Social media can establish governance frameworks for their users through public-facing documents and policies. Such governance frameworks are value-laden and embody platform values. As a newly dominant platform in the United States, TikTok serves as an exemplary medium to study the evolution of platform values. Based on the iterations of TikTok’s Community Guidelines from 2018 to 2022 (N = 25,641), we conducted longitudinal lexical analyses to determine changes in their structure and value salience. Then, through network analysis, we demonstrated how values co-exist by constructing co-occurrence networks. Our results reveal that the lexical complexity and value interconnection of these policies have increased over time. Certain values are more central in the networks than others (e.g. privacy, safety, and fairness), which may be attributed to a public outcry for change. The evolution of TikTok’s governance frameworks follows three mechanisms (mediation, reversion, and founding paths) in shaping the core-periphery structures of platform values.
ArriagadaAIbanezF (2020) “You need at least one picture daily, if not, you’re dead”: content creators and platform evolution in the social media ecology. Social Media + Society. Epub ahead of print 18 August. DOI: 10.1177/2056305120944624.
2.
Badillo-UrquiolaKSmritiDMcNallyB, et al (2019) Stranger danger! social media app features co-designed with children to keep them safe online. In: Proceedings of the th18 ACM international conference on interaction design and children, Boise, ID, 12 June, pp. 394–406. New York: ACM.
BarrettBKreissD (2019) Platform transience: changes in Facebook’s policies, procedures, and affordances in global electoral politics. Internet Policy Review8(4): 1–22.
5.
BossettaM (2020) Scandalous design: how social media platforms’ responses to scandal impacts campaigns and elections. Social Media + Society. Epub ahead of print 17 June. DOI: 10.1177/2056305120924777.
BurgessJBaymNK (2020) Twitter: A Biography. New York: New York University Press.
9.
CaplanR (2018) Content or Context Moderation? Artisanal, Community-Reliant, and Industrial Approaches. New York: Data and Society Institute.
10.
CaplanR (2023) Networked platform governance: the construction of the democratic platform. International Journal of Communication17: 3451–3472.
11.
DeCookJRCotterKKanthawaiaS, et al (2022) Safe from “harm”: the governance of violence by platforms. Policy & Internet14(1): 63–78.
12.
DekkerDKrackhardtDSnijdersTAB (2007) Sensitivity of MRQAP tests to collinearity and autocorrelation conditions. Psychometrika72(4): 563–581.
13.
DeNardisLHacklAM (2015) Internet governance by social media platforms. Telecommunications Policy39(9): 761–770.
14.
DeVitoMAWalkerAMFernandezJR (2021) Values (mis)alignment: exploring tensions between platform and LGBTQ+ community design values. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction5: 1–27.
GerrardYThornhamH (2020) Content moderation: social media’s sexist assemblages. New Media & Society22(7): 1266–1286.
17.
GillespieT (2010) The politics of “platforms.”New Media & Society12(3): 347–364.
18.
GillespieT (2018) Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
19.
GillespieT (2022) Do not recommend? Reduction as a form of content moderation. Social Media + Society. Epub ahead of print 19 August. DOI: 10.1177/20563051221117552.
20.
GillettRStardustZBurgessJ (2022) Safety for whom? Investigating how platforms frame and perform safety and harm interventions. Social Media + Society. Epub ahead of print 15 December. DOI: 10.1177/20563051221144315.
21.
GorwaR (2019) What is platform governance?Information, Communication & Society22(6): 854–871.
22.
GreeneDShiltonK (2018) Platform privacies: governance, collaboration, and the different meanings of “privacy” in iOS and Android development. New Media & Society20(4): 1640–1657.
23.
HallinanBScharlachRShifmanL (2022) Beyond neutrality: conceptualizing platform values. Communication Theory32(2): 201–222.
24.
HeinichN (2020) Ten proposals on values. Cultural Sociology14(3): 213–232.
25.
HelmondA (2015) The platformization of the web: making web data platform ready. Social Media + Society. Epub ahead of print 30 September. DOI: 10.1177/2056305115603080.
26.
HelmondAVan der VlistFN (2019) Social media and platform historiography: challenges and opportunities. TMG Journal for Media History22(1): 6–34.
27.
HelmondANieborgDBVan der VlistFN (2019) Facebook’s evolution: development of a platform-as-infrastructure. Internet Histories3(2): 123–146.
HoffmannALProferesNZimmerM (2018) “Making the world more open and connected”: Mark Zuckerberg and the discursive construction of Facebook and its users. New Media & Society20(1): 199–218.
30.
JiangJMiddlerSBrubakerJR, et al (2020) Characterizing community guidelines on social media platforms. In: Conference companion publication of the 2020 on computer supported cooperative work and social computing, Virtual Event, 17 October, pp. 287–291. New York: ACM.
31.
JockersMLThalkenR (2020) Hapax richness. In: JockersMLThalkenR (eds) Text Analysis with R. Cham: Springer, pp. 93–97.
32.
KatzenbachCMagalhãesJCKoppsA, et al (2021) The Platform Governance Archive. Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society. Available at: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/XSBPT (accessed 4 July 2023).
33.
KayA (2003) Path dependency and the CAP. Journal of European Public Policy10(3): 405–420.
34.
KayA (2005) A critique of the use of path dependency in policy studies. Public Administration83(3): 553–571.
35.
KayeDBVChenXZengJ (2021) The co-evolution of two Chinese mobile short video apps: parallel platformization of Douyin and TikTok. Mobile Media & Communication9(2): 229–253.
36.
KayeDBVZengJWikstromP (2022) TikTok: Creativity and Culture in Short Video. Cambridge: Polity Press.
37.
KlineRPinchT (1996) Users as agents of technological change: the social construction of the automobile in the rural United States. Technology and Culture37(4): 763–795.
38.
KonikoffD (2021) Gatekeepers of toxicity: reconceptualizing Twitter’s abuse and hate speech policies. Policy & Internet13(4): 502–521.
39.
KraatzMSFloresRChandlerD (2020) The value of values for institutional analysis. Academy of Management Annals14(2): 474–512.
40.
MaddoxJMalsonJ (2020) Guidelines without lines, communities without borders: the marketplace of ideas and digital manifest destiny in social media platform policies. Social Media + Society. Epub ahead of print 19 June. DOI: 10.1177/2056305120926622.
Myers WestS (2017) Raging against the machine: network gatekeeping and collective action on social media platforms. Media and Communication5(3): 28–36.
Paasche-OrlowMTaylorHABrancatiFL (2003) Readability standards for informed-consent forms as compared with actual readability. The New England Journal of Medicine348: 721–726.
PeslakAConfortiM (2019) A longitudinal study of Facebook privacy policies. Issues in Information Systems20(1): 213–223.
48.
PoellTNieborgDBDuffyBE (2022) Platforms and Cultural Production. Cambridge: Polity Press.
49.
RubergB (2021) “Obscene, pornographic, or otherwise objectionable”: biased definitions of sexual content in video game live streaming. New Media & Society23(6): 1681–1699.
50.
SavicM (2021) From Musical.ly to TikTok: social construction of 2020’s most downloaded short video app. International Journal of Communication15: 3173–3194.
51.
ScharlachRHallinanBShifmanL (2023) Governing principles: articulating values in social media platform policies. New Media & Society. Epub ahead of print 7 March. DOI: 10.1177/14614448231156580.
52.
ShutskoA (2020) User-generated short video content in social media: a case study of TikTok. In: International conference on human-computer interaction, Copenhagen, 19–24 July, pp. 108–125. Cham: Springer.
Van DijckJPoellTDe WaalM (2018) The Platform Society: Public Values in a Connective World. New York: Oxford University Press.
59.
Van EsKPoellT (2020) Platform imaginaries and Dutch public service media. Social Media + Society. Epub ahead of print 23 June. DOI: 10.1177/2056305120933289.
60.
VincentBB (2014) The politics of buzzwords at the interface of technoscience, market and society: the case of “public engagement in science.”Public Understanding of Science23(3): 238–253.
61.
WangC-HSherST-HSalmanI, et al (2022) “Tiktok made me do it”: teenagers’ perception and use of food content on TikTok. In: Proceedings of the 21st annual ACM interaction design and children conference, Braga, 27 June, pp. 458–463. New York: ACM.
62.
WieringaM (2020) What to account for when accounting for algorithms: a systematic literature review on algorithmic accountability. In: Proceedings of the 2020 conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, New York, 27 January, pp. 1–18. New York: ACM.
63.
ZengJKayeDBV (2022) From content moderation to visibility moderation: a case study of platform governance on TikTok. Policy & Internet14(1): 79–95.
64.
ZiewitzMPentzoldC (2014) In search of internet governance: performing order in digitally networked environments. New Media & Society16(2): 306–322.
65.
ZolidesA (2021) Gender moderation and moderating gender: sexual content policies in Twitch’s community guidelines. New Media & Society23(10): 2999–3015.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
