“Hashjacking” the Debate: Polarisation Strategies of Germany’s Political Far-Right on Twitter

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11864)


Twitter is a digital forum for political discourse. The emergence of phenomena like fake news and hate speech has shown that political discourse on micro-blogging can become strongly polarised by algorithmic enforcement of selective perception. Recent findings suggest that some political actors might employ strategies to actively facilitate polarisation on Twitter. With a network approach, we examine the case of the German far-right party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) and their potential use of a “hashjacking” strategy (The use of someone else’s hashtag in order to promote one’s own social media agenda.). Our findings suggest that right-wing politicians (and their supporters/retweeters) actively and effectively polarise the discourse not just by using their own party hashtags, but also by “hashjacking” the political party hashtags of other established parties. The results underline the necessity to understand the success of right-wing parties, online and in elections, not entirely as a result of external effects (e.g. migration), but as a direct consequence of their digital political communication strategy.


Hashtags Networks Political communication strategies 


  1. 1.
    Blondel, V.D., Guillaume, J.L., Lambiotte, R., Lefebvre, E.: Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. J. Stat. Mech: Theory Exp. 2008(10), P10008 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bode, L., Hanna, A., Yang, J., Shah, D.V.: Candidate networks, citizen clusters, and political expression: strategic hashtag use in the 2010 midterms. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 659(1), 149–165 (2015). Scholar
  3. 3.
    Colleoni, E., Rozza, A., Arvidsson, A.: Echo chamber or public sphere? predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in Twitter using big data. J. Commun. 64(2), 317–332 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Conover, M.D., Ratkiewicz, J., Francisco, M., Goncalves, B., Flammini, A., Menczer, F.: Political Polarization on Twitter, p. 8 (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dahlgren, P.: The Internet, public spheres, and political communication: dispersion and deliberation. Polit. Commun. 22(2), 147–162 (2005). Scholar
  6. 6.
    Engesser, S., Ernst, N., Esser, F., Büchel, F.: Populism and social media: how politicians spread a fragmented ideology. Inf. Commun. Soc. 20(8), 1109–1126 (2017). Scholar
  7. 7.
    Enli, G., Simonsen, C.A.: ‘Social media logic’ meets professional norms: Twitter hashtags usage by journalists and politicians. Inf. Commun. Soc. 21(8), 1081–1096 (2018). Scholar
  8. 8.
    Frees, B., Koch, W.: Internetnutzung: frequenz und vielfalt nehmen in allen altersgruppen zu. Media Perspektiven 9(2015), 366–377 (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grinberg, N., Joseph, K., Friedland, L., Swire-Thompson, B., Lazer, D.: Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Science 363(6425), 374–378 (2019). Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jacomy, M., Venturini, T., Heymann, S., Bastian, M.: ForceAtlas2, a continuous graph layout algorithm for handy network visualization designed for the Gephi software. PLoS ONE 9(6), e98679 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Keller, T.R., Klinger, U.: Social bots in election campaigns: theoretical, empirical, and methodological implications. Polit. Commun. 36(1), 171–189 (2019). Scholar
  12. 12.
    Krämer, B.: Populist online practices: the function of the Internet in right-wing populism. Infor. Commun. Soc. 20(9), 1293–1309 (2017). Scholar
  13. 13.
    Neuendorf, K.A.: The Content Analysis Guidebook. 2nd edn. SAGE, Los Angeles (2017)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stier, S., et al.: Systematically Monitoring Social Media: the case of the German federal election 2017. GESIS Papers 2018/4 (2018)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stier, S., Posch, L., Bleier, A., Strohmaier, M.: When populists become popular: comparing Facebook use by the right-wing movement Pegida and German political parties. Inf. Commun. Soc. 20(9), 1365–1388 (2017). Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hertie School of GovernanceBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Humboldt Institute for Internet and SocietyBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations