Many social media affordances can affect the quality of online discourse, but such an effect remains understudied for the visibility of geolocation, which is available on most social media platforms. We looked at the event in which Weibo started to display users’ IP locations on 28 April 2022, which was supposed to reduce incivility as the deindividuation hypothesis predicted. Leveraging a natural experiment, we examined the effect of IP location visibility, with special attention to COVID-19-related news posts and location-based, uncivil name-calling. We found that displaying the IP location in the comments section increased location-based incivility, as geolocation can function as an effective cue that signals ideological affiliation and fuels conflicts between users holding different political positions on the Chinese Internet. Meanwhile, we characterized a moderating effect of audience size on this decivilizing effect. Our study suggests that diverse social media affordances can fuel group identification and facilitate intergroup behaviors.
AndersonAABrossardDScheufeleDA, et al. (2014) The “nasty effect”: online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication19(3): 373–387.
2.
BallietDWuJDe DreuCK (2014) Ingroup favoritism in cooperation: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin140(6): 1556–1581.
3.
BarnidgeMArdèvol-AbreuAGilDeZúñigaH (2016) Content-expressive behavior and ideological extremity: an examination of the roles of emotional intelligence and information network heterogeneity. New Media & Society20(2): 815–834.
4.
BaraschABergerJ (2014) Broadcasting and narrowcasting: how audience size affects what people share. Journal of Marketing Research51(3): 286–299.
5.
BlackwellCBirnholtzJAbbottC (2015) Seeing and being seen: co-situation and impression formation using Grindr, a location-aware gay dating app. New Media & Society17(7): 1117–1136.
6.
BrewerMB (2001) Ingroup identification and intergroup conflict: when does ingroup love become outgroup hate? In: AshmoreRDJussimLJWilderD (eds) Social Identity, Intergroup Conflict, and Conflict Reduction. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 17–41.
7.
ChenGMLuS (2017) Online political discourse: exploring differences in effects of civil and uncivil disagreement in news website comments. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media61(1): 108–125.
8.
ChenAChenKZhangJMengJShenC (2023) When national identity meets conspiracies: the contagion of national identity language in public engagement and discourse about COVID-19 conspiracy theories. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication28(1):1–12.
9.
ChoiSYangJSChenW (2018) Longitudinal change of an online political discussion forum: antecedents of discussion network size and evolution. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication23(5): 260–277.
10.
CoeKKenskiKRainsSA (2014) Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication64(4): 658–679.
11.
CohenJ (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed.London: Routledge.
12.
CrawfordKGillespieT (2016) What is a flag for? Social media reporting tools and the vocabulary of complaint. New Media & Society18(3): 410–428.
13.
EsauKFriessDEildersC (2017) Design matters! An empirical analysis of online deliberation on different news platforms. Policy & Internet9(3): 321–342.
14.
EvansSKPearceKEVitakJ, et al. (2017) Explicating affordances: a conceptual framework for understanding affordances in communication research. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication22(1): 35–52.
15.
EvelandWPHivelyMH (2009) Political discussion frequency, network size, and “heterogeneity” of discussion as predictors of political knowledge and participation. Journal of Communication59(2): 205–224.
16.
FangK (2022) What is Zimeiti? The commercial logic of content provision on China’s social media platforms. Chinese Journal of Communication15(1): 75–94.
17.
FestingerLPepitoneANewcombT (1952) Some consequences of de-individuation in a group. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology47(Suppl. 2): 382–389.
18.
FoxJMcEwanB (2017) Distinguishing technologies for social interaction: the perceived social affordances of communication channels scale. Communication Monographs84(3): 298–318.
19.
GastilJ (2008) Political Communication and Deliberation. New York: Sage.
20.
GibsonJJ (1977) The theory of affordances. In: ShawRBransfordJ (eds) Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing: Toward an Ecological Psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 67–82.
21.
Gil De ZúñigaHValenzuelaS (2011) The mediating path to a stronger citizenship: online and offline networks, weak ties, and civic engagement. Communication Research38(3): 397–421.
22.
GillespieT (2018) Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
23.
Gil-LopezTShenCBenefieldGA, et al. (2018) One size fits all: context collapse, self-presentation strategies and language styles on Facebook. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication23(3): 127–145.
24.
GuanTLiuTYangY (2021) Moving away from partisanship: diversifying the motives behind political polarization. Political Studies Review19(4): 656–667.
25.
HabermasJ (1987) Theory of Communicative Action, Volume Two: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
26.
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.
27.
HanR (2018a) To comply or to resist? The intermediaries’ dilemma. In: HanR (ed.) Contesting Cyberspace in China. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 55–76.
28.
HanX (2018b) Searching for an online space for feminism? The Chinese feminist group Gender Watch Women’s Voice and its changing approaches to online misogyny. Feminist Media Studies18(4): 734–749.
29.
HjorthLGuK (2012) The place of emplaced visualities: a case study of smartphone visuality and location-based social media in Shanghai, China. Continuum26(5): 699–713.
30.
HoffmannMHeftA (2020) “Here, there and everywhere”: classifying location information in social media data—possibilities and limitations. Communication Methods and Measures14(3): 184–203.
31.
JaidkaKZhouALelkesY (2019) Brevity is the soul of Twitter: the constraint affordance and political discussion. Journal of Communication69(4): 345–372.
32.
JaidkaKZhouALelkesY, et al. (2022) Beyond anonymity: network affordances, under deindividuation, improve social media discussion quality. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication27: 1–3.
33.
JiaLHanX (2020) Tracing Weibo (2009–2019): the commercial dissolution of public communication and changing politics. Internet Histories4(3): 304–332.
34.
JohnNADvir-GvirsmanS (2015) “I don’t like you any more”: Facebook unfriending by Israelis during the Israel–Gaza conflict of 2014. Journal of Communication65(6): 953–974.
35.
KimB (2020) Effects of social grooming on incivility in COVID-19. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking23(8): 519–525.
36.
KimJWGuessANyhanB, et al. (2021) The distorting prism of social media: how self-selection and exposure to incivility fuel online comment toxicity. Journal of Communication71(6): 922–946.
37.
KlofstadCASokheyAEMcClurgSD (2013) Disagreeing about disagreement: how conflict in social networks affects political behavior. American Journal of Political Science57(1): 120–134.
38.
KnustadMJohanssonC (2021) Anonymity and inhibition in newspaper comments. Information12(3): 106.
39.
LaneDS (2019) Social media design for youth political expression: testing the roles of identifiability and geo-boundedness. New Media & Society22(8): 1394–1413.
40.
LeeAHY (2021) How the politicization of everyday activities affects the public sphere: the effects of partisan stereotypes on cross-cutting interactions. Political Communication38(5): 499–518.
41.
LeeFLLiangHTangGK (2019) Online incivility, cyberbalkanization, and the dynamics of opinion polarization during and after a mass protest event. International Journal of Communication13: 20.
42.
McKuneS (2015) “Foreign hostile forces”: the human rights dimension of China’s cyber campaigns. In: LindsayJRCheungTMReveronDS (eds) China and Cybersecurity: Espionage, Strategy, and Politics in the Digital Domain. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 260–296.
43.
MannLNewtonJWInnesJ (1982) A test between deindividuation and emergent norm theories of crowd aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology42(2): 260–272.
44.
MarchalN (2022) “Be nice or leave me alone”: an intergroup perspective on affective polarization in online political discussions. Communication Research49(3): 376–398.
45.
MorganSLWinshipC (2015) Counterfactuals and Causal Inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46.
MoyPGastilJ (2006) Predicting deliberative conversation: the impact of discussion networks, media use, and political cognitions. Political Communication23(4): 443–460.
47.
MungerK (2017) Tweetment effects on the Tweeted: experimentally reducing racist harassment. Political Behavior39(3): 629–649.
48.
MutzDC (2002) Cross-cutting social networks: testing democratic theory in practice. American Political Science Review96(1): 111–126.
49.
MutzDC (2006) Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative Versus Participatory Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50.
NeubaumGWeeksB (2023) Computer-mediated political expression: a conceptual framework of technological affordances and individual tradeoffs. Journal of Information Technology & Politics20(1): 19–33.
51.
OzMZhengPChenGM (2018) Twitter versus Facebook: comparing incivility, impoliteness, and deliberative attributes. New Media & Society20(9): 3400–3419.
52.
PanJXuY (2018) China’s ideological spectrum. The Journal of Politics80(1): 254–273.
53.
PapacharissiZ (2004) Democracy online: civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society6(2): 259–283.
54.
PengAY (2021) Amplification of regional discrimination on Chinese news portals: an affective critical discourse analysis. Convergence27(5): 1343–1359.
55.
PenneyJW (2016) Chilling effects: online surveillance and Wikipedia use. Berkeley Technology Law Journal31(1): 117–182.
56.
PerfumiSCBagnoliFCaudekC, et al. (2019) Deindividuation effects on normative and informational social influence within computer-mediated-communication. Computers in Human Behavior92: 230–237.
57.
PetersonEMuñozM (2022) “Stick to sports”: evidence from sports media on the origins and consequences of newly politicized attitudes. Political Communication39(4): 454–474.
58.
PostmesTSpearsRSakhelK, et al. (2001) Social influence in computer-mediated communication: the effects of anonymity on group behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin27(10): 1243–1254.
59.
QianYJinYXieY (2021) Belief in science and attitudes toward COVID-19: a demographic standardization approach to China–US comparison, 2020. China CDC Weekly3(30): 645–649.
60.
RainsSAKenskiKCoeK, et al. (2017) Incivility and political identity on the Internet: intergroup factors as predictors of incivility in discussions of news online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication22(4): 163–178.
61.
RamsayCRMatoweLGrilliR, et al. (2003) Interrupted time series designs in health technology assessment: lessons from two systematic reviews of behavior change strategies. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care19(4): 613–623.
62.
ReicherSDSpearsRPostmesT (1995) A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. European Review of Social Psychology6(1): 161–198.
63.
RoweI (2015) Civility 2.0: a comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion. Information, Communication & Society18(2): 121–138.
64.
SantanaAD (2014) Virtuous or vitriolic: the effect of anonymity on civility in online newspaper reader comment boards. Journalism Practice8(1): 18–33.
65.
SchwartzRHalegouaGR (2015) The spatial self: location-based identity performance on social media. New Media & Society17(10): 1643–1660.
66.
ScottCRRainsSA (2020) (Dis) connections in anonymous communication theory: exploring conceptualizations of anonymity in communication research. Annals of the International Communication Association44(4): 385–400.
67.
SettleJE (2018) Frenemies: How Social Media Polarizes America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
68.
ShenCChenALuoC, et al. (2020) Using reports of symptoms and diagnoses on social media to predict COVID-19 case counts in mainland china: observational infoveillance study. Journal of Medical Internet Research22(5): e19421.
SproullLKieslerS (1986) Reducing social context cues: electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science32(11): 1492–1512.
71.
SuCCChanMPaikS (2022) Telegram and the anti-ELAB movement in Hong Kong: reshaping networked social movements through symbolic participation and spontaneous interaction. Chinese Journal of Communication15(3): 431–448.
72.
SulerJ (2004) The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior7(3): 321–326.
73.
TajfelHE (1978) Differentiation between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
74.
VragaEKThorsonKKligler-VilenchikN, et al. (2015) How individual sensitivities to disagreement shape youth political expression on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior45: 281–289.
75.
WangJSundarSS (2022) Liking versus commenting on online news: effects of expression affordances on political attitudes. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication27: 1–13.
76.
Weibo (2022) IP location function update announcement. Available at: https://weibo.com/1934183965/LqvYeCdBu?ssl_rnd=1667059481.8345&type=comment (accessed 18 January 2022).
77.
YangG (2009) The Power of the Internet in China: Citizen Activism Online. New York: Columbia University Press.
78.
YangG (2018) Demobilizing the emotions of online activism in China: a civilizing process. International Journal of Communication12: 21.
79.
YangJBarnidgeMRojasH (2017) The politics of “unfriending”: user filtration in response to political disagreement on social media. Computers in Human Behavior70: 22–29.
80.
YangTFangKC (2023) How dark corners collude: a study on an online Chinese alt-right community. Information, Communication & Society26: 441–458.
81.
ZhangC (2020) Right-wing populism with Chinese characteristics? Identity, otherness and global imaginaries in debating world politics online. European Journal of International Relations26(1): 88–115.
82.
ZhouA (2021) Causal effects of affordance change on communication behavior: empirical evidence from organizational and leadership social media use. Telematics and Informatics59: 101549.
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.
