There is an ongoing academic debate whether social media empowers activists and advocacy groups in relation to established political actors and media gatekeepers. This article investigates these premises by analysing the influence of various actors in two policy debates on Twitter, environmental policy (climate change) and Internet governance (net neutrality). We extract tweets on both topics and code the respective 500 most central accounts according to a categorisation of relevant political actor groups. Applying methods from social network analysis, we reveal temporally fluctuating actor constellations and network structures which converge to elite actors during high attention periods. Furthermore, a comparative keyword analysis shows that non-governmental organisations and citizen media emphasise personalised connective action frames, whereas political actors and traditional media tend to refer to the political decision-making process and its institutions. Both findings are in line with cyclical conceptions of policy processes.
AndersonJE (2011) Public Policymaking: An Introduction. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
2.
AragónPVolkovichYLaniadoDet al. (2016) When a movement becomes a party: Computational assessment of new forms of political organization in social media. In: Proceedings of the 10th international AAAI conference on web and social media, pp. 12–21. Palo Alto, CA: AAAI Press.
BarberáPWangNBonneauRet al. (2015) The critical periphery in the growth of social protests. PLoS ONE10(11): e0143611.
5.
BaringhorstS (2009) Politischer Protest im Netz. In: MarcinkowskiFPfetschB (eds) Politik in der Mediendemokratie. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, pp. 609–634.
6.
Barzilai-NahonK (2009) Gatekeeping: A critical review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology43(1): 1–79.
7.
BenklerY (2006) The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
8.
BennettLWSegerbergA (2012) The logic of connective action. Information, Communication & Society15(5): 739–768.
9.
BennettLWSegerbergA (2013) The Logic of Connective Action: Digital Media and the Personalization of Contentious Politics. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
10.
BrunsA (2008) Blogs, Wikipedia, Second life, and beyond: From Production to Produsage. New York: Peter Lang.
11.
BrunsABurgessJ (2011) #Ausvotes: How Twitter covered the 2010 Australian federal election. Communication, Politics & Culture44(2): 37–56.
12.
CeronANegriF (2016) The ‘social side’ of public policy: Monitoring online public opinion and its mobilization during the policy cycle. Policy & Internet8(2): 131–147.
13.
ChadwickA (2013) The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14.
DauvergneP (ed.) (2012) Handbook of Global Environmental Politics. 2nd ed.Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
15.
deLeonP (1999) What has it done? Where is it going? In: SabatierPA (ed.) Theoretical Lenses on Public Policy: Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 19–32.
16.
DürAMateoG (2014) Public opinion and interest group influence: How citizen groups derailed the anti-counterfeiting trade agreement. Journal of European Public Policy21(8): 1199–1217.
17.
European Union (EU) (2015) Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 of the European Parliament and of the Council. Available at: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2015/2120/oj (accessed 10 October 2016).
18.
FarisRRobertsHEtlingBet al. (2015) Score another one for the Internet? The Role of the networked public sphere in the U.S. Net Neutrality policy debate. SSRN Electronic Journal. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2563761 (accessed 10 May 2015).
FreelonDKarpfD (2015) Of big birds and bayonets: Hybrid Twitter interactivity in the 2012 Presidential debates. Information, Communication & Society18(4): 390–406.
21.
GoldsmithJLWuT (2006) Who Controls the Internet? Illusions of a Borderless World. New York: Oxford University Press.
22.
GreensteinSPeitzMVallettiT (2016) Net neutrality: A fast lane to understanding the trade-offs. Journal of Economic Perspectives30(2): 127–150.
23.
HaasPM (2000) International institutions and social learning in the management of global environmental risks. Policy Studies Journal28(3): 558–575.
24.
HarnischSTosunJ (2016) Die Klimavereinbarung von Paris: Eine erste politikwissenschaftliche Analyse. Zeitschrift für Umweltpolitik & Umweltrecht13: 72–87.
25.
HestresL (2014) Preaching to the choir: Internet-mediated advocacy, issue public mobilization, and climate change. New Media & Society16(2): 323–339.
26.
HindmanMS (2009) The Myth of Digital Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
27.
HongSNadlerD (2016) The unheavenly chorus: Political voices of organized interests on social media. Policy & Internet8(1): 91–106.
28.
JannWWegrichK (2007) Theories of the policy cycle. In: FischerFMillerGJSidneyMS (eds) Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics, and Methods. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis, pp. 43–62.
29.
JeffaresS (2014) Interpreting Hashtag Politics: Policy Ideas in an Era of Social Media. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
30.
JungherrA (2016) Twitter use in election campaigns: A systematic literature review. Journal of Information Technology & Politics13(1): 72–91.
31.
KwakHLeeCParkHet al. (2010) What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? In: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on world wide web. New York: ACM, pp. 591–600.
32.
LeeRSWuT (2009) Subsidizing creativity through network design: Zero-pricing and net neutrality. Journal of Economic Perspectives23(3): 61–76.
33.
LietzHWagnerCBleierAet al. (2014) When politicians talk: Assessing online conversational practices of political parties on Twitter. In: Proceedings of the 8th international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media. Palo Alto, CA: AAAI Press, pp. 285–294.
34.
LipskyM (1968) Protest as a political resource. American Political Science Review62(4): 1144–1158.
35.
McAdamD (2008) Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36.
McEneryTXiaoRTonoY (2006) Corpus-Based Language Studies: An Advanced Resource Book. London: Routledge.
37.
MargettsHZ (2009) The Internet and public policy. Policy & Internet1(1): 1–21.
38.
MargolisMResnickD (2000) Politics as Usual: The Cyberspace ‘Revolution’. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
39.
NulmanE (2015) Climate Change and Social Movements: Civil Society and the Development of National Climate Change Policy. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
40.
PageLBrinSMotwaniRet al. (1999) The PageRank citation ranking: Bringing order to the Web. Stanford InfoLab Techreport. Available at: http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/422 (accessed 20 June 2016).
41.
SabatierPA (2007) The need for better theories. In: SabatierPA (ed.) Theoretical Lenses on Public Policy: Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 3–17.
42.
SchünemannWJSteigerSStierS (2015) The net neutrality debate on Twitter. Internet Policy Review4(4).
43.
ShirkyC (2008) Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing without Organizations. New York: Penguin Press.
44.
StoneD (2008) Global public policy, transnational policy communities, and their networks. Policy Studies Journal36(1): 19–38.
45.
SunsteinCR (2009) Republic.com 2.0. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
