Understanding attitudes towards social media segregation: spatial metaphors in the discussion of Twitter blocklists

Abstract

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.

Blocking of counter-partisan accounts drives political assortment on Twitter

“…We next turn to our survey experiment, in which we aimed to replicate our field results in a different context with a different subject pool, and to also shed light on underlying reasons for choosing to block other users. For instance, prior work has suggested that social media users may block accounts for reasons such as managing potential harm and risk ( 34 ) or curating personal news consumption ( 35 ). We recruited Twitter users through Lucid ( n = 606) and showed them one of three different Twitter account profiles (politically neutral, Democrat-favoring, Republican-favoring).…”

The role of wisdom in navigating social media paradoxes: Implications for consumers, firms, and public policy

“…Facts can be persuasively dismissed as “fake news” by those who deride expertise and use social media to promote their attitudes and beliefs as a part of their identity (Li & Su, 2020). In turn, algorithms, “bots,” and self‐selection create “echo chambers” centered around information and narratives that confirm existing beliefs, potentially shielding consumers from objectivity, creating a sense of false consensus, and encouraging choices that can harm well‐being (Bol et al, 2020; Wheatley & Vatnoey, 2022; Yuan et al, 2019).…”

From asymmetric dependency to discursive disengagement: How social movements and the media/public talked past each other

“…Specifically, based on cookies and past browsing histories, recommender algorithms, RSS and the like can push similar content and bring people with overlapping commonalities into protest collectives (Resnick, 2004). Conversely, information and debates that run contrary to one's ideological stance would be conveniently blocked through automated keyword filtering or blocklists (Wheatley and Vatnoey, 2020). Digital platforms' centrifugal and centripetal forces, henceforth, lead to numerous contentious "filter bubbles" that are tightly-knitted from within but are disassociated from the mainstream media and other publics.…”