Afghanistan-Linked Publics in Germany: Digital Networks, Actors, and Narratives in a Post-Migration Society

Abstract

Research on migration and digital media has expanded, yet empirical knowledge about how digital network communication structures public interaction in post-migration contexts remains limited. In particular, little is known about the communicative arenas in which interaction becomes visible, the actors who gain interpretive authority, and the recurring issues and narratives that stabilize meaning. This article addresses these gaps by examining Afghanistan-linked digital publics in Germany. Eight semi-structured interviews with key informants and a qualitative content analysis of selected TikTok accounts revealed that short-video platforms can function as central arenas of attention, where repeatedly recognized communicators become orientation points for audiences through sustained interaction. Communication stabilizes around recurring issues and narratives such as migration procedures, institutional encounters, Afghanistan-related political developments, and community conflicts, which connect everyday experiences in the country of residence to political, social, and cultural debates about Afghanistan—thereby bridging local and transnational references within shared communication networks. These environments function simultaneously as spaces of practical guidance, social orientation, and public dispute. Building on these insights, the article proposes a multidimensional model of digital diaspora communication that links communicative arenas, actors, and issues and narratives.

1. Introduction

Germany has become a post-migration society, in which migration is a permanent feature of social life (Foroutan, 2016, 2021). According to the 2024 Microcensus, 21.2 million residents—roughly one-third of the population—have a migration background (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2024). Consequently, public communication is no longer organized within a single, nationally bounded public sphere but across plural, networked digital publics (Couldry & Hepp, 2017; Fraser, 1990; Hamidi & Donges, 2026; Hepp, 2020). Understanding how communication is structured in these environments is crucial for explaining how public opinion, social cohesion, and political participation are shaped in post-migration societies.

Digital communication networks play a central role in this transformation. Research on migration and transnational communication shows that migrants use digital media to maintain social relations and organize everyday communication across national borders (Dekker & Engbersen, 2014; Faist, 2000). This communication across digital networks in post-migration societies adds another dimension to transnational communication—often understood as cross-border exchange—because it develops within national contexts, where diverse publics connected to different countries operate in parallel. In Germany, co-present publics link everyday life in the country of residence to reference points elsewhere (Couldry & Hepp, 2017; Fraser, 1990; Georgiou, 2013; Hepp, 2020; Leurs, 2015; Madianou & Miller, 2013).

Digital media function as infrastructures through which social relations, information exchange, and a sense of belonging are coordinated in daily life (Georgiou, 2013; Madianou & Miller, 2013). Communication unfolds across private messaging groups, community pages, and publicly visible platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube. Studies on digital diasporas show that this type of communication often occurs outside established journalistic and regulatory institutions, enabling the circulation of alternative interpretations and community-specific narratives (Brinkerhoff, 2009; Georgiou, 2013; Leurs, 2015). These publics are structured by networked communication logics, in which visibility, interaction, and affect influence interpretation and opinion formation (Boyd, 2014; Couldry & Hepp, 2017; Papacharissi, 2016). To understand how shared interpretations, opinions, and conflicts emerge within plural publics in post-migration societies, communicative arenas, understood as structured environments in which communication becomes visible, organized, and oriented toward shared issues, must be analyzed (Couldry & Hepp, 2017; Hepp, 2020; Hilgartner & Bosk, 1988).

Public communication does not occur within a single, unified sphere but across multiple arenas, where different actors address distinct audiences and negotiate specific issues (Couldry & Hepp, 2017; Fraser, 1990; Hilgartner & Bosk, 1988). Hilgartner and Bosk (1988) conceptualize public issues as processed in multiple public arenas with varying capacities for attention. For example, a political event in Afghanistan may receive extensive attention on TikTok through short videos and reactions, while the same issue appears in more detailed discussions on YouTube or remains marginal on other platforms, depending on how much attention each arena can allocate. These arenas have distinct communication logics and levels of visibility, and actors can move between them, carrying attention and recognition across contexts. Platform studies further show that public communication is increasingly organized through visibility, affect, and circulation rather than institutional gatekeeping (Boyd, 2014; Couldry & Hepp, 2017; Papacharissi, 2016). Digital environments do not merely host communication; they determine where interaction becomes visible, which actors gain attention, and how shared interpretations emerge. Consequently, publics appear as a differentiated constellation of arenas rather than a homogeneous public sphere (Couldry & Hepp, 2017; Fraser, 1990).

These dynamics are particularly pronounced in diasporic contexts, where communication relates simultaneously to everyday life in the country of residence and to political and social developments elsewhere. Dispersed audiences connect in digitally networked publics through recurring actors, shared issues, and narratives (Brinkerhoff, 2009; Leurs, 2015).

Afghanistan-linked communities in Germany provide a clear empirical example of these dynamics. As of 2024, more than 440,000 citizens from Afghanistan were living in Germany, a figure that reflects naturalization processes and the inclusion of descendants of earlier migrant cohorts (Sachverständigenrat für Integration und Migration, 2024, p. 7). Despite their considerable civic engagement, though, studies report their limited political representation and restricted institutional inclusion (Bekaj & Antara, 2018; Danish Refugee Council, 2019). Without sustained access to institutional arenas of political deliberation in Germany, debates related to Afghanistan increasingly shift to digital communication environments.

Afghanistan-linked communication does not constitute a unified public sphere but unfolds across a diverse landscape shaped by multiple actors, media formats, and transnational linkages (Hamidi, 2025). Within digitally mediated arenas, actors play a central role in structuring communication. Journalistic exile media circulate news and commentary, civil society organizations articulate collective concerns, and individual social media actors address audiences directly across digital platforms. This means that information, opinions, and debates are produced and shared by different types of actors, not only by traditional media but also by organizations and individuals who communicate directly with their audiences online. For example, a news channel may report on political developments, an organization may explain legal changes or advocate for specific issues, and a social media actor may comment on these developments, respond to others, and engage audiences in discussion. Research on social media actors shows that certain individuals become prominent reference points by consistently engaging with audiences, interpreting events, and linking everyday experiences to broader social and political contexts (Abidin, 2018; Duffy & Hund, 2019).

Despite extensive research on migration and integration, systematic knowledge about internal communication processes within digital diasporic publics remains limited. Reviews of migration and media studies highlight a focus on representation in mainstream media or integration outcomes, with less analytical attention to communicative dynamics inside diaspora-related digital environments (Georgiou, 2013; Hepp et al., 2011; Leurs, 2015). Existing research rarely specifies the arenas that structure interaction, the actors who gain interpretive authority, or how issues and narratives circulate across networks (Brinkerhoff, 2009; Leurs & Prabhakar, 2018). To address these gaps in the literature, this study investigates the following research questions (RQs):

• RQ1: How are communicative arenas structured within Afghanistan-linked digital publics in Germany?
• RQ2: How do actors in Afghanistan-linked digital publics in Germany gain visibility and interpretive authority?
• RQ3: How are issues and narratives structured within Afghanistan-linked digital publics in Germany?

The term “AFGfluencers” is introduced in this article to denote influential communicative roles within Afghanistan-linked digital publics in Germany. In empirical terms, AFGfluencers were identified through four criteria: repeated mention by interviewees from different field positions, regular public communication on digital platforms, recurring reference to Afghanistan, migration, or everyday life in Germany, and observable communicative uptake through comments, replies, mentions, or response videos. Follower counts were treated as contextual indicators but not as the main criterion. It does not refer to a fixed social group or individual personalities, but to recurring actors who gain visibility, attract attention, and shape interpretations across digital arenas. The focus on roles rather than individuals allows the analysis to examine how influence emerges through repeated communicative practices, and how AFGfluencers contribute to the co-construction of arenas, issues, and narratives within plural digital publics.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Theoretical Framework

Existing research shows that in migrant communication environments, communication across digital networks, transnational belonging, and actor-centered visibility intersect (Abidin, 2018; Couldry & Hepp, 2017; Georgiou, 2013; Leurs, 2015; Madianou & Miller, 2013). However, these dimensions are rarely examined together; most studies treat them separately. Digital diaspora research mainly focuses on transnational belonging and everyday connectivity (Georgiou, 2013; Leurs, 2015; Madianou & Miller, 2013). Research on networked publics emphasizes visibility within digital environments and affective interaction but pays little attention to migration contexts (Boyd, 2014; Couldry & Hepp, 2017; Papacharissi, 2016). Studies of digital intermediaries investigate how actors gain recognition and become interpretive reference points, yet they seldom examine migrant communication settings (Abidin, 2018; Cunningham & Craig, 2019).

To address these gaps, the present study combines these approaches, translating them into three analytical dimensions: communicative arenas, actors, and issues and narratives. Communicative arenas are digitally mediated spaces in which interaction becomes publicly visible (Boyd, 2014; Couldry & Hepp, 2017; Papacharissi, 2016). Actors are recurrent communicators who become reference points within these arenas through repeated recognition and response, thereby acquiring interpretive authority (Abidin, 2018; Bishop, 2021). Issues and narratives refer to recurring topics and interpretive patterns that organize collective attention and stabilize shared meaning in ongoing interactions (Alencar, 2018; Boulianne & Theocharis, 2020; Leurs, 2015).

To situate these dimensions within theories of public communication, publics are understood as communicative formations oriented toward open audiences rather than territorially bounded entities (Couldry & Hepp, 2017; Fraser, 1990). However, no single theoretical perspective fully explains how such publics operate. Research on networked publics clarifies how visibility and attention emerge within communicative arenas (Boyd, 2014; Papacharissi, 2016). Digital diaspora research highlights transnational orientation and belonging within these publics (Georgiou, 2013; Leurs, 2015; Madianou & Miller, 2013). Research on digital intermediaries demonstrates how specific actors acquire interpretive authority through recognition and interaction (Abidin, 2018; Bishop, 2021; Cunningham & Craig, 2019). Studies on issue formation and narrative interpretation explain how recurring issues and narratives organize collective attention and stabilize shared meaning in ongoing interactions (Alencar, 2018; Boulianne & Theocharis, 2020; Leurs, 2015).

This article applies an integrated perspective to digital communication related to Afghanistan in Germany, analyzing how communicative arenas, actors, issues, and narratives jointly organize interaction and public orientation.

2.1.1. Networked Publics

Research on networked publics provides a useful starting point for understanding communication within communicative arenas because it explains how public visibility emerges under digital conditions. Papacharissi (2016, pp. 21–28) conceptualizes networked publics as communicative formations produced through mediated interaction. Boyd (2014) demonstrates that networked environments reorganize access to information, participation, and social relations, producing multiple, overlapping publics rather than a unified public sphere—a departure from Habermas’s notion of a unified public sphere (Habermas, 1993). Consequently, publicness is no longer primarily secured by institutional media but by interaction, circulation, and recognition (Boyd, 2014; Papacharissi, 2016). Visibility becomes socially produced.

A key mechanism in this process is affective engagement. Papacharissi (2015) shows that emotional expression links individuals to issues and to one another. Digitally mediated engagement frequently develops through such resonance, forming issue-oriented publics (Boulianne & Theocharis, 2020, pp. 111–127). Within communicative arenas, attention is increasingly organized through responsiveness and reaction rather than through editorial selection. These observations correspond to broader analyses of contemporary public communication, which describe a growing differentiation across media environments and social contexts (Donges & Jarren, 2022; Hepp, 2020).

However, the explanatory reach of research on networked publics remains limited in this study, as it does not sufficiently account for the structured interplay of arenas, actors, issues, and narratives observed in Afghanistan-linked digital publics in Germany. While it clarifies how visibility and attention emerge, participants often appear to be socially undifferentiated users. This approach does not sufficiently explain why communication orients itself toward specific collective reference frames or how cross-border experiences shape interpretation. In migration-related contexts, communication is structured by interaction, affect, shared references, memories, and orientations that extend beyond the local setting. For this reason, while networked public theory provides an analytical basis for examining communicative arenas, further perspectives are necessary to explain transnational orientation and interpretive positioning. Digital diaspora research addresses these issues.

2.1.2. Digital Diasporas

Digital diaspora research explains how communication within these arenas becomes transnationally oriented. Early studies show that dispersed populations use digital media to maintain relationships, disseminate information, and engage in political discourse across borders (Alonso & Oiarzabal, 2010, pp. 7–12; Brinkerhoff, 2009, p. 39). Online environments function as shared spaces for communication in which belonging is articulated and collective concerns are discussed. These observations align with established theoretical approaches to transnational communication and public formation. Castells conceptualizes publics as networked formations that emerge within global communication structures and are oriented toward open, dispersed audiences rather than territorially bounded communities (Castells, 2010). Appadurai highlights how global flows of images and narratives connect local communicative arenas to transnational contexts and shape shared frames of reference (Leurs, 2015; Madianou & Miller, 2013). Anderson shows that dispersed populations sustain a sense of collective belonging through shared narratives and symbolic references, even without physical proximity (Anderson, 2016). Together, these perspectives support the view that digital diaspora publics emerge through communicative processes that link actors, arenas, and narratives across contexts.

Later research shifts attention from collective identity to everyday communicative practices. Routine activities, such as messaging, sharing, and searching, create transnational publics in which orientation and belonging are continuously negotiated (Leurs, 2015; Madianou & Miller, 2013). Refugees use social media to share experiences, maintain social ties, and exchange information relevant to everyday integration (Alencar, 2018, pp. 1595–1598). From this perspective, digital diasporas appear less as stable communities and more as ongoing communicative processes.

The concept of communicative figurations further emphasizes that social groups emerge through recurring interactions, shared media, and patterned communicative relations (Hepp et al., 2018, pp. 5–9, 63–70). Mediated communication provides orientation in situations shaped by mobility, uncertainty, and disrupted institutional information channels, especially in cases of forced migration and political rupture (Brinkerhoff, 2009).

Together, these perspectives clarify how cross-border references, memories, and everyday experiences structure communication and sustain belonging across distances. However, an important question remains unanswered: How is attention organized within communicative arenas, or why do certain actors become central reference points? Participation is often described collectively, but empirical interaction reveals unequal visibility and recurring focal actors. To understand how specific actors gain influence and shape interpretation, research on digital intermediaries is necessary.

2.1.3. Digital Intermediaries and Interpretive Authority

A third strand of scholarship examines how influence emerges in digital communication networks. Here, intermediaries refer to actors who organize attention and interpretation between events and audiences, drawing on the notion of mediation, which denotes the communicative processes and infrastructures through which interaction is structured.

According to Luhmann (1996), communication consists of information, utterances, and understanding, and becomes socially relevant only when it generates further communication. Therefore, recurring communicators become influential not simply because they are visible but because they repeatedly trigger responses and sustain interaction. A previous study (Abidin, 2018) describes how actors cultivate familiarity, responsiveness, and authenticity in their interactions, while another (Baym, 2015) conceptualizes this as relational labor. According to Cunningham and Craig (2019, pp. 63–85), digital intermediaries organize attention through commentary, storytelling, and interaction. In digital publics, interaction appears as replies, mentions, reposts, and public reactions. Audiences’ repeated turning to particular actors to interpret ongoing developments suggests that influence is more a function of orientation than persuasion. Moreover, authority derives primarily from sustained interaction with audiences rather than from institutional expertise (Abidin, 2018; Papacharissi, 2015). Enli (2017) similarly demonstrates that credibility rests on perceived authenticity rather than formal qualifications. At the same time, this authority is shaped by digital communication infrastructures, as platform algorithms influence which content becomes visible and gains attention (Bishop, 2021).

In migrant and diasporic contexts, this orientation assumes a public interpretive role. Because institutional information channels are often fragmented, delayed, or linguistically inaccessible, audiences rely on recurring actors to contextualize events and evaluate their significance. These actors do not merely circulate information but select political developments and everyday experiences for dispersed audiences, explain their consequences, and connect them to collective experiences, thereby establishing shared interpretive frames across distances (Fraser, 1990; Leurs & Smets, 2018; Papacharissi, 2015). As these frames are referenced, debated, and contested in subsequent interactions, meaning emerges through communicative circulation rather than one-way transmission (Boyd, 2014; Couldry & Hepp, 2017). Through repeated acknowledgment, certain actors become stable points of orientation within ongoing communication, shaping how events are interpreted and evaluated (Bishop, 2021; Cunningham & Craig, 2019). They gain interpretive authority—the capacity to define relevant events and their meanings for audiences through repeated recognition and communicative response (Couldry & Hepp, 2017). Thus, this authority depends on sustained communicative uptake rather than one-way exposure (Boyd, 2014; Couldry & Hepp, 2017; Papacharissi, 2015) and on recognition, shared experience, and perceived authenticity rather than professional expertise (Brinkerhoff, 2009, pp. 42–55). In this sense, actors function not as individual opinion leaders but as interpretive reference points within digital publics (Abidin, 2018; Enli, 2017).

On this basis, this article adopts the working term “AFGfluencer” to describe actors—not individual influencers but a communicative role—who provide interpretive orientation within Afghanistan-linked communicative environments. The term, therefore, refers to a role produced through repeated recognition and communicative response, not to celebrity status or commercial influence. Their contributions organize ongoing communication, as they are repeatedly addressed, recognized, and responded to across interactions.

To examine how meaning is structured collectively within these interactions, the following section shifts the analytical focus from actors to issues and narratives.

2.1.4. Issues and Narratives

Within digital publics, communication develops when participants orient their interactions toward matters they perceive as collectively relevant (Boulianne & Theocharis, 2020). It stabilizes through repeated reference, response, and engagement (Boyd, 2014; Couldry & Hepp, 2017; Luhmann, 1996). While recurring matters organize collective attention, recurring interpretive patterns connect events to a shared understanding (Alencar, 2018; Boulianne & Theocharis, 2020; Leurs, 2015). These two concepts are analytically distinct.

Issues are matters that acquire collective relevance and organize attention and interaction within a public. They emerge when participants orient communication toward shared concerns and engage with them collectively (Boulianne & Theocharis, 2020, pp. 111–127).

Narratives are recurring interpretive patterns that connect events to explanations, moral evaluation, and expectations, thereby rendering communication intelligible for participants (Leurs, 2015, pp. 20–25; Papacharissi, 2015).

Therefore, issues structure what communication addresses, whereas narratives structure how it is interpreted (Hilgartner & Bosk, 1988; Papacharissi, 2015). Certain issues operate as attention triggers. However, they attract attention not only because of their substantive importance but also because they provoke disproportionate reaction, disagreement, and ongoing exchange. Conflict-oriented issues intensify visibility because they generate responses and counterpositions that sustain interaction. Research on networked publics shows that interaction and circulation, rather than editorial selection, raise visibility in digital environments (Boyd, 2014; Papacharissi, 2015). Affective engagement amplifies this dynamic, as emotionally charged communication sustains participation and attention. Platform algorithms tend to privilege such emotionally charged content, further amplifying engagement and sustaining participation (Bishop, 2021; Papacharissi, 2015). Under such conditions, public issues emerge when attention converges around shared concerns and ongoing discussion (Hilgartner & Bosk, 1988). Narratives, in turn, make communication interpretable for participants by connecting events to moral evaluation, collective memory, and expectation (Alencar, 2018; Leurs, 2015). Affect again strengthens this mechanism because emotional expression increases salience and sustains engagement (Papacharissi, 2015). Communication continues not only because information circulates but also because interpretation becomes socially meaningful.

Issues and narratives stabilize within digital publics through actors who serve as interpretive reference points. They link individual contributions to ongoing communication by selecting occurrences, explaining consequences, connecting them to shared experience, and responding to reactions (Boyd, 2014; Papacharissi, 2015). As their statements are repeatedly referenced, challenged, and extended, interpretation becomes socially shared (Fraser, 1990; Papacharissi, 2015; Couldry & Hepp, 2017). Meaning stabilizes through communicative circulation rather than editorial authority (Bishop, 2021; Couldry & Hepp, 2017).

In diasporic contexts, this mediation also involves translation across distances. Political developments must be contextualized in everyday experiences and shared reference frames to become communicatively relevant (Brinkerhoff, 2009; Leurs & Smets, 2018). Through repeated framing and response, recurring interpretive patterns emerge that provide orientation for audiences. Therefore, narratives can be understood as stabilized forms of interpretation that link communicative arenas and actors, sustaining public communication within Afghanistan-linked digital publics in Germany.

Accordingly, issues and narratives are treated in this study not as thematic categories but as analytical dimensions. They are analyzed not primarily by which topics arise but by how topics gain collective relevance and are interpreted, how recurring interpretive patterns organize interaction, which issues attract sustained attention, and which narrative structures stabilize meaning across networked communication.

2.1.5. Integrative Perspective and Analytical Model

This study integrates the four strands of research presented to propose a multidimensional model of digital diaspora communication in post-migration societies.

The model views digital diaspora communication as a form of public communication in which communicative arenas, recurring actors, and recurring issues and narratives are interconnected (Brinkerhoff, 2009; Madianou & Miller, 2013; Papacharissi, 2015). Communicative arenas concentrate attention while remaining distributed across platforms (Couldry & Hepp, 2017). Actors acquire interpretive authority through responsiveness and repeated interaction rather than through institutional status (Abidin, 2018; Papacharissi, 2015). Issues and narratives stabilize interpretation by linking events to shared relevance and experience (Brinkerhoff, 2009; Leurs, 2015; Papacharissi, 2016). These dimensions were analyzed in the context of Afghanistan-linked digital publics in Germany to address the research questions.

2.2. Methodology

2.2.1. Research Design

To address the research questions, the study investigated communicative arenas, actors, and meaning-making processes within Afghanistan-linked digital publics in Germany. These dimensions cannot be adequately captured through standardized measurement, such as platform likes, shares, or follower counts, which indicate visibility but do not reveal how communicative arenas structure interaction, how influential actors are recognized and gain visibility and interpretive authority, and how communication is organized through public issues and narratives. Based on the theoretical framework, communicative arenas structure how attention is organized across platforms; interpretive authority is established through actor recognition and communicative uptake; and issues and narratives structure communication through shared concerns that provoke ongoing discussion (Brinkerhoff, 2009; Leurs, 2015; Papacharissi, 2016). Accordingly, an interpretive, qualitative research design was employed that allowed for the reconstruction of these processes by situating them in context and attending to the participants’ perspectives. Two complementary strategies were combined. First, interviews were conducted to gather contextual field knowledge and reconstruct communicative arenas from the standpoint of the participants. Second, communication analysis was performed on a selected digital platform to discern how interpretive authority and meaning are established in practice.

2.2.2. Interviews

This study aimed for analytical rather than statistical generalization (Yin, 2018). Eight individual semi-structured interviews were conducted online between April and August 2025 to cover relevant field positions rather than to ensure population representation. The interviews were conducted online to enable access to geographically dispersed participants and to facilitate flexible scheduling across different locations. The purpose of the interviews was to reconstruct the participants’ communicative environments rather than to measure attitudes. All participants were asked the same six core questions addressing platform visibility, communicative practices, and thematic orientations of socially recognized communicators, but were free to introduce additional topics related to the focus themes. The dataset represents a temporal slice, capturing patterned communication. Each interview lasted between 30 min and one hour. The aim of the interviews was not to achieve statistical representation but to reconstruct recurring field perceptions across different communicative positions. The sample was therefore designed to capture contrast and field knowledge. Interviews were included until repeated references to platforms, communicators, and recurring issues became visible across different participant positions.

The participants were recruited using purposive sampling (Patton, 2002) to ensure the inclusion of individuals with relevant knowledge, experience, and positions within Afghanistan-linked digital publics (Patton, 2002). The inclusion criteria were residence in Germany, particularly in Berlin, Hamburg, or Frankfurt—cities with established Afghanistan-linked communities—and representation of distinct roles within their communication environments to ensure a broad range of perspectives. These roles included journalists, researchers, civil society practitioners, LGBTQ+ activists, and digital content creators. Digital content creators were added to contextualize production practices rather than to validate their communication. Attention was paid to achieving gender balance. The interview sample was designed to cover different field positions within Afghanistan-linked digital publics in Germany. The aim was not statistical representation but analytical variation across research, journalism, civil society, activism, and digital content production. This allowed the study to reconstruct recurring perceptions of platforms, actors, issues, and narratives from different positions within the communicative field.

The interview sample was designed to cover different field positions within Afghanistan-linked digital publics in Germany. As shown in

Table 1. Interview sample and field positions.

Interviewee	Field Position	Main Reason for Inclusion
Interviewee 1	Research and field expert	Overview of platforms, actors, and recurring issues
Interviewee 2	Civil society practitioner	Knowledge of community debates and digital participation
Interviewee 3	Journalism or media practitioner	Knowledge of information circulation and public attention
Interviewee 4	Digital content creator	Insight into platform practices and response chains
Interviewee 5	Community or organizational actor	Knowledge of cross-platform and offline communication
Interviewee 6	Activist or LGBTQ+ perspective	Insight into gender, LGBTQ+ issues, and exclusion
Interviewee 7	Civil society or advocacy actor	Knowledge of polarization and offline effects
Interviewee 8	Cross-field expert	Broader assessment of actors, issues, and platform hierarchies

, the aim was not statistical representation but analytical variation across research, journalism, civil society, activism, and digital content production. This allowed the study to reconstruct recurring perceptions of platforms, actors, issues, and narratives from different positions within the communicative field.

To protect anonymity, the interviewees are identified throughout this article by numerical identifiers (Interviewees 1–8), which are also used when referring to interview statements in the Findings section.

From the interviews, influential communicators were identified through reputational sampling, which relied on repeated nominations across different field positions. The interview material was then systematically analyzed using qualitative content analysis. First, references to platforms and their roles were examined to reconstruct communicative arenas. Second, repeated mentions of specific communicators were analyzed to identify actors and assess their relative prominence. Third, references to topics, discussions, and recurring themes were coded to identify issues. Finally, patterns of interpretation, including how events were explained, evaluated, and debated, were analyzed to reconstruct narratives. This stepwise procedure enabled the identification of recurring structures across interviews while remaining grounded in the empirical material (Littig & Pöchhacker, 2014). Repeated recognition and reference in interactions were treated as indicators of interpretive authority beyond follower counts. Four communicators were consistently mentioned across the interviews and are presented in this article as analytical cases. The analysis highlights contrast rather than representativeness (Small, 2009), as the communicators represented different key positions within a communicative constellation—advisory communication, entertainment-oriented commentary, conflict-oriented engagement, and educational guidance—rather than the full population of communicators. Although the communicators’ content is publicly accessible, their names are withheld for protection. Instead, they are presented using neutral identifiers (Communicator A–D).

2.2.3. Qualitative Platform Content Analysis

Building on the contextual knowledge gained from the interviews, communication practices were examined through a structured qualitative content analysis of a digital platform, following Kuckartz (2014) and Mayring (2014). The dataset comprised TikTok content published over one month, September 2025, from four communicators identified through the interview analysis. These communicators were selected because they were consistently mentioned across interviews and recognized as prominent within Afghanistan-linked digital publics in Germany. Although communication related to Afghanistan spans multiple platforms, TikTok was selected because all four identified communicators achieved their highest visibility there, and the interviewees consistently described it as their central arena for communication—where attention and controversy first emerged (Papacharissi, 2015). This focus also limits the analysis. TikTok captures a highly visible and reactive segment of Afghanistan-linked digital communication, especially among younger and more platform-active users. It does not fully represent longer discussions on YouTube or Facebook-based communication, which interviewees associated more strongly with older audiences and more extended forms of debate. These platforms are therefore considered part of the contextual reconstruction but are not analyzed with the same depth as TikTok. The analytical validity of focusing on TikTok is supported by Hepp et al.’s (2018) theory of communicative figurations, which emphasizes that while communication is always multiplatform, certain platforms can temporarily become central arenas where visibility and controversy crystallize.

Each video was coded with the creator’s name, publication date, content description, focus issue, and interpretive notes. The analysis followed four categories: communicative arenas, recurring actors, recurring issues, and recurring narratives. Categorization followed a combined deductive and inductive procedure. Deductive categories were derived from the analytical model, while inductive refinement emerged through iterative engagement with the material (Kuckartz, 2014; Mayring, 2014). The analysis proceeded through systematic viewing, coding, and cross-case comparison, continuously relating findings back to the interview-based reconstruction of communicative arenas.

Particular attention was given to recurring reactions and response chains, which indicated communicative uptake.

3. Findings

The findings of this study are presented according to the three analytical dimensions introduced in the theoretical framework: communicative arenas, actors and interpretive authority, and issues and narratives. Interview-based field perceptions are systematically connected to observable communication on TikTok to reconstruct how these digital publics are structured and how communicative orientation and meaning emerge in practice.

3.1. Communicative Arenas: Where Public Attention Emerges

Rather than treating Afghanistan-linked publics in Germany as a set of equivalent platforms, the interviewees consistently portrayed them as a multiplatform communication environment organized by a hierarchy of visibility.

TikTok was identified as the primary arena where attention first emerges, while other platforms mainly extend or stabilize already circulating communication (Interviewees 5 and 8). Interviewee 5 explained that diaspora users “first use TikTok, then Instagram, and then Facebook.” Interviewee 1 added that TikTok was predominantly used by younger audiences, but described Facebook as the main network base and YouTube as a place for longer videos rather than immediate interaction. Other platforms were mentioned only marginally.

These descriptions correspond to the observed communication patterns across platforms. During the observation period, the four communicators mentioned most frequently by the interviewees were most visibly active on TikTok, with a combined follower base of 608,000 compared with 89,000 on Instagram. They also published 40 TikTok videos and 19 Instagram posts. These figures are used as contextual indicators, not as a basis for quantitative generalization. They support the qualitative interpretation that TikTok functioned as the primary entry arena of attention, while Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube mainly extended or redistributed content that first circulated on TikTok.

One central observation concerns the role of reactive formats on TikTok. Communication did not unfold primarily through standalone informational posts but through sequences of responses to current trends. Users replied to earlier videos, addressed specific communicators directly, and took public positions in relation to prior statements. Duets, stitches, and video replies formed visible chains of interaction. Duets allow users to place their video alongside an existing one; stitches enable users to reuse and comment on short segments of another video; and video replies allow direct responses to previous posts. In these sequences, a video became public not only because it was posted but also because it was related to current trends and elicited responses. The interviewees described communication in similar terms, characterizing it as reactive rather than strategically planned. Interviewees 2–4 emphasized that communicators usually post in response to ongoing discussions and everyday exchanges rather than following a defined communication strategy. Interviewee 4 noted, “People mostly react to each other. It is everyday interaction, not planned communication.” Others stated that to increase visibility, communicators produce content on negative and controversial topics (Interview 2) or exhibit atypical behavior (Interview 4). These dynamics suggest that while in mass-mediated communication, visibility depends on publication through institutional media, in digital communication, it depends on communicative uptake. Content becomes relevant when it is referenced, challenged, and circulated. The TikTok accounts empirically demonstrate this mechanism: videos that triggered disagreement, imitation, or clarification were repeatedly circulated and remained visible over time. The following section examines how actors acquire and maintain interpretive authority within Afghanistan-linked digital publics in Germany.

3.2. Actors (AFGfluencers): Recognition, Interaction, and Interpretive Authority

The TikTok accounts show unevenly distributed communicative uptake. Response chains repeatedly refer to the same communicators, and interaction accumulates around them. Therefore, visibility becomes attached to persons rather than channels. The interview material confirms this pattern: Interviewees 1–4 did not describe debates primarily as thematic discussions but referred to particular individuals when explaining how information circulated or how conflicts developed. Observation of communication across platforms supports this interpretation. Certain actors appeared repeatedly across comment threads and follow-up videos, and users addressed them directly when asking questions or challenging claims.

This concentration can be understood as a process of relational authority formation. Research on digital intermediaries suggests that influence in digital communication environments arises through recognition and responsiveness rather than institutional position (Abidin, 2018; Bishop, 2021). Through repeated interaction, these actors gradually became reference points for interpretation. Once communication repeatedly addressed the same actors, audiences began to orient themselves toward them, anticipating their reactions, responding to their statements, and interpreting events in relation to them. Interpretive authority thus becomes observable at the level of actors who are continually addressed, cited, and challenged within ongoing interaction.

The four communicators illustrate different communicative positions through which interpretive authority becomes visible. These positions are not mutually exclusive categories or stable personal identities. They describe recurring communicative roles. A communicator may shift between them depending on topic, platform, audience response, and situational context. The typology is therefore analytical rather than classificatory. In this context, communicative positions refer to recurring ways in which actors contribute to communication, for example, by providing information, offering interpretation, expressing evaluation, or responding to others. These positions were reconstructed from recurring interview references and then examined in the communication material across platforms.

Therefore, the actors are not treated in this study as representative individuals but as empirical manifestations of recurring roles within the communicative environment, produced through interaction. These recurring roles are summarized in

Table 2. Communicative positions and forms of interpretive authority.

Communicator	Main Communicative Position	Main Form of Interpretive Authority
Communicator A	Everyday-oriented interaction	Relational familiarity
Communicator B	Conflict-oriented engagement	Mobilization through controversy
Communicator C	Orientation-based explanation	Practical reliability
Communicator D	Instructional guidance	Usefulness and applied knowledge

. As explained earlier, these roles are generally referred to in this article as “AFGfluencer,” in the specific context of Afghanistan-linked digital publics in Germany. The term is used here as an analytical shorthand for communicators who became visible through repeated mention, audience response, and recurring interpretive orientation within the empirical material.

The first position centered on everyday-oriented interaction. Videos showed family routines, cooking, humor, celebrations, school situations, and household practices. Interaction was structured by recognition, repetition, and shared humor rather than by political argument. Viewers repeated phrases, referred to earlier videos, and addressed the communicator as a familiar presence in everyday platform use. Interpretive authority, therefore, emerged from relational familiarity: audiences oriented themselves toward a communicator they repeatedly encountered and recognized in everyday communicative routines. This familiarity also made later reactions more likely, as recognized communicators were more frequently addressed, questioned, and challenged.

The second position relied on conflict-oriented engagement. Here, communication was organized through provocation, correction, public confrontation, and direct response to earlier statements. Interaction often developed through chains of replies in which supporters and opponents addressed the communicator directly. Interpretive authority emerged less from informational credibility than from the capacity to mobilize attention through controversy. In this position, conflict became communicatively productive because each response generated further visibility and stabilized the communicator as a recurring reference point. The third position can be described as an orientation-based explanation. Here, communication provided practical guidance for navigating everyday life in Germany, including administrative procedures, legal requirements, housing, work, education, and language learning. Videos often followed an explanatory structure and invited question-and-answer interaction. Viewers asked for clarification, compared their own situations with the examples presented, and returned to the communicator for further guidance. Interpretive authority emerged from perceived usefulness and reliability, as audiences treated the communicator as a practical reference point in uncertain institutional situations.

The fourth position reflected instructional guidance. Here, communication focused on concrete learning and action, including language learning, examination preparation, administrative procedures, and everyday problem-solving. Contributions took the form of tutorials, demonstrations, or guided explanations. Viewers asked practical follow-up questions, referred to earlier videos, and returned to the communicator for repeated support. Interpretive authority emerged from usefulness and applied knowledge: audiences oriented themselves toward the communicator because the content helped them act in concrete situations.

Across these four positions, visibility was produced through recurring communicative practices: frequent posting, simplified explanation, direct address, references to trending topics, encouragement of reactions, and cross-posting across platforms. These practices differed by position, but they shared a common mechanism. Communicators became stable orientation points when their contributions repeatedly generated responses, recognition, and further interaction.

3.3. Issues and Narratives: Recurring Interpretive Patterns

While Section 3.2 examined how actors become recurring reference points, this section analyzes how issues and narratives structure meaning across interactions. The interviewees described a broad thematic landscape, including migration procedures, institutional encounters, language learning, employment, education, political developments in Afghanistan and Germany, gender relations, religious debates, online activism, interpersonal disputes, entertainment, humor, and commercial self-presentation. However, these topics did not appear as random thematic diversity. They were organized through recurring interpretive patterns that shaped how communication unfolded. Issues structured what communication addressed, while narratives structured how these issues were interpreted, evaluated, and connected to shared experience.

The first recurring pattern relates to practical orientation in everyday life in Germany. It includes communication about administrative procedures, residence regulations, language requirements, employment, education, and institutional encounters. Viewers responded by asking for clarification, sharing their own experiences, and comparing procedures. The interviews indicate that such communication translated formal institutional information into situational knowledge. In this pattern, the narrative structure was one of navigation: digital communication helped audiences understand how to act within unfamiliar institutional settings. The second pattern centered on confrontation and reputational conflict. Communication frequently revolved around accusations, ridicule, delegitimization, and attempts to challenge the credibility of individuals. Reaction videos directly addressed others and publicly contested their statements, while comment sections often extended these disputes through chains of reply and counterreply. The interviewees described such exchanges as prolonged and emotionally charged. Several interviewees also noted that rumors, dramatic claims, and misinformation circulated more easily in these conflictual settings than explanatory information. In this pattern, the narrative structure was one of exposure and moral evaluation: actors and audiences framed others as credible or deceptive, authentic or disloyal, legitimate or illegitimate. Gendered hostility, religious accusations, political loyalty, and LGBTQ+ issues were especially prone to such forms of conflict. Thus, confrontation generated visibility and participation, but it also produced exclusion and intensified hostility within the communicative environment. The third recurring pattern consisted of entertainment and everyday performance. It included humor, cooking, family routines, jokes, celebrations, and short performative interactions. Unlike conflict-oriented communication, interaction was structured mainly by recognition, repetition, imitation, and shared enjoyment. Viewers repeated phrases, referred to earlier clips, and addressed communicators as familiar figures. The interviewees described such content as embedded in everyday routines and as a source of emotional relief. In this pattern, the narrative structure was one of relational belonging: communication created continuity and familiarity across dispersed audiences, even when it contained little explicit political information.

The fourth recurring pattern involved the relocation of Afghanistan-related political and social conflicts into communication within Germany. The interviewees referred to debates about Afghanistan domestic politics, pro- and anti-Taliban positions, ethnic conflict, religious disputes, radicalization, interpretations of the collapse of the state of Afghanistan, and competing visions of the country’s future. These debates often developed through selective narratives, ideological claims, and unverified accusations. In this pattern, the narrative structure was one of transnational contestation: conflicts connected to Afghanistan were rearticulated in Germany-based digital communication and shaped local community relations. The interviewees also described consequences beyond digital platforms, including tensions in everyday interactions and community settings. Thus, digital platforms functioned both as arenas of political participation and as spaces where transnational conflict became locally embedded.

Across these patterns, individual videos often combined advice, humor, conflict, and political commentary. The patterns, therefore, should not be understood as fixed thematic categories. Rather, they describe recurring ways in which issues became meaningful through interaction. Meaning emerged through sequences of response, repetition, disagreement, and recognition rather than through isolated posts. This confirms the relational structure of Afghanistan-linked digital publics in Germany: arenas concentrate attention; actors provide orientation; and issues and narratives stabilize interpretation across ongoing communication.

The following section discusses these results in relation to existing research and draws on the ensuing insights to address the research questions.

4. Discussion

4.1. Visibility as a Cross-Platform Structure

The findings indicate that visibility within Afghanistan-linked digital publics in Germany is not organized through separate platform-based publics but through a functionally differentiated cross-platform structure. Rather than operating as distinct communicative spheres, platforms are interconnected and fulfill complementary roles in the production and distribution of attention. TikTok functions as the primary entry arena in which topics first become publicly visible, while Instagram and Facebook support circulation and discussion, and YouTube provides longer-term accessibility for already circulating content. Visibility thus emerges in one location and is redistributed across others.

This observation corresponds to research on mediated publicness, which conceptualizes publics as communicative formations emerging across interconnected media environments rather than as territorially or institutionally bounded entities (Couldry & Hepp, 2017). While existing studies emphasize the multiplicity of platforms and the fragmentation of communication, the findings show that platforms are functionally differentiated within a shared communicative environment. Public attention is not dispersed across separate publics but organized through the interaction of platforms that redistribute and stabilize visibility.

This pattern also aligns with research on networked publics, which shows that visibility in digital environments emerges through circulation and interaction rather than through institutional publication (Boyd, 2014; Papacharissi, 2015). At the same time, the findings specify how these processes operate across platforms. Visibility is not simply the outcome of decentralized interaction but develops through a sequence in which attention is generated, redistributed, and sustained across different communicative arenas.

Consequently, Afghanistan-linked digital publics in Germany can be understood as an interconnected communicative environment organized around shared attention hubs rather than as a set of separate platform publics.

4.2. Communication as Reactive, Sequential, and Uptake-Driven

The findings indicate that public communication within these environments is not primarily organized through the publication of standalone content but through reactive and sequential interaction. Communication unfolds through responses to prior contributions, in which videos, comments, and replies are directly linked to one another. Rather than introducing isolated topics, participants engage by reacting to existing statements, thereby extending ongoing exchanges. Visibility depends on communicative uptake, as contributions become relevant when they are referenced, challenged, or circulated within these interaction sequences. This observation corresponds to research on networked publics, which conceptualizes digital communication as emerging through interaction, circulation, and affect rather than editorial selection (Boyd, 2014; Papacharissi, 2015). At the same time, the findings show that these processes are not unstructured but develop in recurring sequences of interaction. Communication builds on previous contributions and remains visible when it generates further responses. Public visibility is therefore not a property of individual posts but an outcome of ongoing communicative relations.

These dynamics are consistent with the concept of communicative figurations, which describe how communication is sustained through recurring relations between actors and media practices (Hepp et al., 2018). Reactive formats enable participation by allowing users to engage with existing contributions rather than initiating new topics. As a result, communication develops through ongoing interaction, in which interpretation unfolds across multiple contributions and becomes stabilized through repetition.

Taken together, the findings indicate that communicative uptake is a central mechanism through which attention and meaning are produced in Afghanistan-linked digital publics in Germany.

4.3. AFGfluencers and Interpretive Authority

The findings indicate that public communication within Afghanistan-linked digital publics in Germany is structured through recurring actors who become reference points within ongoing interaction. As shown in the empirical analysis, communication does not remain oriented toward topics alone but becomes increasingly directed toward specific communicators who are repeatedly addressed, cited, and responded to. Through this process, audiences orient their communication toward recognizable actors, and interpretive authority emerges through continued interaction.

This observation corresponds to research on digital intermediaries, which shows that influence in digital communication environments develops through recognition, responsiveness, and sustained interaction rather than institutional position (Abidin, 2018; Bishop, 2021; Cunningham & Craig, 2019). At the same time, the findings specify how this process unfolds within Afghanistan-linked communicative arenas. Actors do not become influential simply through visibility but through their repeated involvement in communicative sequences in which they are addressed, challenged, and acknowledged by others.

The empirical material further shows that interpretive authority is internally differentiated. It does not emerge through one single form of influence, but through different communicative roles that organize attention, response, and orientation in distinct ways. This supports the understanding of AFGfluencers as analytical roles rather than as a homogeneous group of social media actors.

Across these variations, interpretive authority is not derived primarily from formal expertise or institutional status. It emerges from sustained communicative uptake, repeated recognition, perceived usefulness, relational familiarity, and the capacity to generate response within ongoing interaction.

These findings suggest that AFGfluencers can be understood as communicative roles that emerge through repeated interaction within communicative arenas. They do not represent a fixed group of individuals but constitute recurring positions through which communication is organized. In this sense, AFGfluencers function as interpretive reference points that structure orientation and contribute to the stabilization of meaning across interactions.

4.4. Communicative Arenas, Actors, and Issues and Narratives as a Relational Formation

The findings suggest that Afghanistan-linked digital publics in Germany are structured through the interplay of communicative arenas, recurring actors, and recurring issues and narratives. Public communication does not emerge from a single dimension but from the relation between these elements. Communicative arenas concentrate attention, actors become reference points through repeated interaction, and recurring issues and narratives stabilize interpretation across ongoing communication.

This observation extends research on digital diaspora communication. Previous studies have often emphasized transnational belonging and the maintenance of social ties across distance (Alonso & Oiarzabal, 2010; Brinkerhoff, 2009; Leurs, 2015). The empirical material shows that these dimensions remain relevant, but that communication is also organized around everyday orientation, interpretation of current events, and the negotiation of conflicts. References to Afghanistan, therefore, function as interpretive frames through which experiences in Germany are understood.

At the same time, the findings refine research on networked publics. While previous studies describe these publics as decentralized and shaped by fluid interaction (Boyd, 2014; Papacharissi, 2015), the analysis shows that communication is structured through recurring actors and stabilized patterns of interaction. Visibility and interpretation are not evenly distributed but organized around recognizable communicators and recurring communicative sequences. In this sense, networked publics appear as structured communicative environments rather than purely decentralized formations.

The findings also contribute to research on digital intermediaries. Existing studies highlight how actors gain influence through visibility, interaction, and relational engagement (Abidin, 2018; Bishop, 2021; Cunningham & Craig, 2019). The empirical material shows that these processes are embedded in specific communicative arenas and linked to recurring issues and narratives. Influence consists less in persuasion than in organizing orientation, as communicators connect events, experiences, and interpretations across ongoing interaction.

Taken together, the findings support a conceptualization of Afghanistan-linked digital publics in Germany as communicative formations in which arenas, actors, and issues and narratives are interdependent. Communication develops through relational processes in which visibility, recognition, and interpretation are continuously reproduced. In this sense, public communication is not organized through institutional authority or shared identity alone but through ongoing communicative relations that connect actors, arenas, and interpretive patterns within digitally networked environments.

5. Conclusions

Afghanistan-linked digital publics in Germany form structured communicative environments in which public communication develops through the interplay of communicative arenas, recurring actors, and recurring issues and narratives. The findings show that these publics do not emerge from shared identity alone, but from relational processes that connect visibility, recognition, and interpretation across ongoing communication (Couldry & Hepp, 2017; Fraser, 1990; Papacharissi, 2015).

The article contributes to research on migration and digital media by showing that digital diaspora communication in post-migration contexts is structured through arenas, actors, and interpretive patterns. Everyday experiences in Germany and references to Afghanistan are linked within ongoing communication, and meaning is produced collectively through recognition, response, and repeated communicative uptake (Couldry & Hepp, 2017; Hepp et al., 2018).

At the same time, these communicative environments are ambivalent. They provide practical guidance, social orientation, and spaces of public participation, but they also enable hostility, misinformation, exclusion, and conflict. These dynamics unfold in weakly regulated and partly visible spaces such as comment sections, short-video interactions, and response chains. They also extend beyond digital platforms, as interpretations and conflicts are reproduced in everyday community interactions in Germany.

This study is subject to several limitations. The analysis focuses on a single case of Afghanistan-linked digital publics in Germany and draws on a limited temporal and platform-specific dataset. The number of interviews is small, and the analysis is based on four communicators identified through reputational sampling. This approach may privilege more visible actors, while less visible communicators remain underrepresented. The TikTok focus also means that longer and older-audience-oriented platform interactions on Facebook or YouTube are only indirectly considered.

Future research could extend this approach by including more interviews and communicators, comparing different diaspora contexts, and incorporating additional platforms. Combining qualitative analysis with contextual indicators such as follower counts, engagement rates, or frequency of mentions could further clarify patterns of visibility and interaction. Longitudinal designs would also help to examine how communicative arenas, actors, issues and narratives evolve over time in post-migration societies.