See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/345716860
4.1 Socio-political discussion in the digital public space
Chapter · November 2020
CITATIONS READS
0 50
2 authors:
Andreas Ventsel Mari-Liis Madisson
University of Tartu University of Tartu
60 PUBLICATIONS 277 CITATIONS 29 PUBLICATIONS 174 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
IREX Baltics Media Literacy Project View project
Strategic Narrative as a Model for Reshaping the Security Dilemma View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Mari-Liis Madisson on 11 November 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
11/11/2020 4.1 Socio-political discussion in the digital public space | Estonian Human Development Report 2019/2020
4.1
Socio-political discussion in the
digital public space
Andreas Ventsel and Mari-Liis Madisson EE
Clear principles of journalistic ethics and quality do not apply
to the messages published in the public space of social media
as they do in the case of professional journalism.
In Estonia, electronic devices became the channels used by the majority of
those actively following the media in 2011. This article focuses on the trends
in meaning creation that characterise social media communications and
their role in shaping the socio-political discussion.
Our objective is to show which
meaning creation leads to the
Meaning creation is a process
closure and radicalisation of
through which communication
social media, and which leads partners seek to understand
to more democratic open each other and the world around
communication. We refer to them and to influence and, in
specific examples and studies some cases, even mislead their
that can help map the discussion partners.
features of social media
debates and the types of
meaning creation. Few qualitative studies have been published in Estonia on
the specifics of (social) media meaning creation. It is also important to
understand that the digital public space is much broader than just social
media, although very different channels and information spheres converge
in social media and it is one of the main places where citizens participate in
the discussion of public topics. An information environment has evolved –
https://inimareng.ee/en/socio-political-discussion-in-the-digital-public-space.html 1/14
11/11/2020 4.1 Socio-political discussion in the digital public space | Estonian Human Development Report 2019/2020
this is a digital public space where users of interactive devices connected to
the network can consume information created by others and participate in
creating information. Academic literature has also pointed out the problems
related to the emergence of the information environment. One such
problem is the fact that there has been a strong shift towards simplification
and personalisation when discussing public issues in the digital media.
Traditionally, socio-political
debates have reached wider
The digital public space is much
audiences through the press,
broader than just social media,
although very different channels where the editorial staff select
and information spheres speakers from diverse
converge in social media and it is backgrounds, as well as strive
one of the main places where to ensure that the discussions
citizens participate in the stay on topic and are debated
discussion of public topics. according to the rules. In the
social media era, the number
of public deliberative spaces
has significantly diversified, and speakers no longer need to depend on the
mediating role of the press to reach the largest possible audiences. In social
media, so-called traditional opinion leaders (journalists, politicians,
academics, experts) can mediate public topics as can the accounts of various
enterprises and institutions, discussion groups, as well as social media
influencers (such as YouTubers, Instagram celebrities, Twitter or Facebook
micro-bloggers, etc.), who, through frequent posts, interesting content, and
engaging styles, have been able to attract a large following. Social media
mediators gather information on specific topics and often provide guidelines
for interpreting that information; in addition, their pages provide an
opportunity to discuss the posted content with both the intermediaries
themselves and their audience. Studies have shown that younger audiences,
in particular, prefer social media as their main channel for keeping up with
public topics, and do not consider texts produced by journalism to be the
main and preferred news medium (Vihalemm and Kõuts-Klemm 2017,
pp. 256, 258; Opermann 2018). The main risk with social media mediators is
that they have a great deal of power over the development of the social
significance of certain topics, but their goals and policies often remain
hidden from their audiences.
https://inimareng.ee/en/socio-political-discussion-in-the-digital-public-space.html 2/14
11/11/2020 4.1 Socio-political discussion in the digital public space | Estonian Human Development Report 2019/2020
Research by Saara Jantunen
(2018) and Thomas Elkjer
There has been a strong shift
Nissen (2015) has shown that
towards simplification and
Russian Information War personalisation when discussing
warriors seeking to sow public issues in the digital media.
misleading links, fuel conflict
and undermine NATO’s
credibility are particularly
dangerous when they succeed in becoming popular mediators or social
media influencers. Their main goal is to shape public opinion in ways that
allow the organisers of the information attacks to achieve their political and
economic goals. Such subversive actions use highly emotional and/or
controversial themes, combine them with events familiar to the target
audience and strategically designed stories. For example, fake characters
(sometimes played by actors) are used to make the false information seem
more trustworthy, along with artificially generated social media activity (paid
likes and comments), non-existent scientific sources, conspiracy theories and
contradictions that fuel conflict.
The affordances of social media encourage
emotion-based communication
Understanding the technical and social capabilities of social media platforms
is important when dealing with the specificities of the social media
deliberative space. According to Katrin Tiidenberg (2017, p. 21), due to the
affordances (opportunities) provided by social media, certain types of
behaviour and usage is more convenient for the users, and therefore more
likely to occur than others. For instance, permanency, the automatic storage
and archiving of what is displayed on social media, copy-ability, or the ease of
copying texts, and searchability, or inclusion of content in search engines
(ibid., p. 67) have all been mentioned as the most significant affordances of
social media. In addition, a sense of anonymity or invisibility has been
mentioned as one facet of the affordance of social media that encourages
people to share insights frankly. Thus, emotions, which would otherwise be
repressed, are often expressed on social media, and in this context,
disparaging statements, prejudices or even hate speech are more likely to
occur (ibid., p. 58).
https://inimareng.ee/en/socio-political-discussion-in-the-digital-public-space.html 3/14
11/11/2020 4.1 Socio-political discussion in the digital public space | Estonian Human Development Report 2019/2020
The popularity of reactions, as
well as the copying and
Social media affordances
sharing functions have been
encourage the emergence of
public communities associated with making the
characterised by their speed of social media deliberative
formation, geographical space more emotion-based
dispersion, anonymity and and less argument-based.
emotion. Due to tolerance, the
amplification of the feeling of
being connected, involved
and experiencing texts together plays a role with unprecedented importance
in social media discussions. Communication researcher Zizi Papacharissi
(2016) and her team examined millions of tweets sent out during the Occupy
Wall Street actions and the Arab Spring (especially in Egypt) and adopted
the phrase affective storytelling to describe this type of communication. One
of Papacharissi’s (ibid., p. 311) most important conclusions was that quick
reactions, or affective social media threads, generally comprised of rather
short posts, can create a cognitive atmosphere that shapes certain topics
and a common perception of the urgency and importance of these topics
but is also a rudimentary way of initially labelling their collective meaning.
Such affective communication is based on the common recognition that
certain aspects are important to give events or phenomena meaning,
although they are not yet structured into distinct units of meaning. An
affective sense of experiencing something together is especially likely to
occur in social media during times of crisis, disaster and conflict; that is,
when social media is used to express collective concern and irritation.
Internet use in Estonia
According to the study Me. World. Media (Mina. Maailm. Meedia / MeeMa),
internet use has increased at a very fast pace since the late 1990s, and
especially since the turn of the century. According to the Kantar Emor data
used in the study, internet usage among people aged 15 to 74 has increased
from 28% in 2000 to 83% in 2014 (Vihalemm and Kõuts-Klemm 2017, p. 263).
Estonian indicators are comparable to those of the US and Great Britain,
where 87% of the adult population use the internet (ibid., p. 252). As
confirmed by the Emor and MeeMa studies of 2014, the internet has not only
become the most popular medium among the youth, but has similarly
https://inimareng.ee/en/socio-political-discussion-in-the-digital-public-space.html 4/14
11/11/2020 4.1 Socio-political discussion in the digital public space | Estonian Human Development Report 2019/2020
impacted the consumption of traditional media among other age groups
(ibid., p. 264). However, the differences in internet usage based on education
or gender are smaller than those based on age – 100% of the younger age
group (15–19 yrs) are internet users, 75% of the middle-age group (40–49 yrs)
and 54% of pensioners. There are also no significant differences between
Estonian-speaking or Russian-speaking people (ibid., p. 264).
Social media experienced explosive growth at the end of the first decade of
the new century and it became the centre of both the public and private
information space. According to the study commissioned by the Ministry of
Culture (Kaldur et al. 2017), the Facebook platform is popular among both
Estonian- and Russian-speaking populations, with 56% of all Estonians (and
even 90% of the youth) using it actively and 43% of the Russian population
also doing so. In addition to Facebook, the Russian-language platforms
Odnoklassniki (33%) and VKontakte (26%) are also popular among the
Russian-speaking population. Estonian people are used to sharing
information, news and monitoring, as well as sometimes participating in, the
political debate on their portable interactive screens. While we can see that
interest in the news continues to be strong among the population, and it is
only the channels used to follow it that have changed, to the detriment of
‘traditional’ media channels. Roughly a quarter of the respondents to the
2014 MeeMa survey said that they have stopped reading newspapers due to
the internet, and 10% said they had stopped following the TV and radio news
in the traditional way (Vihalemm and Kõuts-Klemm 2017, p. 254). According
to the MeeMa study, a user type has emerged whose media repertoire is
limited primarily to social media and spends very little time on internet
portals or websites.
Apparently, interest in communication and entertainment predominates
among the interests of this type, while there is little interest in news and
discussion platforms. It can be said that a significant change in the media
preferences of the population has occurred between the first [2004] and last
Mina. Maailm. Meedia surveys [2017]: almost 50% of Estonians prefer the
internet for media usage. This in turn means an even more extensive
fragmentation of the auditorium. (Vihalemm and Kõuts-Klemm 2017, p. 274)
Numerous discussion platforms, public (various newspapers and groups
available to registered users) and semi-public (groups that can be accessed
with the approval of the administrator), have developed on the internet.
Some of these are centred around a world view, (e.g. ‘Virginia Woolf Sind Ei
https://inimareng.ee/en/socio-political-discussion-in-the-digital-public-space.html 5/14
11/11/2020 4.1 Socio-political discussion in the digital public space | Estonian Human Development Report 2019/2020
Karda!’ [Virginia Woolf is not afraid of you], ‘EKRE Sõprade Klubi’ [Friends of
the Conservative People’s Party of Estonia club]) while others discuss current
social topics (e.g. ‘Aitäh, aga minu traditsiooniline perekond ei vaja kaitset’
[Thanks, but my traditional family does not need protecting], ‘Eesti Metsa
Abiks’ [Estonian forest aid], ‘EI PAGULASMASSIDELE’ [Estonians against
refugee quotas]). However, it is also true that weighing in on public topics
(news about cohabitation, political debates, etc.) is not the main and only
focus of digital media usage. People also use social media to communicate
with their friends and acquaintances, and create and consume entertaining
content.
Closed meaning creation evokes polarisation
The analysis of social media
communication within the
Closed meaning creation is
framework of open and closed
characterised by a disparaging
meaning creation helps us and dismissive attitude towards
understand the factors that opponents and other possible
can either lead to points of view.
communication
encapsulation or promote
dialogue. We define
communication as closed meaning creation if it primarily supports the
connections that the potential receiver already knows, and tends to avoid
alternative points of view (Madisson and Ventsel 2016). Getting stuck in
stereotypes and exchanges of views that are too one-sided are seen as being
the main problem with the discussion climate on social media. On social
media, the preference is for information and communication spaces that
reinforce existing understandings and values, or at least coincide with
existing beliefs without creating discomfort or inconsistency. However,
information that deviates from existing understandings is viewed as
insignificant or not worth delving into. This attitude is called the echo
chamber effect, which increases and synchronises community memory, and
causes prejudices and common positions to become entrenched and
polarised (ibid.) as similar conversation partners communicate.
https://inimareng.ee/en/socio-political-discussion-in-the-digital-public-space.html 6/14
11/11/2020 4.1 Socio-political discussion in the digital public space | Estonian Human Development Report 2019/2020
The disparaging and
cartoonish characterisation of
The echo chamber effect
one’s opponents is typical of
characterises a communicative
situation in which prejudices and the social media echo
common positions become chamber, which in turn
entrenched and polarised when reduces the possibility of
communicating with very similar developing a dialogue. From
conversational partners. the viewpoint of meaning
creation, the result is highly
predictable because it is
based on antithetical logic that causes sharp opposition. This divides the
world into two oppositional (binary) parts: the moral and the immoral, the
useful and harmful, friends and enemies, etc. This echo chamber effect often
appears in social media discussions that develop around conflicting issues
related to ordinary life, be it a plan for setting up a wood processing plant, a
forestry policy or migration framework (see Olesk, this report). The echo
chamber effect is felt especially strongly in communications among people
with extreme political views. For example, a qualitative study of the blogs of
Estonian right-wing extremists (Madisson 2016) showed that the closed
meaning creation that occurs often does not allow for a perception of the
relativity of values and norms, and does not recognise the plurality of
interpretations and points of view. This type of meaning creation was
forcefully presented in the posts focused on the European migration crisis of
2015–2016. Consequently, ‘noble’, ‘just’, ‘balanced’, ‘indigenous’ Estonians who
were not influenced by foreign propaganda were contrasted with groups
that promote ‘deceitful’, ‘greedy’, ‘two-faced’, ‘unnatural’, ‘stupid’ and
‘hysterical’ rhetoric, as well as the ‘brainwashed’ masses of ordinary citizen
corrupted by the media and education system (ibid.). The study dealing with
the public social media content of the Conservative People’s Party of Estonia
and its leading figures in 2014–2016 also revealed a noteworthy share of
antithetical meaning creation. For example, the party’s social media rhetoric
positioned all possible opponents, for instance, the defenders of women’s
and LGTB rights, representatives of the Russian-speaking population, leading
politicians of the other political parties, Estonia’s large media outlets, and
many social theorists (e.g. Herbert Marcuse and Theodor Adorno) as
dangerous enemies (Kasekamp et al. 2018).
https://inimareng.ee/en/socio-political-discussion-in-the-digital-public-space.html 7/14
11/11/2020 4.1 Socio-political discussion in the digital public space | Estonian Human Development Report 2019/2020
Social media communication is hybrid by nature because the public, private
as well as alternative information spheres are often intertwined on platforms
that serve commercial interests (e.g. Facebook and Twitter). And yet, the
people who participate in social media groups tend to value their
information spaces because these are perceived as having sprouted from
the grassroots level or ‘from among the people themselves’. In the discussion
groups that are characterised by polarisation and a strong echo chamber
effect, a forceful confrontation with leading media outlets, and often with
the authorities, is apparent. In these deliberative spaces, the authority of the
grassroots level is stressed, which primarily means that unofficial knowledge
– customs and understandings – are trusted and the impact of the
institutional sphere (e.g. the government, media companies, educational
institutions, etc.) in its creation and communication is imperceptible
(Howard 2011, pp. 7–10). The perception of some knowledge and attitudes as
having arisen from the grassroots level functions as a value criterion, in
which trustworthiness is based less on the quality of the arguments and
reasoning, and more on its opposition to the mainstream. This trend was
alluded to in Andra Siibak and Anu Masso’s qualitative study (2018), which is
based on interviews with the members of the anti-immigrant Facebook
group ‘EI Pagulastele / Estonians against refugee quotas’, who discuss the
reasons they actively visit this group. Mostly anti-elite attitudes emerged,
including a deep distrust in the large media channels, and the political
parties. The interviewees shared their position that the anti-refugee
Facebook group is the only channel that provides non-biased information on
immigration. The respondents valued personal stories, where ‘people like
them’ described their own (generally negative) experiences with supposed
immigrants (ibid., pp. 317–318). In their conclusions related to the study, the
authors note (ibid., pp. 318–319), that the anti-refugee group also functioned
as an echo chamber that amplified and unified the prejudice related to mass
immigration.
Example of a closed communication group
Along with the echo chamber-like policy discussion groups, meaning
creation opposed to institutional authority is also widespread in the
discussions related to alternative medicine. The closed Facebook group
called ‘MMS ja DMSO Eesti’, where the use of MMS or chlorine dioxide is
https://inimareng.ee/en/socio-political-discussion-in-the-digital-public-space.html 8/14
11/11/2020 4.1 Socio-political discussion in the digital public space | Estonian Human Development Report 2019/2020
promoted as a ‘a wonderful mineral solution’ for the prevention and cure of
various diseases, has become a great topic of conversation among the
Estonian public. This group collected almost 8,000 followers and forcefully
opposed Estonia’s official medical system and the larger media publications.
It also accused the latter of a malicious libel campaign and conspiracy. Due
to public attention and an appeal by the Health Board, Facebook shut the
group down in September of 2018.
A strong ability for community bonding can compensate for information
usage based on stereotypes and repetitions resulting from echo chamber
communications. The goal of communication is the recognition/non-
recognition of one’s conversational partner, and an important role is played
by the establishment of a trustworthy contact that is based on the
confirmation of intra-group norms and creating a sense of uniformity. In
addition, this type of communication most probably ensures the motivation
for and sense of security in maintaining contacts, since the messages
created in the ‘right’ way ensure positive feedback, which in turn provides
the impetus for continued communication. At the same time, the
communication directed at the creation of social relations may be available
to only a limited audience; for example, recommendations from members of
the social group may be required when joining the group or be regulated by
forms resembling questionnaires. The eligibility of new members is usually
decided by the trustees or moderators chosen by the social media group.
Open meaning creation involves various parties
As the term suggests, open meaning creation is open to new
communication partners and alternative viewpoints. Open meaning creation
is directed at the synthesis of various positions and is ideally based on the
terms of deliberative democracy, according to which communication should
be:
1. free – only the results and rules of the discussion are binding;
2. reasonable – only the ‘force of the better argument’ applies (Habermas
1998);
3. based on the principle of equality – everyone has an equal right to speak
and criticise, and
https://inimareng.ee/en/socio-political-discussion-in-the-digital-public-space.html 9/14
11/11/2020 4.1 Socio-political discussion in the digital public space | Estonian Human Development Report 2019/2020
4. consensual – the ideal discussion is focused on achieving rationally
motivated consensus among the communication partners (Cohen 1989).
Social dialogue means
discussing public issues in a
Ideally, open meaning creation
reasoned way that allows all
allows the participants in the
the stakeholders to be discussion to arrive at a rationally
involved on an equal basis. An motivated consensus.
important goal of the
dialogue is to understand the
communication partners, and
develop a position that takes all the parties into consideration. As opposed to
closed meaning creation, an important criterion of dialogue-based and open
meaning creation is an attempt on the part of the communication partners
to find a common language that makes it possible to discuss issues of social
importance. This manifests itself, for example, if one conversational partner
asks the other to clarify an incomprehensible term or if an attempt is made
to agree on the rules on which to base the dialogue. The fact that
communication participants provide different interpretations when talking
about the same thing is natural. Open meaning creation is characterised by
a constant clarification of the boundaries of the topic in question, and
directing attention to the inconsistencies in the positions of the dialogue
partners, which enables a mutually evolving understanding to be sought.
Dialogue-based communication results in the considered and integrated
development of various perspectives, world views and points of emphasis.
Adhering to the requirements of open meaning creation enables the
communication participants to formulate reasonable preferences and
decisions.
Setting certain restrictions on social groups can help to support open
meaning creation in social media in the public space. For example, these
include establishing rules of procedure which respect the principles of
dialogue, moderating the discussions and requiring personal identification.
The latter helps to avoid a situation where false identities (e.g. trolls or
pawns) are created in order to artificially boost the popularity or unpopularity
of certain positions in order to manipulate the audience.
Moderating mainly involves removing inappropriate writings, approving or
rejecting requests to join the group, and keeping the discussion focused. In
the case of Estonia, there has been limited research on the connections
https://inimareng.ee/en/socio-political-discussion-in-the-digital-public-space.html 10/14
11/11/2020 4.1 Socio-political discussion in the digital public space | Estonian Human Development Report 2019/2020
between moderating and the quality of social media discussions. An analysis
that focused on the moderating of a semi-public Facebook group (Orgse
2018) revealed the following problem: due to the established values of the
moderators, they often had difficulty creating the ideal conditions for a
dialogue; for example, giving voice to those whose positions differed
fundamentally from their own. However, in high-membership groups, it is
more difficult to secure the opinions, frankness and criticism of all users.
Summary
In this article, we have drawn attention to aspects of meaning creation
which, when they dominate, promote the polarisation of social media
discussions and prevent the development of reasoned discussion and the
integration of various social groups. No means of communication can be
considered as harmful in and of itself. For example, in times of serious social
crisis, antithetical meaning creation can act as an effective mobiliser;
likewise, the affirmation of social connections is important in almost every
communication situation. They become problematic when the
aforementioned features of meaning creation start to dominate the
communication environment in ways that overshadow the formulation of
dissenting opinions, inhibit the critical analysis of the communicators’
decision-making processes and increase the danger of manipulation.
The improvement of social
media communication skills
To enhance the overall quality of
can be directly associated
social media discussions, media
with the development of a education should be promoted,
psychological protection which teaches people how to
strategy by the Estonian critically analyse today’s
population. In liberal information-saturated online
democracies, antagonistic communications.
information activity can justify
itself under the banner of
freedom of expression. Unlike the professional press, social media mediators
are exempt from the principles of ethics and quality that emphasise fact-
checking, being source-based, the presentation of expert opinions, and the
norms of neutral reporting and balanced views. This can result in an
https://inimareng.ee/en/socio-political-discussion-in-the-digital-public-space.html 11/14
11/11/2020 4.1 Socio-political discussion in the digital public space | Estonian Human Development Report 2019/2020
‘information fog’ that is inherent to antagonistic subversive activities, and
the dissemination of strategic narratives, especially in sometimes
unsupervised social media environments (Nissen 2015, p. 11).
To avoid the consequences of such antagonistic information activities and
enhance the overall quality of social media discussions, media education
should be promoted, which teaches people how to critically analyse today’s
information-saturated online communications. Media education should
cover all levels of education and address the following questions: how to
decipher the meaning of the types of social media texts (e.g. memes) and
understand why they are used in specific discussions; how to be source-
critical in social media and how to detect the hidden intentions of those
intermediating the texts; and how to recognise meaning creation aimed at
gaining attention, misleading the audience and inciting conflict.
Academics in the social sciences and humanities play an important role in
understanding the meaning creation under way in the digital public space.
The Estonian National Defence Development Plan 2017–2026 stresses the
importance of strategic communication as a developmental trend in
national defence. Against this background, cooperation with academic
institutions that deal with studying the dominant trends of meaning
creation in social media should be encouraged. This is clearly a culture- and
language-specific area of research, and thus, the research results from other
countries cannot be uncritically applied to Estonia. Therefore, the academic
research focused on the Estonian digital public space needs thoughtful
coordination that facilitates cooperation between the research institutes and
voluntary organisations (e.g. Propastop) focused on studying information
attacks and media manipulation.
Training programmes to help raise the work quality of communication group
moderators on social media platforms can also help to promote open digital
communication. A positive initiative would also be the (national) recognition
of the work of moderators, and awarding quality labels to well-moderated
and dialogue-friendly social media communication spaces. This would
require the development and dissemination of good practices for public
social media debates. Having environments that have been recognised
would encourage professionals, practitioners and active citizens to speak out
on issues of social importance in social media. This would, in turn, promote
open and reasoned public communication.
https://inimareng.ee/en/socio-political-discussion-in-the-digital-public-space.html 12/14
11/11/2020 4.1 Socio-political discussion in the digital public space | Estonian Human Development Report 2019/2020
References
Cohen, J. 1989. Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy. – Hamlin, A., Petit, P.
(eds.). The Good Polity: Normative Analysis of the State. New York: Blackwell.
Habermas, J. 1998. Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory.
Cambridge: Polity.
Howard, R. G. 2011. Digital Jesus: The Making of a New Christian
Fundamentalist Community on the Internet. New York: New York University
Press.
Jantunen, S. 2018. Infosõda. Tallinn: Kultuurileht.
Kaldur, K., Vetik, R., Kirss, L., Seppel, K., Kallas, K., Masso, M., Anniste, K. 2017.
Eesti ühiskonna integratsiooni monitooring. Meediakasutus ja infoväli.
Tallinn: Kultuuriministeerium.
Kasekamp, A., Madisson, M.-L., Wierenga, L. J. 2018. Discursive opportunities
for the Estonian populist radical right in a digital society. – Problems of Post-
Communism, 66 (1), 47–58.
Madisson, M.-L. 2016. The Semiotic Construction of Identities in Hypermedia
Environments: The Analysis of Online Communication of the Estonian
Extreme Right. Tartu: University of Tartu Press.
Madisson, M.-L., Ventsel, A. 2016. Autocommunicative meaning-making in
online-communication of Estonian extreme right. – Sign Systems Studies, 44
(3), 326−354.
Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Kalogeropoulos, A., Levy, D. A. L., Nielsen, R. K. 2017.
Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2017. Reuters Institute for the Study of
Journalism.
Nissen, T. E. 2015. Sotsiaalmeedia kasutamine relvasüsteemina. Tänapäeva
konfliktide omadused. Tallinn: Tallinna Raamatutrükikoda.
Opermann, S. 2018. Youth news media use in Estonia. – Andersson, Y.,
Dalquist, U., Ohlsson, J. (eds.). Youth and News in a Digital Media
Environment. Nordic-Baltic Perspectives. Göteborg: Nordicom, University of
Gothenburg, 91–104.
https://inimareng.ee/en/socio-political-discussion-in-the-digital-public-space.html 13/14
View publication stats
11/11/2020 4.1 Socio-political discussion in the digital public space | Estonian Human Development Report 2019/2020
Orgse, S. 2018. Facebooki arutelude modereerimine „Virginia Woolf sind ei
karda!“ grupi näitel. BA thesis. University of Tartu.
Papacharissi, Z. 2016. Affective publics and structures of storytelling:
sentiment, events and mediality. – Information, Communication & Society, 19
(3), 307–324.
Siibak, A., Masso, A. 2018. ‘People who defend their homeland’: motivations
for joining and being active in an anti-immigration group on Facebook. –
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Social Media and Society
(SMSociety). Copenhagen: SMSociety.
Tiidenberg, K. 2017. Ihu ja hingega internetis. Tallinn: Tallinna Ülikooli
Kirjastus.
Vihalemm, P., Kõuts-Klemm, R. 2017. Meediakasutuse muutumine:
internetiajastu saabumine. – Vihalemm, P., Lauristin, M., Kalmus, V.,
Vihalemm, T., Keller, M. (eds.). Eesti ühiskond kiirenevas ajas: Eesti elaviku
muutumine 2002–2014 uuringu „Mina. Maailm. Meedia“ tulemuste põhjal.
Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus, 251–278.
https://inimareng.ee/en/socio-political-discussion-in-the-digital-public-space.html 14/14
