This article explores the development of a social–political discussion on everyday sexism in Germany, labelled ‘#aufschrei’ (German for ‘outcry’), that started as a small Twitter conversation and evolved into a nationwide debate within 24 hours. After discussing the relationship of social actions, social networks and interlinked digital objects in the construction of networked publics, the authors propose to understand #aufschrei as an ‘ad hoc’ public – a communication sphere evolving around a shared topic within the spaces of the networked public sphere. Applying both computational research approaches and traditional content analysis to a large set of Twitter data, the authors reconstruct the dynamics of the debate in relation to concepts of horizontal and vertical segments of the public sphere. The conclusion calls for a theoretical re-evaluation of how those concepts can be applied to networked publics, and for an increased research effort to develop comprehensive methods for visualising or objectifying networked publics.
AndersonC (2010) Journalistic networks and the diffusion of local news: The brief, happy news life of the ‘Francisville Four’. Political Communication27(3): 289–309.
2.
AusserhoferJMairederA (2013) National politics on Twitter. Information, Communication and Society16(3): 291–314.
3.
BaymN (2010) Personal Connections in the Digital Age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
4.
BenklerY (2006) The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press.
5.
BoydD (2011) Social network sites as networked publics. In: PapacharissiZ (ed.) Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites. New York: Routledge, pp. 39–58.
6.
BoydDGolderSLotanG (2010) Tweet, tweet, retweet: Conversational aspects of retweeting on Twitter. In: The Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Honolulu, HI, 5–8 January. Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.
7.
BrunsABurgessJ (2012) Researching news discussion on Twitter: New methodologies. Journalism Studies13(5–6): 801–814.
8.
BrunsAStieglitzS (2013) Towards more systematic Twitter analysis: Metrics for tweeting activities. International Journal of Social Research Methodology16(2): 89–108.
CsárdiGNepuszT (2006) The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJournal Complex Systems 1695. Available at: http://igraph.sf.net (accessed 1 July 2014).
11.
DahlgrenP (2005) The Internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication22(2): 147–162.
12.
DavisA (2010) New media and fat democracy: The paradox of online participation. New Media & Society12(5): 745–761.
EggheLRousseauR (2002) Co-citation, bibliographic coupling and a characterization of lattice citation networks. Scientometrics55(3): 349–361.
15.
EmirbayerMShellerM (1999) Publics in history. Theory and Society28(1): 143–197.
16.
GaffneyDPuschmannC (2014) Data collection on Twitter. In: BrunsAWellerKBurgessJ. (eds) Twitter and Society. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 55–68.
17.
GerhardsJNeidhardtF (1993) Strukturen und Funktionen moderner Öffentlichkeit (Structures and functions of the modern public sphere). In: LangenbucherWR (ed.) Politische Kommunikation (Political Communication). Vienna: Braumüller, pp. 52–88.
18.
GerhardsJSchäferM (2010) Is the Internet a better public sphere? Comparing old and new media in the USA and Germany. New Media & Society12(1): 143–160.
19.
GrunigJHuntT (1984) Managing Public Relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
20.
HighfieldTHarringtonSBrunsA (2013) Twitter as a technology for audiencing and fandom: The #eurovision phenomenon. Information, Communication and Society16(3): 1–25.
21.
ItoM (2008) Introduction. In: VarnelisK (ed.) Networked Publics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1–14.
22.
KrosnickJA (1990) Government policy and citizen passion: A study of issue publics in contemporary America. Political Behaviour12(1): 59–92.
23.
LarssonAOMoeH (2012) Studying political microblogging: Twitter users in the 2010 Swedish election campaign. New Media & Society14(5): 729–747.
24.
MairederAAusserhoferJ (2013) Political discourses on Twitter: Networking. In: WellerKBrunsABurgessJ. (eds) Twitter and Society. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 305–318.
25.
MairederASchwarzeneggerC (2012) A movement of connected individuals. Information, Communication and Society15(2): 171–195.
26.
PapacharissiZDe Fatima OliveiraM (2012) Affective news and networked publics: The rhythms of news storytelling on #Egypt. Journal of Communication62(2): 266–282.
27.
PaßmannJBoeschotenTSchäferMT (2014) The Gift of the Gab: Retweet Cartels and Gift Economies on Twitter. In: BrunsAWellerKBurgessJ. (eds) Twitter and Society. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 331–357.
28.
PonsPLatapyM (2005) Computing communities in large networks using random walks. Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0512106 (accessed 1 July 2014).
29.
R Development Core Team (2011) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: http://www.R-project.org/ (accessed 1 July 2014).
30.
RogersE (1983) Diffusion of Innovations, 3rd edn.New York: The Free Press.
SegerbergABennettL (2011) Social media and the organization of collective action: Using Twitter to explore the ecologies of two climate change protests. The Communication Review14(3): 197–215.
33.
SimoneM (2010) Deliberative democracy online: Bridging networks with digital technologies. The Communication Review13(2): 120–139.
