Online Dialogue And Interaction Disruption. A Latin American Government’s Use Of Twitter Affordances To Dissolve Online Criticism

Carlos Davalos

doi:10.29105/rcp2-6

Autores/as

Carlos Davalos UW-Madison https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6846-1661

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29105/rcp2-6

Palabras clave:

Mexico, citizens, government, social media, disruption, social capital, affordances, weaponization, Twitter, online, criticisms

Resumen

Few academic studies have focused on how Latin American governments operate online. Political communication studies focused on social media interactions have overwhelmingly dedicated efforts to understand how regular citizens interact and behave online. Through the analysis of hashtags and other online strategies that were used during Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto’s (EPN) term to critique or manifest unconformity regarding part of the government’s performance, this study observes how members of a Latin American democratic regime weaponized a social media platform to dissipate criticism. More specifically, it proposes that the manipulation of social media affordances can debilitate essential democratic attributes like freedom of expression. Using a qualitative approach, consisting of observation, textual analysis, and online ethnography, findings show that some Mexican government’s manipulation of inconvenient Twitter conversations could impact or even disrupt potential offline crises. Another objective of the presented research is to set a baseline for future efforts focused on how Latin American democratic regimes behave and generate digital communication on social media platforms.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Métricas

Cargando métricas ...

Biografía del autor/a

Carlos Davalos, UW-Madison

Departamento de Comunicacion y Periodismo.

Teacher Assistant, Research Assistant, y Doctoral Fellow.

Citas

Barbera, P., Jost J. T., Nagler, J., Tucker, J. A., & Bonneau, R. (2015). Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber? Psychological Science, 26(10), 1531−1542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615594620

Bimber, B. (2017). Three prompts for collective action in the context of digital media. Political Communication, 34, 6−20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2016.1223772

Bode, L., Hanna, A., Yang, J., & Shah, D. V. (2015). Candidate networks, citizen clusters, and po-litical expression: Strategic hashtag use in the 2010 midterms. The ANNALS of the Ameri-can Academy of Political and Social Science, 659(1), 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214563923

Bolsover, G. & Howard, P. (2019). Chinese computational propaganda: Automation, algorithms and the manipulation of information about Chinese politics on Twitter and Weibo. Infor-mation, Communication & Society, 22(14), 2063–2080. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1476576

Bondes, M., & Schucher, G. (2014). Derailed emotions: The transformation of claims and targets during the Wenzhou online incident. Information, Communication & Society, 17(1), 45–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1369118X.2013.853819

Breuer, A., Landman, T., & Farquhar, D. (2014). Social media and protest mobilization: Evidence from the Tunisian revolution. Democratization, 22(4), 764–792. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2014.885505

Bruns, A., Enli G., Skogerbo, E., Larsso, A. O., & Christensen, C. (2016). The Routledge companion to social media and politics. Routledge.

Bunce, V. J., & Wolchik, S. L. (2009). Defeating dictators: Electoral change and stability in com-petitive authoritarian regimes. World Politics, 62(1), 43−86. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887109990207

Carr, C. T., & Hayes, R. A. (2015). Social media: Defining, developing, and divining. Atlantic Jour-nal of Communication, 23, 46−65. https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2015.972282

Donno, D. (2013). Elections and democratization in authoritarian regimes. American Journal of Political Science, 57(3), 703–716. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12013

Earle, P., Guy, M., Buckmaster, R. A., Ostrum, C., Horvath, S., & Vaugha, A. (2010) OMG earth-quake! Can Twitter improve earthquake response? Seismological Research Letters, 81(2), 246–251. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.81.2.246

Ellison, N., & Vitak, J. (2015). Social media affordances and their relationship to social capital pro-cesses. In S. Sundar (Ed.), The handbook of psychology of communication technology (pp. 205−227). Wiley-Blackwell.

Engesser, S., Ernst, N., Esser, F., & Büchel, F. (2017). Populism and social media: How politicians spread a fragmented ideology. Information, Communication & Society, 20, 1109−1126. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1207697

Ernst, N., Engesser, S., Büchel, F., Blassnig, S., & Esser, F. (2017). Extreme parties and populism: an analysis of Facebook and Twitter across six countries. Information, Communication & Society, 20(9), 1347–1364. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1329333

Evans, S. K., Pearce, K. E., Vitak, J., & Treem, J. W. (2016). Explicating affordances: A conceptual framework for understanding affordances in communication research. Journal of Comput-er-Mediated Communication, 22, 35−52. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12180

Flores, R. (2019). ¿Qué es el populismo? Definición de los usuarios de Twitter durante la campaña electoral presidencial mexicana 2017-2018. Revista de Comunicación Política, 1, 11−29. https://doi.org/10.29105/rcp1-1

Gerbaudo, P. (2012). Tweets and the Streets: Social media and contemporary activism. Pluto Press.

Gerbaudo, P. (2017). Social media teams as digital vanguards: The question of leadership in the management of key Facebook and Twitter accounts of occupy Wall Street, Indignados and UK Uncut. Information, Communication & Society, 20, 185−202. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1161817

Gilroy, P. (1996). British cultural studies and the pitfalls of identity. In H. Baker, M. Diawara, & R. Lindeborg (Eds.), Black British cultural studies: A reader (pp. 223−239). Chicago Universi-ty Press.

Gunitsky, S. (2015). Corrupting the cyber-commons: Social media as a tool of autocratic stability. Perspectives on Politics, 13(1), 42−54. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592714003120

Halpern, D., Valenzuela, S., & Katz, J. E. (2017). We face, I tweet: How different social media in-fluence political participation through collective and internal efficacy. Journal of Comput-er-Mediated Communication, 22, 320−336. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.1219

Hampton, K. N., Shin, I., & Lu, W. (2017). Social media and political discussion: When online presence silences offline conversation. Information, Communication & Society, 20, 1090−1107. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1218526

Han, R. (2015). Manufacturing Consent in Cyberspace: China's “Fifty-Cent Army”. Journal of Cur-rent Chinese Affairs, 44(2), 105−134. https://doi.org/10.1177/186810261504400205

Harlow, S. (2012). Social media and social movements: Facebook and an online Guatemalan jus-tice movement that moved offline. New Media & Society, 14(2), 225–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444811410408

Hassanpour, N. (2014). Media disruption and political unrest: Evidence from Mubarak’s quasi-experiment. Political Communication, 31(1), 1−24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2012.737439

Howard, P., Savage, S., Flores-Saviaga, C., Toxtli, C., & Monroy-Hernández, A. (2016). Social me-dia, civic engagement, and the slacktivism hypothesis: Lessons from Mexico’s “El Bronco”, Journal of International Affairs, 70(1) 55−73

Huang, H. (2014). Countering the counter-power: The political effects of internet rumors and ru-mor rebuttals in China. SSRN Electronic Journal.

Huang, R., & Sun, X. (2013). Weibo network, information diffusion and implications for collective action in China. Information, Communication & Society, 17(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2013.853817

Hughes, A. L., & Palen, L. (May 2009). Twitter adoption and use in mass convergence and emer-gency events. In ISCRAM Conference.

Hyun, K. D., & Kim, J. (2015). The role of new media in sustaining the status quo: Online political expression, nationalism, and system support in China. Information, Communication & So-ciety, 18(7), 766–781. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2014.994543

Kavanaugh, A. L., Fox, E. A., Sheetz, S. D., Yang, S., Li, L. T., Shoemaker, D. J., & Xie, L. (2012). Social media use by government: From the routine to the critical. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 480−491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.06.002

King, G., Pan, J., & Roberts, M. E. (2013). How censorship in China allows government criticism but silences collective expression. American Political Science Review, 107, 326−343. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055413000014

King, G., Pan, J., & Roberts, M. E. (2017). How the Chinese government fabricates social media posts for strategic distraction, not engaged argument. American political science review, 111(3), 484−501. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055417000144

Knoll Soloff, A. (2017, March 9). Mexico’s troll bots are threatening the lives of activists. Mother-board-Vice. https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/mg4b38/mexicos-troll-bots-arethreatening-the-lives-of-activists

Mackinnon, R. (2012). China’s “networked authoritarianism.” In L. J. Diamond & M. F. Plattner (Eds.), Liberation technology: Social media and the struggle for democracy (pp. 78–94). Johns Hopkins University Press.

Masías, V. H., Hecking, T., & Hoppe, U. (2018). Social networking site usage and participation in protest activities in 17 Latin–American countries. Telematics and Informatics, 35(7), 1809–1831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.05.010

McGregor, S. C., Mourão, R. R., & Molyneux, L. (2017). Twitter as a tool for and object of political and electoral activity: Considering electoral context and variance among actors. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 14, 154−167. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2017.1308289

Montenegro Mejía, S. S. M., & Gutiérrez, E. (2016). The Awakening of Guatemalan Society: ex-plaining the appearance of the social movement of 2015. Encuentro Latinoamericano, 3(1), 63−81. https://doi.org/10.22151/ELA.3.1.4

Mendoza, M., Castillo, C., & Poblete, B. (2010) Twitter under crisis: Can we trust what we RT? In Proceedings of the 1st ACM Workshop on Social Media Analytics, 25−28.

Murthy, D. (2012). Towards a sociological understanding of social media: Theorizing Twitter. Soci-ology, 46(6), 1059−1073. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038511422553

Murthy, D. (2013). Twitter: Social communication in the Twitter age. Polity Press.

Oz, M., Zheng, P., & Cheng, G. M. (2018). Twitter versus Facebook: Comparing incivility, impolite-ness, and deliberative attributes. New Media & Societies, 20(9), 3400−3419. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817749516

Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The virtual sphere: The Internet as a public sphere. New Media Society, 4(1), 9–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614440222226244

Pearce K. E. (2015). Democratizing kompromat: The affordances of social media for state-sponsored harassment. Information, Communication & Society, 18(10), 1158−1174. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1021705

Phua, J., Jin, S. V., & Kim, J. J. (2017). Uses and gratifications of social networking sites for bridg-ing and bonding social capital: A comparison of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snap-chat. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 115−122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.041.

Potts, L. (2014). Social media in disaster response. How experience architects can build for partici-pation. Rutledge.

Richardson, G. W. (2017). Social media and politics: A new way to participate in the political pro-cess (vols. 1 & 2). Praeger.

Robinson, S., & Anderson, C. W. (2020). Network ethnography in journalism studies: A mixed-method approach to studying media ecologies. Journalism Studies, 21(7), 984−1001. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2020.1720519

Sadler, N. (2018). Narrative and interpretation on Twitter: Reading tweets by telling stories. New Media & Society, 20(9), 3266–3282. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817745018

Sinclair, J., & Straubhaar, J. (2013). Television Industries in Latin America. BFI Press.

Sullivan, R. (2014) Live-tweeting terror: a rhetorical analysis of @HSMPress_ Twitter updates during the 2013 Nairobi hostage crisis. Critical Studies on Terrorism, 7(3), 422–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/17539153.2014.955300

Tai, Q. (2014). China’s media censorship: A dynamic and diversified regime. Journal of East Asian Studies, 14(2), 185–209. https://doi.org/10.5555/1598-2408-14.2.185

Tucker, J. A., Theocharis, Y., Roberts, M. E., & Barbera, P. (2017). From liberation to turmoil: So-cial media and democracy. Journal of Democracy, 28(4), 46−59. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2017.0064

Valenzuela, S., Correa, T., & Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2018). Ties, likes, and tweets: Using strong and weak ties to explain differences in protest participation across Facebook and Twitter use. Political Communication, 35, 117−134. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2017.1334726

Van Kessel, S., & Castelein, R. (2016). Shifting the blame. Populist politicians’ use of Twitter as a tool of opposition. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 12(2), 594–614.

Vanderhill, R. (2014). Promoting democracy and promoting authoritarianism: Comparing the cas-es of Belarus and Slovakia. Europe-Asia Studies, 66(2), 255–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2014.882621

Vieweg, S., Hughes A., Starbird K., & Palen, L. (2010). Microblogging during two natural hazards events: What twitter may contribute to situational awareness. In Proceedings of ACM Con-ference on Computer Human Interaction (CHI). April 2010.

Waisbord, S., & Amado, A. (2017). Populist communication by digital means: Presidential Twitter in Latin America. Information, Communication, & Society, 20(9), 1330–1346. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1328521

Way, L. A. (2008). The real causes of the color revolutions. Journal of Democracy, 19(3), 55–69. https://doi.org/10. 1353/jod.0.0010

Williams, M., Edwards, A., Housley, W., Burnap, P., Rana, O., Avis, N., & Sloan, L. (2013). Policing cyber-neighbourhoods: Tension monitoring and social media networks. Policing and Socie-ty, 23, 461–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2013.780225

Yu, R. P. (2016). The relationship between passive and active non-political social media use and political expression on Facebook and Twitter. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 413−420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.01.019

Zappavigna, M (2015) Searchable talk: the linguistic functions of hashtags. Social Semiotics, 25(3), 274–291.

Zhang, X., & Lin, W.-Y. (2014). Political participation in an unlikely place: How individuals engage in politics through social networking sites in China. International Journal of Communica-tion, 8, 21–42.