The effect of social media as a potential sphere for public deliberation still remains unclear. For some analysts, social media can create a vibrant space for political discussion, whereas others believe they do not provide the right conditions for meaningful interaction and could even have negative effects on public opinion by, for instance, fostering communication within isolated enclaves. Focusing on the debate surrounding Catalonia’s secession, this article analyses the interaction on Twitter between the opposite sides of this divisive political issue. Carefully based on a nonbiased random sampling procedure, we describe Twitter conversations through network and content analyses, using both indicators of the structure of conversations and opinion diversity. Remarkably, we find that Twitter users cross lines of difference and interact with people holding opposing views. Through a regression analysis, we show that the level of reciprocity, understood as repeated interaction and measured by the depth of the conversation, is explained by heterogeneity and associated with a higher involvement of the pro-independence side. However, if heterogeneity is combined with extremism, the development of longer conversations is severely cut. Overall, this article points toward the actual use of social media as a space for cross-cutting communication and debate despite strong disagreement.
AhnT. K.HuckfeldtRobertRyanJohn Barry. 2014. Experts, Activists, and Democratic Politics: Are Electorates Self-Educating?Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2.
AllcottHuntGentzkowMatthew. 2017. “Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives31 (2): 211–35.
3.
AragónPablo, et al. 2017. “Deliberative Platform Design: The Case Study of the Online Discussions in Decidim Barcelona.” In Social Informatics, ed. CiampagliaGiovanni LucaMashhadiAfraYasseriTaha, 277–87. Cham: Springer.
4.
BakshyEytanMessingSolomonAdamicLada. A.2015. “Exposure to Ideologically Diverse News and Opinion on Facebook.” Science348 (6239): 1130–32.
5.
BarberáPablo. 2015. “Birds of the Same Feather Tweet Together: Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation Using Twitter Data.” Political Analysis23 (1): 76–91.
6.
BlackLaura W.WelserHoward T.CosleyDanDeGrootJocelyn M.2011. “Self-Governance through Group Discussion in Wikipedia: Measuring Deliberation in Online Groups.” Small Group Research42 (5): 595–634.
7.
BohmanJames. 1996. Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
8.
BondRobertMessingSolomon. 2015. “Quantifying Social Media’s Political Space: Estimating Ideology from Publicly Revealed Preferences on Facebook.” American Political Science Review109 (1): 62–78.
9.
BoutylineAndreiWillerRobb. 2011. “The Social Structure of Political Echo Chambers: Ideology Leads To Asymmetries in Online Political Communication Networks.” Working Paper. http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/pn_wp/57 (accessed June 11, 2019).
10.
BoxellLeviGentzkowMatthewShapiroJesse. 2017. Is the Internet Causing Political Polarization? Evidence from Demographics. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w23258.pdf (accessed May 14, 2018).
ColleoniElanorRozzaAlessandroArvidssonAdam. 2014. “Echo Chamber or Public Sphere? Predicting Political Orientation and Measuring Political Homophily in Twitter Using Big Data.” Journal of Communication64 (2): 317–32.
13.
CrameriKathryn. 2015. “Political Power and Civil Counterpower: The Complex Dynamics of the Catalan Independence Movement.” Nationalism and Ethnic Politics21 (1): 104–20.
14.
EckerAlejandro. 2017. “Estimating Policy Positions Using Social Network Data: Cross-Validating Position Estimates of Political Parties and Individual Legislators in the Polish Parliament.” Social Science Computer Review35 (1): 53–67.
Gonzalez-BailonSandraKaltenbrunnerAndreasBlanchsRafael E.2010. “The Structure of Political Discussion Networks: A Model for the Analysis of Online Deliberation.” Journal of Information Technology25:1–14.
17.
GrahamTodd. 2008. “Needles in a Haystack: A New Approach for Identifying and Assessing Political Talk in Nonpolitical Discussion Forums.” Javnost-The Public15 (2): 17–36.
18.
GrahamTodd.2010. “The Use of Expressives in Online Political Talk: Impeding or Facilitating the Normative Goals of Deliberation?” In Electronic Participation: Second IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, ePart 2010, Lausanne, Switzerland, August 29–September 2, 2010: Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, ed. TambourisEfthimiosMacintoshAnnGlasseyOlivier. Berlin: Springer.
19.
GrahamTodd. 2015. “Everyday Political Talk in the Internet Based Public Sphere.” In Handbook of Digital Politics, ed. ColemanStephenFreelonDeen, 247–63. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
20.
GrahamToddWitschgeTamara. 2006. “In Search of Online Deliberation: Towards a New Method for Examining the Quality of Online Discussions.” Communications28 (2): 173–204.
21.
GruzdAnatoliyRoyJeffrey. 2014. “Investigating Political Polarization on Twitter: A Canadian Perspective.” Policy & Internet6 (1): 28–45.
22.
Guerrero-SoléFrederic. 2017. “Community Detection in Political Discussions on Twitter: An Application of the Retweet Overlap Network Method to the Catalan Process toward Independence.” Social Science Computer Review35 (2): 244–61.
23.
GuessAndrewNaglerJonathanTuckerJoshua. 2019. “Less than You Think: Prevalence and Predictors of Fake News Dissemination on Facebook.” Science Advances5 (1): eaau4586.
24.
HimelboimItaiMcCreeryStephenSmithMarc. 2013. “Birds of a Feather Tweet Together: Integrating Network and Content Analyses to Examine Cross-Ideology Exposure on Twitter.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication18 (2): 40–60.
25.
HindmanMatthew. 2009. The Myth of Digital Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
26.
HirschJorge E.2005. “An Index to Quantify an Individual’s Scientific Research Output.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences102 (46): 16569–72.
27.
HorowitzDonald L.1985. Ethnic Groups in Conflict. Berkeley: University of California Press.
28.
HuckfeldtRobertJohnsonPaul E.SpragueJohn. 2004. Political Disagreement: The Survival of Diverse Opinions within Communication Networks. New York: Cambridge University Press.
29.
KiesRaphaël. 2010. Promises and Limits of Web-Deliberation. New York: Springer.
30.
KosinskiMichalStillwellDavidGraepelThore. 2013. “Private Traits and Attributes Are Predictable from Digital Records of Human Behavior.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences110 (15): 5802–805.
31.
LaaksoMarkkuTaageperaRein. 1979. “‘Effective’ Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to West Europe.” Comparative Political Studies12 (1): 3–27.
32.
MacKuenMichael. 1990. “Speaking of Politics: Individual Conversational Choice, Public Opinion, and the Prospects for Deliberative Democracy.” In Information and Democratic Processes, ed. FerejohnJohn A.KuklinskiJames H., 60-99. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
33.
MansbridgeJane. 1999. “Everyday Talk in the Deliberative System.” In Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement, ed. MacedoStephen, 211–39. New York: Oxford University Press.
34.
MutzDiana C. 2002. “Cross-Cutting Social Networks: Testing Democratic Theory in Practice”. The American Political Science Review96(1): 111–26.
35.
MutzDiana C.2006. Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36.
PapacharissiZizi. 2004. “Democracy Online: Civility, Politeness, and the Democratic Potential of Online Political Discussion Groups.” New Media & Society6 (2): 259–83.
37.
PariserEli. 2011. The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You. 1st Edition. New York: Penguin Press.
38.
PhillipsWhitney. 2015. This Is Why We Can’t Have Nice Things: Mapping the Relationship between Online Trolling and Mainstream Culture. Cambridge: MIT Press.
39.
RikerWilliam H.1960. The Theory of Political Coalitions. New Haven: Yale University Press.
40.
RuizCarlosDomingoDavidMicóJosep LluísDíaz-NociJavierMesoKoldoMasipPere. 2011. “Public Sphere 2.0? The Democratic Qualities of Citizen Debates in Online Newspapers.” The International Journal of Press/Politics16 (4): 463–87.
41.
SchattschneiderElmer Eric. 1960. The Semisovereign People. A Realist View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
42.
SharpJoanneCumbersAndrewPainterJoeWoodNichola. 2014. “Deciding Whose Future? Challenges and Opportunities of the Scottish Independence Referendum 2014 for Scotland and beyond.” Political Geography41:32–42.
43.
ShephardMark PeterQuinlanStephen. 2015. “Social Media and the Scottish Independence Referendum 2014: Events and the Generation of Enthusiasm for Yes.” In The Routledge Companion to Social Media and Politics, ed. BrunsAxelEnliGunnSkogerboEliLarssonAnders OlofChristensenChristian, 488–502. Oxford: Routledge. https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/57144/ (accessed January 28, 2019).
SteinerJürg. 2012. The Foundations of Deliberative Democracy: Empirical Research and Normative Implications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46.
StellaMassimoFerraraEmilioDe DomenicoManlio. 2018. “Bots Increase Exposure to Negative and Inflammatory Content in Online Social Systems.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences115 (49): 12435–40.
47.
Stromer-GalleyJennifer. 2002. “New Voices in the Public Sphere: A Comparative Analysis of Interpersonal and Online Political Talk.” Javnost-The Public9:23–42. http://www.javnost-thepublic.org/article/2002/2/2/ (accessed June 11, 2019).
48.
Stromer-GalleyJennifer. 2007. “Measuring Deliberation’s Content: A Coding Scheme.” Journal of Public Deliberation3 (1): 1–37.
49.
SunsteinCass R.2017. #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
50.
TarrowSidney G.2011. Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics. Rev. and Updated, 3rd Edition.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
51.
VaccariCristianValerianiAugustoBarberáPabloJostJohn T.NaglerJonathanTuckerJoshua A.2016. “Of Echo Chambers and Contrarian Clubs: Exposure to Political Disagreement among German and Italian Users of Twitter.” Social Media & Society2 (3). doi:10.1177/2056305116664221.
52.
WojcieszakMagdalena E.MutzDiana C.2009. “Online Groups and Political Discourse: Do Online Discussion Spaces Facilitate Exposure to Political Disagreement?” Journal of Communication59 (1): 40–56.
53.
WrightScott. 2012. “Politics as Usual? Revolution, Normalization and a New Agenda for Online Deliberation.” New Media & Society14 (2): 244–61.
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.
