CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 59Populism, Right-Wing MovementsSocial Media and PoliticsMisinformation and Its Impacts

The importance of influential users in (re)producing Swedish far-right discourse on Twitter

Open access
Åkerlund, Mathilda·2020·European Journal of Communication
DOI 10.1177/0267323120940909
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Using a combination of descriptive statistics, sentiment analysis and close readings of a collection of 74,336 Swedish tweets, this article explores the platform usage patterns of users who are influential in a Swedish far-right discourse on Twitter and how these users help to (re)produce far-right discourse. Specifically, it focuses on their use of platform functions and on language use. The analysis shows that influential users have a narrow focus in terms of the content they post and how they profile themselves. They are highly active, have more followers and produce more original content than other users. Surprisingly, while previous research has found that emotionally charged tweets are retweeted more and that highly popular and influential Twitter users tend to express more emotion while tweeting, influential users in this dataset often posted far-right content concealed as neutral, factual statements. This use of seemingly neutral language creates an inclusive far-right context, lets influential users evade responsibility for their content as well as facilitates more overtly hateful interpretations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0267323120940909

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 61

  1. Albrecht S, Fielitz M and Thurston N (2019) Introduction. In: Fielitz M and Thurston N (eds) Post- Digital Cultures of the Far Right: Online Actions and Offline Consequences in Europe and the US. Bielefeld: transcript, pp. 7-22.
  2. Bakardjieva M (2015) Do clouds have politics? Collective actors in social media land. Information, Communication & Society 18(8): 983-990.
  3. Bakardjieva M, Felt M and Dumitrica D (2018) The mediatization of leadership: Grassroots digital facilitators as organic intellectuals, sociometric stars and caretakers. Information, Communication & Society 21(6): 899-914.
  4. Balahur A and Jacquet G (2015) Sentiment analysis meets social media -Challenges and solu- tions of the field in view of the current information sharing context. Information Processing & Management 51(4): 428-432.
  5. Barabási A-L and Albert R (1999) Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286(5439): 509-512.
  6. Baviera T (2018) Influence in the political Twitter sphere: Authority and retransmission in the 2015 and 2016 Spanish General Elections. European Journal of Communication 33(3): 321-337.
  7. Bennett WL and Segerberg A (2013) The Logic of Connective Action: Digital Media and the Personalization of Contentious Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  8. Bliuc A-M, Faulkner N, Jakubowicz A, et al. (2018) Online networks of racial hate: A systematic review of 10 years of research on cyber-racism. Computers in Human Behavior 87: 75-86.
  9. boyd d and Crawford K (2012) Critical Questions for Big Data. Information, Communication & Society 15(5): 662-679.
  10. Bruns A and Burgess J (2011) The use of Twitter hashtags in the formation of ad hoc publics. In: Proceedings of the 6th European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) general confer- ence. Available at: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/46515/.
  11. Castells M (2012) Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  12. Cataldi M and Aufaure M-A (2015) The 10 million follower fallacy: Audience size does not prove domain-influence on Twitter. Knowledge and Information Systems 44(3): 559-580.
  13. Cha M, Haddadi H, Benevenuto F, et al. (2010) Measuring user influence in Twitter: The million follower fallacy. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, Washington, DC, 23-26 May, pp. 10-17. Menlo Park, CA: The AAAI Press.
  14. Chorley MJ, Colombo GB, Allen SM, et al. (2015) Human content filtering in Twitter: The influ- ence of metadata. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 74: 32-40.
  15. Costello M and Hawdon J (2018) Who are the online extremists among us? Sociodemographic characteristics, social networking, and online experiences of those who produce online hate materials. Violence and Gender 5(1): 55-60.
  16. Couldry N (2014) Inaugural: A necessary disenchantment: Myth, agency and injustice in a digital world. The Sociological Review 62(4): 880-897.
  17. Couldry N and Hepp A (2017) The Mediated Construction of Reality. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  18. Crawford K and Gillespie T (2016) What is a flag for? Social media reporting tools and the vocab- ulary of complaint. New Media & Society 18(3): 410-428.
  19. Daniels J (2012) Race and racism in Internet Studies: A review and critique. New Media & Society 15(5): 695-719.
  20. Ekman M (2014) The dark side of online activism: Swedish right-wing extremist video activism on YouTube. Mediekultur: Journal of Media and Communication Research 30(56): 1-21.
  21. Ekman M (2015) Online Islamophobia and the politics of fear: Manufacturing the green scare. Ethnic and Racial Studies 38(11): 1986-2002.
  22. Elgenius G and Rydgren J (2017) The Sweden Democrats and the ethno-nationalist rhetoric of decay and betrayal. Sociologisk Forskning 54(4): 353-358.
  23. Engesser S, Ernst N, Esser F, et al. (2017) Populism and social media: How politicians spread a fragmented ideology. Information, Communication & Society 20(8): 1109-1126.
  24. Farkas J, Schou J and Neumayer C (2018) Cloaked Facebook pages: Exploring fake Islamist prop- aganda in social media. New Media & Society 20(5): 1850-1867.
  25. Freilich JD, Chermak SM, Belli R, et al. (2014) Introducing the United States Extremis Crime Database (ECDB). Terrorism and Political Violence 26(2): 372-384.
  26. Haller A and Holt K (2019) Paradoxical populism: How PEGIDA relates to mainstream and alter- native media. Information, Communication & Society 22(12): 1665-1680.
  27. Hameleers M and Schmuck D (2017) It's us against them: A comparative experiment on the effects of populist messages communicated via social media. Information, Communication & Society 20(9): 1425-1444.
  28. Hameleers M, Reinemann C, Schmuck D, et al. (2019) The persuasiveness of populist commu- nication: Conceptualizing the effects and political consequences of populist communica- tion from a social identity perspective. In: Reinemann C, Stanyer J, Aalberg T, et al. (eds) Communicating Populism: Comparing Actor Perceptions, Media Coverage, and Effects on Citizens in Europe, 1st edn. London: Routledge, pp. 143-167.
  29. Hellström A and Nilsson T (2010) 'We Are the Good Guys': Ideological positioning of the nation- alist party Sverigedemokraterna in contemporary Swedish politics. Ethnicities 10(1): 55-76.
  30. Huffaker D (2010) Dimensions of leadership and social influence in online communities. Human Communication Research 36(4): 593-617.
  31. Hwang Y (2015) Does opinion leadership increase the followers on Twitter. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity 5(3): 258-264.
  32. Jackson SJ, Bailey M and Foucault Welles B (2018) #GirlsLikeUs: Trans advocacy and commu- nity building online. New Media & Society 20(5): 1868-1888.
  33. Kaakinen M, Räsänen P, Näsi M, et al. (2018) Social capital and online hate production: A four country survey. Crime, Law and Social Change 69(1): 25-39.
  34. Klein A (2012) Slipping racism into the mainstream: A theory of information laundering. Communication Theory 22(4): 427-448.
  35. Krämer B (2017) Populist online practices: The function of the Internet in right-wing populism. Information, Communication & Society 20(9): 1293-1309.
  36. Kuo R (2018) Racial justice activist hashtags: Counterpublics and discourse circulation. New Media & Society 20(2): 495-514.
  37. Lindgren S (2016) Introducing connected concept analysis: A network approach to big text data- sets. Text & Talk 36(3): 341-362.
  38. Merrill S and Åkerlund M (2018) Standing up for Sweden? The racist discourses, architectures and affordances of an anti-immigration Facebook group. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 23(6): 332-353.
  39. Papacharissi Z and Oliveira MDF (2012) Affective news and networked publics: The rhythms of news storytelling on #Egypt. Journal of Communication 62(2): 266-282.
  40. Poell T (2014) Social media and the transformation of activist communication: Exploring the social media ecology of the 2010 Toronto G20 protests. Information, Communication & Society 17(6): 716-731.
  41. Poell T and van Dijck J (2018) Social media and new protest movements. In: Burgess J, Marwick A and Poell T (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Social Media. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 546-561.
  42. Post S (2019) Polarizing communication as media effects on antagonists. Understanding com- munication in conflicts in digital media societies. Communication Theory 29(2): 213-235.
  43. Quercia D, Ellis J, Capra L, et al. (2011) In the mood for being influential on Twitter. In: 2011 IEEE third international conference on privacy, security, risk and trust and 2011 IEEE third international conference on social computing, Boston, MA, 9-11 October, pp. 307-314. New York: IEEE.
  44. Räbiger S and Spiliopoulou M (2015) A framework for validating the merit of properties that predict the influence of a twitter user. Expert Systems with Applications 42(5): 2824-2834.
  45. Sakki I and Pettersson K (2016) Discursive constructions of otherness in populist radical right political blogs. European Journal of Social Psychology 46(2): 156-170.
  46. Schmidt J-H (2014) Twitter and the rise of personal publics. In: Weller K, Bruns A, Burgess J, et al. (eds) Twitter and Society. Peter Lang, pp. 3-14. http://www.schmidtmitdete.de/pdf/01_ Schmidt_Twitter%20and%20the%20Rise%20of%20Personal%20Publics.pdf.
  47. Schroeder R (2018) Social Theory after the Internet: Media, Technology and Globalization. London: UCL Press.
  48. Scrivens R (2017) Understanding the collective identity of the radical right online: A mixed-meth- ods approach. Doctoral Dissertation, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada.
  49. Stieglitz S and Dang-Xuan L (2013) Emotions and information diffusion in social media - Sentiment of microblogs and sharing behavior. Journal of Management Information Systems 29(4): 217-248.
  50. Toepfl F and Piwoni E (2018) Targeting dominant publics: How counterpublic commenters align their efforts with mainstream news. New Media & Society 20(5): 2011-2027.
  51. Törnberg A and Wahlström M (2018) Unveiling the radical right online. Sociologisk Forskning 55(2-3): 267-292.
  52. Van Dijck J and Poell T (2013) Understanding social media logic. Media and Communication 1(1): 2-14.
  53. Van Dijck J, Poell T and de Waal M (2018) The Platform Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  54. Van Dijk TA (1993) Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society 4(2): 249-283.
  55. Van Dijk TA (1995) Elite discourse and the reproduction of racism. In: Slayden RK and Slayden D (eds) Hate Speech. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 1-27.
  56. Van Spanje J (2011) The wrong and the right: A comparative analysis of 'anti-immigration' and 'far right' parties. Government and Opposition 46(3): 293-320.
  57. Weeks BE, Ardèvol-Abreu A and Gil de Zúñiga H (2017) Online influence? Social media use, opinion leadership, and political persuasion. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 29(2): edv050.
  58. Williams ML, Burnap P and Sloan L (2017) Towards an ethical framework for publishing Twitter data in social research: Taking into account users' views, online context and algorithmic esti- mation. Sociology 51(6): 1149-1168.
  59. Winter S and Neubaum G (2016) Examining characteristics of opinion leaders in social media: A motivational approach. Social Media + Society 2(3): 2056305116665858.
  60. Wodak R (2009) The Discourse of Politics in Action: Politics as Usual. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  61. Xiao F, Noro T and Tokuda T (2014) Finding news-topic oriented influential Twitter users based on topic related hashtag community detection. Journal of Web Engineering 13(5&6): 405-429.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Åkerlund, M.
Affiliations
Umeå University (SE)
Corresponding author
Åkerlund, Mathilda
ORCID
Åkerlund, Mathilda
Venue
European Journal of Communication
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2020-07-21
Volume
35
Issue
6
Pages
613-628
ISSN
  • 0267-3231 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-3705
DOI
10.1177/0267323120940909
OpenAlex
W3045065638
Cited by
59
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1
FWCI
28.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • European Journal of Communication (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Vetenskapsrådet (2016-02971)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Populism, Right-Wing Movements
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
Keywords
far-right discourse, influential users, Twitter, Swedish far right, platform functions, neutral language, emotional expression, retweets, hate speech

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