Thinking about the ‘silent readers’: a regional digital ethnographic case study exploring motivations and barriers to participation in public debate on Facebook

Abstract

There is increasing evidence fewer people are willing to discuss and debate issues of common concern on social media with their feeds becoming more conflict-laden and toxic. A more nuanced understanding is needed of the motivations and deterrents for individual participation, in different contexts. This article provides a unique perspective from regional Australia by considering the conditions under which a group of social media users in Launceston, Tasmania were more likely to participate in discussion on Facebook and the factors that encouraged participants to present a constructed version of themselves. In doing so, this digital ethnographic case study contributes to evidence about the limitations of Facebook as a place for democratic public debate and may have practical application by helping identify spaces on social media that are more likely to prompt open and honest discussion.

Introduction

In 2018, it was reported that a Tasmanian Cricket Australia employee was dismissed after criticising the state government's abortion policy in a public post on Twitter (Maiden, 2018). The terminated employee told The Sydney Morning Herald the experience of having to travel from the island state of Tasmania to Victoria for an abortion stirred her into action (Maiden, 2018, para.17). The case demonstrates the difficulty one faces in maintaining multiple personas on social media, a phenomenon described as ‘context collapse’ (boyd, 2010). The blurring of personal and professional boundaries has encouraged individuals to carefully manage their self-presentation online (Papacharissi, 2012: 1990; Robards and Graf, 2022), reducing the authenticity of individual contributions to public debate on social media. In this article, authenticity is defined as the unimpeded presentation of one's core or true self; a public presentation of our private selves (Marichal, 2012: 68). News social media sharing studies have found when one manages their self-presentation they are motivated by an outcome, whether it is for approval (e.g. Martin, 2019: 35) or influence (e.g. Elvestad and Phillips, 2018; Martin, 2019: 35). The other option is to not participate at all. The Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2023 found active participators in news on social media are increasingly unrepresentative of the population and more likely to be men, more politically partisan and higher educated (Newman et al., 2023: 36). A communicative space that is unrepresentative and potentially unauthentic does not align with the notion of a public sphere; conceived as a visible and open space in which citizens gather to become enlightened and participate in public debate (Habermas, 1989) and should be inclusive of a representational dimension to aid the formation of public opinion (e.g. Batorski and Grzywińska, 2018).

While there is a broad understanding of the conflict-laden nature of debate on social media and potential ramifications of voicing an opinion, more knowledge is needed about the impact on participation an individual level, within different social, geographical, cultural and political contexts. Developing knowledge about participatory practices in different contexts online is valuable due to the perceived role of social media platforms as public spheres (Strauß and Nentwich, 2013: 726). In contributing to an understanding of the places social media users are more likely to practise open and constructive debate, this study might also be of practical use in the development of new online spaces that better serve civil society.

This article contributes using data from a digital ethnographic case study on media use for civic participation to document and analyse the conditions that prevented a group of people living in a regional Australian city from engaging in public debate on Facebook, and the motivations guiding their level of participation in discussion on matters of common concern. Three insights are developed: (1) A desire to influence debate was found to be a strong motivator for entering discussion on the Facebook News Feed, mirroring a key motivation identified for news sharing on social media (e.g. Martin, 2019: 35). (2) Participants were less likely to enter public discussion if they perceived doing so would expose them to conflict and especially when they perceived a potential risk to their professional or personal reputation. When participants perceived commenting posed a personal risk, they would either censor themselves or manage their performance online by using restricted spaces on the platform for discussion, such as Facebook Groups and Messenger, where they felt safer and heard. (3) Although many participants were unwilling to enter public debate on Facebook on controversial issues, they regularly consumed comments on Facebook posts and often assumed they were representative of public opinion. This mismatch raises questions about the democratising quality of the Facebook News Feed and points to the increasingly important role of limited or closed networks in nurturing discussion on issues of common concern.

Literature review

Barriers to media use for civic participation exist within political, social, geographical and cultural contexts. Structural and operational barriers are also embedded into social media platforms (e.g. Andrews, 2019; Elvestad and Phillips, 2018; Pariser, 2012: 9). In what follows, two themes are used to explore key elements identified as creating barriers to civic participation on social media: the personalisation of content and the consequences of a blurring of people's public and private lives online.

Personalisation and filter bubbles

The type of content individual social media users are exposed to is influenced by social media platforms’ use of personalisation tools. On Facebook, the average user is believed to view 10% of the content they have access to through the people and Groups they follow on the platform (Andrews, 2019: 46–47). It has been argued personalisation reduces individual exposure to a diversity of perspectives, locking people into a ‘filter bubble’ of information (Pariser, 2012) or echo chambers (Sunstein, 2017). Key concerns relating to filter bubbles are that ‘conservatives, liberals, environmentalists and socialists may each end up conversing among themselves, preaching to the converted’ (Hodkinson, 2017: 193) and people may become more hostile to those with different views (Elvestad and Phillips, 2018). It is also argued claims regarding the influence of echo chambers are overstated (e.g. Bruns, 2019; Seargeant and Tagg, 2019: 47).

Due to the nature of personalisation, it is difficult to consider the impact of information filtering on social media users without studying individual social media accounts, in different contexts. Several studies have approached questions about the influence of filter bubbles and misinformation on the formation of popular opinion by following the spread of problematic content (e.g. Bruns et al., 2020; Vosoughi et al., 2018). Another approach has been to consider the priorities of social media algorithms. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg admitted the platform's algorithm prioritised controversial posts, resulting in extremism and polarisation (Andrews, 2019: 49).

Inflammatory content is also made more visible as conflict has been proven to be a motivator for individuals’ sharing social media content. An analysis of news stories by a group of Australian news publishers prompted them to identify teaming as one of three distinct behaviours prompting someone to share news on social media (Crawford et al., 2015). They described teaming as a category of sharing that asked others ‘are you for me or against me?’ (Crawford et al., 2015: 123), in other words, a demonstration of fellow ‘feeling’ (Elvestad and Phillips, 2018: 68). This industry work relates to research demonstrating the importance of sentiment and emotion in sharing practices (Elvestad and Phillips, 2018: 68–69; Papacharissi, 2015). Papacharissi coined the notion ‘affective publics’ to describe how social media platforms prompted a form of engagement permitting people to feel more intensely (Papacharissi, 2015: 127). As such platforms are spaces of heightened emotion, the voices of extremist groups can become amplified at the expense of those with moderate views (e.g. Elvestad and Phillips, 2018: 7). Users have been found to instead turn to closed networks where they ‘can have private or semi-private conversations with trusted friends in a less toxic atmosphere’ (Newman et al., 2023: 16).

The blurring of public and private worlds

Social media intersect people's public and private lives, meaning the boundaries between both have become increasingly blurred as information intended for a private audience may be easily spread to highly visible and open spaces (Hess and Bowd, 2015; Papacharissi, 2010). As social media make public and private boundaries difficult to maintain, social contexts also become blurred (boyd, 2010). It is argued context collapse, or the loss of ‘local information’ can motivate people to construct an online identity (Marichal, 2012: 78). Papacharissi used the term ‘performances of self’ to describe people's tendency on social media to present a constructed version of themselves when engaging with and sharing information online (Papacharissi, 2010, 2012). Users share news as a presentational technique to seek approval, influence, promote their reputation and gain social status (Martin, 2019: 35).

The public shaming literature provides empirical examples demonstrating why social media users may be motivated to regulate their presentation of self. In 2013, Public Relations Manager Justine Sacco was sacked over a tweet (e.g. Gallardo, 2017; Ronson, 2015). The incident led to Sacco losing her job and struggling to find employment in the years following, revealing the potential for one to face severe consequences over a personal comment made on social media (Gallardo, 2017: 722). The idea of norm enforcement through public shaming aligns with Foucault's observation that social norms are developed through a form of repetitive discipline exercised by those with power (Foucault, 1995) and is considered a motivation for individuals and political and commercial groups to perform in debate on social media (Elvestad and Phillips, 2018). Several studies have shown people modify their behaviour and beliefs to fit in with group norms (Elvestad and Phillips, 2018: 27; Gallardo, 2017; Humprecht et al., 2020). A theory that is relevant to this notion of behaviour modification is the ‘spiral of silence’; the idea that people can be discouraged from voicing an opinion if they feel their view is in the minority (Noelle-Neumann, 1974).

Some legal scholarship on freedom of speech has considered how workplace policies may prevent individuals from contributing to public debate. Constitutional law scholar, Anthony Gray considered Australian public service social media guidelines within the context of freedom of political communication (Gray, 2018). Public service guidelines state that ‘an employee who criticises the work, or the administration, of the agency for which they work will usually be seen as breaching the Code’ (Gray, 2018: 11). Gray argued the guidelines posed constitutional concerns within the context of political communication (Gray, 2018, 16). Kieran Pender examined a High Court case that considered the constitutionality of limiting the political expression of public service employees. Michaela Banerji was sacked from her position as a public affairs officer with the Department of Immigration after being identified as the author of several tweets from an anonymous account criticising the Australian Government and bureaucrats on federal border protection policy (Pender, 2019: 133). The High Court ruled the government may restrict the rights of public service employees to express political opinion and those limitations do not breach the implied freedom of political speech in the Constitution (Forsyth, 2019). This ruling serves as a warning to public servants; yet more empirical evidence is needed revealing the impact of such workplace policies in different contexts. The risk of job loss over expressing a political opinion extends beyond the public service (e.g. Gaze, 2018; Robards and Graf, 2022). Australian Discrimination Law scholar Beth Gaze argued the sacking of Cricket Australia employee Angela Williamson, noted earlier, sent a warning of severe risks for lobbying for a change of government policy (Gaze, 2018, para.30). One analysis of 312 news media articles on job terminations over social media posts, mostly published in the United States, found public service occupations such as law enforcement and education workers were most highly represented, yet those fired over a social media post included other sectors, such as hospitality and transport (Robards and Graf, 2022: 10). The authors found people reduced employment risks by creating a sterile representation of themselves in networked publics (Robards and Graf, 2022: 11), demonstrating how potential negative ramifications motivate people to carefully manage their self-presentation online.

According to Strauß and Nentwich, limitations placed on either the public or private spheres might reduce the deliberative quality of open, communicative exchange (Strauß and Nentwich, 2013: 726). For popular opinion to be representative, public debate should allow individuals with differing views to participate openly in uncomfortable conversations (Lewis et al., 2005). As Marichal asked, do social media platforms like Facebook ‘give us a “sense” of the public sphere rather than the actual thing?' (Marichal, 2012: 31). According to a UK study, journalists can assume comments made on social media platforms are representative of public opinion (Anstead and O'Loughlin, 2015) and report it as such, fuelling a false legitimacy. As societal norms are partly thought to be created through the development of shared civil values and public opinion (Alexander, 2006) and social media platforms continue to be used as a primary source of news and information (e.g. Newman et al., 2023, 10), further work is warranted considering what motivates people to participate in debate on different platforms and how debate on social media contributes to the formation of shared civil values.

Method

Twenty-one participants living in the city of Launceston, Tasmania were recruited for this digital ethnographic study. Digital ethnography is used to examine the relationship between people and digital and mobile technology and can be used to make visible the hidden aspects of the influence of digital media (Pink et al., 2016). Data generation was divided into three stages. Stage one involved semi-structured interviews with participants (see Ross, Lester and Konkes, 2021 for outline of questions), stage two involved a two-week media diary project and participants were interviewed for a second time in stage three. During the diary project period, participants’ Facebook and Instagram updates were monitored. Insights gained during the diary project were used to form the basis of the second interview with participants. Thus, the second interviews with participants (stage 3) were informed by information generated during the diary project period (stage 2). Data from all three stages was combined to construct a thick description of participants’ media use for civic participation.

Media diary project

Participants could complete a daily digital or written diary about their media use for two weeks between 25 March 2019 and 7 April 2019. Participants were given two tasks for each week of the project (see Appendix 1). The digital diary was accessible through an application called Indeemo. It was chosen for its data security features and ease-of-use (Indeemo, 2018), overcoming limitations that can be created due to the commitment required for diary studies (Bolger et al., 2003). Other potential limitations of diary studies are that participants may consume more media content due to being set daily tasks. To overcome this limitation, participants were reminded at various stages of the two weeks not to change their habits for the project. Participants could upload photos or video, make comments on their ‘posts’ (only viewable by the researchers) and write diary entries. All 21 participants completed the project. All participants were de-identified with a pseudonym. Sixty-four-year-old Sylvia was the only participant who chose to complete a written diary. Sampling was purposive (Mason, 2018: 59). The aim was for half the adult participants to be either generation Y (between the ages of 24–38) or Z (up to the age of 23) as younger populations are targeted as being more politically disengaged (Couldry et al., 2007). A range of tactics were approved by the university's Social Science Human Research Ethics Committee (H0017437) to recruit participants including displaying flyers in public places and publishing posts on local social media networks. Those who responded to public notices were surveyed to determine their age, gender, educational attainment, employment status and ideological leanings. A second round of recruitment took place via email through the career networking site LinkedIn to capture people in positions of influence in the Launceston community. A total of 10 men, 10 women and one person identifying as transgender were selected aged between 19 and 64. The study was conducted from March to May 2019. Participants completed diary entries daily between 25 March 2019 and 7 April 2019.

A list of the most prominent news stories that appeared during the diary project period was complied. The list was created using a broad range of professional news sources to provide a diversity of perspectives. This included the nightly news bulletin produced by a commercial and public broadcaster, the local Launceston newspaper The Examiner, and two national print newspapers with different ideological leanings, including one News Corp publication. Finally, screenshots were taken of the top 10 stories published on three news webpages with different ideological leanings and including the public broadcaster. All the ‘news story’ data was collated on Excel spreadsheets and studied to decide which local, national and international news stories were most prominent in the mainstream news and on social media over the study period. The data generated from the 42 interviews, participants’ 613 diary entries and social media activity was entered into NVivo to be coded for thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2013). To develop findings, all data was coded by keyword according to the news story themes identified through mainstream media during the diary period and to the broader themes identified during the diary project period.

The regional geographic case study

Qualitative case studies should focus on particularisation instead of generalisation and be selected for their suitability for the research purpose (Stake, 1995). The separation between people's professional and private lives can be diminished in regional areas (e.g. Hess and Bowd, 2015), making a regional case study suitable for studying the blurring of public and private boundaries online. As an island and Australia's smallest state in size and population, Tasmania has a reputation for being insular or parochial (Harwood, 2011: 6). Job opportunities are more limited in regional areas, meaning people might be more mindful about the impact of choices they make in their private lives on their professional opportunities, particularly in Tasmania as it had the highest unemployment rate in Australia at the time of this study (Whiteley and Richards, 2020).

As has been established, more work is needed considering how public servants negotiate policies limiting freedom of speech. In Tasmania, 61,300 people were local, state or federal public sector employees in 2022 (ABS, 2023), equating to about 10% of the state's population. Even outside the public service, voicing an unwanted political opinion might pose an employment risk due to a reported culture of secrecy (Lohberger, 2021) and close relationship between government and industry (Baker, 2020). A 2020 Independent Review into the state government's response to the COVID-19 outbreak in Tasmania's north-west in March-April of that year noted most health workers requested anonymity when making a submission. The review concluded there was a need to continue to improve the culture within the Health Department ‘to eliminate parochialism and the fear of retribution for those who wish to offer constructive criticism’ (Melick, 2020: 3). An interstate lawyer also claimed Tasmanian sexual abuse survivors appointed interstate lawyers due to ‘a culture sometimes in Tasmania of not holding the government to account’ (Lohberger, 2021, para.14). Evidence that Tasmanians might fear retribution for voicing an opinion supports its use as a geographic case study considering potential barriers to voicing an opinion on social media.

Findings

In their first interview, 17 of the 21 participants said Facebook was their primary source of news and information and 20 said they used the platform regularly. Most media content participants chose to upload to their digital diary entries was also originally sourced from Facebook. Only one participant, 64-year-old Sylvia, did not use Facebook.

Participant performances in debate on Facebook

The 20 Facebook users said they occasionally or regularly read the comments on posts shared by friends or Facebook Groups or individuals or organisations they followed and 12 said they occasionally or regularly expressed their opinion on Facebook posts. Eight participants referred to 14 specific Facebook posts (see Appendix 2) in their diaries when discussing how the comments helped inform them about an issue. Most posts were shared news articles, yet also included updates by members of Facebook Groups or organisations. Behaviour that could be described as ‘teaming’ (Crawford et al., 2015; Elvestad and Phillips, 2018) was evident in the comments on all 14 posts because engagement appeared to be motivated by a desire to demonstrate shared or opposing identity and values.

Some participants said reading an argument or debate in the comments could be helpful, as it exposed Facebook users to both sides of an issue. Gregory said, ‘I have seen a lot of people learn through people posting an argument that is not so much attacking, but here's a different point of view’ (Gregory, 16 March, 2019). When Gregory said he thought people could be educated through debate in the comments, he was also articulating a motivation for him to enter debate – a desire to influence others. When Gregory was asked to give an example of a debate he had entered, he said he often responded to comments on finance-related posts because he said he liked to ‘highlight that there are other ways of approaching personal financial situations’ (Gregory, 16 March, 2019). Yet Gregory said he would only post a different point of view on a public post when the conversation did not involve someone from his personal life, saying in those cases he would choose to take the discussion offline: ‘I’d rather speak to someone so you can read their emotions and their face rather than just on Facebook where you can’t pick up that they’re being sarcastic’ (Gregory, 16 March, 2019). This quote indicates Gregory actively managed his performances in debates online to minimise any fallout in his offline world.

Self-proclaimed vegan activist, Layla, was also motivated to comment on Facebook to attempt to exert influence. In one diary entry, Layla said she wrote a comment criticising a post on dairy farming saying the industry was ‘a major contributor to environmental destruction and climate change’ (Layla, 29 March, 2019). In her entry she reflected on her motivation, saying she was thinking about the ‘silent readers’ – the people who don’t react or comment but who are reading my responses (Layla, 29 March, 2019). In her second interview, when asked to elaborate, Layla described her actions as ‘slowly planting a seed’ (Layla, 11 May, 2019) in people's minds. She said it was common for vegan groups to encourage political activism by asking members to enter debates online, saying ‘they say, oh, there's this post here, it needs some comments on it’ (Layla, 11 May, 2019) and that she would comply, hoping to influence others. This form of participation also aligns with the idea that social media users are motivated to perform to gain social status and approval within their social circles (Martin, 2019).

In one of Alexa's diary entries, she said wanted to voice an alternative perspective to one being presented in an online article published on Facebook by the Mercury newspaper (see Item 1, Appendix 2). The article was shared by Alexa's Facebook friend, who wrote a post criticising the son of then Premier, Will Hodgman, over making a hand gesture, labelled a ‘white supremacist sign’. Alexa's Facebook friend had uploaded a photograph of the newspaper article next to an online story written two weeks earlier about an Australian man who was accused of killing 49 people in New Zealand mosques giving the same sign during a court appearance (Falconer, 2019). The upside down ‘OK’ hand symbol given by the accused murderer was widely interpreted by the news media as being a ‘white power’ sign. Alexa responded to her friend's post by commenting, ‘it is actually called the circle game and teens/young men like to do it to trick their friends into looking at the circle and then they get to punch them’ (Alexa, 30 March, 2019). She was motivated to convince others to consider an alternative meaning and said she was pleased several people approved of her opinion by liking her comment.

Other participants spoke about being influenced by comments on posts that presented an opposing view to their own. Dipendra, a practicing Buddhist, said he used to have very conservative views about how religion should be practised but reading the comments on religious issues on Facebook made him realise each side ‘think their own thing is right’ (Dipendra, 19 March, 2019) and helped him become more accepting of other people's religious beliefs. In a diary entry, Lewis wrote about reading the comments on the Insurrectionist Memes post against vaccinations (see Item 14, Appendix 2). He said he was not vaccinated as a child because his mother was opposed to vaccinations yet had been re-considering the issue. He said the comments espousing the benefits of vaccination encouraged him to do more research through Internet searches. Both Dipendra and Lewis’ insights demonstrated the potential for people to be influenced by debate in the comments on posts.

Yet, in their interviews and diary entries, all 20 Facebook users also said they refrained from commenting to varying degrees to avoid conflict. Jasmine said in one diary entry she wanted to disagree with a post by Tasmania Police about lane filtering that stated: ‘Lane filtering is now legal for fully licensed motorcycle riders in Tasmania’ (Jasmine, 28 March, 2019). Jasmine said in her diary entry that the post helped her understand the rules but she did not agree with the law. Jasmine wrote ‘I don’t think they [motorcyclists] should be allowed to as I don’t believe it is safe for all road users’ (Jasmine, 28 March, 2019). Jasmine said she wanted to express her view in the comments section of the post but decided not to, stating ‘I thought I would start an argument and I’m not going to get myself in trouble/suspended from Facebook because of someone else's silly comments’ (Jasmine, 28 March, 2019). Jasmine's diary entry suggested that her experience of conflict in comments and understanding of corresponding platform moderation practices discouraged commenting in this case. Even vegan activist Layla said there were times she could not bring herself to make a comment on a post, knowing the vitriol and name calling she would receive in return. She said in her second interview ‘it gets a bit draining sometimes to have these same conversations with these random strangers’ (Layla, 11 May, 2019). Despite the negatives, Layla said she intended to continue adding comments for the sake of the cause, demonstrating the strength of her motivation to achieve a desired outcome.

Some participants said they would not ever be willing to take the risk of being exposed to conflict for the benefit of adding their voice to public debate on Facebook. The publicness of the social media platform was the reason eight participants said they preferred to voice their opinion in personal messages or private groups, where they felt safe. Catherine said if any of her Facebook friends wrote comments she strongly disagreed with, she would not comment yet may instead ‘unfollow them’ (Catherine, 16 March, 2019) if their views made her feel uncomfortable. Alan said he would never comment on a Facebook post because he viewed the conversations ‘as an outlet for people's frustrations, rather than actually any sort of informed debate’ (Alan, 14 March, 2019). He added that he felt the debate was not constructive because people rarely listened to each other and a lot of the comments were ‘derogatory’ (Alan, 14 March, 2019). Alan said he sometimes privately messaged friends who got involved in arguments to urge caution.

Some participants said they were more willing to enter discussion in Facebook's restricted spaces because both sides were more likely to listen and treat each other with respect when not in public view. In Lincoln's first interview, he talked about being able to maintain greater control of a conversation in a personal message on Facebook. He said one of his female friends posted an article on the News Feed criticising a comment made by Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison on International Women's Day that ‘we don’t want to put women in power just because they’re women’ (Lincoln, 13 March, 2019). The Prime Minister was quoted as saying the Liberal Party did not ‘want to see women rise only on the basis of others doing worse’ (Karp, 2019). Lincoln said he used Messenger to ask his Facebook friend why she had a problem with the Prime Minister's comment to avoid being attacked in ‘public’. Lincoln said having the discussion in private allowed him to understand his friend's criticism, demonstrating the potential benefit of semi-private spaces for constructive discussion. Lincoln's comments support findings social media users are turning to ‘less toxic’ semi-private or private spaces for discussion (Newman et al., 2023).

In summary, participants demonstrated how their motivations to achieve certain outcomes guided their actions in debates on Facebook and showed they were more likely to engage in a public performance with strangers. With friends and people connected to their private lives, participants preferred to engage in debate in offline discussion or restricted spaces, such as Facebook Groups and messaging applications where they could foster a more authentic connection and minimise the prospect of conflict. The act of modifying their own behaviour potentially contributed to the development of a ‘spiral of silence’ (Noelle-Neumann, 1974) on the Facebook News Feed.

When the risk of commenting outweighs the benefit

Seven participants said they would never comment on a controversial issue on Facebook because of the potential ramifications in their offline worlds. Two clear risks prevented those participants from having their voice heard on issues they were passionate about: employment and Australian citizenship status. The employment attributes of participants found to be more likely to perceive a risk from commenting were public servants and those in insecure work or those who had a public profile.

Five participants revealed in their interviews and diary entries they feared losing their job over making a comment on a Facebook post. Chloe, a state public service employee, wrote in her diary entries that sometimes she wanted to comment on news stories relating to her workplace, but she could not ‘have an opinion in that space’ (Chloe, 19 March, 2019). In her first interview, Chloe said the Angela Williamson case, noted earlier, had made her more aware of the potential implications of commenting on social media. Chloe said employees in her workplace were constantly reminded to be conscious of the public nature of social media, making her extra cautious (Chloe, 19 March, 2019). Chloe's comment demonstrates how public service policies may have an impact on curbing freedom of expression. Chloe said she had discussed issues in personal messages on Facebook Messenger, reinforcing the idea that participants were more comfortable containing their contribution to discussion on issues of common concern to restricted online spaces, with people they knew personally.

Public hospital worker, Jasmine was cautious about the opinions she expressed on Facebook due to her insecure employment status. When asked about how she expressed her voice online, if at all, she said was cautious about criticising government decisions, particularly on healthcare, due to being a casual worker. She said, ‘I’m not saying they would dismiss me or something but it's like until I’m at least full-time I don’t want to push it’ (Jasmine, 18 March, 2019). Luca, who worked as a health professional, said he was careful about making any comments about the health system on social media after a colleague questioned his decision to complain publicly about long waiting times at the local hospital. Luca said, ‘the personal and the professional are interwoven, even if I choose it not to be, it can be perceived the same’ (Luca, 20 March, 2019). Responses by Luca and Jasmine suggested they feared a negative outcome if they contributed to debate on Facebook, aligning with Melick's finding that Tasmanian health workers feared retribution over offering constructive criticism (Melick, 2020: 3).

Two participants had moved to Australia from Nepal. Narvir was a temporary visa holder and Dipendra had just gained Australian citizenship. Both said they would comment on controversial political issues relating to Nepal but not Australia because they feared being forced to leave the country. Narvir, who was applying for permanent residency in Australia, said in his first interview that if he commented ‘on very serious issues it could be a very personal threat’ (Narvir, 16 March, 2019). When asked to expand on this statement, he said:

Recently the Home Minister Peter Dutton says, “before granting a permanent visa, we are looking at if you comment on political and such issues on social media”. (Narvir, 16 March, 2019)

Narvir was unsure of the type of comments that may impact his permanent residency, so he said he preferred to err on the side of caution. He said there had been times he wanted to add his perspective to posts about refugees and immigrants, particularly when he felt they included misinformation, but that ‘it is very hard to express my feelings into the media because my family are also here, I am not taking risks’ (Narvir, 16 March, 2019). Dipendra said he did not comment because he feared he would be misunderstood due to his limited grasp of English and thought he did not properly understand ‘the political system or culture’ (Dipendra, 19 March, 2019). Dipendra and Narvir's fears of being deported outweighed any motivation they had to influence debate. In their cases, approval was sought through an absence of opinion, they offered a sterile representation of themselves online (Robards and Graf, 2022: 11).

Comments and popular opinion

Despite several participants stating they were unwilling to contribute openly and honestly to discussion on Facebook posts, 18 of the 20 Facebook users talked about using the comments on Facebook to help them gauge public opinion on an issue. Elliot said, ‘I’ll read the comments just to sort of gauge what people's views are’. He added that he could sometimes be surprised by ‘people's views’ (Elliot, 18 March, 2019), showing that he believed them to be authentic. Damien said in his first interview that he was confident most Australians supported gay marriage because of the overwhelming support displayed in the comments on Facebook (Damien, 15 March, 2019). Chloe said she read the comments to find out if others held similar views, saying she considered ‘do other people think like this? Yeah, they do’ (Chloe, 19 March, 2019). Despite Narvir's admission of self-censorship, he said he liked to read the comments on the local Facebook group Chit Chat – Launceston to help him understand people's opinions on an issue as it ‘covers most of the people residing here’ (Narvir, 16 March, 2019).

Removing sex from birth certificates: a news story

On 4 and 5 April, Tasmanian news publishers reported that new laws had passed the state Parliament's Upper House to allow someone to remove their sex from their birth certificate (e.g. Humphries et al., 2019; Maloney, 2019). The story was also covered by the national media because Tasmania was the first Australian state to give people the option of including sex on a birth certificate (Humphries et al., 2019). Of the 20 Facebook users, only Lincoln was unaware of the news story. Fourteen participants spoke about how comments on posts from various news sources on Facebook helped them understand other people's opinions on the change. Six people spoke through a conflict lens of both sides being reflected in the debate. Eight participants said they remembered seeing mostly negative responses to the changed laws in the comments; none remembered seeing more comments welcoming the change. Only two of the eight who remembered more negative comments said they were against the new laws, suggesting participants were not simply looking for views to confirm their own beliefs. The responses suggested there were either more negative comments, or negative comments had a stronger impact.

Many participants talked about the comments as if they were representative of public opinion. Robert said in a diary entry that he was surprised parliament voted in favour of the change because of the ‘public backlash’ (Robert, 4 April, 2019). When asked to expand on this comment in his second interview, he said, ‘I thought it wasn’t going to go anywhere simply because there were so many people against it’ (Robert, 25 April, 2019) on Facebook. Another participant who perceived more people were against the change, Andrea, said in her second interview she did not read any of the actual news stories, only the comments. Four people mentioned comments warning the legislation would allow ‘rapists’ and ‘paedophiles’ to use women's public toilets. Such comments scared some participants into being against the change. Jasmine said in a diary entry, ‘I would actually feel quite uncomfortable and scared that someone that still looks like a man can walk into a female toilet’ (Jasmine, April 5, 2019).

Some participants said they believed if statements made in the comments on Facebook posts were false, they would be contested. Thus, they viewed the stream of comments as a form of fact-checking, despite most being unwilling to voice their opinion on controversial topics on the Facebook News Feed. Lewis, who identified as transgender, said he was deterred from entering debate after seeing some of his friends were spreading misinformation:

It was a bit of an eye opener to see close friends saying we can’t be doing this, it's not fair for children. That was a bit distressing, so I guess in a way I blocked it out a little bit. (Lewis, April 24, 2019)

Lewis would have been able to add more nuance to the debate by educating people using his personal experience, but he decided not to contribute due to the conflict being ‘distressing’.

Discussion and conclusion

Participants revealed they often considered and remembered issues through different sides of a debate by reading comments on Facebook posts, demonstrating they were not restricted to an echo chamber or filter bubble of single perspectives (Pariser, 2012; Sunstein, 2017). This finding that participants used debate on a topic to help build their understanding of a civic issue revealed what people do with media can complement studies about the content that appears and is spread on social media (e.g. Bruns et al., 2020; Vosoughi et al., 2018) by contributing to knowledge about how ‘the world is shaped through everyday actions’ (Pink et al., 2016: 43).

While it has been established an emotive and conflict-laden environment on social media has contributed to those with extreme views, the dominant, the loud and the hostile being more visible (e.g. Elvestad and Phillips, 2018; Humprecht et al., 2020), this study adds nuance by showing conflict does not always have a negative impact on social media users. Some participants viewed the conflict in comments on posts as helpful, to expose social media users to different perspectives. While Dipendra and Lewis talked about such debate influencing them to re-consider their beliefs; Gregory, Layla and Alexa's desires to influence others encouraged them to participate in debate in a constructive manner. Their actions demonstrated they were motivated by performances of self to achieve an outcome, mirroring motivations identified in research on social media news sharing practices (e.g. Elvestad and Phillips, 2018; Martin, 2019).

Participants least likely to participate in debate were those who perceived entering discussion presented a significant risk to their employment, residency or reputational status. Other studies and news stories have provided examples of the risks involved in voicing an opinion on social media (e.g. Maiden, 2018; Pender, 2019; Robards and Graf, 2022; Ronson, 2015). The participants in this study were found to gauge the potential risks to their livelihood differently depending on their life circumstances. Those in insecure work or those with an insecure residency status were less willing to take risks, creating a public sphere with a limited diversity of perspectives. This finding offers an interesting insight in comparison with other work showing participation in news on social media is narrowing (Newman et al., 2023: 36).

While several people with lived experience of a problem said they felt unable to contribute to meaningful discussion on the Facebook News Feed, their decision did not lead to their disengagement, revealing the lack of a rigid dichotomy between public engagement and disengagement. Participants spoke about choosing to voice their opinion on controversial subjects in the restricted spaces of Facebook Messenger and private groups, where they felt safe and heard. Despite participants being aware of the limitations of public social media spaces for their own participation, many still perceived the dominant views to be representative of public opinion, demonstrating a mismatch between perception and reality of popular opinion on the Facebook News Feed.

This article lends support to concerns about the representative and democratising quality of debate on public social media spaces (e.g. Elvestad and Phillips, 2018), which is problematic due to the theorised role of these platforms in providing spaces for public debate to contribute to the development of shared civil values and public opinion (Batorski and Grzywińska, 2018; Lewis et al., 2005). The findings also suggest there may be opportunities for restricted social media spaces to be used for open and honest discussion, which is necessary for debate to have a deliberative quality and transformative capacity (Strauß and Nentwich, 2013). Thus, this article may have practical relevance for news providers and platforms. Those keen to foster online spaces for debate that are more representative and diverse would benefit from considering the barriers preventing some individuals from adding their valuable perspectives to discussion. Additionally, adding nuance to our understanding of people's motivations and deterrents for participation may help when investigating the development of improved social media user experiences.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-mia-10.1177_1329878X231226355 - Supplemental material for Thinking about the ‘silent readers’: a regional digital ethnographic case study exploring motivations and barriers to participation in public debate on Facebook

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-mia-10.1177_1329878X231226355 for Thinking about the ‘silent readers’: a regional digital ethnographic case study exploring motivations and barriers to participation in public debate on Facebook by Angela Ross in Media International Australia