“Third space”, “echo-cameras” and online-communities: reproduction of political ideologies in social media

The study of the features of the reproduction of political ideologies in social networks and the formation of user communities united by adherence to some political ideas is an urgent problem of contemporary political science. Social media has become an agent for the development of new forms of political activity, providing unprecedented opportunities for transferring and exchanging information, broadcasting political ideas, and involving people in virtual and real communities. Today, social media have become not just a means of transmitting information and a form of entertainment, but a special global form of social political interaction, increasingly penetrating into the most diverse aspects of society. In political interactions, the online services of new media can be described as a “third space”, a development of Ray Oldenburg's concept, in which he singles out a part of the social space not related to housing (“first place”) and work (“second place”). Online communities on social networks have become a mixed form of institutionalized political and informal non-political interactions, as exemplified by ideologically based social media groups. The transformations caused by the rapid development of the Internet and “new social media” are giving rise to a fundamentally new reality of social interaction, which combines two contradictory trends. On the one hand, the Internet and social media have expanded people's access to information and significantly increased the field of social interaction and communication, thereby creating the basis for uniting users on various grounds, including political and ideological views. On the other hand, such changes led to a crisis of trust between the participants. Users belonging to different political ideologies form stable “echo chambers” in their Internet environment, rigidly filtering the information they receive, locking themselves in and reproducing the attributes of only their political ideology and not allowing outsiders there. In our opinion, this requires a study that provides for a close study of ideological “echo chambers”, which seems necessary for understanding the processes of political communication and ways of reproducing political and ideological views in the online sphere.

1. Интернет и идеологическое движение в России: коллективная монография / под ред. Г. Никипорец-Токигава, Э. Панина. М.: Новое литературное обозрение, 2016. 480 с.

2. Ольденбург Р. Третье место: кафе, кофейни, книжные магазины, бары, салоны красоты и другие места "тусовок" как фундамент сообщества / пер. с англ. А. Широкановой. М.: Новое литературное обозрение, 2014. 456 с.

3. Colleoni E., Rozza A., Arvidsson A. Echo chamber or public sphere? Predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in Twitter using big data // Journal of Communication. 2014. Vol. 64, N 2. P. 317-332. DOI: 10.1111/jcom.12084

4. Couldry N., Hepp A. The mediated construction of reality: society, culture, mediatization. Cambridge, UK; Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2016. 256 p.

5. Dubois E., Blank G. The echo chamber is overstated: the moderating effect of political interest and diverse media // Information, Communication & Society. 2018. Vol. 21, N 5. P. 729-745. DOI: 10.1080/1369118x.2018.1428656

6. Groshek J., Koc-Michalska K. Helping populism win? Social media use, filter bubbles, and support for populist presidential candidates in the 2016 US election campaign // Journal Information, Communication & Society. 2017. Vol. 20, N 9. P. 1389-1407. DOI: 10.1080/1369118x.2017.1329334

7. Handbook of digital politics / S. Coleman, D. Freelon (eds). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2015. 512 p.

8. Margolis M., Resnick D. Politics as Usual: The Cyberspace Revolution. London: Sage, 2000. 256 p.

9. Martyanov D., Bykov I. Ideological segregation in the Russian cyberspace: evidences from St. Petersburg. // Digital Transformation and Global Society Second International Conference, DTGS 2017 St. Petersburg, Russia, June 21-23. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017. P. 259-270. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-69784-0_22 EDN: XNNHYV

10. Persily N. The 2016 US election: Can democracy survive the internet? // Journal of democracy. 2017. Vol. 28, N 2. P. 63-76. 10.1353/ jod.2017.0025. DOI: 10.1353/jod.2017.0025

11. Rheingold H. The virtual community: homesteading on the electronic frontier. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1993. 447 p.

12. Soukup Ch. Oldenburg's great good places on the world wide web computer-mediated communication as a virtual third place // New Media and Society. 2006. Vol. 8, N 3. P. 421-440. DOI: 10.1177/1461444806061953

13. Sunstein C.R. Democracy and filtering // Communications of the ACM. 2004. Vol. 47, N 12. P. 57-59. DOI: 10.1145/1035134.1035166

14. Wilhelm A. Democracy in the digital age: challenges to political life in cyberspace. N.Y.: Routledge, 2000. 193 p.

15. Wright S. From "third place" to "third space": everyday political talk in non-political online spaces. // Javnost-The Public. 2012. Vol. 19, N 3. P. 5-20. DOI: 10.1080/13183222.2012.11009088 EDN: RISXRB