This article explores the growth of online mobilizations using data from the indignados (outraged) movement in Spain, which emerged under the influence of the revolution in Egypt and as a precursor to the global Occupy mobilizations. The data track Twitter activity around the protests that took place in May 2011, which led to the formation of camp sites in dozens of cities all over the country and massive daily demonstrations during the week prior to the elections of May 22. We reconstruct the network of tens of thousands of users and monitor their message activity for a month (April 25, 2011, to May 25, 2011). Using both the structure of the network and levels of activity in message exchange, we identify four types of users and analyze their role in the growth of the protest. Drawing from theories of online activism and research on information diffusion in networks, this article centers on the following two questions: How does protest information spread in online networks? And how do different actors contribute to the growth of activity? The article aims to inform the theoretical debate on whether digital technologies are changing the logic of collective action and to provide evidence of how new media facilitates the emergence of massive offline mobilizations.
AdarE.AdamicL. (2005, May). Tracking information epidemics in blogspace. Paper presented at the IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence, Chiba, Japan.
AralS. (2011). Identifying social influence: A comment on opinion leadership and social contagion in new product diffusion. Marketing Science, 30(2), 217-223.
4.
BakshyE.HofmanJ. M.MasonW. A.WattsD. J. (2011, February). Everyone’s an influencer: Quantifying influence on Twitter. Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM 2011), Hong Kong, PRC.
5.
BakshyE.KarrerB.AdamicL. (2009, February). Social influence and the diffusion of user-generated content. Paper presented at the Fourth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, Barcelona, Spain.
6.
BaldassarriD.DianiM. (2007). The integrative power of civic networks. American Journal of Sociology, 113(3), 735-780.
7.
BearmanP.EverettK. D. (1993). The structure of social protest, 1961-1983. Social Networks, 15, 171-200.
8.
BiggsM. (2005). Strikes as forest fires: Chicago and Paris in the late nineteenth century. American Journal of Sociology, 110(6), 1684-1714.
9.
BimberB.FlanaginA.StholC. (2005). Reconceptualizing collective action in the contemporary media environment. Communication Theory, 15(4), 365-388.
10.
Borge-HolthoeferJ.RiveroA.GarcíaI.CauhéE.FerrerA.FerrerD.MorenoY. (2011). Structural and dynamical patterns on online social networks: The Spanish May 15th movement as a case study. PLoS ONE, 6(8), 6e23883. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0023883
11.
Borge-HolthoeferJ.RiveroA.MorenoY. (2012). Locating privileged spreaders on an online social network. Physical Review E, 85(6), 066123.
12.
BurtR. S. (1987). Social contagion and innovation: Cohesion versus structural equivalence. American Journal of Sociology, 92(6), 1287-1335.
13.
ChaM.BenevenutoF.HaddadiH.GummadiK. P. (2012). The world of connections and information flow in Twitter. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 42(4), 991-998.
14.
ChaM.HaddadiH.BenevenutoF.GummadiK. P. (2010, May). Measuring user influence in Twitter: The million follower fallacy. Paper presented at the International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM 2010), Washington, DC.
15.
ColemanJ. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
16.
DianiM.McAdamD. (2003). Social movements and networks: Relational approaches to collective action. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
17.
DiMaggioP.GaripF. (2012). Network effects and social inequality. Annual Review of Sociology, 38, 93-118.
18.
DownsA. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
19.
EarlJ.KimportK. (2011). Digitally enabled social change: Activism in the Internet age. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
20.
EasleyD.KleinbergJ. (2010). Networks, crowds, and markets: Reasoning about a highly connected world. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
21.
ElsterJ. (1989). The cement of society. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
GoelS.WattsD. J.GoldsteinD. G. (2012, June). The structure of online diffusion networks. Paper presented at the 13th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC’12), Valencia, Spain.
24.
González-BailónS.Borge-HolthoeferJ.RiveroA.MorenoY. (2011). The dynamics of protest recruitment through an online network. Scientific Reports, 1, Article 197.
25.
GouldR. (1991). Multiple networks and mobilization in the Paris commune, 1871. American Sociological Review, 56(6), 716-729.
26.
GouldR. (1993). Collective action and network structure. American Sociological Review, 58(2), 182-196.
27.
GranovetterM. (1978). Threshold models of collective behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 83(6), 1420-1443.
28.
HardinR. (1982). Collective action. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
29.
HedströmP. (1994). Contagious collectivities: On the spatial diffusion of Swedish trade unions, 1890-1940. American Journal of Sociology, 99(5), 1157-1179.
30.
IyengarR.Van den BulteC.ValenteT. W. (2011). Opinion leadership and social contagion in new product diffusion. Marketing Science, 30(2), 195-212.
31.
KwakH.LeeC.ParkH.MoonS. (2010, May). What is Twitter, a social network or a news media?Paper presented at the 19th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2010), Washington, DC.
32.
LeskovecJ.AdamicL.HubermanB. A. (2007). The dynamics of viral marketing. ACM Transactions on the Web, 1(1), Article 5.
33.
LeskovecJ.BackstromL.KleinbergJ. (2009, June). Meme-tracking and the dynamics of the news cycle. Paper presented at ACM SIGKDD, Paris, France.
34.
Liben-NowellD.KleinbergJ. M. (2008). Tracing information flow on a global scale using Internet chain-letter data. PNAS, 105(12), 4633-4638.
35.
LohmannS. (1994). Dynamics of informational cascades: The Monday Demonstrations in Leipzig, East Germany, 1989-1991. World Politics, 47(1), 42-101.
36.
LupiaA.SinG. (2003). Which public goods are endangered? How evolving communication technologies affect the logic of collective action. Public Choice, 117, 315-331.
MacyM. W. (1991). Chains of cooperation: Threshold effects in collective action. American Sociological Review, 56(6), 730-747.
39.
MarwellG.PrahlR. (1988). Social networks and collective action. A theory of critical mass III. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 502-534.
40.
MinderR. (2011, May22). Despite ban, protests continue before Spanish vote. The New York Times, p. A12.
41.
MyersD. J. (2000). The diffusion of collective violence: Infectiousness, susceptibility, and mass media networks. American Journal of Sociology, 106(1), 173-208.
42.
NewmanM. E. J. (2010). Networks: An introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
43.
OliverP.MarwellG. (1988). The paradox of group size in collective action: A theory of the critical mass II. American Sociological Review, 53(1), 1-8.
44.
OliverP.MarwellG.TeixeiraR. (1985). A theory of the critical mass. I. Interdependence, group heterogeneity, and the production of collective action. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 522-556.
45.
OlsonM. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
46.
OnnelaJ.-P.Reed-TsochasF. (2010). Spontaneous emergence of social influence in online systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(43), 18375-18380.
47.
OstromE. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
48.
RogersE. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: Free Press.
49.
RolfeM. (2010). Conditional choice. In BearmanP.HedströmP. (Eds.), Handbook of analytical sociology (pp. 419-446). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
50.
RomeroD. M.MeederB.KleinbergJ. (2011, March). Differences in the mechanics of information diffusion across topics: Idioms, political hashtags, and complex contagion on Twitter. Paper presented at the International World Wide Web Conference, Hyderabad, India.
51.
SchellingT. C. (1978). Micromotives and macrobehavior. London, UK: Norton.
52.
SiegelD. A. (2009). Social networks and collective action. American Journal of Political Science, 53(1), 122-138.
SunE.RosennI.MarlowC. A.LentoT. M. (2009, May). Gesundheit! Modeling contagion through Facebook news feed. Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, ICWSM’09, San Jose, CA.
55.
UganderJ.KarrerB.BackstromL.MarlowC. A. (2011). The anatomy of the Facebook social graph. arXiv, 1111.4503v1.
56.
ValenteT. W. (1996). Social network thresholds in the diffusion of innovations. Social Networks, 18, 69-89.
57.
WangD. J.SouleS. A. (2012). Social movement organizational collaboration: Networks of learning and the diffusion of protest tactics, 1960-1995. American Journal of Sociology, 117(6), 1674-1722.
58.
WattsD. J. (1999). Small worlds: The dynamics of networks between order and randomness. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
59.
WattsD. J.DoddsP. S. (2007). Influentials, networks, and public opinion formation. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 441-458.
60.
WattsD. J.DoddsP. S. (2010). Threshold models of social influence. In BearmanP.HedströmP. (Eds.), Handbook of analytical sociology (pp. 475-497). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
61.
WattsD. J.StrogatzS. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of “small world” networks. Nature, 393(4), 440-442.
62.
WuS.HofmanJ. M.MasonW. A.WattsD. J. (2011, March). Who says what to whom on Twitter. Paper presented at the 20th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2011), Hyderabad, India.
63.
YoungH. P. (2003). The diffusion of innovations in social networks. In BlumeL. E.DurlaufS. N. (Eds.), The economy as an evolving complex system (pp. 267-282). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
64.
YoungH. P. (2009). Innovation diffusion in heterogeneous populations: Contagion, social influence, and social learning. American Economic Review, 99(5), 1899-1924.
