Three dimensions of the public sphere on Facebook
Abstract
The article provides an empirical analysis of the online public sphere in the three dimensions introduced by Dahlgren (2005): structural, representational and interactional. The main subject of analysis is the largest social networking site – Facebook – and Polish users’ activity on the Facebook Pages of political parties and politicians. The researchers analysed data about all users active on those Pages during two 4-month periods in 2013 and 2015. The results of the study show that only a small fraction of Facebook users are active in public political discussions that take place on political Facebook Pages (structural dimension). However, the level of engagement depends on the current political events taking place within the public sphere offline, and users are more active during electoral campaigns. Moreover, Facebook does not provide an alternative public sphere for political actors that are less present in mainstream media. Parties and politicians that are visible in traditional media are also attracting active fans in social media (representational dimension). Nonetheless, non-parliamentary groups have more active fans than would result only from their popularity in mainstream media. Finally, the online public on Facebook is fragmented and clustered into homogenous political groups (interactional dimension), thus supporting the hypothesis on ‘echo chambers’ presented by Sunstein (2001). The divisions are smaller when there are significantly more users involved. However,…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Members of homophilous communities are expected to preferentially circulate content that matches their worldviews.
“This, in turn, may also lead to selective exposure, as members of such homophilous communities are expected to preferentially circulate content that matches their worldviews (e.g., Batorski & Grzywińska, 2018).”
From Filter bubble (2019) · cites this paper as Batorski & Grzywińska, 2018
Studies examining major political events, including the 2015 Polish elections, the impeachment of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, and the 2016 U.S. elections, support the echo chamber hypothesis, showing pronounced clustering in user interactions.
“Studies examining major political events, including the 2015 Polish elections [51], the impeachment of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff [52], and the 2016 U.S. elections [53], also support the echo chamber hypothesis, showing pronounced clustering in user interactions.”
From A systematic review of echo chamber research: comparative analysis of conceptualizations, operationalizations, and varying outcomes (2025) · cites this paper as [51]
Cites
Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy
Fraser, N. (1990) · Social Text · doi:10.2307/466240 · Cited by 5,147 · see citing works
The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom
(2006) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.44-0999 · Cited by 1,903 · see citing works
Social Media: A Critical Introduction
Fuchs, C. (2014) · doi:10.4135/9781446270066 · Cited by 1,311 · see citing works
Echo chambers online?: Politically motivated selective exposure among Internet news users
Garrett, R. K. (2009) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01440.x · Cited by 1,040 · see citing works
Tufekci, Z. (2014) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v8i1.14517 · Cited by 780 · see citing works
The Consequences of the Internet for Politics
Farrell, H. (2012) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-030810-110815 · Cited by 387 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Moreover, the divisions between the more politically engaged users may be greater than among those less involved (Farrell, 2012).”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bruns, A. (2019) · Internet Policy Review · doi:10.14763/2019.4.1426 · Cited by 193 · see citing works
“This, in turn, may also lead to selective exposure, as members of such homophilous communities are expected to preferentially circulate content that matches their worldviews (e.g., Batorski & Grzywińska, 2018).”
BackgroundHartmann, D., Wang, S. M., Pohlmann, L., & Berendt, B. (2025) · Journal of Computational Social Science · doi:10.1007/s42001-025-00381-z · Cited by 59 · see citing works
- Authors
- Batorski, D., & Grzywińska, I.
- Affiliations
- Interdisciplinary Centre for Mathematical and Computational Modelling, University of Warsaw (PL)
- Corresponding author
- Batorski, Dominik
- Venue
- Information, Communication & Society
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2017-02-06
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 356-374
- ISSN
- 1369-118X (ISSN-L)
- 1468-4462
- OpenAlex
- W2586959985
- Cited by
- 85
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 6 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 16.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Information Communication & Society (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Centre (2012/05/B/HS6/03802)
- Narodowe Centrum Nauki
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Media and Digital Communication
- Keywords
- digital public sphere, Facebook, political parties, politicians, social media engagement, political campaigns, media visibility, echo chambers, political polarization
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review