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.
BlondelJ (2014) Comparative Government: An Introduction. London: Routledge.
5.
CampanteFDuranteRSobbrioF (2018) Politics 2.0: the multifaceted effect of broadband internet on political participation. Journal of the European Economic Association16(4): 1094–1136.
6.
CarpentierN (2016) Beyond the ladder of participation: an analytical toolkit for the critical analysis of participatory media processes. Javnost—The Public23(1): 70–88.
7.
CentivanyAGlushkoB (2016) “Popcorn tastes good”: participatory policymaking and Reddit’s “Amageddon.” In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI’16). San Jose, CA: ACM, pp. 1126–1137.
8.
ColemanEG (2012) Phreaks, hackers, and trolls. In: MandibergM (ed.) The Social Media Reader. New York: NYU Press, pp. 99–119.
De FilippiPWrightA (2018) Blockchain and the Law: The Rule of Code. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
11.
DeCaroDA (2018) Humanistic rational choice and compliance motivation in complex societal dilemmas. In: SiddikiSEspinosaSHeikkilaT (eds) Contextualizing Compliance in the Public Sector. London: Routledge, pp. 126–147.
EllermanD (2005) The two institutional logics: exit-oriented versus commitment-oriented institutional designs. International Economic Journal19(2): 22.
14.
FarrellD (1983) Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect as responses to job dissatisfaction: a multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal26(4): 596–607.
15.
FlewT (2009) The citizen’s voice: Albert Hirschman’s exit, voice and loyalty and its contribution to media citizenship debates. Media, Culture & Society31(6): 977–994.
16.
FreySSumnerRW (2019) Emergence of integrated institutions in a large population of self-governing communities. PLoS ONE14(7): e0216335.
17.
FreySKrafftPMKeeganBC (2019) “This place does what it was built for”: designing digital institutions for participatory change. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction (CSCW), 3(32).
18.
GallowayAR (2006) Protocol: How Control Exists after Decentralization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19.
GanleyDLampeC (2009) The ties that bind: social network principles in online communities. Decision Support Systems, Online Communities and Social Network47(3): 266–274.
20.
GansJSGoldfarbALedermanM (2017) Exit, Tweets and Loyalty. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
21.
GastilJ (2000) By Popular Demand: Revitalizing Representative Democracy through Deliberative Elections. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
GerkenHK (2013) Exit, voice, and disloyalty. Duke Law Journal62(7): 1349–1386.
24.
GillespieT (2010) The politics of “platforms.” New Media & Society12(3): 347–364.
25.
GofenA (2012) Entrepreneurial exit response to dissatisfaction with public services. Public Administration90(4): 1088–1106.
26.
GrahamJWKeeleyM (1992) Hirschman’s loyalty construct. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal5(3): 191–200.
27.
GrahamRSmithS (2016) The content of our #characters: Black Twitter as counterpublic. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity2(4): 433–449.
28.
GrahamTWitschgeT (2003) In search of online deliberation: towards a new method for examining the quality of online discussions. Communications28(2): 173–204.
29.
HardtSLopesLCR (2015) Google Votes: a liquid democracy experiment on a corporate social network. Technical Disclosure Commons (Defensive Publications Series), June. Available at: https://www.tdcommons.org/dpubs_series/79
30.
HirschmanAO (1970) Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
31.
HirschmanAO (1980) “Exit, voice, and loyalty”: further reflections and a survey of recent contributions. The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly. Health and Society58(3): 430–453.
32.
HirschmanAO (1989) Having opinions—one of the elements of well-being?The American Economic Review79(2): 75–79.
33.
HuffakerD (2010) Dimensions of leadership and social influence in online communities. Human Communication Research36(4): 593–617.
34.
JohnsonDRPostDG (2001) Law and borders: the rise of law in cyberspace. In: LudlowP (ed.) Crypto Anarchy, Cyberstates, and Pirate Utopias (Digital Communication). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 145–196.
35.
JohnsonJP (2020) The agency and wholesale models in electronic content markets. International Journal of Industrial Organization69: 102581.
36.
JohnsonSLFarajSKudaravalliS (2014) Emergence of power laws in online communities: the role of social mechanisms and preferential attachment. MIS Quarterly38(3): 795–808.
37.
JoyceEPikeJCButlerBS (2013) Rules and roles vs. consensus: self-governed deliberative mass collaboration bureaucracies. American Behavioral Scientist57(5): 576–594.
38.
KeltyCPanofskyACurrieM, et al. (2015) Seven dimensions of contemporary participation disentangled. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology66(3): 474–488.
KiserLOstromE (2000) The three worlds of action: a metatheoretical synthesis of institutional approaches. In: McginnisM (ed.) Polycentric games and institutions: Readings from the workshop in political theory and policy analysis. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, pp. 179–222.
41.
KrautREResnickPKieslerS (2011) Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence-Based Social Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
KumarNQiuLKumarS (2018) Exit, voice, and response on digital platforms: an empirical investigation of online management response strategies. Information Systems Research29(4): 849–870.
LoweryDDeHoogRHLyonsWE (1992) Citizenship in the empowered locality: an elaboration, a critique, and a partial test. Urban Affairs Quarterly28(1): 69–103.
46.
LuYHuSLiangQ, et al. (2013) Exit, voice and loyalty as firm strategic responses to institutional pressures: a comparative case study of Google and Baidu in Mainland China. Edited by XiYouminZhangXiaojun. Chinese Management Studies7(3): 419–446.
47.
McGinnisMD (ed.) (2000) Polycentric Games and Institutions: Readings from the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
48.
Marlin-BennettRThorntonEN (2012) Governance within social media websites: ruling new frontiers. Telecommunications Policy, Global Internet Governance Research and Public Policy Challenges for the Next Decade36(6): 493–501.
49.
MartinGParryEFlowersP (2015) Do social media enhance constructive employee voice all of the time or just some of the time?Human Resource Management Journal25(4): 541–562.
50.
MassumiB (1995) The autonomy of affect. Cultural Critique31: 83–109.
51.
MatiasJN (2016) Going dark: social factors in collective action against platform operators in the Reddit Blackout. In: Proceedings of the 20 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI’ 16), pp. 1138–1151. Santa Clara, CA: ACM Press.
52.
MatiasJN (2018) Quitting Facebook & Google: why exit option democracy is the worst kind of democracy. Medium, 11December. Available at: https://medium.com/@natematias/https-medium-com-natematias-quitting-facebook-google-aaf8f4c80fbf
53.
MeijerAJ (2007) Publishing public performance results on the internet: do stakeholders use the internet to hold Dutch public service organizations to account?Government Information Quarterly24(1): 165–185.
54.
MichaelsenM (2018) Exit and voice in a digital age: Iran’s exiled activists and the authoritarian state. Globalizations15(2): 248–264.
NunziatoDC (2000) Exit, voice, and values on the net. Berkeley Technology Law Journal15: 753.
57.
NymanLLindmanJ (2013) Code forking, governance, and sustainability in open source software. Technology Innovation Management Review2013: 7–12.
58.
OlsonM (2003) The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups (Harvard Economic Studies 124). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
OstromEJanssenMA (2004) Multi-level governance and resilience of social-ecological systems. In: SpoorM (ed.) Globalisation, Poverty and Conflict: A Critical “Development” Reader. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 239–259.
61.
OstromEWhitakerG (1973) Does local community control of police make a difference? Some preliminary findings. American Journal of Political Science17(1): 48–76.
62.
OstromEWalkerJGardnerR (1992) Covenants with and without a sword: Self-governance is possible. The American Political Science Review96(2): 404–417.
63.
PapacharissiZ (2015) Affective Publics: Sentiment, Technology, and Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
64.
ParkerGGAlstyneMWChoudarySP (2016) Platform Revolution: How Networked Markets Are Transforming the Economy and How to Make Them Work for You. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
65.
PhillipsW (2015) This Is Why We Can’t Have Nice Things: Mapping the Relationship between Online Trolling and Mainstream Culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
66.
RavalD (2019) Whose voice do we hear in the marketplace? Evidence from consumer complaining behavior. Marketing Science39(1): 168–187.
67.
RezabakhshBBornemannDHansenU, et al. (2006) Consumer power: a comparison of the old economy and the internet economy. Journal of Consumer Policy29(1): 3–36.
68.
RheingoldH (1993) The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Available at: https://people.well.com/user/hlr/vcbook/
69.
RusbultCEZembrodtIMGunnLK (1982) Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: responses to dissatisfaction in romantic involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology43(6): 1230–1242.
70.
SaundersDM (1992) Introduction to research on Hirschman’s exit, voice, and loyalty model. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal5(3): 187–190.
71.
SchneiderN (2019) Decentralization: an incomplete ambition. Journal of Cultural Economy12(4): 1–21.
72.
SchneiderN (2021) Admins, mods, and benevolent dictators for life: the implicit feudalism of online communities. New Media & Society. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820986553
73.
SchneiderNDe FilippiPFreyS, et al. (2021) Modular politics: toward a governance layer for online communities. In: Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction (CSCW), 5(16).
74.
ScholzTSchneiderN (2016) Ours to Hack and to Own: The Rise of Platform Cooperativism, a New Vision for the Future of Work and a Fairer Internet. New York: OR Books.
75.
SeeringJWangTYoonJ, et al. (2019) Moderator engagement and community development in the age of algorithms. New Media & Society21: 1417–1443.
TajfelH (1975) The exit of social mobility and the voice of social change: notes on the social psychology of intergroup relations. Information (International Social Science Council)14(2): 101–118.
82.
TaylorBR (2016) Exit and the epistemic quality of voice. Economic Affairs36(2): 133–144.
83.
TufekciZ (2017) Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
84.
TullockG (1970) Review of exit, voice and loyalty: responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states, by Albert O. Hirschman. The Journal of Finance25(5): 1194–1195.
85.
TurcoCJ (2016) The Conversational Firm: Rethinking Bureaucracy in the Age of Social Media. New York: Columbia University Press.
86.
YoungDR (1974) Exit and voice in the organization of public services. Information (International Social Science Council)13(3): 49–65.
87.
YoungDR (1976) Consolidation or diversity: choices in the structure of urban governance. The American Economic Review66(2): 378–385.
88.
ZhangAXHughGBernsteinMS (2020) PolicyKit: building governance in online communities. In: Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology (ACM UIST’20), pp. 365–378. New York: ACM. Availablehttps://hci.stanford.edu/publications/uist_policykit.pdf
