Platform Governance as Decision Support: A Governance Risk Index for Twitter/X During the 2024 U.S. Presidential Campaign

Abdullah Önden

doi:10.31181/sems41202669

Authors

Abdullah Önden Department of Computer Engineering, Istanbul University, Faculty of Computer and Information Technologies, Istanbul, Türkiye Author https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3769-8193

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31181/sems41202669

Keywords:

Platform Governance, Algorithmic Accountability, Democratic Discourse, Social Media Governance, Governance Risk, Digital Platforms, Toxicity Amplification, Platform Accountability

Abstract

Online platforms have emerged as essential infrastructure for democratic deliberation, crisis communication, and public health messaging. Nonetheless, governance of these spaces remains largely retrospective and principle-based, without concrete evaluative criteria. This article operationalizes six key principle-based elements of platform governance into concrete clause components with quantifiable triggers, to support proactive application. We develop a composite Governance Risk Index (GRI), integrating empirically defined decision thresholds for four risk components: dispersion, drift, inequality, and toxicity. We estimate toxicity levels from a stratified subsample of the dataset labeled using the Perspective API, aggregated to the daily level. Our results show that toxicity is positively correlated with engagement (r = 0.52, p < .001), as replicated in our data (r = 0.49, p < .001), in line with algorithmic amplification dynamics that platform governance must account for. We further find that decision thresholds differ meaningfully between clause components and risk components. A contextual benchmark against 2015–2016 multi-platform baselines reveals that the 2024 Twitter/X environment exhibits substantially different statistical properties in engagement dispersion and toxicity prevalence, highlighting the need for context-dependent calibration of platform governance thresholds. Over a 30-day out-of-sample holdout period, validated exclusively against independently verified external events, the GRI classified governance-event days under retrospective validation with 85.1% accuracy. Under a supplementary labeling scheme that incorporates platform-internal anomaly criteria, accuracy reaches 90.0%, representing an improvement of about 13 percentage points over single-metric baselines, highlighting the advantages of multivariate, multi-faceted operationalization in proactive platform governance.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

McCarthy, S., Rowan, W., Mahony, C., & Vergne, A. (2023). The dark side of digitalization and social media platform governance: a citizen engagement study. Internet Research, 33(6), 2172-2204. https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-03-2022-0142.

Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press.

Önden, A. (2026). Integrating Artificial Intelligence and Enterprise Resource Planning Systems: A Structured Review of Decision Support Capabilities, Constraints, and Governance. Management Science Advances, 3(1), 172-186. https://doi.org/10.31181/msa31202643.

Allmann, K., & Radu, R. (2023). Digital footprints as barriers to accessing e‐government services. Global Policy, 14(1), 84-94. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13140.

Bruns, A. (2019). After the ‘APIcalypse’: Social media platforms and their fight against critical scholarly research. Information, Communication & Society, 22(11), 1544–1566. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1637447.

Sarkar, A., Goswami, S. S., & Sahoo, S. K. (2026). AI-Powered Threats and Solutions: A Theoretical Analysis of Risks, Governance, and Ethical Safeguards. Applied Research Advances, 2(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.65069/ara2120267.

Biswas, S., Kumar, D., Nas, M., Softa, M., Akgün, E., & Bera, U. K. (2025). Performance of a Five-Layer ANN Model for Earthquake Magnitude Prediction and Spatial Risk Mapping in Turkey. Decision Making Advances, 3(1), 40–49. https://doi.org/10.31181/dma31202553.

Hofstra, B. (2025). The why (not) and how (not) of survey to digital footprint linkages: a use-case of ethnic background and social relationships. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 51(12), 3117-3134. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2025.2487745.

Wu, C., Jiang, S., Sun, J., & Liu, Y. (2025). Research on the influence mechanism of emotional communication on Twitter (X) and the effect of spreading public anger. Acta Psychologica, 260, 105560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105560.

Baijens, J., Huygh, T., & Helms, R. (2022). Establishing and theorising data analytics governance: a descriptive framework and a VSM-based view. Journal of Business Analytics, 5(1), 101-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/2573234X.2021.1955021.

Sandvig, C., Hamilton, K., Karahalios, K., & Langbort, C. (2014). Auditing algorithms: Research methods for detecting discrimination on internet platforms. Data and discrimination: converting critical concerns into productive inquiry, 22(2014), 4349-4357.

Gorwa, R., Binns, R., & Katzenbach, C. (2020). Algorithmic content moderation: Technical and political challenges in the automation of platform governance. Big Data & Society, 7(1), 2053951719897945. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951719897945.

Balasubramanian, A., Zou, V., Narayana, H., You, C., Luceri, L., & Ferrara, E. (2024). A public dataset tracking social media discourse about the 2024 us presidential election on twitter/x. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.00376.

Mikalef, P., Boura, M., Lekakos, G., & Krogstie, J. (2020). The role of information governance in big data analytics driven innovation. Information & Management, 57(7), 103361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2020.103361.

Dwivedi, Y. K., Kapoor, K. K., & Chen, H. (2015). Social media marketing and advertising. The Marketing Review, 15(3), 289-309. https://doi.org/10.1362/146934715X14441363377999.

Hajli, N., Sims, J., Zadeh, A. H., & Richard, M. O. (2017). A social commerce investigation of the role of trust in a social networking site on purchase intentions. Journal of Business Research, 71, 133-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.10.004.

Micheli, M., Lutz, C., & Büchi, M. (2018). Digital footprints: an emerging dimension of digital inequality. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 16(3), 242-251. https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-02-2018-0014.

Schmuck, M. (2022). Data Governance Issues in Digital Marketing: A Marketer's Perspective. Expert Journal of Marketing, 10(2), 124-142.

Burgess, R., Dolan, E., Poon, N., Jenneson, V., Pontin, F., Sivill, T., Morris, M., & Skatova, A. (2024). Harnessing digital footprint data for population health: a discussion on collaboration, challenges and opportunities in the UK. BMJ Health & Care Informatics, 31(1), e101119. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjhci-2024-101119.

Adikari, A., Nguyen, S., Nawaratne, R., De Silva, D., & Alahakoon, D. (2024). Transforming customer digital footprints into decision enablers in hospitality. Applied Sciences, 14(7), 3114. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14073114.

Zhang, Q., Che, Y., Sheng, S., Bai, X., & Li, W. (2025). The impact of IT governance on participation slackness and value co-creation of digital platform complementors. Electronic Markets, 35(1), 81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-025-00830-7.

Önden, A. (2026). A Systemic Approach to Decision Support and Automation: The Role of Big Data Analytics and Real-Time Processing in Management Information Systems. Systems, 14(2), 216. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems14020216.

Suoniemi, S., Meyer-Waarden, L., Munzel, A., Zablah, A. R., & Straub, D. (2020). Big data and firm performance: The roles of market-directed capabilities and business strategy. Information & Management, 57(7), 103365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2020.103365.

Shiells, K., Di Cara, N., Skatova, A., Davis, O. S., Haworth, C. M., Skinner, A. L., ... & Boyd, A. (2022). Participant acceptability of digital footprint data collection strategies: an exemplar approach to participant engagement and involvement in the ALSPAC birth cohort study. International Journal of Population Data Science, 5(3), 1728. https://doi.org/10.23889/ijpds.v5i3.1728.

Jayasuriya, D. D., Ayaz, M., & Williams, M. (2023). The use of digital footprints in the US mortgage market. Accounting & Finance, 63(1), 353-401. https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.12946.

Faruq, M. O. (2024). Vendor risk management in cloud-centric architectures: A systematic review of soc 2, Fedramp, and ISO 27001 practices. International Journal of Business and Economics Insights, 4(1), 01-32. https://doi.org/10.63125/j64vb122.

Saura, J. R., Palacios-Marqués, D., & Ribeiro-Soriano, D. (2025). Privacy concerns in social media UGC communities: Understanding user behavior sentiments in complex networks: JR Saura et al. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 23(1), 125-145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-023-00631-5.

Iwan-Sojka, D. (2025). The inclusive data governance models for algorithms–a dream of the already convinced or a realistic way of action?. Information & Communications Technology Law, 34(1), 3-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2024.2406668.

Aldhi, I. F., Suhariadi, F., Rahmawati, E., Supriharyanti, E., Hardaningtyas, D., Sugiarti, R., & Abbas, A. (2025). Bridging digital gaps in smart city governance: the mediating role of managerial digital readiness and the moderating role of digital leadership. Smart Cities, 8(4), 117. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities8040117.

Lundberg, S. M., & Lee, S. I. (2017). A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30.

Önden, A., Kara, K., Önden, İ., Yalçın, G. C., Simic, V., & Pamucar, D. (2024). Exploring the adoption of the metaverse and chat generative pre-trained transformer: A single-valued neutrosophic Dombi Bonferroni-based method for the selection of software development strategies. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 133, 108378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2024.108378.

Cunneen, M., AnandFinn, R., Friel, R., Tennent, P., & Brandt, S. (2025). From bones to bytes: anticipating and addressing the governance challenges of human digital remains and posthumous digital human twins. AI & Society. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02514-4.

Jonnala, N. S., Ram Teja, A. V. S., Rajeswari, S. R., Jakeer, S., Dheeraj, A., Bansal, S., ... & Al-Mugren, K. S. (2025). Leveraging hybrid model for accurate sentiment analysis of Twitter data. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 24438. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-09794-2.

Torgo, L., & Moniz, N. (2018). News popularity in multiple social media platforms [Dataset]. UCI Machine Learning Repository. https://doi.org/10.24432/C5H029.

Hutto, C., & Gilbert, E. (2014). Vader: A parsimonious rule-based model for sentiment analysis of social media text. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, pp. 216-225. https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v8i1.14550.

Devlin, J., Chang, M. W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2019). Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pp. 4171-4186. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N19-1423.