Social Media and Radicalization: An Affordance Approach for Cross-Platform Comparison

Heidi Schulze; Simon Greipl; Julian Hohner; Diana Rieger

doi:10.5771/1615-634X-2024-2-187

Contents
- Chapter Expand | CollapseAuthorsPage
- 131–132 Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis 131–132
- 133–140 EDITORIAL 133–140
- 141–158 Praktiken des Widersprechens in vernetzten Öffentlichkeiten: Theorieentwurf und Forschungsheuristik Tanja Thomas, Margreth Lünenborg, Dagmar Hoffmann, Susanne Eichner, Susanne Kinnebrock Tanja Thomas, Margreth Lünenborg, Dagmar Hoffmann, Susanne Eichner, Susanne Kinnebrock 141–158
- 159–186 „Ich mach mir die Welt, wie sie mir gefällt“. Meinungsbildungsrelevanz aus Nutzungsperspektive Daniel Stegmann, Pascal Schneiders, Birgit Stark, Sebastian Buggert Daniel Stegmann, Pascal Schneiders, Birgit Stark, Sebastian Buggert 159–186
- 187–212 Social Media and Radicalization: An Affordance Approach for Cross-Platform Comparison Heidi Schulze, Simon Greipl, Julian Hohner, Diana Rieger Heidi Schulze, Simon Greipl, Julian Hohner, Diana Rieger 187–212
- 213–225 LITERATUR - Besprechungen 213–225
- 226–250 Zeitschriftenlese 226–250
- 251–252 Hinweise für Autor*innen 251–252
- 253–253 Impressum 253–253
Durchsuchen Sie das Werk
Geben Sie ein Keyword in die Suchleiste ein
CC-BY Access

M&K Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft , page 187 - 212

Social Media and Radicalization: An Affordance Approach for Cross-Platform Comparison

Autoren

Heidi Schulze Simon Greipl Julian Hohner Diana Rieger

DOI
- doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2024-2-187
- ISSN: 1615-634X
- ISSN online: 2942-3317
Abstract

To accentuate which platform characteristics particularly foster radicalization and extremist dynamics, this contribution investigates the affordances of social media as delineated in contemporary literature, conducting a platform comparison encompassing Telegram, WhatsApp, and X (formerly Twitter). Based on a scoping review, 17 affordances identified from studies researching radicalization dynamics on social media were extracted and categorized. The most frequently mentioned affordances—anonymity, visibility, and collectivity—were then further analyzed concerning their contribution to radicalization and the radicalization potential of these specific platforms. The platform-comparative affordance discussion shows that, although in principle each of the three compared platforms can foster an environment conducive to radicalization depending on user intention and context or use, the specific characteristics of each platform necessitate a nuanced consideration. On one hand, it is imperative to discern affordances differentially along various dimensions when assessing their implications (e.g., internal vs. external visibility). On the other hand, it is beneficial to consider which affordances emerge from the actualization of other affordances. For instance, collectivity can result from the interplay of several affordances, such as interactivity and anonymity, and can be referred to as a meta-affordance. Furthermore, the analysis shows that platform branding and self-presentation not only affect platform architecture and affordances but also shape users’ perceptions of the platform, thereby influencing the actualization of affordances. This was particularly noted in the literature for Telegram and increasingly for X. Specific assertions, nevertheless, are hindered by the conceptual diffusion of the affordance approach and a lack of empirical analyses directly and systematically examining platform affordances in conjunction with radicalization dynamics.
Share