The Role of Social Media in Participatory Democracy

Gachau, James Ngetha

doi:10.1145/2957276.2997020

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, work on social issues focus more directly on critiquing and challenging society, or proposing alternative social and technical arrangements for society. Instead of highlight the work as analysis, these authors state they "contribute to the socio-political designed innovation of solidarity movements" (Gachau, 2016) or that they report "opportunities and challenges for supporting the development of local food networks with communities" (Sun et al, 2015). In a more abstract sense, some scholars may contribute more to descriptive and empirical research, while others engage more directly in normative questions.…”

Section: Observationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this paper, we describe our efforts to contribute to the socio-political designed innovation of solidarity movements through the establishment of a research lab embedded in, and operating within, the solidarity economy." (Gachau, 2016) (Bernstein and Hooper, 2018;Aal et al, 2014;Yerousis et al, 2015;Strohmayer et al, 2015;de Castro Leal et al, 2019;Wagenknecht and Korn, 2016;cindy lin kaiying et al, 2019;Vlachokyriakos et al, 2017Vlachokyriakos et al, , 2018Encinas et al, 2018;Ahmed et al, 2017;Silberman, 2016;Ekbia and Nardi, 2016;Raval and Dourish, 2016;Strohmayer et al, 2017;Csikszentmihalyi et al, 2018;Shklovski and Wulf, 2018) (Prost et al, 2018;Vlachokyriakos et al, 2017Vlachokyriakos et al, , 2018…”

Section: Social Movements "[--]mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What do we study when studying politics anddemocracy?A thematic analysis of how politics and democracy aretreated in SIGCHI conference papers

Nelimarkka,

Vuorenmaa

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human–computer interaction scholars are increasingly touching on topics relatedto politics or democracy. As these concepts are ambiguous, an examination ofconcepts’ invoked meanings aids in the self-reflection of our research efforts. Weconduct a thematic analysis of all papers with the word ‘politics’ in abstract,title or keywords (n=378) and likewise 152 papers with the word ‘democracy.’We observe that these words are increasingly being used in human-computerinteraction, both in absolute and relative terms. At the same time, we show thatresearchers invoke these words with diverse levels of analysis in mind: the earlyresearch focused on mezzo-level (i.e., small groups), but more recently the workhas begun to include macro-level analysis (i.e., society and politics as played inthe public sphere). After the increasing focus on the macro-level, we see a tran-sition towards more normative and activist research, in some areas it replacesobservational and empirical research. These differences indicate semantic differ-ences, which – in the worst case – may limit scientific progress. We bring thesedifferences visible to help in further exchanges of ideas and human–computerinteraction community to explore how it orients itself to politics and democracy.

show abstract

Section: Observationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Social Movements "[--]mentioning

confidence: 99%

What do we study when studying politics anddemocracy?A thematic analysis of how politics and democracy aretreated in SIGCHI conference papers

Nelimarkka,

Vuorenmaa

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Currently, Facebook hosts a large number of politically motivated user groups created by political actors and civil activists that reach wide audiences (Gustafsson, 2012;Park et al, 2009;Warren et al, 2014). Previous studies have pointed out that groups on Facebook can promote societal change and provide users with a channel for expressing counter-discourses to the dominant public voice (Gachau, 2016;Pruchniewska, 2019;Sormanen & Dutton, 2015). However, there is a darker side to social media, and research has pointed out the harmful effects of such platforms on political, economic, and social life, particularly due to the widespread dissemination of misinformation and hate speech through them (Bessi et al, 2016;Del Vicario et al, 2016;Gagliardone et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Boundary Control as Gatekeeping in Facebook Groups

Malinen

2021

MaC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Facebook groups host user-created communities on Facebook’s global platform, and their administrative structure consists of members, volunteer moderators, and governance mechanisms developed by the platform itself. This study presents the viewpoints of volunteers who moderate groups on Facebook that are dedicated to political discussion. It sheds light on how they enact their day-to-day moderation work, from platform administration to group membership, while acknowledging the demands that come from both these tasks. As volunteer moderators make key decisions about content, their work significantly shapes public discussion in their groups. Using data obtained from 15 face-to-face interviews, this qualitative study sheds light on volunteer moderation as a means of media control in complex digital networks. The findings show that moderation concerns not just the removal of content or contacts but, most importantly, it is about protecting group norms by controlling who has the access to the group. Facebook’s volunteer moderators have power not only to guide discussion but, above all, to decide who can participate in it, which makes them important gatekeepers of the digital public sphere.

show abstract