The subtle nature of Facebook politics: Swedish social network site users and political participation

Sweden, with a high level of political participation and an avant-garde position regarding internet access, broadband and social media penetration in the population, is a critical case for studying social media in relation to political participation. Three types of users – members of political parties, members of interest organizations, and non-members – are interviewed in focus groups about their attitudes to political content in the social network site Facebook. The discussions show that although practices and attitudes vary, using social network sites alone does not drive previously inactive respondents to political participation. Respondents who are members of interest organizations view social network sites as valuable tools for participation, whereas respondents who are not refrain from sharing political views with their friends. They are exposed to political content and requests for participation, but prefer generally to remain passive.

[1]  M. Hindman.  The Myth of Digital Democracy , 2008 .

[2]  Erik Amnå,et al.  Political participation and civic engagement: Towards a new typology , 2012 .

[3]  Henry E. Brady,et al.  Weapon of the Strong? Participatory Inequality and the Internet , 2010, Perspectives on Politics.

[4]  Kenneth Newton,et al.  Trust in people, confidence in political institutions and satisfaction with democracy , 2007 .

[5]  Kate Stewart,et al.  Researching online populations: the use of online focus groups for social research , 2005 .

[6]  Brian J. Gaines,et al.  Typing Together? Clustering of Ideological Types in Online Social Networks , 2009 .

[7]  Michele Micheletti.  Political virtue and shopping : individuals, consumerism, and collective action , 2003 .

[8]  Jody C. Baumgartner,et al.  MyFaceTube Politics , 2010 .

[9]  LINCOLN DAHLBERG,et al.  Rethinking the fragmentation of the cyberpublic: from consensus to contestation , 2007, New Media Soc..

[10]  Louis Leung,et al.  User-generated content on the internet: an examination of gratifications, civic engagement and psychological empowerment , 2009, New Media Soc..

[11]  David Dickson,et al.  The focus group approach , 2009 .

[12]  Clay Shirky.  Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations , 2008 .

[13]  Evgeny V. Morozov,et al.  The Net Delusion: How Not to Liberate The World , 2011 .

[14]  Lynda Lee Kaid,et al.  Stealth soapboxes: political information efficacy, cynicism and uses of celebrity weblogs among readers , 2008, New Media Soc..

[15]  Magdalena Wojcieszak,et al.  ‘Don’t talk to me’: effects of ideologically homogeneous online groups and politically dissimilar offline ties on extremism , 2010, New Media Soc..

[16]  Mark S. Granovetter.  The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[17]  Jan Teorell,et al.  Political Participation: Mapping the Terrain , 2007 .

[18]  Kerk F. Kee,et al.  Being Immersed in Social Networking Environment: Facebook Groups, Uses and Gratifications, and Social Outcomes , 2009, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[19]  Sara Leckner,et al.  A Sampler of International Media and Communication Statistics 2010 , 2011 .

[20]  Henry E. Brady,et al.  Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics , 1996 .

[21]  Deva R. Woodly,et al.  New competencies in democratic communication? Blogs, agenda setting and political participation , 2007 .

[22]  Leonard Shyles,et al.  US teenagers’ perceptions and awareness of digital technology: a focus group approach , 2010, New Media Soc..

[23]  D. Karpf.  Online Political Mobilization from the Advocacy Group's Perspective: Looking Beyond Clicktivism , 2010 .

[24]  Jan Teorell,et al.  Linking Social Capital to Political Participation: Voluntary Associations and Networks of Recruitment in Sweden , 2003 .

[25]  A.M.J. Derks.  Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections , 2009 .

[26]  Carlos Alberto Scolari,et al.  Mapping conversations about new media: the theoretical field of digital communication , 2009, New Media Soc..

[27]  Thomas J. Johnson,et al.  The Revolution Will be Networked , 2010 .

[28]  Roger J. Rezabek,et al.  Online Focus Groups: Electronic Discussions for Research , 2000 .

[29]  N. Ellison,et al.  Social capital, self-esteem, and use of online social network sites: A longitudinal analysis , 2008 .

[30]  Hernando Rojas,et al.  Weblogs, traditional sources online and political participation: an assessment of how the internet is changing the political environment , 2009, New Media Soc..

[31]  Cherian George.  The Net Delusion: How not to liberate the world , 2013 .

[32]  D. Boyd.  Taken Out of Context: American Teen Sociality in Networked Publics , 2010 .

[33]  Hanna Bäck,et al.  Medborgarna och deltagandeparadoxen: Att förklara olika former av politiskt deltagande , 2006 .

[34]  Yana Breindl,et al.  Leetocracy. Networked Political Activism and the Continuation of Elitism in Competitive Democracy , 2010 .

[35]  Teresa M. Harrison,et al.  Wielding new media in Web 2.0: exploring the history of engagement with the collaborative construction of media products , 2009, New Media Soc..

[36]  Rasmus Kleis Nielsen,et al.  Mundane internet tools, mobilizing practices, and the coproduction of citizenship in political campaigns , 2011, New Media Soc..

[37]  Pippa Norris,et al.  Democratic Phoenix: Reinventing Political Activism , 2002 .

[38]  Cliff Lampe,et al.  Connection strategies: Social capital implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices , 2011, New Media Soc..

[39]  J. Blumler,et al.  The Third Age of Political Communication: Influences and Features , 1999 .