The Limits of Social Media Mobilization: How Protest Movements Adapt to Social Media Logic

IF 2.7 2区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Media and Communication Pub Date : 2023-06-22 DOI:10.17645/mac.v11i3.6635
Marlene Schaaf, Oliver Quiring
{"title":"The Limits of Social Media Mobilization: How Protest Movements Adapt to Social Media Logic","authors":"Marlene Schaaf, Oliver Quiring","doi":"10.17645/mac.v11i3.6635","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The emergence of social networking sites offers protest movements new ways to mobilize for action and draw attention to their issues. However, relying on social media also creates challenges, as social media follow their own principles. If protest movements want to be visible in news feeds, they have to adapt to so-called social media logic, as originally postulated in mediatization research. The principles of social media have been conceptualized. However, there is a lack of empirical research on how political actors perceive and orient to this logic, how they learn about it, and the consequences for mobilization (i.e., communicating protest issues as well as taking protest action). As protest movements are an integral part of modern democracies, use social media somewhat intensively, and usually build on a fluid network structure that allows us to examine adaptation processes in greater detail, they are particularly suitable for addressing these questions. Semi-structured interviews with activists organizing protest actions or managing social media accounts from 29 movement organizations in Germany (N = 33) revealed that protest movements have internalized social media logic and paid attention to not only the design but also the timing of posts to suit algorithms. The protest organizations generally built on their experience with social media. The degree to which they followed these principles was based on available resources. Limits of this adaptation arose, for example, if sensitive or negative content rarely produced likes or, increasingly, personalization evoked a presumed hierarchy within the movements.","PeriodicalId":18348,"journal":{"name":"Media and Communication","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Media and Communication","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v11i3.6635","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The emergence of social networking sites offers protest movements new ways to mobilize for action and draw attention to their issues. However, relying on social media also creates challenges, as social media follow their own principles. If protest movements want to be visible in news feeds, they have to adapt to so-called social media logic, as originally postulated in mediatization research. The principles of social media have been conceptualized. However, there is a lack of empirical research on how political actors perceive and orient to this logic, how they learn about it, and the consequences for mobilization (i.e., communicating protest issues as well as taking protest action). As protest movements are an integral part of modern democracies, use social media somewhat intensively, and usually build on a fluid network structure that allows us to examine adaptation processes in greater detail, they are particularly suitable for addressing these questions. Semi-structured interviews with activists organizing protest actions or managing social media accounts from 29 movement organizations in Germany (N = 33) revealed that protest movements have internalized social media logic and paid attention to not only the design but also the timing of posts to suit algorithms. The protest organizations generally built on their experience with social media. The degree to which they followed these principles was based on available resources. Limits of this adaptation arose, for example, if sensitive or negative content rarely produced likes or, increasingly, personalization evoked a presumed hierarchy within the movements.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
社交媒体动员的局限:抗议运动如何适应社交媒体逻辑
社交网站的出现为抗议运动提供了新的动员行动的方式,并引起人们对其问题的关注。然而,依赖社交媒体也会带来挑战,因为社交媒体遵循自己的原则。如果抗议运动想在新闻推送中引人注目,他们必须适应所谓的社交媒体逻辑,就像最初在调解研究中假设的那样。社交媒体的原理已经被概念化了。然而,缺乏关于政治行为者如何看待和定位这一逻辑、他们如何了解这一逻辑以及动员的后果(即沟通抗议问题和采取抗议行动)的实证研究。由于抗议运动是现代民主国家不可分割的一部分,在一定程度上密集地使用社交媒体,并且通常建立在一个流动的网络结构之上,使我们能够更详细地研究适应过程,因此它们特别适合解决这些问题。对来自德国29个运动组织(N=33)的组织抗议行动或管理社交媒体账户的活动人士进行的半结构化采访显示,抗议运动已经内化了社交媒体逻辑,不仅关注帖子的设计,还关注帖子的时间以适应算法。抗议组织通常建立在他们使用社交媒体的经验基础上。他们遵守这些原则的程度是基于现有资源。例如,如果敏感或负面的内容很少引起点赞,或者越来越多的个性化在运动中引发了一种假定的等级制度,这种适应的局限性就会出现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Media and Communication
Media and Communication COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
3.20%
发文量
108
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊介绍: Media and Communication (ISSN: 2183-2439) is an international open access journal dedicated to a wide variety of basic and applied research in communication and its related fields
期刊最新文献
Media-Tech Companies as Agents of Innovation: From Radical to Incremental Innovation in a Cluster Legal and Ethical Regulation in Slovakia and Its Relation to Deliberative Communication Symbiosis or Precarity? Digital Platforms’ Role on Australian Digital-Native Journalism and Their Funding Models The Awkward Moment When You Agree With News Outlets That You Normally Distrust Can’t Fix This? Innovation, Social Change, and Solutionism in Design Thinking
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1