1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Sociology
  4. Volume 50, 2024
  5. Article

Annual Review of Sociology

Volume 50, 2024

Sociology of Twitter/X: Trends, Challenges, and Future Research Directions

Abstract

This article provides a sociology of Twitter (now known as X) and charts the development of the study of the platform and its data in sociological venues through an analysis of 1,644 articles published since 2009. This review helps readers understand developments in the field and provides a road map for advancing future Twitter-related sociological research. The works cited in this review advance sociological research on a variety of subfields, including but not limited to race, social movements, segregation, politics, violence, and stratification. After a brief introduction of definitions as well as methodological approaches used to study the platform (computational, qualitative, and mixed), I explore how Twitter has been used in sociological research. Furthermore, using social movements and activism as a case study, I highlight what the platform's usage and communication reveal about the social world. I conclude with a road map for advancing Twitter-related sociological research in the current atmosphere in which Twitter has been renamed X. Ultimately, a sociology of Twitter does not need to be tethered to the platform per se, as it also provides a framework for understanding new platforms if they become home for what people previously posted to Twitter/X.

Keyword(s): computational social science, Internet, platform accountability, social media, social movements, Twitter, X
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-031021-035658
2024-08-12
2025-04-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/soc/50/1/annurev-soc-031021-035658.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-031021-035658&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abdul Reda A, Sinanoglu S, Abdalla M. 2024.. Mobilizing the masses: measuring resource mobilization on Twitter. . Sociol. Methods Res. 53::153–92
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  2. Abdur-Rahman N. 2023.. What's next for Black Twitter as Elon Musk rebrands to ‘X’?. Black Enterp., July 25. https://www.blackenterprise.com/black-twitter-x/
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Alexandre I, Jai-sung Yoo J, Murthy D. 2022.. Make tweets great again: Who are opinion leaders, and what did they tweet about Donald Trump?. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 40::1456–77
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  4. Alizadeh M, Gilardi F, Hoes E, Klüser KJ, Kubli M, Marchal N. 2022.. Content moderation as a political issue: the Twitter discourse around Trump's ban. . J. Quant. Descr. Digit. Media 2:. https://doi.org/10.51685/jqd.2022.023
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Anber H, Salah A, Abd El-Aziz AA. 2016.. A literature review on Twitter data analysis. . Int. J. Comput. Electr. Eng. 8::241–49
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  6. Arceneaux N, Schmitz Weiss A. 2010.. Seems stupid until you try it: press coverage of Twitter, 2006–9. . New Media Soc. 12::1262–79
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  7. Asgari-Chenaghlu M, Feizi-Derakhshi M-R, Farzinvash L, Balafar M-A, Motamed C. 2021.. Topic detection and tracking techniques on Twitter: a systematic review. . Complexity 2021::8833084
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  8. Barisione M, Michailidou A, Airoldi M. 2019.. Understanding a digital movement of opinion: the case of #RefugeesWelcome. . Inf. Commun. Soc. 22::1145–64
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  9. Barnard SR. 2016.. ‘Tweet or be sacked’: Twitter and the new elements of journalistic practice. . Journalism 17::190–207
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  10. Barrie C. 2023.. Did the Musk takeover boost contentious actors on Twitter?. Harvard Kennedy Sch. Misinf. Rev. 4:(4). https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-122
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bennett WL, Livingston S. 2018.. The disinformation order: disruptive communication and the decline of democratic institutions. . Eur. J. Commun. 33::122–39
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  12. Blank G. 2017.. The digital divide among Twitter users and its implications for social research. . Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 35::679–97
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  13. Bouvier G, Machin D. 2021.. What gets lost in Twitter ‘cancel culture’ hashtags? Calling out racists reveals some limitations of social justice campaigns. . Discourse Soc. 32::307–27
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  14. boyd d, Crawford K. 2012.. Critical questions for big data: provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. . Inf. Commun. Soc. 15::662–79
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  15. Bundon A, Hurd Clarke L. 2015.. Unless you go online you are on your own: blogging as a bridge in para-sport. . Disabil. Soc. 30::185–98
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  16. Burgess J, Baym NK. 2022.. Twitter: A Biography. New York:: NYU Press
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Burrows R, Savage M. 2014.. After the crisis? Big data and the methodological challenges of empirical sociology. . Big Data Soc. 1:. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951714540280
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  18. Caliskan O. 2021.. Digital pride on the streets of the Internet: Facebook and Twitter practices of the LGBTI movement in Turkey. . Sex. Cult. 25::1447–68
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  19. Cameron J, Geidner N. 2014.. Something old, something new, something borrowed from something blue: experiments on dual viewing TV and Twitter. . J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 58::400–19
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  20. Carney N. 2016.. All lives matter, but so does race: Black Lives Matter and the evolving role of social media. . Humanit. Soc. 40::180–99
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  21. Chaudhry I. 2015.. #Hashtagging hate: using Twitter to track racism online. . First Monday 20:(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v20i2.5450
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Chretien KC, Tuck MG, Simon M, Singh LO, Kind T. 2015.. A digital ethnography of medical students who use Twitter for professional development. . J. Gen. Intern. Med. 30::1673–80
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  23. Chung W-T, Lin Y-R, Li A, Ertugrul AM, Yan M. 2018.. March with and without feet: the talking about protests and beyond. . In Social Informatics. SocInfo 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 11185, ed. S Staab, O Koltsova, D Ignatov , pp. 134–50. Cham, Switz.:: Springer Int
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Clark MD. 2020.. DRAG THEM: a brief etymology of so-called “cancel culture. .” Commun. Public 5::88–92
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  25. Clayton J, McCallum S. 2023.. Elon Musk and X a year on: four problems he needs to fix. . BBC News, Oct. 26. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-67226795
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Cohen R, Kennedy P. 2017.. Global Sociology. New York:: Bloomsbury
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Colleoni E, Rozza A, Arvidsson A. 2014.. Echo chamber or public sphere? Predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in Twitter using big data. . J. Commun. 64::317–32
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  28. Cornelissen G, Karelaia N, Soyer E. 2013.. Clicktivism or slacktivism? Impression management and moral licensing. . Eur. Adv. Consum. Res. 10::22444
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Corradi F. 2020.. Assessing the quality of argumentation in digital public spheres: a case study from Twitter @debatingeurope. . Sociol. Ital. 2020:(15):39–63
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Counts A. 2023.. Twitter, ‘X’ and Musk's bid for the ‘everything app. ’. Washington Post, Oct. 31. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/10/31/musk-and-twitter-one-year-on-x-rebrand-and-elon-s-everything-app/db9ab4d6-77f5-11ee-97dd-7a173b1bd730_story.html
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Ćurlin T, Jaković B, Miloloža I. 2019.. Twitter usage in tourism: literature review. . Bus. Syst. Res. J. 10::102–19
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  32. de Keulenaar E, Magalhães JC, Ganesh B. 2023.. Modulating moderation: a history of objectionability in Twitter moderation practices. . J. Commun. 73::273–87
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  33. Dobrin D. 2020.. The hashtag in digital activism: a cultural revolution. . J. Cult. Anal. Soc. Change 5::3
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  34. Durkheim E. 1997.. The Division of Labor in Society. New York:: Simon and Schuster Free Press
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Edwards A, Housley W, Williams M, Sloan L, Williams M. 2013.. Digital social research, social media and the sociological imagination: surrogacy, augmentation and re-orientation. . Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 16::245–60
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  36. Exley B, Pendergast D, Hoyte F. 2022.. Social discourses on the teacher performance assessment: media tales, Twitter tweets and leadership surveys. . Aust. J. Teach. Educ. 47:. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2022v47n1.1
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Farzan Y. 2022.. What will happen next for Black Twitter?. Guardian, Nov. 30. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/nov/30/future-black-twitter-elon-musk-takeover
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Flamino J, Galeazzi A, Feldman S, Macy MW, Cross B, et al. 2023.. Political polarization of news media and influencers on Twitter in the 2016 and 2020 US presidential elections. . Nat. Hum. Behav. 7::904–16
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Flores RD. 2017.. Do anti-immigrant laws shape public sentiment? A study of Arizona's SB 1070 using Twitter data. . Am. J. Sociol. 123::333–84
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  40. Gamson WA, Sifry ML. 2013.. The #Occupy movement: an introduction. . Sociol. Q. 54::159–63
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  41. Gautam U, Das P. 2023.. Twitter-generated moral panic and its effect on pretrial incarceration/bail: contextualizing the tale of ‘folk devil’ Aryan Khan. . J. Victimol. Victim Justice 6::108–24
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  42. Gerbaudo P. 2012.. Tweets and the Streets: Social Media and Contemporary Activism. London:: Pluto Press
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Giachanou A, Crestani F. 2016.. Like it or not: a survey of Twitter sentiment analysis methods. . ACM Comput. Surv. 49::1–41
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  44. Goanta C. 2023.. Content monetization on Twitter: a study of platform documentation and transatlantic legal implications. TTLF Work. Pap. 103 , Stanford-Vienna Transatl. Technol. Forum, Stanford, CA:. https://law.stanford.edu/publications/no-103-content-monetization-on-twitter-a-study-of-platform-documentation-and-transatlantic-legal-implications/
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Greve HR, Rao H, Vicinanza P, Zhou EY. 2022.. Online conspiracy groups: micro-bloggers, bots, and coronavirus conspiracy talk on Twitter. . Am. Sociol. Rev. 87::919–49
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  46. Gross AJ, Murthy D, Varshney LR. 2017.. Pace of life in cities and the emergence of town tweeters. . SAGE Open 7:. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017745113
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Gruzd A, Wellman B, Takhteyev Y. 2011.. Imagining Twitter as an imagined community. . Am. Behav. Sci. 55::1294–318
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  48. Halavais A. 2015.. Bigger sociological imaginations: framing big social data theory and methods. . Inf. Commun. Soc. 18::583–94
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  49. He Y, Tsvetkova M. 2023.. A method for estimating individual socioeconomic status of Twitter users. . Sociol. Methods Res. In press. https://doi.org/10.1177/00491241231168665
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Hickey D, Schmitz M, Fessler D, Smaldino PE, Muric G, Burghardt K. 2023.. Auditing Elon Musk's impact on hate speech and bots. . In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, ed. Y-R Lin, M Cha, D Quercia , pp. 1133–37. Palo Alto, CA:: AAAI Press
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Himelboim I, McCreery S, Smith M. 2013.. Birds of a feather tweet together: integrating network and content analyses to examine cross-ideology exposure on Twitter. . J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 18::40–60
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  52. Inara Rodis PdC. 2021.. Let's (re)tweet about racism and sexism: responses to cyber aggression toward Black and Asian women. . Inf. Commun. Soc. 24::2153–73
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  53. Jackson SJ, Bailey M, Foucault Welles B. 2020.. #HashtagActivism: Networks of Race and Gender Justice. Cambridge, MA:: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Jungherr A. 2014.. Twitter in politics: a comprehensive literature review. SSRN Work. Pap. 2402443. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2402443
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Jungherr A. 2016.. Twitter use in election campaigns: a systematic literature review. . J. Inf. Technol. Politics 13::72–91
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  56. Karami A, Lundy M, Webb F, Dwivedi YK. 2020.. Twitter and research: a systematic literature review through text mining. . IEEE Access 8::67698–717
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  57. Karamshuk D, Shaw F, Brownlie J, Sastry N. 2017.. Bridging big data and qualitative methods in the social sciences: a case study of Twitter responses to high profile deaths by suicide. . Online Soc. Netw. Media 1::33–43
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  58. Kejriwal M, Wang Q, Li H, Wang L. 2021.. An empirical study of emoji usage on Twitter in linguistic and national contexts. . Online Soc. Netw. Media 24::100149
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  59. Kirkwood S, Cree V, Winterstein D, Nuttgens A, Sneddon J. 2018.. Encountering #feminism on Twitter: reflections on a research collaboration between social scientists and computer scientists. . Sociol. Res. Online 23::763–79
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  60. Kmetty Z, Koltai J, Bokányi E, Bozsonyi K. 2017.. Seasonality pattern of suicides in the US—a comparative analysis of a Twitter based bad-mood index and committed suicides. . Intersect. East Eur. J. Soc. Politics 3::56–75
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Krotov V, Johnson L. 2023.. Big web data: challenges related to data, technology, legality, and ethics. . Bus. Horiz. 66::481–91
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  62. Kumar A, Jaiswal A. 2020.. Systematic literature review of sentiment analysis on Twitter using soft computing techniques. . Concurr. Comput. Pract. Exp. 32::e5107
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  63. Kwak H, Lee C, Park H, Moon S. 2010.. What is Twitter, a social network or a news media?. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web, ed. M Rappa, P Jones, J Freire, S Chakrabarti , pp. 591–600. New York:: ACM
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Levy BL, Phillips NE, Sampson RJ. 2020.. Triple disadvantage: neighborhood networks of everyday urban mobility and violence in U.S. cities. . Am. Sociol. Rev. 85::925–56
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  65. Liang H, Shen F, Fu K-W. 2017.. Privacy protection and self-disclosure across societies: a study of global Twitter users. . New Media Soc. 19::1476–97
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  66. Logan K. 2014.. Why isn't everyone doing it? A comparison of antecedents to following brands on Twitter and Facebook. . J. Interact. Advert. 14::60–72
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  67. Marres N. 2017.. Digital Sociology: The Reinvention of Social Research. Hoboken, NJ:: Wiley
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Martínez-Rojas M, Pardo-Ferreira MdC, Rubio-Romero JC. 2018.. Twitter as a tool for the management and analysis of emergency situations: a systematic literature review. . Int. J. Inf. Manag. 43::196–208
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  69. Marwick AE. 2013.. Ethnographic and qualitative research on Twitter. . See Weller et al. 2013 , pp. 109–21
  70. Matsilele T, Ruhanya P. 2021.. Social media dissidence and activist resistance in Zimbabwe. . Media Cult. Soc. 43::381–94
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  71. Matuszewski P, Szabó G. 2019.. Are echo chambers based on partisanship? Twitter and political polarity in Poland and Hungary. . Soc. Media + Soc. 5:. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119837671
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  72. McCormick TH, Lee H, Cesare N, Shojaie A, Spiro ES. 2017.. Using Twitter for demographic and social science research: tools for data collection and processing. . Sociol. Methods Res. 46::390–421
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  73. Mejova Y, Weber I, Macy MW, eds. 2015.. Twitter: A Digital Socioscope. Cambridge, UK:: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Mercea D, Yilmaz KE. 2018.. Movement social learning on Twitter: the case of the People's Assembly. . Sociol. Rev. 66::20–40
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  75. Merton RK. 1934.. Durkheim's Division of Labor in Society. . Am. J. Sociol. 40::319–28
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  76. Merton RK. 1972.. Insiders and outsiders: a chapter in the sociology of knowledge. . Am. J. Sociol. 78::9–47
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  77. Mocanu D, Baronchelli A, Perra N, Gonçalves B, Zhang Q, Vespignani A. 2013.. The Twitter of Babel: mapping world languages through microblogging platforms. . PLOS ONE 8::e61981
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  78. Murtagh F, Pianosi M, Bull R. 2016.. Semantic mapping of discourse and activity, using Habermas's theory of communicative action to analyze process. . Qual. Quant. 50::1675–94
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  79. Murthy D. 2008.. Digital ethnography: an examination of the use of new technologies for social research. . Sociology 42::837–55
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  80. Murthy D. 2012.. Towards a sociological understanding of social media: theorizing Twitter. . Sociology 46::1059–73
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  81. Murthy D. 2013.. Twitter: Social Communication in the Twitter Age. Cambridge, UK:: Polity Press. , 1st ed.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Murthy D. 2016.. Critically engaging with social media research methods. . In An End to the Crisis of Empirical Sociology? Trends and Challenges in Social Research, ed. L McKie, L Ryan , pp. 81–98. London:: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Murthy D. 2018.. Twitter: Social Communication in the Twitter Age. Cambridge, UK:: Polity Press. , 2nd ed.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Murthy D. 2022.. Coding Twitter data using qualitative and computational methods: a mixed methods framework. . In The SAGE Handbook of Social Media Research Methods, ed. A Quan-Haase, L Sloan , pp. 533–45. London, UK:
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Murthy D, Gross A, Pensavalle A. 2016.. Urban social media demographics: an exploration of Twitter use in major American cities. . J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 21::33–49
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  86. Murthy D, O'Brien JD, Gross A, Meyers N. 2021.. Variations in the temporal structure of sociability across American cities. . Sociology 55::30–55
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  87. Newburn T. 2015.. The 2011 England riots in recent historical perspective. . Br. J. Criminol. 55::39–64
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  88. Ng E. 2022.. Cancel Culture: A Critical Analysis. Cham, Switz:.: Springer Int.
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Nguyen QC, McCullough M, Meng H-W, Paul D, Li D, et al. 2017.. Geotagged US tweets as predictors of county-level health outcomes, 2015–2016. . Am. J. Public Health 107::1776–82
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  90. Nummi J, Jennings C, Feagin J. 2019.. #BlackLivesMatter: innovative Black resistance. . Sociol. Forum 34::1042–64
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  91. O'Kane C. 2023.. In his first tweet in more than two years, Trump shares his mugshot on X. . CBS News, Aug. 25. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-mug-shot-tweet-twitter-x-return/
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Pagolu VS, Reddy KN, Panda G, Majhi B. 2016.. Sentiment analysis of Twitter data for predicting stock market movements. . In International Conference on Signal Processing, Communication, Power and Embedded System (SCOPES), Paralakhemundi, India, 2016, pp. 1345–50. New York:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Patton DU, Lane J, Leonard P, Macbeth J, Smith Lee JR. 2017.. Gang violence on the digital street: case study of a South Side Chicago gang member's Twitter communication. . New Media Soc. 19::1000–18
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  94. Pavalanathan U, Eisenstein J. 2015.. Confounds and consequences in geotagged Twitter data. . In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, ed. L Màrquez, C Callison-Burch, J Su , pp. 2138–48. Lisbon, Port.:: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Pavan E. 2013.. Collective action and Web 2.0. An exploratory network analysis of Twitter use during campaigns. . Sociologica 3:. https://www.rivisteweb.it/doi/10.2383/75766
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Pecionchin M, Usman M. 2015.. Data mining Twitter to predict stock market movements. . Econ. Sociol. 2015:(1):105–12
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Pegoraro A, Kumari K, Fereidooni H, Sadeghi A-R. 2023.. To ChatGPT, or not to ChatGPT: That is the question!. arXiv:2304.01487 [cs.LG]
  98. Perez S. 2023.. X saw weekly active users and rankings drop post rebrand, but Twitter Lite installs grew. . TechCrunch, Aug. 28. https://techcrunch.com/2023/08/28/x-saw-weekly-active-users-and-rankings-drop-post-rebrand-but-twitter-lite-installs-grew/
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Perry SL. 2022.. American religion in the era of increasing polarization. . Annu. Rev. Sociol. 48::87–107
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  100. Phillips NE, Levy BL, Sampson RJ, Small ML, Wang RQ. 2021.. The social integration of American cities: network measures of connectedness based on everyday mobility across neighborhoods. . Sociol. Methods Res. 50::1110–49
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  101. Poell T, Darmoni K. 2012.. Twitter as a multilingual space: the articulation of the Tunisian revolution through #sidibouzid. . NECSUS 1::14–34
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Pond P, Lewis J. 2019.. Riots and Twitter: connective politics, social media and framing discourses in the digital public sphere. . Inf. Commun. Soc. 22::213–31
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  103. Pyrhönen N, Bauvois G. 2020.. Conspiracies beyond fake news. Produsing reinformation on presidential elections in the transnational hybrid media system. . Sociol. Inq. 90::705–31
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  104. Rane H, Salem S. 2012.. Social media, social movements and the diffusion of ideas in the Arab uprisings. . J. Int. Commun. 18::97–111
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  105. Ray R, Brown M, Fraistat N, Summers E. 2017.. Ferguson and the death of Michael Brown on Twitter: #BlackLivesMatter, #TCOT, and the evolution of collective identities. . Ethn. Racial Stud. 40::1797–813
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  106. Rogers R. 2013.. Debanalizing Twitter: the transformation of an object of study. . In WebSci ’13: Proceedings of the 5th Annual ACM Web Science Conference, Paris, France, pp. 356–65. New York:: Assoc. Comput. Mach. https://doi.org/10.1145/2464464.2464511
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Rohlinger DA, Williams C, Teek M. 2020.. From “thank god for helping this person” to “libtards really jumped the shark”: opinion leaders and (in)civility in the wake of school shootings. . New Media Soc. 22::1004–25
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  108. Ruiu ML, Ragnedda M. 2022.. Between online and offline solidarity: lessons learned from the coronavirus outbreak in Italy. . Am. Behav. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642221132177
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Şahin O, Johnson R, Korkut U. 2021.. Policy-making by tweets: discursive governance, populism, and Trump presidency. . Contemp. Politics 27::591–610
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  110. Sailofsky D. 2022.. Masculinity, cancel culture and woke capitalism: exploring Twitter response to Brendan Leipsic's leaked conversation. . Int. Rev. Sociol. Sport 57::734–57
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  111. Schmierbach M. 2023.. Why we broke up with X (and you should too). . Mass Commun. Soc. 26::909–12
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  112. Schwartz M. 2008.. The trolls among us. . New York Times, Aug. 3. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-t.html
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Sharma S. 2013.. Black Twitter? Racial hashtags, networks and contagion. . New Form. 78::46–64
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  114. Siddiqui F. 2023.. Elon Musk says he has a new C.E.O. for Twitter. . Washington Post, May 11. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/11/technology/elon-musk-ceo-twitter.html
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Sinnenberg L, Buttenheim AM, Padrez K, Mancheno C, Ungar L, Merchant RM. 2017.. Twitter as a tool for health research: a systematic review. . Am. J. Public Health 107::e1–8
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  116. Sloan L, Morgan J, Burnap P, Williams M. 2015.. Who tweets? Deriving the demographic characteristics of age, occupation and social class from Twitter user meta-data. . PLOS ONE 10::e0115545
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  117. Smit A, Bosch T. 2020.. Television and Black Twitter in South Africa: Our Perfect Wedding. . Media Cult. Soc. 42::1512–27
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  118. Sprejer L, Margetts H, Oliveira K, O'Sullivan D, Vidgen B. 2021.. An influencer-based approach to understanding radical right viral tweets. . arXiv:2109.07588 [cs.SI]
  119. Statham S, Ringrow H. 2022.. ‘Wrap our arms around them here in Ireland’: social media campaigns in the Irish abortion referendum. . Discourse Soc. 33::539–57
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  120. Stephens M, Poorthuis A. 2015.. Follow thy neighbor: connecting the social and the spatial networks on Twitter. . Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 53::87–95
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  121. Stewart B. 2022.. Twitter as method: using Twitter as a tool to conduct ethnographic research. . In The SAGE Handbook of Social Media Research Methods, ed. A Quan-Haase, L Sloan , pp. 200–13. London, UK:: Sage
     [Google Scholar]
  122. Talip BHA, Narayan B, Edwards SL, Watson J. 2016.. Digital ethnography as a way to explore information grounds on Twitter. . Qual. Quant. Methods Libr. 5::89–105
     [Google Scholar]
  123. Tandoc EC Jr., Tan Hui Ru B, Lee Huei G, Min Qi Charlyn N, Chua RA, Goh ZH. 2024.. #CancelCulture: examining definitions and motivations. . New Media Soc. 26::194462
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  124. Tiffany K. 2023.. Twitter was the ultimate cancellation machine. . Atlantic, Jan. 9. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/01/twitter-cancel-culture-hashtags/672684/
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Törnberg P. 2023.. ChatGPT-4 outperforms experts and crowd workers in annotating political Twitter messages with zero-shot learning. . arXiv:2304.06588 [cs.CL]
  126. Tufekci Z, Wilson C. 2012.. Social media and the decision to participate in political protest: observations from Tahrir Square. . J. Commun. 62::363–79
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  127. Valero MV. 2023.. Thousands of scientists are cutting back on Twitter, seeding angst and uncertainty. . Nature 620::482–84
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  128. Vallance C. 2023.. X, formerly Twitter, to collect biometric and employment data. . BBC News, Sept. 1. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-66679922
    [Google Scholar]
  129. van Haperen S, Nicholls W, Uitermark J. 2018.. Building protest online: engagement with the digitally networked #not1more protest campaign on Twitter. . Soc. Mov. Stud. 17::408–23
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  130. Wang Q, Phillips NE, Small ML, Sampson RJ. 2018.. Urban mobility and neighborhood isolation in America's 50 largest cities. . PNAS 115::7735–40
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  131. Weller K. 2014.. What do we get from Twitter - and what not? A close look at Twitter research in the social sciences. . Knowl. Organ. 41::1–15
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  132. Weller K, Bruns A, Burgess J, Mahrt M, Puschmann C, eds. 2013.. Twitter and Society. New York:: Peter Lang
     [Google Scholar]
  133. Wielk E, Standlee A. 2021.. Fighting for their future: an exploratory study of online community building in the youth climate change movement. . Qual. Sociol. Rev. 17::22–37
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  134. Workneh TW. 2021.. Social media, protest, & outrage communication in Ethiopia: toward fractured publics or pluralistic polity?. Inf. Commun. Soc. 24::309–28
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  135. Yang S, Quan-Haase A, Rannenberg K. 2017.. The changing public sphere on Twitter: network structure, elites and topics of the #righttobeforgotten. . New Media Soc. 19::1983–2002
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  136. Zhu Y, Zhang P, Haq E-U, Hui P, Tyson G. 2023.. Can ChatGPT reproduce human-generated labels? A study of social computing tasks. . arXiv:2304.10145 [cs.AI]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-031021-035658
Loading
Sociology of Twitter/X: Trends, Challenges, and Future Research Directions
Annual Review of Sociology 50, 169 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-031021-035658
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-031021-035658
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-031021-035658
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplemental Materials

  • Table and dataset of the top 50 venues and top cited articles

file format archive download ARCHIVE
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error