264 · Cited by 47
In/Visibility in Social Media Work: The Hidden Labor Behind the Brands
(2022) · doi:10.17645/mac.v10i1.4460 · Cited by 39
Tweeting ourselves to death: the cultural logic of digital capitalism
Törnberg, P., & Uitermark, J. (2022) · Media, Culture & Society · doi:10.1177/01634437211053766 · Cited by 33
Lorenzana, J. A. (2016) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444816655613 · Cited by 30
Social media work: reshaping organisational communications, extracting digital value
McCosker, A. (2017) · Media International Australia · doi:10.1177/1329878x17693702 · Cited by 28
Dourado, T., & Salgado, S. (2021) · The Communication Review · doi:10.1080/10714421.2021.1981705 · Cited by 23
“Such finding seems to challenge research that deals with fake news as naturally opposed to news media (e.g., Al-Rawi, 2019) and support the approaches that include journalists and journalism in the equation (e.g., Curran and Seaton, 2010; van Dijck & Poell, 2013).”
BackgroundExploring the Challenges of Generative AI on Public Sector Communication in Europe
Lovari, A., & De Rosa, F. (2025) · Media and Communication · doi:10.17645/mac.9644 · Cited by 22
Technologically situated: the tacit rules of platform participation
Pangrazio, L. (2019) · Journal of Youth Studies · doi:10.1080/13676261.2019.1575345 · Cited by 21
Conspiracy theories in digital environments: Moving the research field forward
Zeng, J., Schäfer, M. S., & Oliveira, T. M. (2022) · Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies · doi:10.1177/13548565221117474 · Cited by 21
The Korean Wave Phenomenon in Asian Diasporas in Canada
Yoon, K., & Jin, D. Y. (2016) · Journal of Intercultural Studies · doi:10.1080/07256868.2015.1119810 · Cited by 18
Ramage, C., & Moorley, C. (2019) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2019.03.010 · Cited by 15
Törnberg, P. (2025) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/20563051251323389 · Cited by 14
“…principle prevents us from, for instance, posting lengthy academic papers on Instagram and aestheticized photos of our lunch on ResearchGate, such messages go against the media logics of the respective platforms and are unlikely to be widely seen (Langlois & Elmer, 2013; van Dijck & Poell, 2013).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Van Dijck, J., & Poell, T.
- Venue
- Media and Communication
- Publisher
- Cogitatio
- Published
- 2013-08-12
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 2-14
- ISSN
- 2183-2439 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2099711997
- Cited by
- 1,258
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 36.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
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.