Source-linked AI summary
The Digital Architectures of Social Media: Comparing Political Campaigning on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat in the 2016 U.S. Election
Michael Bossetta
TL;DR
Existing affordance-based approaches are theoretically vague, so the paper develops a digital-architecture framework and compares four platforms using the 2016 U.S. election. It finds that campaigns reused content across platforms and that Facebook dominated the election cycle.
Problem
The concept of social-media affordances is theoretically vague, limiting its analytical utility for studying political communication.
Method
The study introduces a four-feature digital-architecture typology and systematically compares Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat.
Results
Campaigns shared much of the same text, images, and video across platforms, while Facebook dominated the 2016 election cycle.
Takeaways & Limitations
The study argues that scholarly attention to platforms’ digital architectures provides a valuable and flexible approach for analyzing changing digital spaces.
Takeaways & Limitations
The study’s scope is limited because it does not analyze platforms such as YouTube or WhatsApp.
Abstract
from arXiv · showhide
The present study argues that political communication on social media is mediated by a platform's digital architecture, defined as the technical protocols that enable, constrain, and shape user behavior in a virtual space. A framework for understanding digital architectures is introduced, and four platforms (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat) are compared along the typology. Using the 2016 US election as a case, interviews with three Republican digital strategists are combined with social media data to qualify the studyies theoretical claim that a platform's network structure, functionality, algorithmic filtering, and datafication model affect political campaign strategy on social media.
Digital Architectures and Affordances
The section defines digital architectures as technical protocols that shape user behavior and argues that they underpin platform affordances as a more empirically observable object of analysis. It compares Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat across network structure, functionality, algorithmic filtering, and datafication using qualitative and quantitative data.
- Conceptual framework: Digital architectures are technical protocols that facilitate, constrain, and shape user behavior in virtual spaces, while underpinning affordances as an empirically observable object of analysis.The section addresses the need to delineate how affordances work by shifting analytical attention toward technology’s architecture.
- Conceptual framework: The framework specifies four features—network structure, functionality, algorithmic filtering, and datafication—for comparing platforms and political communication practices.The typology is presented as a basis for comparative, cross-platform research and can extend beyond campaigning to debates, protests, and journalism.
- Network structure: Snapchat’s low searchability, dyadic connectivity, and restrictive default privacy settings distinguish it from the more open Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.Campaigns publicized Snapchat accounts through cross-platform efforts because direct searches were extremely difficult during the 2016 primaries.
- Functionality: Facebook generated larger video audiences than the other platforms in the reported examples, including 66,000 views versus 30,000 on Instagram and 43,000 on Twitter.Another video garnered 676,000 views on Instagram, 778,000 on Twitter, and over 1.5 million on Facebook.
- Functionality: Platform functionality shaped campaign content: Snapchat encouraged less filtered, real-time footage, whereas Instagram supported more artistic and polished visual presentation.The section links these differences to hardware restrictions, scheduling and editing capabilities, and supported multimedia limitations.
- Datafication: Analytics availability differed across platforms: Facebook used a “walled-garden” approach requiring advertising payment in exchange for data, while Twitter was described as the only open platform.Analytics were used to measure return on investment and assess communication effectiveness, but access varied by platform.