Challenges for an SNS-based public sphere in 2016

Abstract

Purpose Political polarization and incivility manifested itself online throughout the 2016 US presidential election. The purpose of this paper is to understand how features of social media platforms (e.g. reacting, sharing) impacted the online public sphere during the 2016 election. Design/methodology/approach After conducting in-depth interviews with politically interested young people and applying deductive coding procedures to transcripts of the interviews, Dahlberg’s (2004) six normative conditions for the public sphere were used to empirically examine this interview data. Findings While some participants described strategies for productive political discussion on Social Networking Sites (SNS) and a willingness to use them to discuss politics, many users’ experiences largely fall short of Dahlberg’s (2004) normative criteria for the public sphere. Research limitations/implications The period in which these interviews were conducted in could have contributed to a more pessimistic view of political discussion in general. Practical implications Scholars and the public should recognize that the affordances of SNS for political discussion are not distributed evenly between different platforms, both for the sake of empirical studies of SNS moving forward and the state of democratic deliberation. Originality/value Although previous research has examined online and SNS-based political discussion as it relates to the public sphere, few attempts have been made understand how specific communicative practices or platform-specific features of SNS have contributed to or detracted from a healthy public sphere.

The Kids Are Online: Teen Social Media Use, Civic Engagement, and Affective Polarization

“…While some studies find social media may reduce affective polarization by increasing exposure to a more diverse array of political views online (James et al, 2016; Jones-Jang & Chung, 2022), online users also have more power to make like-minded connections and selectively consume content that supports their own views. At its worst, selective exposure reinforces tendencies to consume partisan news, limits cross-cutting democratic discourse, and amplifies extreme ideological positions online (Bail et al, 2018; Lorenzano et al, 2018; Qureshi et al, 2020; Wang & Song, 2020).…”