From Unicorn to Underdog—and Back Again? A Critical Sociology of Tumblr’s $1.1B-to-$3M Valuation Swing and the Political Economy of Platforms

Habib Ali

doi:10.65326/u7y566743

From Unicorn to Underdog—and Back Again? A Critical Sociology of Tumblr’s $1.1B-to-$3M Valuation Swing and the Political Economy of Platforms

Oct 28, 2025
16 min read

Updated: 4 days ago

Author: Habib Ali

ORCID iD: 0009-0008-9023-6098

Affiliation: Swiss International University (SIU)

Received 10 July 2025; Revised 25 August 2025; Accepted 1 September 2025; Available online 28 October 2025; Version of Record 28 October 2025.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.65326/u7y566742

Volume 2, December 2025, (10019)

Abstract

This article offers a critical-sociological analysis of Tumblr’s dramatic valuation shift—from a $1.1 billion acquisition in 2013 to a resale reportedly around $3 million in 2019—and asks what this episode reveals about platform strategy, cultural governance, and value creation in the digital economy. Integrating Bourdieu’s concepts of economic, cultural, social, and symbolic capital with institutional isomorphism and world-systems theory, the article argues that a platform’s financial worth is an emergent property of its governance credibility, multi-sided network effects, and the institutional field (advertisers, regulators, payment intermediaries) that conditions its business model. Using a qualitative case approach, the paper reconstructs key decisions and explores how policy shocks—particularly around content moderation—reallocate forms of capital within creator communities, influence cross-side network effects, and shape advertisers’ risk calculus. It derives a diagnostic framework for platform leaders and concludes by outlining an agenda for “governable growth,” interoperability, and diversified monetization that preserves subcultural distinctiveness while satisfying institutional constraints. The Tumblr case is mobilized not as a singular anomaly but as a prism to understand the recurrent tensions of the contemporary platform economy.

Keywords: platform strategy; network effects; creator economy; cultural capital; institutional isomorphism; world-systems; content moderation; interoperability

1. Introduction

Few episodes in the recent history of consumer internet firms compress the political economy of platforms as sharply as Tumblr. Acquired by Yahoo in 2013 for roughly $1.1 billion and resold to Automattic in 2019 for a figure widely reported to be a tiny fraction of that price, the platform traversed cultural ascent, a premium acquisition, and a steep valuation collapse within a few years (Pilipets & Paasonen, 2022; Sybert, 2022). The arc is analytically valuable precisely because Tumblr sat at the intersection of two domains governed by incompatible logics of value and visibility: subcultural fandom on the one hand and brand-sensitive advertising on the other. Its trajectory exposes the fragility of digital value when the tacit settlement among a platform, its creators, its advertisers, and the institutions that condition its business model begins to fray.

Scholarship on platforms has advanced rapidly along three tracks that rarely meet. A political-economy literature theorizes platformization and the contingent commodification of cultural production (Nieborg & Poell, 2018; Srnicek, 2017; Poell, Nieborg, & van Dijck, 2019). A governance literature analyzes content moderation, its automation, and the institutional pressures shaping platform rules (Gillespie, 2010; Gorwa, 2019; Gorwa, Binns, & Katzenbach, 2020). An economics-of-platforms literature models multi-sided markets and the network effects that link distinct user groups (Rochet & Tirole, 2003). These literatures are largely siloed: the political-economy and governance strands rarely specify how a moderation decision translates into a movement in enterprise value, while the market-design strand seldom incorporates cultural meaning or institutional legitimacy as determinants of that value. The result is a gap in explaining why a platform rich in users and cultural salience can lose almost all of its market worth after a single policy shift.

This article addresses that gap by treating platform valuation as a sociotechnical and institutional outcome rather than a function of installed user base. It integrates three lenses—Bourdieu’s (1986) forms of capital, institutional isomorphism (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983), and world-systems theory (Wallerstein, 1974)—with the economics of multi-sided markets, and uses the Tumblr case to trace the mechanisms connecting governance decisions to the reallocation of capital and, ultimately, to value. The argument develops three claims. First, valuation is a sociotechnical outcome: it rests as much on governance credibility and community identity as on conventional engagement metrics. Second, policy is product: on cultural platforms, content rules are not peripheral compliance measures but constitutive of the user experience and of creators’ identity investments (van Dijck, Poell, & de Waal, 2018). Third, institutional fields matter: advertising norms, payment standards, and regulatory cues determine what platforms can monetize and push them toward sameness, risking the loss of the subcultural distinctiveness that originally generated network effects.

The contribution is threefold. Theoretically, the article specifies how forms of capital, field-level pressures, and cross-side network effects jointly determine platform value, and it states this relationship as a set of testable propositions. Empirically, it offers a structured reconstruction of the Tumblr case that connects a documented moderation shock to value compression. Practically, it derives a diagnostic framework that platform leaders can use to anticipate and manage the legitimacy–distinctiveness trade-off.

2. Theoretical framework

The framework rests on a single premise: economic capital on a cultural platform is downstream of cultural, social, and symbolic capital, and the conversion among these forms is mediated by governance and by the institutional field. Four conceptual building blocks specify this premise.

2.1 Forms of capital on a platform

Bourdieu (1986) distinguishes economic, cultural, social, and symbolic capital, and treats them as convertible rather than independent. Translated to a platform, economic capital appears as revenue, take rates, and valuation; cultural capital resides in creators’ aesthetic literacies and the platform’s stylistic codes; social capital is the dense web of ties among creators, moderators, and communities that sustains retention; and symbolic capital reflects the prestige conferred by press, investors, and peers. The social-capital dimension is informed by Granovetter’s (1973) account of weak ties: the bridging connections that span otherwise separate clusters are precisely what allow a subculture to circulate content and recruit newcomers, so their disruption has consequences beyond the dyads involved. A content-policy shock redistributes these capitals. Narrowing permissible expression may raise symbolic capital with mainstream advertisers while depleting cultural and social capital in core communities; the net effect on economic capital depends on which capitals are actually anchoring cross-side network effects at that moment.

2.2 Institutional isomorphism and the cost of sameness

DiMaggio and Powell (1983) argue that organizations in a shared field converge under coercive, normative, and mimetic pressures. For cultural platforms, brand-safety expectations, payment-processor standards, and app-store policies operate as field-level constraints (Gorwa, 2019). Convergence toward the “safe” template appeases advertisers and intermediaries, but it also dissolves the distinctiveness that differentiated the platform in the first place. As sameness spreads, platforms compete on price and scale rather than identity and meaning—terrain on which larger incumbents with superior advertising technology and data hold the advantage. This yields a structural tension between legitimacy and distinctiveness that is central to the analysis below.

2.3 World-systems and platform dependency

World-systems theory (Wallerstein, 1974) models a stratified economy in which core actors set the terms that semi-peripheral and peripheral actors must accept. Mapped onto the platform ecosystem, global advertising networks, dominant app stores, and major payment companies function as core intermediaries; medium-scale platforms occupy a semi-peripheral position; and niche creator communities sit at the periphery (van Dijck, Nieborg, & Poell, 2019). The semi-peripheral platform lacks the bargaining power to challenge field norms, so when the core tightens brand-safety or payment expectations, the platform absorbs the adjustment cost while value extraction continues to favor the core. Dependency, not merely competition, becomes the operative condition.

2.4 Multi-sided markets and the contingent commodity

Platforms coordinate creators, audiences, and advertisers, and their value rests on cross-side network effects whereby growth on one side raises the platform’s worth to the others (Rochet & Tirole, 2003). These effects are counterbalanced by negative externalities such as moderation risk and unfavorable ad adjacency. Because the sides are interdependent, a shock to one side can cascade: if governance credibility falls, creators exit, audiences churn, and advertisers discount or withdraw. Nieborg and Poell (2018) add that cultural goods on platforms are contingent commodities, continuously reshaped by platform features, policies, and market arrangements; their value is therefore unusually sensitive to governance change. Combining these insights, valuation is best understood as an emergent property of capital configuration, network structure, and institutional position rather than a stock of users.

3. Research design and methods

The study employs a single-case, theory-building design. A single case is appropriate when the aim is to trace mechanisms—how a governance decision propagates through capital and network dynamics to affect value—rather than to estimate the frequency of an outcome across a population. Tumblr is a revelatory case for this purpose: it exhibits a large and well-documented valuation swing, a clearly datable policy shock, and a dependence on core advertising and distribution infrastructures, which together make the hypothesized mechanisms unusually observable. The case is treated not as an anomaly but as an analytically informative instance of recurring tensions in the platform economy.

The evidence base comprises publicly available, scholarly accounts of the platform’s key milestones and of user and advertiser responses to its 2018 adult-content policy. In particular, the reconstruction draws on peer-reviewed analyses of the ban and its aftermath (Pilipets & Paasonen, 2022; Sybert, 2022) and on the broader literatures on platform governance, platformization, and the creator economy (Cunningham & Craig, 2019; Duffy, Poell, & Nieborg, 2019; Gillespie, 2020; Poell, Nieborg, & Duffy, 2022). The analysis proceeds in three steps. First, the milestones are arranged into a compressed event sequence: premium acquisition, intensification of brand-safety governance and the adult-content ban, and resale at a sharply lower price. Second, each event is interpreted through the four theoretical lenses to identify which forms of capital moved and in which direction. Third, the recurring patterns are abstracted into propositions and consolidated into a diagnostic framework.

The scope and limits of this design should be stated plainly. The objective is analytic generalization to theory, not statistical generalization to a population of platforms. The study reconstructs publicly known decisions and their interpretation in the literature; it does not claim privileged access to internal financial figures, and it treats the reported resale value as an order-of-magnitude indicator of value compression rather than as an audited figure. The contribution is therefore conceptual and interpretive, and the propositions below are offered as candidates for empirical testing rather than as established results.

4. The Tumblr case: a compressed history

Tumblr emerged as a hybrid of micro-blogging and image-led fandom culture: tag-driven, remix-friendly, and intensely subcultural. Its appeal lay less in raw reach than in resonance—creators could cultivate identity, vernacular, and communal rituals that accumulated cultural and social capital. Advertisers found that resonance attractive but also risky, because much of the platform’s distinctive content sat uneasily beside mainstream brand-safety norms. When tightening field expectations collided with Tumblr’s permissive reputation, leadership confronted a structural dilemma: converge toward institutional norms and risk alienating the base, or defend distinctiveness and risk advertiser and intermediary flight.

The decision in late 2018 to prohibit adult content functioned as a policy shock. Implemented rapidly and enforced in part through automated classification, it altered the platform’s value proposition to core creators and triggered visible resistance and migration (Pilipets & Paasonen, 2022; Sybert, 2022). While partly rational as an adaptation to a changing field, the move reduced differentiation relative to rivals with stronger advertising technology and scale, and it introduced uncertainty about future reversals. The subsequent resale at a low price captured a new equilibrium: persistent operating costs, lower monetization intensity, and diminished creator trust.

5. Analysis: capitals in motion

Reading the case through the four lenses shows the policy shock not as a discrete compliance event but as a redistribution of capital with cascading effects across the platform’s sides.

5.1 Cultural capital and the migration of vernaculars

Tumblr’s early power lay in its vernaculars: fandom tagging, remix and image cultures, and intimate parasocial circles. These were a form of embodied cultural capital, difficult to copy because they were lived rather than designed (Bourdieu, 1986). When the rules narrowed, some vernaculars lost their home; cultural capital did not vanish but migrated to other venues, underscoring that creators are agents rather than assets (Pilipets & Paasonen, 2022). The implication is that cultural capital is platform-portable, and that retaining it requires governance that is precise, proportionate, and predictable enough for subcultures to survive within guardrails.

5.2 Social capital and community cohesion

Creator communities are sustained by repeated interaction, mutual recognition, and shared moderation norms. Abrupt rule changes sever the bridging ties that connect clusters, fragmenting communities and eroding trust in the platform’s adjudication (Granovetter, 1973). In network terms, cluster cohesion weakens; in economic terms, retention curves flatten. The corollary is that social capital can absorb moderation shocks when communities trust the process: transparent appeals, labeling, and age-gating convert discontent into deliberation rather than exit.

5.3 Symbolic capital and the platform narrative

Investors, advertisers, and media circulate narratives about platforms. Tumblr once held a narrative of youth culture and creative experimentation; after the policy shock, the story recoded the platform as a risk-management problem rather than a creative frontier. The decline in symbolic capital narrowed strategic options, making partnerships, talent attraction, and brand leverage harder to secure. Symbolic capital is thus not public-relations gloss but an asset that conditions access to resources, and it is sustained by credible roadmaps rather than slogans (van Dijck, Poell, & de Waal, 2018).

5.4 Economic capital as emergent outcome

Valuation compresses when advertiser yield decays, operating costs persist, growth slows as creators churn, and strategic optionality contracts. Tumblr’s low resale price is consistent with a buyer’s discount for anticipated cash burn and uncertainty about renewed growth under changed rules. Read through the multi-sided lens, the user base alone did not translate into enterprise value once the capitals anchoring cross-side network effects had been disturbed (Nieborg & Poell, 2018; Rochet & Tirole, 2003).

5.5 Propositions

The patterns above can be stated as propositions for further testing:

Proposition 1. On a cultural platform, valuation is an emergent function of governance credibility and the configuration of cultural, social, and symbolic capital, rather than a linear function of the installed user base.

Proposition 2. A content-policy shock reallocates capital across creator communities; its net effect on economic capital depends on which capitals currently anchor cross-side network effects.

Proposition 3. Under coercive, normative, and mimetic pressure, cultural platforms converge on brand-safe templates that secure legitimacy but erode the subcultural distinctiveness underwriting differentiation (the legitimacy–distinctiveness trade-off).

Proposition 4. Semi-peripheral platforms dependent on core advertising and distribution infrastructures absorb the adjustment costs of field-level shocks, weakening the link between scale and captured value.

Proposition 5. The reversibility and procedural legitimacy of a moderation regime moderate the magnitude of capital flight following a policy shock.

Proposition 6. Interoperability raises platform value when economic relations—membership, payment, and reputation—travel with creators, and lowers it when only audiences are portable.

6. Institutional pressure and world-systemic dependency

The case illustrates institutional isomorphism in action. Under pressure from advertisers, payment intermediaries, and app-store policies, platforms converge on a template of brand-safe practices (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Gorwa, 2019). Such convergence can be rational at the level of field survival yet costly at the level of firm identity: Tumblr’s move toward stricter rules aligned it with dominant norms but pushed it into a competitive set where rivals enjoyed superior advertising technology, data, and scale. The managerial task is therefore not to resist field pressure outright but to translate it into platform-specific governance that preserves subcultural value while achieving compliance.

The world-systems lens clarifies why the adjustment fell on Tumblr rather than on its intermediaries. As a semi-peripheral actor, the platform had to absorb exogenous shocks—privacy changes, brand-safety edicts, payment-rule updates—without the bargaining power to renegotiate terms, so it scaled costs without commensurately scaling captured revenue (Wallerstein, 1974; van Dijck, Nieborg, & Poell, 2019). The structural lesson is that diversifying revenue toward subscriptions, tipping, and digital goods reduces dependence on core intermediaries, with each additional stream acting as a hedge against field shocks (Cunningham & Craig, 2019; Duffy, Poell, & Nieborg, 2019).

7. Governance as market design

Content moderation is often treated as a cost center, but on cultural platforms it is a form of market design: decisions about eligibility, visibility, and enforcement shape the attention economy and, with it, the configuration of capital (Gillespie, 2010). Three design principles follow from the analysis. Reversibility implies that policies should be tunable—through age-gates, cohort-based rules, and transparency reporting—so that the platform avoids all-or-nothing shocks. Participatory legitimacy implies that creator councils, structured appeals, and co-designed norms build compliance from within rather than imposing it from above. Granular adjacency implies that advertiser controls over keywords and contexts can preserve monetization for suitable inventory without erasing entire categories of cultural practice.

These principles also bear on the automation of moderation. Automated classification scales enforcement but struggles with the context and ambiguity that define subcultural content, so opaque or irreversible automated decisions are especially likely to accelerate the loss of trust and the migration of creators (Gillespie, 2020; Gorwa, Binns, & Katzenbach, 2020). Governance designed for reversibility and legitimacy is thus not only normatively preferable but also protective of value.

8. Interoperability and the political economy of migration

Interoperability—through open application programming interfaces, protocol bridges, or federation—reduces lock-in and lets creators move audiences and identity across services. For a semi-peripheral platform it is double-edged: it can revive cultural capital by widening distribution, yet it can also export value outward. The productive question is not whether to be open or closed but what value travels with creators. If memberships, tipping relationships, and reputation are portable, the platform participates in a larger ecosystem without becoming a commodity relay; if only audiences are portable, openness erodes the platform’s capture of value. The design goal, consistent with Proposition 6, is to make business models travel with content—through portable membership, protocol-level payments, or interoperable reputation—so that openness and monetization are aligned rather than opposed (Poell, Nieborg, & Duffy, 2022).

9. A diagnostic framework for platform turnarounds

The propositions translate into a diagnostic framework that leaders facing Tumblr-like conditions can use to locate the sources of fragility before a shock, and to structure a response after one. The framework is organized around seven dimensions, summarized in Table 1, that together map the conversion between cultural, social, and symbolic capital and economic capital.

Diagnostic dimension	Guiding questions
Policy credibility	Are content rules stable across time and across creator cohorts? Are enforcement and appeal pathways transparent? Is there structured creator input or independent oversight?
Cultural differentiation	Which subcultural vernaculars does the platform uniquely enable? Do product and policy changes protect those practices or flatten them?
Social fabric	Do recommendation systems reward niche depth as well as mass appeal? Are community and safety tools adequate to sustain cohesion under stress?
Monetization portfolio	Do at least two non-advertising revenue streams exist and pay out predictably? Are fees and settlement terms legible to creators?
Technical stability	Are migrations communicated with versioned roadmaps and test environments? Do data-export and APIs respect creator autonomy?
Institutional alignment	Can advertiser requirements be met through adjacency controls rather than category-wide bans? Are payment and policy dependencies mapped and hedged?
Narrative stewardship	Is there a publicly verifiable roadmap that communities can test against delivered milestones rather than rhetoric?

Note. Table 1 is an analytic instrument derived from the propositions in Section 5; the dimensions are interdependent rather than mutually exclusive, and the guiding questions are intended to surface, not to score, the conditions under which a governance decision is likely to compress or preserve value.

Applied counterfactually to Tumblr, the framework suggests a different path. Rather than a blanket prohibition, the platform might have combined age-graded visibility, creator-chosen labeling, and fine-grained advertiser adjacency, while launching paid communities, tipping, and digital goods so that audiences could underwrite creators. A creator council could have co-designed policy, and interoperability could have been framed as growth infrastructure rather than as leakage. Such a path would not have guaranteed a premium valuation, but it could have preserved cultural and social capital while decoupling economic capital from a single advertising-dependent revenue logic (Srnicek, 2017).

10. Discussion

The analysis makes a specific contribution to the political economy of platforms by connecting three literatures that usually operate apart. To the platformization debate, it adds a mechanism: it specifies how the contingent commodification of cultural goods (Nieborg & Poell, 2018; Poell, Nieborg, & Duffy, 2022) is mediated by the conversion among Bourdieusian capitals, so that a governance decision becomes legible as a movement in value rather than only as a normative controversy. To the platform-governance debate, it adds an economic consequence: where that literature analyzes how and why platforms set rules (Gillespie, 2010, 2020; Gorwa, 2019), the present account shows how the reversibility and legitimacy of those rules condition capital flight and therefore valuation, reframing moderation as market design rather than cost control. To the economics of multi-sided markets, it adds institutional and cultural content: the cross-side network effects modeled by Rochet and Tirole (2003) are shown to depend on culturally specific capitals and on a platform’s position within a stratified field (Wallerstein, 1974; van Dijck, Nieborg, & Poell, 2019), which helps explain why user counts can persist even as value collapses.

The argument also speaks to a standing debate about platform power and dependency. By situating Tumblr as a semi-peripheral actor that absorbs the adjustment costs imposed by core intermediaries, the analysis supports accounts that locate platform vulnerability in infrastructural and institutional dependence rather than in managerial error alone (Srnicek, 2017; Zuboff, 2019). At the same time, by foregrounding governance design and revenue diversification, it resists a purely structural reading: within the constraints of their field position, platforms retain consequential choices about how to translate field pressure into platform-specific rules and how to distribute value with their creator base (Cunningham & Craig, 2019; Duffy, Poell, & Nieborg, 2019). The propositions in Section 5 mark the points at which these competing emphases could be adjudicated empirically.

11. Limitations and future research

Three limitations bound the claims advanced here. First, the study is interpretive and single-case; it is designed for analytic generalization to theory and cannot establish the prevalence or average magnitude of the mechanisms it describes. Second, it relies on publicly available milestones and on scholarly reconstructions of the Tumblr episode rather than on internal financial or behavioral data, so the link between the policy shock and value compression is argued as a plausible mechanism rather than demonstrated as a causal estimate. Third, the propositions are framed for cultural platforms whose value depends heavily on subcultural distinctiveness; their applicability to platforms with weaker cultural specificity is an open question.

These limits indicate a research agenda. The propositions invite comparative and longitudinal designs—contrasting platforms that imposed abrupt bans with those that adopted reversible, tiered regimes—and quantitative work linking moderation events to retention, advertiser yield, and valuation where data permit. Network-analytic methods could operationalize the claim that bridging ties carry disproportionate weight in capital flight, and field-level studies could examine how payment and app-store intermediaries set the constraints that semi-peripheral platforms absorb. Finally, the interoperability proposition could be tested directly by comparing outcomes for platforms that make economic relations portable against those that make only audiences portable.

12. Conclusion

Tumblr’s valuation swing is best read as a lesson in the political economy of platforms rather than as an isolated failure. On a cultural platform, economic capital is downstream of cultural, social, and symbolic capital, and the conversion among them is governed by moderation design and conditioned by a stratified institutional field. The platforms that endure will not be those that most faithfully mimic field norms, but those that translate institutional pressure into a governable architecture—reversible, legitimate, and revenue-diversified—that protects subcultural distinctiveness while remaining compliant. The contribution of this article is to make that relationship explicit and testable: to show why governance credibility, and not user count alone, is the variable on which a cultural platform’s value ultimately turns.

References

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood Press.
Cunningham, S., & Craig, D. (2019). Creator governance in social media entertainment. Social Media + Society, 5(4), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119883428
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
Duffy, B. E., Poell, T., & Nieborg, D. B. (2019). Platform practices in the cultural industries: Creativity, labor, and citizenship. Social Media + Society, 5(4), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119879672
Gillespie, T. (2010). The politics of ‘platforms’. New Media & Society, 12(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809342738
Gillespie, T. (2020). Content moderation, AI, and the question of scale. Big Data & Society, 7(2), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951720943234
Gorwa, R. (2019). What is platform governance? Information, Communication & Society, 22(6), 854–871. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1573914
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), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951719897945
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469
Nieborg, D. B., & Poell, T. (2018). The platformization of cultural production: Theorizing the contingent cultural commodity. New Media & Society, 20(11), 4275–4292. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818769694
Pilipets, E., & Paasonen, S. (2022). Nipples, memes, and algorithmic failure: NSFW critique of Tumblr censorship. New Media & Society, 24(6), 1459–1480. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820979280
Poell, T., Nieborg, D., & van Dijck, J. (2019). Platformisation. Internet Policy Review, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.4.1425
Poell, T., Nieborg, D. B., & Duffy, B. E. (2022). Platforms and cultural production. Polity Press.
Rochet, J.-C., & Tirole, J. (2003). Platform competition in two-sided markets. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1(4), 990–1029. https://doi.org/10.1162/154247603322493212
Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. Polity Press.
Sybert, J. (2022). The demise of #NSFW: Contested platform governance and Tumblr’s 2018 adult content ban. New Media & Society, 24(10), 2311–2331. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444821996715
van Dijck, J., Nieborg, D., & Poell, T. (2019). Reframing platform power. Internet Policy Review, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.2.1414
van Dijck, J., Poell, T., & de Waal, M. (2018). The platform society: Public values in a connective world. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190889760.001.0001
Wallerstein, I. (1974). The modern world-system I: Capitalist agriculture and the origins of the European world-economy in the sixteenth century. Academic Press.
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.