This study of tweets ( n = 2247) explores discussions about a pro-choice blocklist (@Repeal_Shield) used during the 2018 Irish abortion referendum campaign, capturing conflicting interpretations of engagement and political participation. Although qualitative Twitter studies bring methodological challenges, deep readings were needed to analyse arguments in favour and against the blocklist, and to consider what we can learn about users’ expectations of Twitter. Through deductive and inductive coding, opposing perspectives emerge on whether such lists are useful, democratic or regressive, but both sides share normative aspirations for Twitter to serve as a space for healthy debate, even if there is clear tension in how that is best achieved. Blocklists are traditionally cited as a harassment solution, facilitating participation from otherwise-excluded counterpublics. However, @Repeal_Shield demonstrates how this affordance has evolved towards omitting broad spectrums of undesired content, while using blocklists – and being listed – can be a bold political statement in itself.

Blocking other users is a common act on Twitter but one which is underexplored from a scholarly perspective, particularly the analysis of mass blocklists. Although traditionally associated with harassment, blocklists are increasingly engaged to create individualised environments that align with users' personal convictions and exclude apparent transgressors. This study uses a pro-choice blocklist (Repeal Shield) created during the 2018 Irish abortion referendum campaign to explore how users interpret these altered boundaries and blocklists' influence on the Twitter landscape. A metaphor analysis of more than 2,000 tweets discussing the blocklist highlights the dominant concepts in how users visualise Twitter as both a personal space and a battlefield, in which mental health is a key factor. By drawing on discussions of spatiality, agency, gender and online interactions, we can see how these blocking affordances allow users to exist in spaces in which they construct their own parameters to feel safer, raising questions about how harm, health and risk are understood. The article explores how users make sense of conflicting images like 'safe spaces' or 'echo chambers', highlighting the apparent policing role held by blocklists. Users are negotiating the type of civic space in which they want to exist as norms of engagement versus avoidance collide; although digital spaces have always accommodated fragmented interests, the technological affordances of blocklists provide more rigid boundaries, highlighting how the evolving architecture of social media allows users to redefine the parameters of their own online spaces.

New initiatives in deliberative democracy theory allow for a broader understanding of the different rhetorical practices that influence deliberation in real life settings. This solves the “problem” rhetoricians have long had with deliberative theory: that political communication is reduced to rational deliberation, disregarding a lot of non-deliberative forms of communication that are essential for the formation of public opinion and political decisions. This article elaborates on the role of epideictic rhetoric and provides an example as to how we might benefit from combining the two theoretical traditions. Often reduced to ceremonial practice, the epideictic genre has long been overlooked in political communication research. However, epideictic rhetoric plays a crucial role in shaping collective identity and values, thereby influencing citizens’ and politicians’ inclinations and scope of action in future deliberation. The article is concluded by a case study of the Norwegian Prime Minster Jens Stoltenberg’s address to the nation after the terrorist attack in Oslo on July 22nd 2011. By enforcing collective values such as democracy, solidarity, and openness towards other cultures the Prime Minister’s speech contributed to what became one of the dominant frames through which the attack and related issues were interpreted and debated.