Communication Technology and Protest
Abstract
Recent antiregime protests throughout the world have been publicized, and arguably facilitated, by social media and other communication technologies. I develop formal models that examine the implications of communication technology generating information about two distinct factors: (1) the level of dissatisfaction with the regime and (2) logistical information about when, where, and how potential protests will occur. Making grievances against the regime more public has an ambiguous effect on protest levels as citizens can learn that it is more or less popular than expected. Even when publicizing more complaints about the regime does increase average protest levels, some if not most of the observed correlation between antiregime content and protest is not causal. In contrast, providing information about logistics almost always lowers the effective cost of protest, leading to larger (and more cohesive) antiregime action. The models explain a wide range of empirical results linking communication technology, antiregime beliefs, protest, and censorship.
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?
Mobilization requires overcoming multiple collective action problems including tactical coordination.
“Mobilization, however, requires overcoming multiple collective action problems including that of tactical coordination (Little 2016): the actual how, what, when, and where of contention.”
From Coordinated Dis-Coordination (2024) · cites this paper as Little 2016
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 73 · Cited by 192
- Authors
- Little, A. T.
- Affiliations
- Cornell University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Little, Andrew T.
- ORCID
- Little, Andrew T.
- Venue
- The Journal of Politics
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 2016-01
- Volume
- 78
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 152-166
- ISSN
- 0022-3816 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-2508
- OpenAlex
- W2185706210
- Cited by
- 192
- References
- 73
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 4 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 36.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Journal of Politics (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Conflict and Governance
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
- Keywords
- communication technology, social media, information dissemination, censorship, collective action
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