Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Communication in the Age of Twitter: The Nature of Online Deliberation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Twitter, the Public Sphere, and the Chaos of Online Deliberation

Abstract

In the past decade, Twitter has become the space where politicians, activists, and regular citizens voice their opinions, seek out like-minded others, and spar with political opponents. The sociocultural impact of hashtags such as #MeToo and #BlackLivesmatter have led many scholars to take an optimistic approach regarding the nature and quality of communication that takes place on Twitter. At the same time, there is ample research that provides reason for caution when it comes to the role of Twitter in contemporary democracy. This book should be seen as a part of that scholarship. This chapter provides an overview of the various, often contradictory positions regarding Twitter’s potential for political communication, highlighting what questions still need answered to understand whether Twitter functions as a public sphere.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Al-Tahmazi, T. H. (2015). The pursuit of power in Iraqi political discourse: Unpacking the construction of sociopolitical communities on Facebook. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 10(2), 163–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arlt, D., Rauchfleisch, A., & Schäfer, M. (2019). Between fragmentation and dialogue. Twitter communities and political debate about the Swiss “Nuclear withdrawal initiative”. Environmental Communication, 13(4), 440–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett, J. (2014). Populism, social media and democratic strain. In C. Sandelind (Ed.), European populism and winning the immigration debate (pp. 99–116). Falun: Scandbook.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumgaertner, B. O., Tyson, R. C., & Krone, S. M. (2016). Opinion strength influences the spatial dynamics of opinion formation. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 40(4), 207–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S., & Foster, P. C. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management, 29(6), 991–1013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouvier, G. (2015). What is a discourse approach to twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other social media: Connecting with other academic fields. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 10(2), 149–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouvier, G. (2019). How journalists source trending social media feeds: A critical discourse perspective on twitter. Journalism Studies, 20(2), 212–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouvier, G. (2020, forthcoming). From ‘echo chambers’ to ‘chaos chambers’: Discursive coherence and contradiction in the #MeToo twitter feed. Critical Discourse Studies

    Google Scholar 

  • Brock, A. (2012). From the Blackhand side: Twitter as a cultural conversation. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 56(4), 529–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunner, E. (2017). Wild public networks and affective movements in China: Environmental activism, social media, and protest in Maoming. Journal of Communication, 67, 665–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruns, A., & Highfield, T. (2013). Political networks on twitter: Tweeting the Queensland state election. Information, Communication, & Society, 16(5), 667–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruns, A., Highfield, T., & Burgess, J. (2013). The Arab spring and social media audiences: English and Arabic twitter users and their networks. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(7), 871–898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, J., Foth, M., & Klaebe, H. (2006). Everyday creativity as civic engagement: A cultural citizenship view of new media. Paper presented at the Communication Policy & Research Forum, September 25–26, Sydney, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castells, M. (2015). Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the internet age. London: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carney, N. (2016). All lives matter but so does race: Black lives matter and the evolving role of social media. Humanity and Society, 40(2), 180–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, M. (2018). Networked counterpublics and discursive contestation in the agonistic public sphere: Political jamming a police force Facebook page. Asian Journal of Communication, 28(6), 561–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colleoni, E., Rozza, A., & Arvidsson, A. (2014). Echo chamber or public sphere? Predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in twitter using big data. Journal of Communication, 64, 317–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conover, M. D., Ratkiewicz, J., Gonçales, B., Flammmini, A., & Menczer, F. (2011). Political polarization on Twitter. Proceedings of the fifth international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creemers, R. (2017). Cyber China: Upgrading propaganda, public opinion work and social management for the twenty-first century. Journal of Contemporary China, 26(103), 85–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlberg, L. (2007). The internet, deliberative democracy, and power: Radicalizing the public sphere. International Journal of Media and Culture Politics, 3(1), 47–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlgren, P. (2018). Public sphere participation online: The ambiguities of affect. International Journal of Communication, 12, 2052–2070.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, V. R., & Brunner, E. (2019). Corporate social responsibility on wild public networks: Communicating to disparate and multivocal stakeholders. Management Communication Quarterly.https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318919884920.

  • Del Valle, M. E., & Borge Bravo, R. (2018). Echo chambers in parliamentary twitter networks: The Catalan case. International Journal of Communication, 12, 1715–1735.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, W. H. (2009). The fifth estate emerging through the network of networks. Prometheus: Critical Studies in Innovation, 27(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enli, G. (2015). Mediated authenticity: How the media constructs reality. New York: Peter Lang.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Enli, G. (2017a). New media and politics. Annals of the International Communication Association, 41(3–4), 220–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enli, G. (2017b). Twitter as arena for the authentic outsider: Exploring the social media campaigns of trump and Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. European Journal of Communication, 32(1), 50–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enli, G., & Simonsen, C. A. (2018). ‘Social media logic’ meets professional norms: Twitter hashtags usage by journalists and politicians. Information, Communication & Society, 8, 1081–1096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engesser, S., Ernst, N., Esser, F., & Büchel, F. (2016). Populism and social media; how politicians spread a fragmented ideology. Information, Communication & Society, 20(8), 1109–1126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Florini, S. (2019). Beyond hashtags: Racial politics and black digital networks. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Florini, S. (2014). Tweets, tweeps and signifyin’: Communication and cultural performance on ‘black twitter’. Television & New Media, 15(3), 223–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn, J. (2004). Communicative power in Habermas’s theory of democracy. European Journal of Political Theory, 3(4), 433–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foxman, A., & Wolf, C. (2013). Viral hate: Containing its spread on the internet. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, N. (1992). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 109–142). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, C. (2017). Donald Trump: A critical theory-perspective on authoritarian capitalism. TripleC, 15(1), 1–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gentleman, A. (2011, August 11). London riots: Social media helped gangs orchestrate the looting, says MP. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/11/riots-social-media-gang-culture

  • Gerbaudo, P. (2012). Tweets and the streets: Social media and contemporary activism. London: Pluto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, T., Broersma, M., Hazelhoff, K., & van ’t Haar, G. (2013). Between broadcasting political messages and interacting with voters: The use of twitter during the 2010 UK general election campaign. Information, Communication & Society, 16(5), 692–716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, T., Jackson, D., & Broersma, M. (2016). New platforms, old habits? Candidates’ use of twitter during the 2016 British and Dutch general election campaigns. New Media & Society, 18(5), 765–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerrero-Solé, F. (2018). Interactive behavior in political discussions on twitter: Politicians, media, and citizens’ patterns of interaction in the 2015 and 2016 electoral campaigns in Spain. Social Media + Society, 2018, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guo, L., Rohde, J. A., & Wu, D. (2018). Who is responsible for Twitter’s echo chamber problem? Evidence from 2016 U.S. election networks. Information, Communication, & Society. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1499793.

  • Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (2006). Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Communication Theory, 16, 411–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall Jamieson, K., & Cappella, J. N. (2008). Echo chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the conservative media establishment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heikkilä, N. (2017). Online antagonism of the alt-right in the 2016 election. European Journal of American Studies, 12(2), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hermida, A., Lewis, S. C., & Zamith, R. (2014). Sourcing the Arab spring: A case study of Andy Carvin’s sources on twitter during the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(3), 479–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huey, L. (2015). This is not your mother’s terrorism: Social media, online radicalization, and the practice of political jamming. Journal of Terrorism Research, 6(2), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Himelboim, I., Sweetser, K. D., Tinkham, S. F., Cameron, K., Danelo, M., & West, K. (2016). Valence-based homophily on twitter: Network analysis of emotions and political talk in the 2012 presidential election. New Media & Society, 18(7), 1382–1400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, L. S. (2013). Toward empathic agonism: Conflicting vulnerabilities in urban wetland governance. Environment and Planning, 45, 2344–2361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, K., & Spierings, N. (2018). A populist paradise? Examining populists’ twitter adoption and use. Information, Communication & Society, 22(12), 1681–1696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. J., Bailey, M., & Foucault Welles, B. (2020). #HashtagActivism: Networks of race and gender justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. J., & Banaszczyk, S. (2016). Digital standpoints: Debating gendered violence and racial exclusions in the feminist counterpublic. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 40(4), 391–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. J., & Foucault Welles, B. (2015). Hijacking #MyNYPD: Social media dissent and networked counterpublics. Journal of Communication, 65, 932–952. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, F. (2010). Digital activism in the Middle East: Mapping issues networks in Egypt, Iran, Syria and Tunisia. Knowledge Management for Development Journal, 6(1), 37–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kane, G. C., Alavi, M., Labianca, G. J., & Borgatti, S. P. (2014). What’s different about social media networks: A framework and research agenda. MIS Quarterly, 38(1), 274–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karpf, D. (2010). Online political mobilization from the advocacy’s group perspective: Looking beyond clicktivism. Policy & Internet, 2(4), 7–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J., & Kim, E. J. (2008). Theorizing dialogic deliberation: Everyday political talk as communicative action and dialogue. Communication Theory, 18, 51–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, A. (2019). From twitter to Charlottesville: Analyzing the fighting words between the alt-right and Antifa. International Journal of Communication, 13, 297–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreiss, D. (2016). Seizing the moment: The presidential campaigns’ use of twitter during the 2012 electoral cycle. New Media & Society, 18, 1473–1490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruse, L. M., Norris, D. R., & Flinchum, J. R. (2018). Social media as a public sphere? Politics on social media. The Sociological Quarterly, 59(1), 62–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krzyěanowski, M., & Ledin, P. (2017). Uncivility on the web: Populism in/and the borderline discourses of exclusion. Journal of Language and Politics, 16(4), 566–581.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuo, R. (2018). Racial justice activist hashtags: Counterpublics and discourse circulation. New Media & Society, 20(2), 495–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsson, A. O., & Ihlen, Ø. (2015). Birds of a feather flock together? Party leaders on twitter during the 2013 Norwegian elections. European Journal of Communication, 30, 666–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lilliker, D. G., & Jackson, N. (2010). Towards a more participatory style of election campaigning: The impact of web 2.0 on the UK 2010 general election. Policy & Internet, 3(4), 71–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, R. (2011). Liberation technology: China’s “networked authoritarianism”. Journal of Democracy, 22(2), 32–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuian, J. (2005). The cultural public sphere. European Journal of Culture Studies, 8, 427–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morozov, E. (2011). The net delusion: How not to liberate the world. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouffe, C. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Social Research, 66(3), 745–758.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouffe, C. (2000). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism. Political Science Series, 72, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, F., & Hermes, J. (2010). The performance of cultural citizenship: Audiences and the politics of multicultural television drama. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 27(2), 193–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neumayer, C., & Valtysson, B. (2013). Tweet against Nazis? Twitter, power, and networked publics in anti-fascist protests. MedieKultur, 29(55), 3–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ott, B. L. (2017). The age of twitter: Donald J. trump and the politics of debasement. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 34(1), 59–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Page, R. (2012). The linguistics of self-branding and micro-celebrity in twitter: The role of hashtags. Discourse & Communication, 6(2), 181–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papacharissi, Z. (2016). Affective publics and structure of storytelling: Sentiment, events and mediality. Information, Communication and Society, 19(3), 307–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papacharissi, Z. (2014). Affective publics: Sentiment, technology, and politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Paparachissi, Z. (2009). The virtual sphere 2.0: The internet, the public sphere, and beyond. In A. Chadwick & P. N. Howard (Eds.), Routledge handbook of internet politics (pp. 230–245). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papacharissi, Z., & de Fatima Oliveira, M. (2012). Affective news and networked publics: The rhythms of news storytelling on #Egypt. Journal of Communication, 62(2), 266–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the internet is hiding from you. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penney, J., & Dadas, C. (2013). (Re)tweeting in the service of protest: Digital composition and circulation in the Occupy Wall street movement. New Media & Society, 16(1), 74–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pew Research Center. (2018, July 10). Eight-in-ten Blacks say social media shed light on rarely discussed issues; the same share of whites say these issues distract from important issues. Pew Research Center.. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/07/11/public-attitudes-toward-political-engagement-on-social-media/pi_2018-07-10_social-activism_0-20/

  • Poell, T., & Borra, E. (2012). Twitter, YouTube, and Flickr as platforms of alternative journalism: The social media account of the 2010 Toronto G20 protests. Journalism, 13(6), 695–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poell, T., & van Dijck, J. (2015). Social media and activist communication. In C. Atton (Ed.), The Routledge companion to alternative and community media (pp. 527–537). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Postman, N. (1985). Amusing ourselves to death: Public discourse in the age of show business. New York: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rane, H., & Salem, S. (2012). Social media, social movements, and the diffusion of ideas in the Arab uprisings. Journal of International Communication, 18(1), 97–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rambukkana, N. (2015a). Hashtags as technosocial events. In N. Rambukkana (Ed.), Hashtag publics: The power and politics of discursive networks (pp. 1–10). New York: Peter Lang.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rambukkana, N. (2015b). From #RaceFail to #Ferguson: The digital intimacies of race-activist hashtag publics. The Fibreculture Journal, 26, 159–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ronzhyn, A. (2014). The use of Facebook and twitter during the 2013–2014 protests in Ukraine. In A. Rospigliosi (Ed.), Proceedings of the European conference on social media: ECSM 2014 (pp. 442–449). Curran Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, J. E. (2018). Constructing digital cultures: Tweets, trends, race, and gender. Lanham, MD: Lexington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schofield Clark, L. (2016). Participants on the margins: #BlackLivesMatter and the role that shared artifacts of engagement played among minoritized political newcomers on snapchat, Facebook, and twitter. International Journal of Communication, 10, 235–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siapera, E., Hunt, G., & Lynn, T. (2015). #Gazaunderattack: Twitter, Palestine and diffused war. Information, Communication & Society, 18, 1297–1319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sills, S., Pickens, C., Beach, K., Jones, L., Calder-Dawe, O., Benton-Greig, P., & Gavey, N. (2016). Rape culture and social media: Young critics and a feminist counterpublic. Feminist Media Studies, 16(6), 935–951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stieglitz, S., & Dang-Xuan, L. (2013). Emotions and information diffusion in social media—Sentiment of microblogs and sharing behavior. Journal of Management Information Systems, 29(4), 217–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Theocharis, Y., Barberá, P., Fazekas, Z., Popa, S. A., & Parnet, O. (2016). A bad workman blames his tweets: The consequences of citizens’ uncivil twitter use when interacting with party candidates. Journal of Communication, 66, 1007–1031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tromble, R. (2018). Thanks for (actually) responding! How citizens’ demand shapes politicians’ interactive practices on twitter. New Media & Society, 20(2), 676–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tufekci, Z. (2017). Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Laer, J., & Van Aelst, P. (2010). Internet and social movement action repertoires. Opportunities and limitations. Information, Communication & Society, 13(8), 1146–1171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (2018). The emotional architecture of social media. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A networked self and platforms, stories, connections (pp. 77–93). New York: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C., Zhou, Z., Jin, X.-L., Fang, Y., & Lee, M. O. (2017). The influence of affective cues on positive emotion in predicting instant information sharing on microblogs: Gender as a moderator. Information Processing and Management, 53(3), 721–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, G. (2014). Internet activism and the party-state in China. Daedalus, 143(2), 110–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. J., Trilling, D., Möller, J., Bodó, B., de Vreese, C., & Helberger, N. (2016). Should we worry about filter bubbles? Internet Policy Review, 5(1), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. English Department, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China

    Gwen Bouvier

  2. Department of Communication and Journalism, University of Maine, Orono, ME, USA

    Judith E. Rosenbaum

Authors
  1. Gwen Bouvier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Judith E. Rosenbaum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gwen Bouvier .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. English Department, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China

    Gwen Bouvier

  2. Department of Communication and Journalism, University of Maine, Orono, ME, USA

    Judith E. Rosenbaum

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Bouvier, G., Rosenbaum, J.E. (2020). Communication in the Age of Twitter: The Nature of Online Deliberation. In: Bouvier, G., Rosenbaum, J.E. (eds) Twitter, the Public Sphere, and the Chaos of Online Deliberation. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41421-4_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation