Imagined Democratic Affordances: Persistent Faith in the Democratic Power of the Internet among Sanders Supporters on Reddit

Abstract

Research on digital democracy and online mobilization often focuses on how technological design, affordances, organizing, or policy may influence online political behaviors. Less attention is paid to users’ imagination about their digital environments, the expectations, emotions, or values that are involved, and how these relate to users’ perceptions on the democratic opportunities afforded by digital media. This study conducts qualitative analysis of the perceptions of Bernie Sanders supporters on a large Reddit community of both digital media and mainstream media. The findings suggest that some users, who regard themselves as democratically populist, tend to regard digital media optimistically and display persistent faith in the democratizing capacity of online platforms. This study provides a deeper understanding of the power of users’ imagination and elucidates issues of the persistence of technological optimism, the appeal and motivational power of the democratic promise of the internet, and users’ association of democratic ideals with online activism.

Keywords

Reddit online activism Bernie Sanders imagined affordances populism

Introduction

Something a bit counterintuitive occurred in the discussion threads of the Reddit community of Bernie Sanders supporters (r/SandersforPresident) between 2016 and 2020. The Cambridge Analytica scandal, online influence campaigns to manipulate voters, and claims about the dangers of misinformation and disinformation to democracies worldwide regularly broke news, and yet many Redditors for Sanders displayed sustained optimism about the democratizing powers of digital media. To claim that these Redditors were insulated in a “filter bubble” does not square with the nature of their activities, as detailed below. Something else must explain their persistent faith in the democratizing power of the internet.

The effects of digital media on democracy are of course widely debated. Broadly speaking, digital media have been associated with Habermasian deliberation, elevation of marginalized voices, political expression, the facilitation of mass protest (Dahlberg, 2011; Jost et al., 2018; Papacharissi, 2004; Tufekci & Wilson, 2012), but also with surveillance, persecution, oppression, extremism, and polarization (Benkler et al., 2018; Gunitsky, 2015; Kyriakopoulou, 2011; Persily, 2017; Schroeder, 2021). Nuanced analyses caution against technological optimism about the democratizing capacities of digital media and yet point to some instances of democratic opportunity (Papacharissi, 2015). Accordingly, digital media pluralize, but not democratize, amplify but not equalize, and connect underrepresented groups, but also fascists (Papacharissi, 2021, p. 19). Bennett and Segerberg (2012) proposed the term “connective action” to suggest that unlike collective action, which is resource-intensive, relies on committed members and fosters organizational identity, connective action is a form of personalized, potentially large-scale online mobilization. Furthermore, the speed of online dissemination of messages often creates expectations of equally fast processes of democratization, expectations that are defeated in the face of the challenges involved in creating long-lasting systemic, political, and societal transformations (Papacharissi, 2016, p. 321). More harshly, Dean (2009) argues that the democratic promise of the internet is rather a democratic fantasy sustained by the voice supposedly granted to all participants. In reality, she claims, this promise is lost in an endless circulation of nuggets of information, in a system termed “communicative capitalism” that privileges the top 1%, and what is worse, distracts from the hard work of building political-organizational power to promote democracy (Dean, 2009, pp. 22, 47–48; see also Brown, 2015, p. 179; Hindman, 2009).

Existing research on how users themselves relate to such issues suggests that seasoned pro-democracy activists are aware of the dangers and opportunities of online activism (e.g., Pospieszna & Galus, 2019). Studies also show that users regard their online involvement as contributing to offline mobilization (Harlow & Harp, 2012). In contrast to the “slacktivism” hypothesis (Morozov, 2009), research on online activists’ own sense of efficacy finds that committed users view their online activities as promoting democratic outcomes (Lane et al., 2019; Wilkins et al., 2019) especially when associated with positive affect (Foster et al., 2019). Yet, beyond assessing user perceptions on the advantages and risks of online organizing, there is but scarce research on what lies behind such digital activists’ generally positive assessments of their digital labor. Paying attention to users’ values, emotions, expectations, and beliefs (Milkoreit, 2017, p. 2; Nagy & Neff, 2015, pp. 6–7) and how these relate to user perceptions on the relationship between digital media and democratization can shed light on the matter. This leads me to the fundamental question of the study: How do left-wing online activists come to perceive the role of digital media in advancing democracy?

Theoretically, this study builds on Nagy and Neff’s (2015) concept of imagined affordance to propose a certain democratic imagination that is involved in online activism: imagined democratic affordance. Originally, Nagy and Neff’s concept suggested that there is a gap between what users imagine a certain environment affords and what it actually does. Their key example pertained to how changes in the Facebook algorithm that determined visibility of content were interpreted as something else: “many . . . unaware users blamed themselves, not the algorithm, for having missed their friends’ important posts” (p. 3). Imagined affordances play a role in the ways users perceive and decide to use technology, as they create, shape, and are influenced by their mediated environments (see also Tirosh, 2022, p. 490). Put differently, imagined affordances are possibilities that partly rely on what the material-technological structure enables, and are partly projected onto the environment by the user.

The proposed term of this study, imagined democratic affordances, is distinct from the study of “democratic affordances.” The latter is focused on how the design of a digital platform and its relation to political-institutional factors may facilitate democratic outcomes (Deseriis, 2021; Feddersen & Santana, 2022). It is also distinct from the study of platform affordances that contribute to online political mobilization as in Beyer’s (2014) research on different types of online communities and the materialization of organizing on these platforms or lack thereof. These may be viewed as top-down understandings of democratic affordances according to which the top is inhabited by the designer of technology, planner, or decision-maker while the user plays a secondary role. Imagined democratic affordances acknowledge the affective bonds created by politically interested users in their blend of opinions, facts, and news, their moments of affective intensity and anticipation (Papacharissi, 2015). In addition, it explains views that associate digital media with democratization, rather than with other political projects and ends. I argue that Nagy and Neff’s concept of imagined affordance alone does not explain questions of democratization and digital media, or the appeal of the democratic promise of the internet; likewise, the study of platform affordances and digital organizing alone do not make room for users’ own construction of meaning through their online activities and how, in turn, these meanings influence their online behaviors; and finally, research on political affect alone may explain the appeal of digital media to politically-minded users, yet does not fully explain persistent faith in the democratizing capacity of digital media.

I use “democratic imagination,” following Nagy and Neff’s (2015, pp. 1, 4, 6–7) use of “imagination” to factor in the values, expectations, emotions, or beliefs of users when assessing their interactions with each other and with the digital platform insofar as these relate to democratization. I use “perceptions” when describing users’ emerging sense of what they can achieve thanks to digital media. In addition, I find research on imagination and activism, beyond digital organizing, useful in explaining how imagination shapes perceptions and behaviors. The ability to imagine alternative, desirable realities in the context of climate activism has been found to increase intent to partake in collective action and nurture a sense of agency and collective efficacy beliefs (Bleh et al., 2025; Milkoreit, 2017). This study suggests that activists’ imagination is not only employed to envision a better world, regardless of organizing tactics, but can also be employed to regard the digital-technological structure as a means with which to produce a better world.

Empirically, this study approaches the question of perceptions on digital media and democracy by paying attention to how users themselves imagine their own digital political labor. This is carried out by adapting thematic analysis techniques that are being developed for research on large social media data, such as Reddit (Caplan & Purser, 2019). More specifically, this study conducts qualitative analysis on how members of a community of left-wing online Bernie Sanders supporters formed their perceptions on digital media in relation to their perceptions on mainstream media (MSM). Redditors for Sanders regularly compared digital media to MSM in their discussion threads. The focus on this comparison is fruitful for an analysis of faith in digital organizing due to users’ regular participation in the former sphere and exclusion from the latter. That is, digital media may represent to users what they can achieve (online organizing) while MSM may represent what they are less likely to achieve (shaping dominant coverage). Arguably, this gap creates an opening for users’ democratic imagination in the analyzed discussions.

The comparison between digital media and MSM also rests on the contentious relationship between Sanders himself and the MSM (Higdon & Huff, 2020), which probably extended to his supporters’ views of the MSM. In addition, the contrast between digital media and MSM reflects the view that digital media pose a challenge to established traditional media (Gaskins & Jerit, 2012), sometimes understood in a populist fashion according to which traditional media belong to the elites while the internet to “the people” (on the “elective affinity” between populism and digital media, see Gerbaudo, 2018). Through the dichotomous notion of the MSM on one side, and digital media on the other, users’ negotiation of their roles and abilities can be given particular attention. The analyzed discussions reveal a reinforcing cycle that includes digital activism, democratic imagination, emerging perceptions of what users-as-activists can achieve, and finally a return to digital activism with reinforced faith in the democratizing power of the internet. Thus, a mix of digital activism and democratic imagination can contribute to activists’ persistent faith in online democratization despite experiences of defeat, setbacks, or exposure to online harms.

Case Study

Sanders Supporters Organize on Reddit

In 2013, a young supporter of independent Senator Bernie Sanders opened r/SandersforPresident (Krieg, 2015), an online Reddit community (known as “subreddit”). Two years later, Sanders launched his campaign for the Democratic Party nomination with little national name recognition against the presumptive nominee, Hillary Clinton. Sanders represented the progressive, social democratic wing of the party while Clinton stood for its liberal, center-left establishment. Despite Clinton’s major advantages in name recognition, campaign operations, and funding, Sanders managed to close the gap and become a serious contender by amassing grassroots funding and supporters and winning key elections until finally conceding to Clinton towards the end of the nomination process. In 2019–2020, Sanders ran again for the party nomination and maintained frontrunner status until setbacks in March 2020, eventually conceding to Joe Biden. Following Sanders’s announcement in 2015 and the first major events held by the campaign, the subreddit’s number of subscribers began to climb. In March 2016, it crossed the threshold of 200,000 members and by then the official campaign had already been coordinating with the subreddit moderators to publicize events, drive voter registration, and mobilize volunteers. At its peak in 2020, the subreddit reached approximately 500,000 members.¹

Reddit was originally established in 2005 as a user-curated news aggregation social platform known as “the front page of the internet” (Holec & Mack, 2020). It allows the formation of online communities based on hobbies, interests, political causes, studies, and so on. Unlike character-limited or predominantly visual platforms, Reddit content can include a wide array of ideas, emotions, attitudes, and lengthy discussions, which make this platform appropriate for qualitative analysis of users’ negotiations of meaning and perception formation. Existing research suggests that Reddit communities are appropriate sites for filter bubbles due to the platform’s affordances of content moderation, marginalization of alternative messaging, and pseudo-anonymity (Massanari, 2015; Prakasam & Huxtable-Thomas, 2021). In addition, subreddits develop their own internal etiquette (“reddiquette”), encoded language, personalized interfaces, and echo chambers, which foster in-group cohesion and membership, and require some effortful familiarization by the outsider to effectively join the online community (Prakasam & Huxtable-Thomas, 2021, pp. 731–733). Reddit also agrees with Beyer’s (2014, p. 11) model of a media platform that encourages political mobilization thanks to its affordances of pseudo-anonymity and low-level regulation (by the platform, not the subreddit moderators). While such affordances may be associated with tolerance for extremism (Prakasam & Huxtable-Thomas, 2021), they may also reflect organizing theory of marginalized groups. Originally, safe space theory dealt with how women’s groups create spaces where they can meet undisturbed to build collective strength and coordinate resistance to patriarchy (Kenney, 2001, p. 24). This sense, rather than what the term has come to mean in educational contexts of excluding disagreement (Flensner & Von der Lippe, 2019), may fit the affordances of Reddit in relation to how subdominant groups regulate their counterspace to exclude threatening views while building power.

Method

Thematic content analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) was chosen as the method of investigation following a constructionist approach (i.e., acknowledging that identification of themes is socially constructed and related to how the researcher may read the text). Since Reddit provides vast quantities of textual content, recent developments in qualitative methods for large social media data, particularly Reddit, were adopted (Caplan & Purser, 2019). Thematic categorization of the content ultimately resulted in four themes through a close reading and re-reading of user content by identifying recurring ideas and patterns and considering several explanations to form a cogent and consistent understanding of users’ perceptions (Marshall & Rossman, 2011; Strauss & Corbin, 2014).

Reddit posts and comments are in the public domain yet are almost impossible to find using conventional search engines. To further protect users’ anonymity, usernames are omitted below, especially as Reddit communities may offer voice and relief to vulnerable or minority groups. Thus, the possibility of tracking or identifying users is reduced to a minimum even though the content is public in essence. This study has obtained approval from the ethics review board of the author’s university.

Selection Criteria

The discussion threads analyzed in this study were downloaded from the-eye.eu, which collects Reddit community archives. This was comprised of posts (known as “submissions”) and comments made on the subreddit over the years. Filtering content was carried out in several steps to arrive at relevant threads for thematic analysis: selection of keywords, determination of timeframes, extraction of content into a worksheet with hyperlinks to discussion threads on Reddit, filtering threads by “most popular” (see rationale below, as per Caplan & Purser, 2019), close reading of top discussion threads on Reddit, sorting of comments – relevant and irrelevant to the research question – and ongoing thematic analysis. After an initial familiarization with discussions about the media on r/SandersForPresident, a set of keywords that directly relate to traditional and digital media was determined: CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, cable news, media, New York Times, NYTimes, WaPo, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, WSJ, Fox, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook.

Caplan and Purser’s (2019) methodological guidelines for research on Reddit communities were found useful. The steps taken by the author involved several rounds of coding, ongoing comparisons, and tracking of emergent themes to develop interpretations of the content (Charmaz, 2014). The timeframe selected in each election cycle spans from 7 days before the Iowa caucuses to 7 days after Super Tuesday² consistent with Papacharissi’s notion of moments of intense affect (2015, pp. 16, 35) in which “affective news” connects users. The queries run on the data archive of r/SandersForPresident with the keywords and timeframes above resulted in two subsets of submissions in 2016 and 2020 comprising 6093 and 1692 submissions, respectively. Building on Caplan and Purser’s extraction criterion of “most popular” posts, I selected the most popular 450 discussion threads (submissions and their comments) in each subset.³ Admittedly, this step excluded some views from the analysis (e.g., on less popular or mundane topics). In total, 900 submissions were screened. Of these, 180 and 278 submissions, in 2016 and 2020 respectively, were directly about the media. Next, 66,254 comments on these 458 submissions were read and screened for relevance. Reddit discussion threads often wander off to unrelated topics (Caplan and Purser, 2019, p. 424) and therefore many popular submissions and comments were excluded from qualitative analysis because they were substantively irrelevant.⁴ Following Ryan and Bernard (2003), relevant comments (i.e., about the media) were coded by paying attention to recurring issues, identification of similarities and differences between codes, and the grouping of codes to develop themes (e.g., comments on donating, sharing content, or convincing voters with direct reference to media bias were grouped to form the theme of “organizing to counter MSM bias”). Thematic saturation was reached after a close reading of the 458 submissions mentioned above and 187 comments on these discussion threads (115 in 2016 and 72 in 2020).

Finally, adhering to a constructivist approach, it is important to note my own personal experience with this subreddit and the need to adopt a “double hermeneutic” in the analysis (Thaddeus Jackson, 2015). After following it as a rather passive observer through its peaks of activity in 2016 and 2020 to gather information about the Sanders campaigns, I returned to the discussion threads more recently as a researcher. My own views likely influenced the interpretations of the text in relation to theory on democratic and anti-democratic populism. Theory on the democratizing potential of populism (Canovan, 1999; Grattan, 2016; Laclau, 2005; Mouffe, 2018), to which I contribute beyond the context of digital media (Cohen, 2025), contrast with research on populism, digital media, and their interaction as catalysts of democratic deconsolidation (Freedman, 2018; Jutel, 2018, pp. 257–258). This means that a different researcher may read the same content and reach different conclusions. For instance, against my reading of the text, someone who regards populism and digital media as dangerously anti-democratic may interpret the same discussion threads as hostile towards democratic institutions, an alternative which I consider below.

Findings and Discussion

Four major themes regarding media perceptions were identified in the discussion threads on r/SandersForPresident: (1) MSM bias, (2) organizing to counter MSM bias, (3) faith in the power of the internet, and (4) epistemic virtues and epistemic vices. These four themes reveal user perceptions that can be grouped into two categories: first, perceptions about the practical organizing steps of online activism and second, perceptions about the supposedly profound democratizing power of Reddit and the internet at large. The order of the themes below is meant to mirror possible processes of imagined democratic affordances that users may experience. First, online discussions respond to MSM narratives and suggest democratic organizing practices that users can pursue online, which are partly based on the affordances of the digital platform and partly reflect users’ values, experiences, emotions, and beliefs. Then, these experiences construct a greater narrative about the meaning of online organizing, its contributions to democracy, and the populist battle between “the people” on online platforms, and the oligarchy on the MSM. These, in turn, feed back into online organizing and shape the observed online actions and reported offline actions by users, which may result in extreme techno-optimism about digital democratization, and to a lesser extent, techno-skepticism by some users, especially after setbacks until the next round of renewed optimism. Thus, the cycle is sustained through an interplay between online activism and democratic imagination that seems to keep hope in democratic change alive.

MSM Bias

Indignation at Sanders’s coverage on the MSM seems to be a foundational experience for many on the subreddit in 2016. Users regard the MSM as pro-Clinton and anti-Sanders – CNN becomes the “Clinton News Network” (Jan 27, 2016). Disillusionment with liberal MSM is also common: “Watching CNN after the last debate made me ill. I used to like CNN” (Jan 26, 2016). In 2020, a Redditor laments that MSNBC is turning into Fox News betraying prior belief in the fairness of liberal, center-left MSM:

I never really fully appreciated the prevalence of media bias until 2016. Up until then, I only really recognized Fox News, Breitbart, and their kind as egregiously partisan, and I stood up for . . . MSNBC, Washington Post . . . but that election . . . has really opened my eyes to how it’s not left versus right here, but the expression of the class warfare that Bernie–and all of us–are here fighting against (Feb 4, 2020).

“Destructive, Anti-People, Corporate Agendas”

User views on MSM bias agree with democratic-populist claims according to which the media elites collude with the economic and political elites of the country. To be sure, this view is based on social reality and political practice, not only users’ imagination (on the influence of big money on US politics, see Arbour, 2020). Personal ties between the Clinton family and CNN journalist Chris Cuomo are given as evidence for the pro-Clinton coverage (February 19, 2016). Redditors in both election cycles explain that MSM hide the weaknesses of Clinton in 2016 and Biden in 2020 since Time Warner and Comcast (the parent companies of MSM networks) are large donors of the campaigns of these “establishment” politicians (February 12, 2016; March 7, 2020). Disappointment extends to the New York Times, one of its shareholders a Clinton donor (February 17, 2016), as an analogy between MSM in the service of the elites, on one hand, and the internet in the service of the people, on the other, solidifies (February 17, 2020). Developed in greater detail below, this consistency in views from 2016 to 2020 is reflective of a significant finding: Redditors’ continue to display faith in the power of digital media despite setbacks and defeats. The populist dichotomy of the people (on the internet) and the elites (on MSM) is quite established by the 2020 campaign (February 14, 2020). In 2020, MSM personalities are viewed as puppets of the oligarchy (February 3, 2020), as both left and right MSM are believed to “have their own destructive, anti-people, corporate agendas” (March 9, 2020, added emphasis). Users voice populist sentiments as they take aim at the MSM: “The failing fake news New York Times is the enemy of the people. Just read Chomsky’s ‘Manufacturing Consent’ for documentation of their lies against the American people” to which another replies “The media has always been owned by the wealthy elite, therefore the media has always been against anyone who stands up for the poor” (February 12, 2020). As an aside, opposition to the MSM sometimes echoes right-wing populist attacks on the media (AP, 2017). That said, comparing left-populists to right-populists to explain this similarity is beyond the scope of this study.

“An Orchestrated Assault on Democracy”

MSM bias is not only unfair or unfortunate, but also an attack on democracy. The media abandoned the people, and the people lost faith in the political system, one Redditor comments (February 10, 2020). Many Redditors regard MSM coverage as anti-democratic for encouraging low voter turnout, and making viewers lose faith in democracy (March 1, 2016). Multiple critical pieces of Sanders on the pages of the New York Times are deemed “an orchestrated assault on democracy” (February 25, 2016). Anxieties intensify in late February 2020 when Redditors suspect that MSM and the Democratic Party will “steal the nomination from Bernie” (February 20, 2020). When Sanders opens a gap from his contenders after winning Nevada in 2020, one MSNBC pundit appears to Redditors aghast by the prospect of the democratic process. The party does not belong to the voters but to its elites, Redditors feel, and the corporate media is dumbfounded by the fact that the people are taking back the Democratic Party (February 23, 2020). Simultaneously, MSM are believed to take aim at social media because traditional media are losing their grip on the people: “Part of the DNC and MSM narrative is to create a distrust for Twitter” (February 11, 2020). Comparing user comments in 2016 and 2020 also suggests that the little trust that did exist in some MSM figures declined even further. In 2016, a small number of TV personalities are still regarded as trustworthy by some Redditors, whereas in 2020 there are hardly any positive mentions of members of the TV punditry in the analyzed discussions (January 28, 2016; February 24, 2020).

“Fortunately We Have the internet Now”

Against these ideas of undemocratic, anti-people MSM bias, Redditors debate the influence of MSM and the presumed corrective power of the internet. Some believe that the “American people. . . can see through the bullshit” (January 25, 2016) and that the “rigged nature of the [televised] Town Hall. . . was not lost on people” (January 26, 2016). More cynically, another commenter refers to how media consumers educate themselves politically: “People like to be spoon fed. It’s easy. A lot easier than going out and foraging, hunting, or farming for food and then having to prepare it yourself” (February 4, 2020). This last contemptuous comment reveals a tension between a patronizing attitude toward common folk and competing populist perceptions by others on the subreddit who believe that the common people are epistemically virtuous.

When an old Sanders interview about the consolidation of media power surfaces online, comments demonstrate increased antagonism towards the MSM alongside encouragement and empowerment: “Fortunately we have the internet now” (February 20, 2016). Similarly, a visiting “media scholar and activist” claims that there “is little doubt that Reddit and social media have been crucial to Bernie making an end run around. . . the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post” (February 4, 2016). Independent media are often regarded as the democratic antithesis to the MSM. Redditors advocate switching to independent content creators on YouTube and other social media, which are less biased or at least more honest about their positions, in response to frustration with the MSM (February 17, 2020). Perhaps, the existence of independent media primarily on the internet contributes to the democratizing aura of cyberspace.

The following exchange, started on February 11, 2020, encapsulates a wide range of emotions about MSM bias, democracy, and populism expressed on the subreddit:

MSNBC is scared of us ordinary voters—AND THEY SHOULD BE

Neoliberals elites are scared that social media gives ordinary plebs like us a voice to fight back . . . Before that, all the power was concentrated within the elite cable news pundit

Yep. They had their totalitarian propaganda system and now that’s in ruins. . .

This is eventually met with a skeptical outlook:

I mean, it’s a mixed bag though. Its easier to break free from the media narrative, but now there is more disinformation from more sources . . . and it spreads faster.

A slight change in attitudes is detected in 2020 towards Facebook in particular (though only on a few threads of relatively lower popularity in the observed discussions). A few users perceive it as a “boomer” social media to which one should begrudgingly return to convince older voters and a platform where disinformation spreads (February 24, 2020; March 8, 2020).

In summary, collective consumption of MSM news and opinion columns and discussions on their meanings bind users together, often inflaming anger and disgust, and then frame organizing practices, as described below.

Organizing to Counter MSM Bias

“I’ve Donated $100 Because CNN Gave Hillary 100% Softballs Tonight”

While online organizing extends far beyond questions of media perceptions, it is often invoked as a corrective to MSM bias in the observed discussions. For example, waves of small dollar donations are often triggered by frustration with the MSM: “I’ve donated $100 because CNN gave Hillary 100% softballs tonight. Who will match me?” (January 26, 2016). Such anti-MSM messages generate hundreds and thousands of comments on additional small dollar donations by others with screenshots as evidence. “I read Op Ed’s attacking Bernie as an authoritarian-loving demagogue and I donate. $27.” (February 28, 2020). Online donations are sometimes seen as a way to influence the media narrative by creating a “moneybomb” that cannot be ignored by the MSM (February 28, 2020).

The reaction to traditional media is not limited to donations. Reddit is a place to battle misleading MSM narratives and learn how to convince voters, as users curate pro-Sanders articles and create sharable content (February 22, 2016; February 14, 2020). In addition, “bomb[ing] social media” is meant to compensate for lack of positive MSM coverage (February 11, 2016), and hashtag campaigns are meant to respond to MSM attacks on Sanders or reverberate criticisms of Clinton that are “whitewashed” on MSM (March 3, 2016).

Sometimes, a Redditor posts a personal story about a family member or friend and asks for advice on how to win them over. The conversations that follow convince users that Reddit, and by extension the internet, can equip individuals with arguments against MSM bias, as evident in the following plea:

Progressive Boomer uncle in Iowa doesn’t think Americans will vote for a socialist–any articles? . . . I just feel like if he reads something from a “real” news source, it not only would encourage him to caucus for Bernie, but he would have talking points while caucusing with other older progressives. . . (Feb 2, 2020).

I return to the generational aspect below.

“#BeTheMedia – We Are Grassroots Media!”

Beyond correcting the record, Redditors call to avoid or boycott MSM and give traffic instead to independent media (January 26, 2016) or to cancel MSM subscriptions and donate to the campaign or independent media instead (February 17, 2020). Another creative suggestion combines online and offline activism:

#BeTheMedia, If older people watch TV without Internet, then bring the Internet to them. Print out things you love about Bernie from the Internet, daily, to leave out for people you know who don’t go on Internet much, We are grassroots media! (February 20, 2016)

The 2020 March setbacks are interpreted as a failure to counterbalance MSM bias and challenge their dominance:

One of the biggest questions I had from the very start of this election was “what will be more powerful, the corporate media or millions of grassroots volunteers . . . the corporate media are still more influential and until the generation that gets its news primarily from the MSM aren’t here in large numbers we will continue to be under the thumb of the MSM (Mar 6, 2020).

Thus, the online activities of fundraising, sharing pro-Sanders content, or emotionally connecting with others feed into the wider perception of media battles between digital media and MSM. As the following section suggests, this cycle of news consumption and organizing against media bias connects to the emergence of more abstract ideas about the democratizing power of the internet. Thus, ongoing online activism, platform affordances, and affective connections blend with democratic imagination, which in turn shapes subsequent actions and attitudes.

Faith in the Power of the internet

The Age of “Infocrats”

Digital affordances, such as the ability to share old Sanders videos to demonstrate his ideological consistency, seem to nurture sentiments about the power of the internet to democratize politics. If the MSM is hurting democracy, the sentiment is that the internet can save democracy. Reddit is good for organizing and fundraising and “benefits our political system” (February 2, 2016). Time and again, Redditors mention people’s ability to easily look up facts on Wikipedia and Google and not fall for the media spin (February 18, 2016). Online supporters are winning the internet in metrics of searches and Twitter followers, and are far less easily duped:

Technology these days allows our generation to see everything. Hillary is doing so poorly with our generation precisely because she doesn’t get that . . . when she says she can be tough on wall street, our generation can immediately pick up our phones and Google her record. (Feb 13, 2016)

This sentiment takes a populist twist when the dichotomy of the TV versus the internet becomes analogous to the elites versus the people:

With television, a handful of groups ultimately control everything that comes through our screens. But on the Internet, everyone is equally powerful and equally able to access truth . . . This wave of social empowerment due to technology is only going to get stronger, making it increasingly hard for the few to control the many. (Feb 13, 2016)

The internet allows independent media to flourish, and according to the Redditors, these media are unmistakably on the side of the people (February 24, 2020). These populist sentiments survive into 2020 despite growing perceptions in general that the internet may harm the public, as the Snowden leaks and the Cambridge Analytica scandal suggest.

At times, the subreddit discussions are awash with extreme technological optimism. This is captured in an illustrative exchange: “We’re watching a battle between the Old Media and the New Media. We’re watching the internet take over America” (Janruary 29, 2016). This is responded with the claim: “No wonder they are fighting so hard to conquer the internet” and another that it “cannot be conquered. It is too powerful.” In the process, a new political identity is formed, the “Infocrat,” who can make informed political decisions thanks to online searches and the rapid flow of online information, and is about to revolutionize politics. Some comments of extreme techno-optimism are worth quoting in full:

The fact that Bernie is so heavily favored by Millennials and Reddit users gives me hope for the future. Young, well-informed people who know how to cut through the establishment media spin favor the candidate who is telling the truth about the rigged economy.

Bernie Sanders is just the tip of the iceberg. What we are witnessing is the last days of establishment politics and corporate media. This is not about one presidential election. This is about shaping the course of American history for the next generation. (Feb 28, 2016)

In response, a more historically aware Redditor mentions the ongoing assault on the printing press, which at first promised democratic transformation but was gradually eaten up by the ruling elites: “The internet will be harder to wrangle, but not impossible . . . Remember that platforms like Facebook are embedded stakeholders in the US government” (January 29, 2016).

“Tweets Aren’t Votes People”

Yet, sometimes, organizing online is viewed skeptically. On the day of the 2016 Iowa caucus, a leader of the subreddit community posts:

We’ve had 40 THOUSAND tweets and over 40 MILLION impressions in the last hour and a half–WE ARE SO CLOSE. Keep on working. Keep on Tweeting. This will be a hard-fought and well-earned victory on social media. (Feb 1, 2016)

This post receives much support and one noteworthy snide remark: “Tweets aren’t votes people” (February 1, 2016). A similar post on the fact that Sanders is trending high on Google sparks a discussion on how reflective the internet is of popular will. Following the usual techno-optimism, someone in the minority claims “internet =/= reality. He’ll win every online poll and lose every election” (March 1, 2016). Skepticism redoubles after the setbacks of Super Tuesday in both election cycles. A change of tone is evident in comments: “[Biden] only has 8700 subscribers probably because his supporters are actually out voting whereas our supporters are busy on Reddit, Instagram and TikTok” (March 5, 2020). Another frustratingly comments:

You people didn’t even show up to vote. I’m fully convinced every single person screaming online for Bernie is more concerned with fake Internet points than actually accomplishing anything.

But that’s millennials for ya (Mar 4, 2020).

While r/SandersForPresident does record opposing perceptions about the benefits of online activism, it appears that many of its users are still swept by the promise of the internet, even as late as 2020 when terms such as “disinformation” and “fake news” have entered the vernacular. Furthermore, while some in the minority take note of its perils, there is no mention among Redditors that social media platforms themselves may perform in ways that are contrary to users’ imagination in the observed discussions. By and large, ideas of an anti-democratic, restrictive media environment are projected onto the MSM and are not regarded as something that could implicate the internet. At best, Redditors should learn how to separate the wheat from the chaff, good from bad information. Increasing faith in digital democratization then connects to the final theme identified: for some users gullibility or astuteness are not simply character flaws or virtues (on epistemic virtues and vices, see Cassam, 2016), but rather essentially determined by the use of technology.

Epistemic Virtues and Epistemic Vices

“Media Brainwashed Majority of em”

The final theme on the subreddit that is worthy of discussion has to do with generational divides and access to the truth. Occasionally, a Redditor shares a personal story about his or her parents and their lack of support for Sanders. Descriptions of older generations can get quite disrespectful (though not always) regarding them as “less informed,” “brainwashed,” “conditioned,” “blinded,” or “spoon fed” by MSM, “eating up everything” on MSM (February 18, 2020), or voting against their children in reference to MSM bias (February 5, 2020). It could be that the condescending attitudes towards millennials that younger Sanders supporters witness on MSM are then transposed by younger generations to their parents who watch MSM:

My mother technically believes in everything Bernie stands for, but she will not vote for him because . . . [she] has been brainwashed by the NYT and MSNBC into thinking he is a horrible person . . . I don’t know what to do anymore . . . So if anyone has tips on how I can deprogram someone whose critical thinking skills have been hijacked by mainstream media, I’m all ears. (Feb 16, 2020)

Parenthetically, this comment suggests that the logic of digital technologies also influences users’ language as “reeducation” becomes “deprograming.” Some questions on how to convince and communicate with parents are received with defeatism: “Good luck trying to reason with boomers. Media brainwashed majority of em.” (February 22, 2020), while others are received with jubilation at the eventual convincing of parents to vote for Sanders (February 18, 2020). To this subgroup of Redditors, online independent media are a fountain of knowledge. This is evident in their advice to keep talking to “boomers” who watch cable news and to expose them to online sources (February 9, 2020). When the conversation on this issue is respectful, older Redditors join in and support. Yet, sometimes older Redditors are offended by contempt for their generation and remind younger Redditors that they have been involved in civic activism for many decades.

The attitudes of millennials towards their parents’ generation in the subreddit reveal another imagined affordance: internet use and proficiency are a determining factor in the construction of political positions, rather than experience, ideology, or values. The sentiment that if only boomers went online, their views would change betrays this imagined affordance (January 26, 2020). According to this view, social media afford democratic education, which MSM do not. Below is an exchange from January 31, 2020, that ties truth to media, and the enlightened consciousness of millennials thanks to the internet:

[My parents] are very liberal, which is what bothers me. Bernie embodies every political stance they raised me to embrace. My mother is just scared he’ll lose because she watches CNN all day and buys into their bullshit.

Tell them that CNN is owned by billionaires who have a vested interest in preventing a Bernie presidency.

To some, social media and the internet at large not only provide more democratic ways to organize and fundraise, or combat MSM bias, but are also the vehicles of truth. The idea that digital media platforms are also “owned by billionaires who have a vested interest in preventing a Bernie presidency,” something that can reasonably be argued in relation to Facebook for example (Rabin-Havt, 2022, p. 66), seems unimaginable on the subreddit. This last example of associating epistemic vices (gullibility, closed-mindedness, and so on) with the choice of media consumption of older generations demonstrates the extent to which digital activism and democratic imagination can intermingle. In these instances, Reddit and the internet come to signify far more than communication technologies. They are the basis for democratic education, the construction of a political identity and the determinants of political values, and it is with these added meanings that digital activists, such as those observed, resume their online organizing.

Conclusion

This study explores how US left-wing online activists come to develop perceptions on the democratizing power of digital media. In the broadest sense, it demonstrates a cycle that involves using digital media for political ends, developing perceptions on the democratic opportunities of the internet in the process, which partly rely on technological affordances and partly on democratic imagination, and subsequently, adapting online organizing practices according to these perceptions, which may feed into and sustain the next cycle of activism. Combined, these processes may explain renewed energies and faith in online organizing even after experiences of defeat. The proposed term, imagined democratic affordances, explains persistent faith in the democratizing power of the internet by tying users’ organizing activities to imagination, rather than framing online activism as a “democratic fantasy,” as articulated by Dean (2009). Truth be told, some user perceptions stand in contrast to established research – e.g., “on the internet, everyone is equally powerful” (February 13, 2016) versus the idea of a platform architecture that “reinforces and reproduces existing hierarchies of power” (Papacharissi, 2021, p. 19). Yet, suggesting that users’ perceptions are wholly fantastical would be to dismiss their agency and sensemaking of social reality. Users may not be fully aware of the underlying technological architecture of the platforms which they use for political ends, but they are also not drawn into imaginary worlds that have no bearing on their political realities. There is evidence that media elites do collude with economic and political elites, especially in the United States (Arbour, 2020; McChesney, 2016), on one hand, yet, on the other, there is also evidence that digital media do not necessarily democratize (Papacharissi, 2021). Furthermore, imagination can foster activists’ motivation and sense of agency (Bleh et al., 2025; Milkoreit, 2017). This is given a digital twist when imagination is used not only to envision a better world, but also to envision a better technology in the internet where “everyone is equally powerful.” As an aside, Dean’s critique on online democracy was published around the time that the so-called digital media revolutions and movements began to capture popular and scholarly imagination. In her 2009 book, she distinguishes between the fantasy of online participation and the hard work of actual political organizing, yet the two coincided in the Sanders campaigns several years later, both in terms of online mobilization and in efforts to build institutional and organizational power within the Democratic Party (Cohen, 2025). Evidently, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Discussion threads in 2016 and 2020 are almost interchangeable. This is a key finding of this study since it appears that external events and the experiences of potentially returning Redditors from 2016 did not drastically diminish their faith in the democratizing capacity of their online activism. In 2016, there are minor attempts to influence MSM coverage whereas by 2020, limited faith turns into complete distrust of MSM. In 2020, there is also suspicion towards Facebook in some corners of the subreddit. Minor differences aside, the overwhelming and persistent faith in the power of online activism does not suffer a serious dent well into the 2020 elections in the observed discussions. This finding is all the more striking since by 2020 the idea of an algorithmically curated social media feed is not only the proprietary knowledge of academics, but also popularized in films and news media (e.g., The Great Hack, 2019) that should be accessible at least to some in the subreddit, yet receives only few and sporadic mentions and does not challenge dominant perceptions in the observed discussions.

Why did the experience of Sanders’s defeat in 2016 did not shatter optimistic perceptions in 2020? The explanation that Redditors for Sanders were caught in a filter bubble seems too simplistic for not meeting the classic definition of the term (Spohr, 2017), as they continuously engaged with outside information sources, albeit antagonistically. Rather than being caught in a bubble, the moderated discussions on r/SandersForPresident were constantly in touch with the dominant views on MSM that users wished to challenge and overcome. As r/SandersForPresident users’ faith in MSM as guardians of democracy declined, they began to associate more democratic values with online spaces. The more users experienced MSM bias against their candidate, and the more they expressed rage and disgust in their online community, the more social media and the internet became the voice of the people in their perceptions, as well as the means at their disposal to fight the elites and restore democracy. This finding displays a strong generational aspect, as many younger users regarded themselves in populist terms, and their parents and grandparents as duped by the elites through their media organs.

Furthermore, the findings of this study suggest that some users happily adopted the term populism and saw it as reflective of real democracy. While much research on populism and the internet ascribes distrust of MSM to filter bubbles of disgruntled and disaffected users, unmoored political speech, and successful digital media exploitation by right-wing populist politicians (e.g., Freedman, 2018; Schroeder, 2019), the findings of this research suggest that online left-wing activists in the United States can regard both populism, digital media, and their combination as promoting democracy. This gap is another key finding of this research, which requires further investigation. In fact, US populism has a long democratic tradition and is not only interpreted as nativist or exclusionary (Kazin, 1995, p. 289). Furthermore, on the question of populism and democracy, Canovan (1999) claims that the tension between what she defines as democracy’s redemptive side (power to the people) and its pragmatic side (peacefully managing disagreement) serves as a constant invitation to populist mobilization. It could be that the techno-optimism observed in this study has to do with a “politics of faith,” as developed by Canovan. Accordingly, the populist impulse of some users, and their faith in the internet, may be related to the inspirational, redemptive side of democracy (Canovan, 1999, p. 11) and may help maintain their motivation.

The analysis agrees with theory on democratic populism, to which the author contributes (2025), and does not agree with a competing branch of research on populism (e.g., Galston, 2018; Müller, 2016), which may associate suspicious views of MSM with declining trust in democratic institutions, established media among them. If MSM are viewed as vital democratic institutions, a positioned that is certainly problematized (e.g., McChesney, 2016), then the analyzed discussions may signify anti-democratic discourse and organizing. In other words, those who believe that populism is inherently anti-democratic may regard r/SandersForPresident as a community that uses digital media to disrupt democracy, especially if MSM are regarded as trustworthy, authorized, upholding democratic values, and digital media are seen as sites of festering dissatisfaction that may lead to dangerous outcomes. In my reading, the affordances of Reddit that allow organizing, fundraising, sharing ideas, or providing support are linked to democratization because they do rest on a social reality of highly concentrated and undemocratic media structures, which users wish to challenged, yet when taken to the extreme in some discussions, are also linked to the idea that “Infocrats” can rescue democracy from the clutch of the MSM and the oligarchy that they represent.

Additional explanations for users’ persistent faith in digital activism can be connected to the following factors. First, users constructed an online community that afforded them a safe space (Kenney, 2001, p. 24) in relation to the attacks that they and their candidate suffered on the MSM (on the disparaging Bernie Bro narrative, see Léger, 2022). There, they garnered empowering and rewarding experiences that included connecting emotionally, creating and sharing content, disseminating campaign information, coordinating direct action online and offline, strategizing, promoting fundraising, debating and forming political identities, and in rare cases, rising as leaders to eventually work for Sanders himself. Other factors, especially regarding epistemic virtues, may be connected to self-perceptions of challenging the status quo, strong sense of righteousness and truth holding, and relatedly, the sense of being the underdog, like Sanders himself in 2016. These latter sentiments may have been transposed onto Reddit and the internet in a feedback loop of experience, imagination, and reinforcing group discourse. Another possibility, following Couldry’s (2015, pp. 621–622) “myth of us,” is that digital media lead users to believe that their collective expression online is natural, or representative of some truth, mistaking the part for the whole. Due to their participatory nature and instantaneous emotive feedback, digital media may create a strong sense of realness in action, which as Papacharissi (2016, p. 321) explains, can lead to disappointment when societal and political transformations are not as rapid.

The limitations of this study have to do with its focus and qualitative method. The study does not purport to demonstrate what digital activists believe in general, across different contexts and times, but rather provides an analysis of perception formation at a certain moment of a certain group of left-wing US activists based on popularity metrics of their Reddit discussions. In addition, adapting the “most popular” approach to Reddit threads reveals certain user perceptions, likely many of them, but does not stand for the whole. It could be that other themes and ideas are developed on the very same subreddit that escape this approach. The aim here is to analyze perception formation on digital media and democracy, rather than represent the entirety of the Redditors for Sanders world. It could be that at other times, in other contexts, contrasting values and perceptions are associated with digital and traditional media.

As qualitative research methods of large online discussions develop, imagined democratic affordances can be applied to other groups of digital activists. Moreover, the findings can inform future research on right-wing online communities who may similarly regard themselves as truth holders, democratizing agents, or share antagonism towards the MSM. Imagined democratic affordances explains a belief system about the democratizing power of digital media that evolves from, and feeds back into, digital organizing. This power is not fantastical, but also not as far-reaching as some users suppose. Developing faith in this power, this study suggests, helps motivate and reenergize users through the ups and downs of digital activism.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Noam Tirosh, Dani Filc, and Jennifer Oser for their comments on earlier versions of this text, Guy Romm and Gil Cohen for their technical assistance in building datasets, and Oscar Barberà and Kristina Weissenbach for comments on an earlier version of this paper presented at the ECPR 2024 conference in Dublin.

ORCID iD

Omri Cohen

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author biography

Omri Cohen (PhD, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev) is due to begin postdoctoral research as a Fulbright fellow at UC Berkeley. His research interests include democratic populism, populism and digital media, and populism in local government.

References

Amer

Noujaim

(2019). The great hack. The Othrs.

AP. (2017, February 18). The latest: Trump calls media ‘enemy of the American people’. https://apnews.com/united-states-government-be0f73d88547411a9a85e402d23788ed

Arbour

(2020). Tiny donations, big impact: How small-dollar donors are eroding the power of party insiders. Society, 57(5), 496–506.

Benkler

Faris

Roberts

(2018). Network propaganda: Manipulation, disinformation, and radicalization in American politics. Oxford University Press.

Bennett

W. L.

Segerberg

(2012). The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 739–768.

Beyer

J. L.

(2014). Expect us: Online communities and political mobilization. Oxford University Press.

Bleh

Masson

Köhler

Fritsche

(2025). From imagination to activism: Cognitive alternatives motivate commitment to activism through identification with social movements and collective efficacy. British Journal of Social Psychology, 64(1): Article e12811.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

Brown

(2015). Undoing the demos: Neoliberalism’s stealth revolution. Zone Books.

10.

Canovan

(1999). Trust the people! Populism and the two faces of democracy. Political Studies, 47(1), 2–16.

11.

Caplan

M. A.

Purser

(2019). Qualitative inquiry using social media: A field-tested example. Qualitative Social Work, 18(3), 417–435.

12.

Cassam

(2016). Vice epistemology. The Monist, 99(2), 159–180.

13.

Charmaz

(2014). Constructing grounded theory. Sage.

14.

Cohen

(2025). Practices of transformative populism: An illustrative study of the Bernie Sanders presidential runs. Political Studies Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299251326781

15.

Couldry

(2015). The myth of ‘us’: Digital networks, political change and the production of collectivity. Information, Communication & Society, 18(6), 608–626.

16.

Dahlberg

(2011). Re-constructing digital democracy: An outline of four ‘positions’. New Media & Society, 13(6), 855–872.

17.

Dean

(2009). Democracy and other neoliberal fantasies: Communicative capitalism and left politics. Duke University Press.

18.

Deseriis

(2021). Rethinking the digital democratic affordance and its impact on political representation: Toward a new framework. New Media & Society, 23(8), 2452–2473.

19.

Feddersen

Santana

L. E.

(2022). UNPACKING THE DEMOCRATIC AFFORDANCES OF CROWDLAW CONCEPT AND PRACTICE: ‘IT FEELS LIKE BEING PART OF THE game’. Politics, 42(3), 340–357.

20.

Flensner

K. K.

Von der Lippe

(2019). Being safe from what and safe for whom? A critical discussion of the conceptual metaphor of ‘safe space’. Intercultural Education, 30(3), 275–288.

21.

Foster

M. D.

Hennessey

Blankenship

B. T.

Stewart

(2019). Can “slacktivism” work? Perceived power differences moderate the relationship between social media activism and collective action intentions through positive affect. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 13(4), Article 6.

22.

Freedman

(2018). Populism and media policy failure. European Journal of Communication, 33(6), 604–618.

23.

Galston

W. A.

(2018). The populist challenge to liberal democracy. Journal of Democracy, 29(2), 5–19.

24.

Gaskins

Jerit

(2012). Internet news: Is it a replacement for traditional media outlets? The International Journal of Press/Politics, 17(2), 190–213.

25.

Gerbaudo

(2018). Social media and populism: An elective affinity? Media, Culture & Society, 40(5), 745–753.

26.

Grattan

(2016). Populism’s power: Radical grassroots democracy in America. Oxford University Press.

27.

Gunitsky

(2015). Corrupting the cyber-commons: Social media as a tool of autocratic stability. Perspectives on Politics, 13(1), 42–54.

28.

Harlow

Harp

(2012). Collective action on the Web: A cross-cultural study of social networking sites and online and offline activism in the United States and Latin America. Information, Communication & Society, 15(2), 196–216.

29.

Higdon

Huff

(2020, January 30). The Bernie blackout is real, and these screenshots prove it. TruthOut.org. https://truthout.org/articles/the-bernie-blackout-is-real-and-these-screenshots-prove-it/

30.

Hindman

(2009). The myth of digital democracy. Princeton University Press.

31.

Holec

Mack

(2020). Researching Reddit: On the affordances and challenges of social media data collection and analysis. The Journal of Communication and Media Studies, 5(1), 15.

32.

Jost

J. T.

Barberá

Bonneau

Langer

Metzger

Nagler

Tucker

J. A.

(2018). How social media facilitates political protest: Information, motivation, and social networks. Political Psychology, 39(S1), 85–118.

33.

Jutel

(2018). Donald Trump, American populism and affective media. In de la Torre

(Ed.), Routledge handbook of global populism (pp. 249–262). Routledge.

34.

Kazin

(1995). The populist persuasion: An American history. Cornell University Press.

35.

Kenney

(2001). Mapping gay LA: The intersection of place and politics. Temple University Press.

36.

Krieg

(2015, September 3). How Bernie Sanders’ online army is using Reddit to fuel his 2016 campaign surge. Mic.com. https://www.mic.com/articles/124761/how-bernie-sanders-online-army-is-using-reddit-to-fuel-his-2016-campaign-surge

37.

Kyriakopoulou

(2011). Authoritarian states and internet social media: Instruments of democratisation or instruments of control? Human Affairs, 21(1), 18–26.

38.

Laclau

(2005). On populist reason. Verso.

39.

Lane

D. S.

Lee

S. S.

Liang

Kim

D. H.

Shen

Weeks

B. E.

Kwak

(2019). Social media expression and the political self. Journal of Communication, 69(1), 49–72.

40.

Léger

M. J.

(2022). Bernie Bros gone woke: Class, identity, neoliberalism. Brill.

41.

Marshall

Rossman

B. G.

(2011). Designing qualitative research. Sage.

42.

Massanari

A. L.

(2015). Participatory culture, community, and play: Learning from Reddit (2nd ed.). Peter Lang.

43.

McChesney

R. W.

(2016). Rich media, poor democracy: Communication politics in dubious times. The New Press.

44.

Milkoreit

(2017). Imaginary politics: Climate change and making the future. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene, 5, 62.

45.

Morozov

(2009, May 19). The brave new world of slacktivism. Foreign Policy. https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/05/19/the-brave-new-world-of-slacktivism/

46.

Mouffe

(2018). For a left populism. Verso.

47.

Müller

J. W.

(2016). What is populism? University of Pennsylvania Press.

48.

Nagy

Neff

(2015). Imagined affordance: Reconstructing a keyword for communication theory. Social Media + Society, 1(2), 1–9.

49.

Papacharissi

(2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6(2), 259–283.

50.

Papacharissi

(2015). Affective publics: Sentiment, technology, and politics. Oxford University Press.

51.

Papacharissi

(2016). Affective publics and structures of storytelling: Sentiment, events and mediality. Information, Communication & Society, 19(3), 307–324.

52.

Papacharissi

(2021). After democracy: Imagining our political future. Yale University Press.

53.

Persily

(2017). The 2016 US election: Can democracy survive the internet? Journal of Democracy, 28(2), 63–76.

54.

Pospieszna

Galus

(2019). ‘Liberation technology’or ‘net delusion’? Civic activists’ perceptions of social media as a platform for civic activism in Belarus and Ukraine. Europe-Asia Studies, 71(10), 1664–1684.

55.

Prakasam

Huxtable-Thomas

(2021). Reddit: Affordances as an enabler for shifting loyalties. Information Systems Frontiers, 23, 723–751.

56.

Rabin-Havt

(2022). The fighting soul: On the road with Bernie Sanders. Liveright Publishing.

57.

Ryan

G. W.

Bernard

H. R.

(2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85–109.

58.

Schroeder

(2019). Digital media and the entrenchment of right-wing populist agendas. Social Media + Society, 5(4), 2056305119885328.

59.

Schroeder

(2021). Digital media and the globalizing spread of populism. In Jin

D. Y.

(Ed.), The Routledge handbook of digital media and globalization (pp. 179–187). Routledge.

60.

Spohr

(2017). Fake news and ideological polarization: Filter bubbles and selective exposure on social media. Business Information Review, 34(3), 150–160.

61.

Strauss

Corbin

(2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage.

62.

Thaddeus Jackson

(2015). Making sense of making sense: Configurational analysis and the double hermeneutic. In Yanow

Schwartz-Shea

(Eds.), Interpretation and method (pp. 267–283). Routledge.

63.

Tirosh

(2022). The Mizrahi pillar of Fire: Memory policy-actors’ perceptions of the role of media and memory. Media, Culture & Society, 44(3), 479–496.

64.

Tufekci

Wilson

(2012). Social media and the decision to participate in political protest: Observations from Tahrir Square. Journal of Communication, 62(2), 363–379.

65.

Wilkins

D. J.

Livingstone

A. G.

Levine

(2019). All click, no action? Online action, efficacy perceptions, and prior experience combine to affect future collective action. Computers in Human Behavior, 91, 97–105.