Hashtag “#NoDAPL” was used by environmental activists for a series of protests against the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline beginning in early 2016. Utilizing 2 million tweets with the main hashtag, as well as the auxiliary hashtags, from around 550,000 unique users between November 2016 and February 2017, the study investigated the interactions among four groups—regular activists, Native American activists, reporters, and organizations identified based on their bio information, and the effects of physical location on network attention. Exponential random graph models (ERGMs) on the retweet network showed that Native American activists occupied the most prominent positions and that different groups assumed different network roles. Location analysis based on Poisson regression showed that physical proximity’s effects on attention depended on group status, and the effects were moderated by users’ authority. Implications of the study results on networked publics and the influence of locality and proximity on socially mediated networks were discussed.
AldooryLShaBL (2007) The situational theory of publics: practical applications, methodological challenges, and theoretical horizons. In: TothEL (ed.) The Future of Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management: Challenges for the Next Generation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 339–355.
2.
AldooryLKimJTindallN (2009) The influence of perceived shared risk in crisis communication: elaborating the situational theory of publics. Public Relations Review36: 134–140.
3.
BastosMTMerceaD (2016) Serial activists: political Twitter beyond influentials and the twittertariat. New Media & Society18(10): 2359–2378.
4.
BeckerABCopelandL (2016) Networked publics: how connective social media use facilitates political consumerism among LGBT Americans. Journal of Information Technology & Politics13(1): 22–36.
5.
BlevinsJLLeeJJMcCabeEE, et al. (2019) Tweeting for social justice in# Ferguson: affective discourse in Twitter hashtags. New Media & Society21(7): 1636–1653.
6.
BoothALJacobsHM (1990) Ties that bind: native American beliefs as a foundation for environmental consciousness. Environmental Ethics12(1): 27–43.
7.
boydd (2010) Social network sites as networked publics: affordances, dynamics, and implications. In: PapacharissiZ (ed.) Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites. New York: Routledge, pp. 39–58.
8.
CappelliML (2018) Standing with Standing Rock: affective alignment and artful resistance at the Native Nations Rise March. SAGE Open8(3). DOI: 10.1177/2158244018785703.
9.
CarneyN (2016) All lives matter, but so does race: Black lives matter and the evolving role of social media. Humanity & Society40(2): 180–199.
10.
ColleoniERozzaAArvidssonA (2014) Echo chamber or public sphere? Predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in Twitter using big data: political homophily on Twitter. Journal of Communication64(2): 317–332.
11.
ConoverMDGonçalvesBRatkiewiczJ, et al. (2011) Predicting the political alignment of Twitter users. In: Proceedings of 2011 IEEE international conference on privacy, security, risk and trust, Boston, MA, 9–11 October, pp. 192–199. New York: IEEE.
DuguayS (2016) “He has a way gayer Facebook than I do”: investigating sexual identity disclosure and context collapse on a social networking site. New Media & Society18(6): 891–907.
14.
EndresDSenda-CookS (2011) Location matters: the rhetoric of place in protest. Quarterly Journal of Speech97(3): 257–282.
15.
EvansLSakerM (2017) Location-Based Social Media: Space, Time and Identity. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
16.
GiddensA (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
17.
GillmorD (2004) We the Media: Grassroots Journalism by the People, for the People. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.
18.
GrunigJE (1989) Sierra Club study shows who become activists. Public Relations Review15(3): 3–24.
19.
GrunigJE (2006) Furnishing the edifice: ongoing research on public relations as a strategic management function. Journal of Public Relations Research18(2): 151–176.
20.
HalberstamYKnightB (2016) Homophily, group size, and the diffusion of political information in social networks: evidence from Twitter. Journal of Public Economics143: 73–88.
21.
HalpernDGibbsJ (2013) Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation? Exploring the affordances of Facebook and YouTube for political expression. Computers in Human Behavior29(3): 1159–1168.
22.
HendriksCM (2009) Deliberative governance in the context of power. Policy and Society28(3): 173–184.
HunterDR (2007) Curved exponential family models for social networks. Social Networks29(2): 216–230.
25.
JacksonSJFoucault WellesB (2015) Hijacking #myNYPD: social media dissent and networked counterpublics—hijacking #myNYPD. Journal of Communication65(6): 932–952.
26.
JacksonSJBaileyMFoucault WellesB (2018) #GirlsLikeUs: trans advocacy and community building online. New Media & Society20(5): 1868–1888.
27.
JohnsonTN (2019) The Dakota access pipeline and the breakdown of participatory processes in environmental decision-making. Environmental Communication13(3): 335–352.
28.
KleinN (2015) This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
29.
KuoR (2018) Racial justice activist hashtags: counterpublics and discourse circulation. New Media & Society20(2): 495–514.
30.
LangloisGElmerGMcKelveyF, et al. (2009) Networked publics: the double articulation of code and politics on Facebook. Canadian Journal of Communication34(3): 415–434.
31.
McPhersonMSmith-LovinLCookJM (2001) Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology27(1): 415–444.
32.
MansbridgeJ (1996) Using power/fighting power: the polity. In: BenhabibS (ed.) Democracy and Difference —Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 46–66.
33.
MerazS (2009) Is there an elite hold? Traditional media to social media agenda setting influence in blog networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication14(3): 682–707.
34.
MeyrowitzJ (1985) No Sense of Place: The Impact of Electronic Media on Social Behavior. New York: Oxford University Press.
35.
Michael DeLucaKPeeplesJ (2002) From public sphere to public screen: democracy, activism, and the “violence” of Seattle. Critical Studies in Media Communication19(2): 125–151.
36.
MorrisMHandcockMSHunterDR (2008) Specification of exponential-family random graph models: terms and computational aspects. Journal of Statistical Software24(4): 1548–7660.
37.
OjalaMPanttiMLaaksonenS-M (2019) Networked publics as agents of accountability: online interactions between citizens, the media and immigration officials during the European refugee crisis. New Media and Society21(2): 279–297.
38.
PapacharissiZ (2016) Affective publics and structures of storytelling: sentiment, events and mediality. Information, Communication & Society19(3): 307–324.
39.
PapacharissiZDe Fatima OliveiraM (2012) Affective news and networked publics: the rhythms of news storytelling on #Egypt. Journal of Communication62(2): 266–282.
40.
PapacharissiZTreveyMT (2018) Affective publics and windows of opportunity: social media and the potential for social change. In: MeikleG (ed.) The Routledge Companion to Media and Activism. New York: Routledge, pp. 87–96.
41.
PenneyJDadasC (2014) (Re)tweeting in the service of protest: digital composition and circulation in the Occupy Wall Street movement. New Media & Society16(1): 74–90.
42.
RenningerBJ (2015) “Where I can be myself . . . where I can speak my mind”: networked counterpublics in a polymedia environment. New Media & Society17(9): 1513–1529.
43.
SalvadorMClarkTL (1999) Native Americans and the environment: cultural representation in Sierra magazine. World Communication28(2): 27–44.
44.
SchlosbergDCarruthersD (2010) Indigenous struggles, environmental justice, and community capabilities. Global Environmental Politics10(4): 12–35.
45.
SchwartzRHalegouaGR (2015) The spatial self: location-based identity performance on social media. New Media & Society17(10): 1643–1660.
46.
ShaBL (2006) Cultural identity in the segmentation of publics: an emerging theory of intercultural public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research18(1): 45–65.
47.
StieglitzSDang-XuanL (2011) Political communication and influence through microblogging—an empirical analysis of sentiment in Twitter messages and retweet behavior. In: Proceedings of the annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Maui, HI, 4–7 January, pp. 3500–3509. New York: IEEE.
48.
TindallNTVardeman-WinterJ (2011) Complications in segmenting campaign publics: women of color explain their problems, involvement, and constraints in reading heart disease communication. Howard Journal of Communications22(3): 280–301.
49.
WellerKBrunsABurgessJ, et al. (2013) Twitter and Society. 2nd ed.New York: Peter Lang.
50.
WillowAJ (2009) Clear-cutting and colonialism: the ethnopolitical dynamics of indigenous environmental activism in Northwestern Ontario. Ethnohistory56(1): 35–67.
51.
XuSZhouA (2020) Hashtag homophily in Twitter network: examining a controversial cause-related marketing campaign. Computers in Human Behavior102: 87–96.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
