Fitna is a 2008 short film made by a Dutch member of parliament to support his fight against Islam. It shows shocking footage of terrorism, violence and women’s oppression and claims that these are inherent to Islam. The film caused immense controversy and mobilized people across the world to produce and upload their own views to YouTube. In this article we analyze these videos using different theoretical models of democratic interaction, and distinguishing between antagonism, ‘agonism’ and dialogue. On the basis of a cybermetric network analysis we find that the videos are mostly isolated reactions to the film. Only 13 percent or fewer of the posters interacted with each other through comments, subscriptions or ‘friendship’. These interactions could be qualified as antagonistic or agonistic, but very rarely involved dialogue. We therefore conclude that YouTube enabled a multiplication of views rather than an exchange or dialogue between them.
AkouH (2010) Interpreting Islam through the Internet: Making sense of hijab. Contemporary Islam4(3): 331–346.
2.
BaymN (2000) Tune In, Log On: Soaps, Fandom, and OnlineCommunity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3.
BenevenutoFDuarteFRodriguesTAlmeidaVAlmeidaJRossK (2008) Understanding video interactions in YouTube. Proceedings of the 16th ACM international conference on Multimedia (MM ’08). ACM, New York, NY, USA.
4.
BennetWLToftA (2009) Identity, technology, and narratives. Transnational activism and social networks. In: ChadwickAHowardP (eds) Handbook of Internet Politics. London: Routledge, 246–260.
BrouwerL (2009) The internet as a vehicle of empowerment: Dutch Moroccan youths on the Islam debate. In: SegaertBTimmermansC (eds) Christian and Muslim Minorities in Europe and the Middle East. Bruxelles: P.I.E. Peter Lang Publishing Group, 219–230.
7.
BuntG (2009) iMuslims. Rewiring the House of Islam. Chapel Hil: University of North Carolina Press.
8.
ChadwickA (2009) New directions in internet politics research. In: ChadwickAHowardP (eds) Handbook of Internet Politics. London: Routledge, 1–9.
9.
ColemanS (2009) Making parliamentary democracy visible: Speaking to, with and for the public in the age of interactive technology. In: ChadwickAHowardP (eds) Handbook of Internet Politics. London: Routledge, 86–99.
10.
DouglasK (2008) Antisocial communication on electronic mail and the internet. In: KonijnE (ed.) Mediated Interpersonal Communication. London: Routledge, 200–214.
GlaserB (1965) The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems12(4): 436–445.
13.
GurevitchMColemanSBlumlerJ (2009) Political communication: Old and new media relationships. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science625: 164–181.
14.
HerringS (1994) Politeness in computer culture: Why women thank and men flame. In: BucholtzMLiangASuttonL (eds) Cultural Performances: Proceedings of the Third Berkeley Women and Language Conference. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Women and Language Group, 278–294.
15.
HoSSLeeWHameedSS (2008) Muslim surfers on the internet: Using the theory of planned behaviour to examine the factors influencing engagement in online religious activities. New Media and Society10(1): 93–113.
16.
HooverSMSchofield ClarkLRainieL (2004) Faith Online. A Study of the Pew Internet & American Life Project (in collaboration with the Lilly Endowment). Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org
17.
JaggarA (2000) Multicultural democracy. In: ChambersSCostainA (eds) Deliberation, Democracy and the Media. Boulder, CO: Rowman and Littlefield, 27–46.
18.
LangePG (2008) Publicly private and privately public: Social networking on YouTube. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication13: 361–380.
19.
MouffeC (2000) Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism. Vienna: Department of Political Science, Institute for Advanced Studies, Political Science Series 72. Available at: http://users.unimi.it/dikeius/pw-72.pdf
20.
O’LearySBrasherB (1996) The unknown God of the internet: Religious communication from the ancient agora to the virtual forum. In: EssC (ed.) Philosophical Perspectives on Computer-mediated Communication. Albany: State University of New York Press, 233–269.
PapacharissiZ (2009) The virtual sphere 2.0: The internet, the public sphere and beyond. In: ChadwickAHowardP (eds) Handbook of Internet Politics. London: Routledge, 230–245.
23.
RotmanDGolbeckJPreeceJ (2009) The community is where the rapport is: On sense and structure in the YouTube community. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Communities and Technologies. University Park, PA.
24.
ThelwallM (2009) Introduction to Webometrics: Quantitative Web Research for the Social Sciences. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool.
25.
ThelwallM (no year) Introduction to LexiURL searcher: A research tool for social scientists. Free download from http://lexiurl.wlv.ac.uk/ (accessed on 1 October 2010).
26.
Van ZoonenLVisFMiheljS (2010) Performing citizenship on YouTube: Activism, satire and online debate around the anti-Islam video Fitna. Critical Discourse Studies7(4): 249–262.
27.
VisFVan ZoonenLMiheljS (2011) Women responding to the anti-Islam film Fitna: Voices and acts of citizenship on YouTube. Feminist Review, in press.
28.
WinogradMHaisD (2008) Millenial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube and the Future of American Politics. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
29.
WrightSStreetJ (2007) Democracy, deliberation and design: The case of online discussion forums. New Media and Society9(5): 849–869.
