This article contends that certain configurations of information networks facilitate specific cognitive states that are instrumental for decision and action on social media. Group-related knowledge and belief states—in particular common knowledge and pluralistic ignorance—may enable strong public signals. Indeed, some network configurations and attitude states foster informational pathologies that may fuel interest bubbles affecting agenda-setting and the generation of narratives in public spheres.
AlmondGA (1956) Public opinion and national security policy. Public Opinion Quarterly20(2): 371–378.
2.
AyresJM (1999) From the streets to the internet: the cyber-diffusion of contention. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science566(1): 132–143.
3.
BarberáP (2015) Birds of the same feather tweet together: Bayesian ideal point estimation using Twitter data. Political Analysis23(1): 76–91.
ChristensenHS (2012) Simply slacktivism? Internet participation in Finland. JeDEM: E-Journal for E-Democracy & Open Government4(1): 1–23.
6.
CialdiniR (2007) Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
7.
CitronDK (2014) Hate Crimes in Cyberspace. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8.
ColleoniERozzaAArvidssonA (2014) Echo chamber or public sphere? Predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in Twitter using big data. Journal of Communication64(2): 317–332.
9.
CorreaT (2016) Digital skills and social media use: how internet skills are related to different types of Facebook use among ‘digital natives’. Information, Communication & Society19(8): 1095–1107.
10.
DretskeF (1981) Knowledge and the Flow of Information. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
11.
FraserN (1990) Rethinking the public sphere: a contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text25–26: 56–80.
12.
GillespieT (2014) The relevance of algorithms. In: GillespieTBoczkowskiPJFootKA (eds) Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 167–194.
13.
GoldmanA (1986) Epistemology and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14.
GualaF (2016) Understanding Institutions: The Science and Philosophy of Living Together. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
15.
HajerMA (2005) Setting the stage: a dramaturgy of policy deliberation. Administration & Society36(6): 624–647.
16.
HajerMA (2009) Authoritative Governance: Policy-Making in the Age of Mediatization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
HendricksVF (2006) Mainstream and Formal Epistemology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
19.
HendricksVF (2016) Bubble studies: the brass tacks. In: EmmecheCBudtzD (eds) Leading Frontier Research in the Humanities. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 230–244.
20.
HendricksVFHansenPG (2016) Infostorms: Why Do We “like”? Explaining Individual Behavior on the Social Net. New York: Copernicus Books/Springer Nature.
21.
HendricksVFRendsvigRK (2016) The philosophy of distributed information: (social information, announcements, testimony). In FloridiL (ed.) The routledge handbook of philosophy of information (pp. 120–136). London: Routledge.
22.
HintikkaJ (2006) Socratic Epistemology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
23.
KrechDCrutchfieldRS (1948) Theories and Problems of Social Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
24.
LashSM (2002) Critique of Information. London: SAGE.
25.
LewisD (2002) Convention: A Philosophical Study. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
26.
LyonD (2015) The Snowden stakes: challenges for understanding surveillance today. Surveillance & Society13(2): 139–152.
27.
ManinB (1987) On legitimacy and political deliberation (trans. E Stein and J Mansbridge). Political Theory15(3): 338–368.
28.
MansbridgeJ (1999) Everyday talk in the deliberate system. In: MacedoS (ed.) Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 211–239.
29.
MerceaD (2012) Digital prefigurative participation: the entwinement of online communication and offline participation in protest events. New Media & Society14(1): 153–169.
NozickR (1981) Philosophical Explanations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
32.
ParkinsonJR (2012) Democracy and Public Space: The Physical Sites of Democratic Performance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
33.
RauchfleischAKovicM (2016) The internet and generalized functions of the public sphere: transformative potentials from a comparative perspective. Social Media + Society. Epub ahead of print 26April. DOI: 10.1177/2056305116646393.
34.
RendsvigRAlimWHendricksVF (forthcoming) Cyberbullying and pluralistic ignorance: collective misperception of acceptance factor.
35.
ShinJJianL (2017) Political rumoring on Twitter during the 2012 US presidential election: rumor diffusion and correction. New Media & Society19(8): 1214–1235.
36.
SkoricMM (2012) What is slack about slacktivism?Methodological and Conceptual Issues in Cyber Activism Research77: 77–92.
37.
SloanLMorganJBurnapP. (2015) Who tweets? Deriving the demographic characteristics of age, occupation and social class from Twitter user meta-data. PLoS ONE10(3): e0115545.
38.
SunsteinCR (2000) Deliberative trouble? Why groups go to extremes. The Yale Law Journal110(1): 71–119.
39.
SunsteinCR (2005) Group judgments: statistical means, deliberation and information markets. NYUL Review80: 962–1049.
