Advertisement

Engaging with European Politics Through Twitter and Facebook: Participation Beyond the National?

  • Michael Bossetta
  • Anamaria Dutceac Segesten
  • Hans-Jörg Trenz
Part of the Palgrave Studies in European Political Sociology book series (PSEPS)

Abstract

Our chapter illustrates how citizens can enact varying styles and degrees of political engagement through social media. It also investigates if citizens engage with political content in ways unhindered by national boundaries. We distinguish between three primary types of content styles (factual, partisan and moral) and four degrees of engagement (making, commenting, diffusing and listening). Moreover, we argue that differences in Twitter and Facebook’s digital architectures encourage certain styles and degrees of engagement over others, and that the two social platforms sustain different levels of transnational activity. Supporting our argument with European cases, we suggest that Twitter is more suitable to fulfil social media’s transnational promise than Facebook, which is better adept at stimulating political participation.

Keywords

Political engagement Facebook Twitter Digital architectures Transnationalisation 

References

  1. Barberá, P., Jost, J.T., Nagler, J., Tucker, J.A. and Bonneau, R. (2015). Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber?. Psychological Science, doi:  10.1177/0956797615594620.
  2. Berg, M. (2014). Participatory trouble: Towards an understanding of algorithmic structures on Facebook. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 8(3), doi:  10.5817/CP2014-3-2.
  3. Boltanski, L. (1999). Distant Suffering: Morality, Media and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boulianne, S. (2009). Does internet use affect engagement? A meta-analysis of research. Political Communication, 26(2), pp. 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crawford, K. (2009). Following you: Disciplines of listening in social media. Continuum, 23(4), pp. 525–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dahlgren, P. (2013). The Political Web: Media, Participation and Alternative Democracy. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dahlgren, P. (2016). Civic engagement. In: G. Mazzoleni, K.G. Barnhurst, K. Ikeda, R. Maia and H. Wessler, (eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Political Communication, Chichester, UK and Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons, doi:  10.1002/9781118541555.wbiepc061.Google Scholar
  8. Della Porta, D. and Mattoni, A. (2014). Social networking sites in pro-democracy and anti-austerity protests. In: D. Trottier and C. Fuchs, (eds.), Social Media, Politics and the State: Protests, Revolutions, Riots, Crime and Policing in the Age of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, New York and London: Routledge. pp. 39–65.Google Scholar
  9. Dutceac Segesten, A. and Bossetta, M. (2016). A typology of political participation online: How citizens used Twitter to mobilize during the 2015 British general elections. Information, Communication & Society, doi:  10.1080/1369118X.2016.1252413.
  10. Ekman, J. and Amnå, E. (2012). Political participation and civic engagement: Towards a new typology. Human Affairs, 22(3), pp. 283–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ellison, N.B., Steinfield, C. and Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends”: Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, pp. 1143–1168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eurobarometer 83 (2015). Public opinion in the European Union. Brussels. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb83/eb83_publ_en.pdf. [Accessed 30 June 2016].
  13. Facebook Newsroom (2016). Stats. [Online]. Available at: http://newsroom.fb.com/company-info/ [Accessed 30 June 2016].
  14. Fuchs, C. (2014). Critique of the political economy of informational capitalism and social media. In: C. Fuchs and M. Sandoval, (eds.), Critique, Social Media and the Information Society, New York and London: Routledge. pp. 51–65.Google Scholar
  15. Huberman, B.A., Romero, D.M. and Wu, F. (2009). Social networks that matter: Twitter under the microscope. First Monday, 14(1), Available at: http://firstmonday.org/article/view/2317/2063 [Accessed 30 June 2016].
  16. Hughes, D.J., Rowe, M., Batey, M. and Lee, A. (2012). A tale of two sites: Twitter vs. Facebook and the personality predictors of social media usage. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), pp. 561–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jackson, N. and Lilleker, D. (2011). Microblogging, constituency service and impression management: UK MPs and the use of Twitter. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 17(1), pp. 86–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Keen, A. (2012). Digital Vertigo: How Today’s Online Social Revolution is Dividing, Diminishing, and Disorienting us. London: Constable.Google Scholar
  19. Livingstone, S. (2003). The Changing Nature of Audiences. In: A. Valdivia, (ed.), A Companion to Media Studies, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 337–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lu, X., Cheliotis, G., Cao, X., Song, Y. and Bressan, S. (2012). The Configuration of Networked Publics on the Web: Evidence from the Greek Indignados Movement. Proceedings of the 4th Annual ACM Web Science Conference, pp. 185–194. doi:  10.1145/2380718.2380742
  21. Micó, J.-L. and Casero-Ripollés, A. (2014). Political activism online: Organization and media relations in the case of 15m in Spain. Information, Communication & Society, 17(7), pp. 858–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Osborne, M. and Dredze, M. (2014). Facebook, Twitter and Google Plus for Breaking News: Is There a Winner? Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, pp. 611–614.Google Scholar
  23. Pentina, I. and Tarafdar, M. (2014). From “information” to “knowing”: Exploring the role of social media in contemporary news consumption. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, pp. 211–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Perrin, A. (2015). Social Networking Usage: 2005–2015. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.Google Scholar
  25. Sifft, S., Brüggemann, M., Königslow, K., Peters, B. and Wimmel, A. (2007). Segmented Europeanization: Exploring the legitimacy of the European Union from a public discourse perspective. Journal of Common Market Studies, 45, pp. 127–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sunstein, C.R. (2009). Going to Extremes: How Like Minds Unite and Divide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Syn, S.Y. and Oh, S. (2015). Why do social network site users share information on Facebook and Twitter?. Journal of Information Science, 41, pp. 553–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sysomos (2009. Revised 2014). Inside Twitter: An in-depth look inside the Twitter world. Available at: http://sysomos.com/sites/default/files/Inside-Twitter-BySysomos.pdf [Accessed 24 April 2016].
  29. Trenz, H.J. (2015). Narrating European Society. Towards a Sociology of European Integration. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  30. Twitter (2016). Company/about [Online]. Available at https://about.twitter.com/company. [Accessed 30 June 2016].
  31. Zürn, M. (2000). Democratic governance beyond the nation-state: The EU and other international institutions. European Journal of International Relations, 6(2), pp. 183–221.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Bossetta
    • 1
  • Anamaria Dutceac Segesten
    • 2
  • Hans-Jörg Trenz
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Department of European StudiesLund UniversityLundSweden
  3. 3.Department of Media, Cognition and CommunicationUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  4. 4.ARENA Centre for European StudiesUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations