Purpose This paper examines how the legitimacy of global tax governance emerges at the intersection of technocratic programmes (allocation formulas, transfer pricing rules, tariff schedules) and digital programmes (platform algorithms, engagement optimisation). We investigate why structurally similar governance reforms produce radically different visibility patterns on social media. We propose that these visibility patterns act as the empirically observable “shadow” of communication inputted into platforms as a precursor to establishing a programme as binding (legitimate). Design/methodology/approach Drawing on Luhmann’s systems theory, we analyse social media discourse surrounding three reform types: the OECD’s BEPS initiative, the US Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) and tariff policies across the Trump and Biden administrations. We collected 19,423 reform-specific posts from Facebook via the Meta Content Library (2013–October 2025) and developed a modular Python analytical framework to examine temporal patterns, actor composition and engagement metrics. Findings We identify three visibility configurations producing differentials spanning three orders of magnitude. Strategic opacity: BEPS generates 3.2 posts/month even during the “historic” G7/G20 breakthrough. Controlled visibility: TCJA spikes to 266.5 posts/month during legislative passage, then declines to 1.9 posts/month (a 99% decline). Mobilisation-dependent visibility: tariffs generate an average of 8.9 posts/month under Biden (dropping to 2.7 during the first year) vs 1,221 posts/month under Trump 2.0 (a 137× administration-level differential, peaking at 452×). These configurations reveal three distinct legitimation architectures – expert-consensus, democratic-authorisation and mobilisational. Originality/value We advance Luhmannian theory by proposing that massive empirical visibility differentials are structural traces of varying legitimation dynamics. By conceptualising dynamic structural coupling as a conversion mechanism that translates communication inputs into platform visibility, we illustrate how varying visibility configurations – from strategic opacity to continuous mobilisation – reflect the ongoing communicative operations needed to stabilise governance programmes, explaining why policy content and legal standing alone do not determine public circulation or political survival.
Godinez et al. (Wed,) studied this question.