Deliberation research is now undergoing two emerging trends: deliberation is shifting from offline to online, as well as from an inherently democratic concept to the one applicable to less competitive regimes (He & Warren, 2011). The goal of this article is to study the peculiarities of deliberative practices in hybrid regimes, taking online discourse on the Russian anti-sanctions policy as a case. We use the Habermasian concept of basic validity claims to assess deliberation quality through the lens of argumentation and interactivity. Our findings suggest that deliberative practices can exist in non-competitive contexts and non-institutionalized digital spaces, in the form of intersubjective solidarities resulting from the everyday political talk among ordinary citizens. Such deliberations can be counted as argumentative discourses, although in a special, casual way—unlike the procedural rule-based debates. Generally, as in established liberal democracies, deliberation in Russia tends to attract like-minded participants. While the argumentative quality does not seem to vary across the discussion threads sample, the level of deliberative interactivity is higher on pro-government media, accompanied with the higher level of incivility. On the other hand, discourses on independent media are distinctively against the government policy of food destruction. The democratic value of such deliberations is unclear and might depend on the political allegiance and ownership of the media. Though some discourses can be considered democratic, their impact on decision-making remains minimal, which is a key constraint of deliberation.

In this paper, key narratives within the field of e-government are identified by conducting a thematic analysis of the top 100 most cited e-government papers (plus an additional 20 from [2018][2019]. The identified narratives that emerged from this analysis are: the democratic, technocratic, and the tech-savvy narrative, plus the implementation (pseudo) narrative. This paper explores and provides theoretical reflections on these narratives by anchoring them in established background paradigms, such as open society and new public management.

The paper presents a conceptual model of a pragmatic-moral discourse as a basis for assembling a training dataset, as well as the results of an experiment of using such data by the Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) to assess how accurately it can determine the attitude of Internet discourse participants towards the pension

No abstract

Abstract. The paper presents the results of the empirical study devoted to mapping and measuring the aggregated political positions -viewed as a specific form of discursive public opinion -expressed by ordinary citizens on a discussion forum on the Russian internet. The study is considered as part of the broader inquiry into the field of online deliberations. New evidence is discussed in this regard by deepening the empirical side of claim making and validation through studying agreements and disagreements among online discussants using Jurgen Habermas' notion of validity claims to normative rightness. The claim-based approach has helped reveal, firstly, how participants problematize issues of public importance and what these issues are, and, secondly, which intersubjective solidarities (groups) participants form around these issues. The paper concludes by considering both the epistemic and pragmatic aspects of such results for better understanding the participatory value of public discussions online from a perspective of discursive sociology and public trust building.