https://doi.org/10.14763/2025.3.2014

Abstract

Social media platforms are significant actors within the creator economy, shaping the visibility vital for content distribution and facilitating a range of monetisation models. Private governance, established through platform documentation, determines rules for influencers and regulates how monetisation takes place. This article brings together work from influencer studies with the field of platform governance to examine the regulation by platforms in the creator economy. Using TikTok as a case study, we systematically examine the classification of influencers and monetisation practices within platform documentation. Drawing on a data set of 85 policy documents, the article demonstrates the complex configuration of documentation influencers must navigate, drawing attention to hyperlinking practices and issues of accessibility. It approaches the documentation qualitatively to examine the discursive construction of influencers as creators’ which collapses boundaries between ordinary and monetising users, softens the hierarchy of eligibility shaped by region and metrics, and downplays professional identity. We also address the specificities of governance across different monetisation practices, which are nested within TikTok’s consistent downplaying of responsibility. Within its documentation, TikTok showcases its power to establish and set rules for monetisation and engender dependence whilst ensuring its obligations towards influencers remain tightly constrained and strategically vague.

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2505.08385

Like other social media, TikTok is embracing its use as a search engine, developing search products to steer users to produce searchable content and engage in content discovery. Their recently developed product search recommendations are preformulated search queries recommended to users on videos. However, TikTok provides limited transparency about how search recommendations are generated and moderated, despite requirements under regulatory frameworks like the European Union's Digital Services Act. By suggesting that the platform simply aggregates comments and common searches linked to videos, it sidesteps responsibility and issues that arise from contextually problematic recommendations, reigniting long-standing concerns about platform liability and moderation. This position paper addresses the novelty of search recommendations on TikTok by highlighting the challenges that this feature poses for platform governance and offering a computational research agenda, drawing on preliminary qualitative analysis. It sets out the need for transparency in platform documentation, data access and research to study search recommendations.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.01122

Abstract

To facilitate accountability and transparency, the Digital Services Act (DSA) sets up a process through which Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) need to grant vetted researchers access to their internal data (Article 40(4)). Operationalising such access is challenging for at least two reasons. First, data access is only available for research on systemic risks affecting European citizens, a concept with high levels of legal uncertainty. Second, data access suffers from an inherent standoff problem. Researchers need to request specific data but are not in a position to know all internal data processed by VLOPs, who, in turn, expect data specificity for potential access. In light of these limitations, data access under the DSA remains a mystery. To contribute to the discussion of how Article 40 can be interpreted and applied, we provide a concrete illustration of what data access can look like in a real-world systemic risk case study. We focus on the 2024 Romanian presidential election interference incident, the first event of its kind to trigger systemic risk investigations by the European Commission. During the elections, one candidate is said to have benefited from TikTok algorithmic amplification through a complex dis- and misinformation campaign. By analysing this incident, we can comprehend election-related systemic risk to explore practical research tasks and compare necessary data with available TikTok data. In particular, we make two contributions: (i) we combine insights from law, computer science and platform governance to shed light on the complexities of studying systemic risks in the context of election interference, focusing on two relevant factors: platform manipulation and hidden advertising; and (ii) we provide practical insights into various categories of available data for the study of TikTok, based on platform documentation, data donations and the Research API.

https://dsa-observatory.eu/2025/06/02/dsa-audits-how-do-platforms-compare-on-influencer-marketing-disclosures/

Under the DSA, social media platforms must provide clear tools for influencers to disclose paid content. But how well do they meet this obligation—and how rigorously is compliance assessed? This post compares eight DSA audit reports on influencer marketing disclosures and finds striking inconsistencies in how audits were conducted, what was measured, and how “compliance” was defined. The findings raise broader concerns about audit transparency, platform-defined standards, and the need for clearer guidance on what adequate disclosure—and meaningful oversight—should look like.

https://doi.org/10.14763/2024.4.1814

Abstract

Social media platforms mediate and regulate how influencers engage in monetisation practices. In this social-legal paper we examine one form of monetisation, influencer marketing, to understand how platform policies and interfaces shape commercial content for influencers. We situate our inquiry of governance by platforms within the governance of platforms, by focusing on the legal obligation to disclose commercial content under European consumer law. Combining an analysis of platform documentation for Instagram, TikTok, Snap, and YouTube, with insights from a walkthrough of each platform, we present five findings. First, we explore the terminology used by platforms to refer to influencers. Second, we outline how platforms frame commercial content and situate business models of influencer marketing. Third, we analyse how platforms present the duty to disclose commercial content and assign responsibility for compliance. Fourth, we examine how platforms facilitate disclosure through their in-app tools. Finally, we look at the articulation regarding the moderation of undisclosed commercial content by platforms. Our analysis unveils tensions between the law (governance of platforms) and what platforms do (governance by platforms). Overall, as platforms hold significant power in shaping monetisation practices, we argue that enforcing influencers’ disclosure practices must be contextualised within the dynamics of platform governance.