Political Communication in the Age of Platforms
Definition
:1. History
2. Toward the ‘Fourth Era’ of Political Communication
3. Social Media Reshape the Dynamics of Political Discourse
Social Media as a New Arena for the Personalization of Politics
4. Risks and Challenges in the Platform Era of Political Communication
4.1. Echo Chambers and the Rise of Polarization
4.2. Incivility as a Driver of Polarization
4.3. Microtargeting
4.4. Disinformation
5. Conclusions and Prospects
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Mazzoleni, G.; Schulz, W. “Mediatization” of Politics: A Challenge for Democracy? Political Commun. 1999, 16, 247–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scammell, M. Election Campaign Communication. Int. Encycl. Political Commun. 2016, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herkman, J. The Structural Transformation of The Democratic Corporatist Model: The Case of Finland. Javnost 2009, 16, 73–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blumler, J.G.; Kavanagh, D. The Third Age of Political Communication: Influences and Features. Political Commun. 1999, 16, 209–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Norris, P. A Virtuous Circle: Political Communications in Postindustrial Societies; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Römmele, A.; von Schneidmesser, D. Election campaigning enters a fourth phase: The mediatized campaign. Z. Polit. 2016, 26, 425–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dommett, K.; Power, S.; Barclay, A.; Macintyre, A. Understanding the Modern Election Campaign: Analysing Campaign Eras through Financial Transparency Disclosures at the 2019 UK General Election. Gov. Oppos. 2025, 60, 141–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gibson, R.; Römmele, A. Changing campaign communications: A party-centered theory of professionalized campaigning. Harv. Int. J. Press Politics 2001, 6, 31–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Negrine, R.; Papathanassopoulos, S. The “Americanization” of Political Communication: A Critique. Harv. Int. J. Press Politics 1999, 1, 45–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paget, D. The Rally-Intensive Campaign: A Distinct Form of Electioneering in Sub-Saharan Africa and Beyond. Int. J. Press Politics 2019, 24, 194016121984795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tasente, T. The 4 phases of evolution of political systems: From the golden age of the parties to the golden age of the users. Tech. Soc. Sci. J. 2000, 2, 76–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holtz-Bacha, C. Professionalization of Political Communication: The Case of the 1998 SPD Campaign. J. Political Mark. 2002, 1, 23–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strömbäck, J. Political Marketing and Professionalized Campaigning: A Conceptual Analysis. J. Political Mark. 2007, 6, 49–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strömbäck, J.; Kiousis, S. Strategic political communication in election campaigns. In Political Communication; Reinemann, C., Ed.; De Gruyter Mouton: Berlin, Germany, 2014; pp. 109–128. [Google Scholar]
- Magin, M.; Podschuweit, N.; Haßler, J.; Russmann, U. Campaigning in the fourth age of political communication. A multi-method study on the use of Facebook by German and Austrian parties in the 2013 national election campaigns. Inf. Commun. Soc. 2016, 20, 1698–1719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roemmele, A.; Gibson, R. Scientific and subversive: The two faces of the fourth era of political campaigning. New Media Soc. 2020, 22, 595–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dommett, K.; Barclay, A.; Gibson, R. Just what is data-driven campaigning? A systematic review. Inf. Commun. Soc. 2023, 27, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aagaard, P. The fourth age of political communication: Democratic decay or the rise of phronetic political communication? Nord. Mediterr. 2016, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strömbäck, J. Four Phases of Mediatization: An Analysis of the Mediatization of Politics. Int. J. Press Politics 2008, 13, 228–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sampedro, V. Introduction: New Trends and Challenges in Political Communication. Int. J. Press Politics 2011, 16, 431–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casero-Ripollés, A. Research on political information and social media: Key points and challenges for the future. Prof. Inf. 2018, 27, 964–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Block, E. A culturalist approach to the concept of the mediatization of politics: The age of “media hegemony”. Commun. Theory 2013, 23, 259–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scammell, M. Political Brands and Consumer Citizens: The Rebranding of Tony Blair. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 2007, 611, 176–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grossauer, S.; Čelebić, S. The Shaping of the Public Opinion: Social Media between Populism and Convivialism. A Comparative Study of Austria, Sweden, and the UK. Proceedings 2017, 1, 266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Narayan, B. Social media use and civil society: From everyday information behaviours to clickable solidarity. Cosmop. Civ. Soc. 2013, 5, 32–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karpf, D. Blogosphere Research: A Mixed-Methods Approach to Rapidly Changing Systems. Available online: https://davidkarpf.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/ieee-invited.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2025).
- Baek, Y.M. Political mobilization through social network sites: The mobilizing power of political messages received from SNS friends. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 44, 12–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haugsgjerd, A.; Karlsen, R. Election Campaigns, News Consumption Gaps, and Social Media: Equalizing Political News Use When It Matters? Int. J. Press Politics 2022, 29, 507–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Utz, S. The (potential) benefits of campaigning via social network sites. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 2009, 14, 221–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gibson, R.; Southern, R.; Vaccari, C.; Smyth, P.; Musayev, J. Does Digital Campaigning Matter, and If So, How? Testing a Broadcast Versus Network Effects Model of Candidates’ Twitter Use. J. Inf. Technol. Politics 2024, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sandberg, L.A.C.; Öhberg, P. The role of gender in online campaigning: Swedish candidates’ motives and use of social media during the European election. J. Inf. Technol. Politics 2017, 14, 314–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stieglitz, S.; Brockmann, T.; Xuan, L.D. Usage Of Social Media For Political Communication. Pac. Asia. Conf. Inf. Syst. 2012, 22. Available online: https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2012/22 (accessed on 20 May 2025).
- Ennser-Jedenastik, L.; Gahn, C.; Bodlos, A.; Haselmayer, M. Does social media enhance party responsiveness? How user engagement shapes parties’ issue attention on Facebook. Party Politics 2021, 28, 468–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stier, S.; Bleier, A.; Lietz, H.; Strohmaier, M. Election Campaigning on Social Media: Politicians, Audiences, and the Mediation of Political Communication on Facebook and Twitter. Political Commun. 2018, 35, 50–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vergeer, M.; Hermans, L. Campaigning on Twitter: Microblogging and Online Social Networking as Campaign Tools in the 2010 General Elections in the Netherlands. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 2013, 18, 399–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holt, K.; Shehata, A.; Strömbäck, J.; Ljungberg, E. Age and the effects of news media attention and social media use on political interest and participation: Do social media function as leveller? Eur. J. Commun. 2013, 28, 19–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ohme, J. When digital natives enter the electorate: Political social media use among first-time voters and its effects on campaign participation. J. Inf. Technol. Politics 2019, 16, 119–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marquart, F.; Ohme, J.; Möller, J. Following Politicians on Social Media: Effects for Political Information, Peer Communication, and Youth Engagement. Media Commun. 2020, 8, 197–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Broersma, M.; Graham, T. Tipping the balance of power: Social media and the transformation of political journalism. In The Routledge Companion to Social Media and Politics; Bruns, A., Enli, G., Skogerbø, E., Larsson, A.O., Christensen, C., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 89–103. [Google Scholar]
- Pérez-Escoda, A.; Freire, M.R. Digital Literacy and Technopolitics: Core Enablers in a Disintermediated Digital Political Communication Age. Prof. Inf. 2023, 32, e87438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johansson, E. Social Media in Political Communication: A Substitute for Conventional Media? In Close and Distant: Political Executive–Media Relations in Four Countries; Johansson, K.M., Nygren, G., Eds.; Nordicom: Göteborg, Sweden, 2019; pp. 149–174. [Google Scholar]
- Giacomini, G. Disintermediation and/or Neointermediation? The “Fourth Power” of Small and Large Intermediaries in the Digital Public Sphere. Pol. Sociol. Rev. 2023, 222, 249–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klinger, U.; Svensson, J. The Emergence of Network Media Logic in Political Communication: A Theoretical Approach. New Media Soc. 2015, 17, 1241–1257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keller, T.R.; Kleinen-von Königslöw, K. Followers, Spread the Message! Predicting the Success of Swiss Politicians on Facebook and Twitter. Soc. Media + Soc. 2018, 4, 2056305118765733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Enli, G.; Skogerbø, E. Personalized Campaigns in Party-Centred Politics. Inf. Commun. Soc. 2013, 16, 757–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Aelst, P.; Sheafer, T.; Stanyer, J. The Personalization of Mediated Political Communication: A Review of Concepts, Operationalizations and Key Findings. Journalism 2012, 13, 203–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corner, J. Mediated Persona and Political Culture: Dimensions of Structure and Process. Eur. J. Cult. Stud. 2000, 3, 386–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hermans, L.; Vergeer, M. Personalization in e-campaigning: A cross-national comparison of personalization strategies used on candidate websites of 17 countries in EP elections. New Media Soc. 2013, 15, 72–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, Y. What Makes Politicians’ Instagram Posts Popular? Analyzing Social Media Strategies of Candidates and Office Holders with Computer Vision. Int. J. Press/Politics 2021, 26, 143–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Metz, M.; Kruikemeier, S.; Lecheler, S. Personalized Politics on Facebook: Examining the Content and Effects of Professional, Emotional and Private Self-Personalization. Inf. Commun. Soc. 2020, 23, 1481–1498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geise, S.; Maubach, K.; Boettcher Eli, A. Picture Me in Person: Personalization and Emotionalization as Political Campaign Strategies on Social Media in the German Federal Election Period. New Media Soc. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Battista, D. For better or for worse: Politics marries pop culture (TikTok and the 2022 Italian elections). Soc. Regist. 2023, 7, 117–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kruikemeier, S. How Political Candidates Use Twitter and the Impact on Votes. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 34, 131–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Golbeck, J.; Grimes, J.M.; Rogers, A. Twitter Use by the U.S. Congress. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2010, 61, 1612–1621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cervi, L.; Tejedor, S.; Blesa, F.G. TikTok and political communication: The latest frontier of politainment? A case study. Media Commun. 2023, 11, 203–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poulakidakos, S. Greek political leaders on TikTok: Crafting visual bonds in election and non-election times. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2024, 11, 1275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lalancette, M.; Raynauld, V.; Ozorai, A. Personalization of Local Candidates. In Inside the Local Campaign: Constituency Elections in Canada; Marland, A., Giasson, T., Eds.; UBC Press: Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2022; pp. 146–167. [Google Scholar]
- Koc-Michalska, K.; Lilleker, D.G. Online Political Participation: A Citizenship-Oriented Approach. In The Routledge Handbook of Political Campaigning; Lilleker, D., Jackson, D., Kalsnes, B., Mellado, C., Trevisan, F., Veneti, A., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2024; pp. 407–426. [Google Scholar]
- Pfetsch, B. Conditions of Campaigning in Dissonant Public Spheres and Crisis of Democracy. Political Commun. 2023, 40, 346–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, L. The Echo chamber-driven Polarization on Social Media. J. Stud. Res. 2023, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beardow, J. Scroll, Click, Like, Share, Repeat: The Algorithmic Polarisation Phenomenon. ANU J. Law Technol. 2021, 2, 153–164. Available online: https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.20220516066958 (accessed on 20 May 2025).
- Van Bavel, J.J.; Rathje, S.; Harris, E.; Robertson, C.; Sternisko, A. How social media shapes polarization. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2021, 25, 913–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cho, J.; Ahmed, S.; Keum, H.; Choi, Y.J.; Lee, J.H. Influencing Myself: Self-Reinforcement Through Online Political Expression. Commun. Res. 2016, 45, 83–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stegmann, D.; Magin, M.; Stark, B. On the Relationship Between Political Campaigning and Echo Chambers. In The Routledge Handbook of Political Campaigning; Lilleker, D., Jackson, D., Kalsnes, B., Mellado, C., Trevisan, F., Veneti, A., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2024; pp. 254–272. [Google Scholar]
- Bruns, A.; Choucair, T.D.S.; Esau, K.; Svegaard, S.F.K.; Vilkins, S. Polarization in Online Spaces: Distinguishing Forms of Polarized Politics. In The Routledge Handbook of Political Campaigning; Lilleker, D., Jackson, D., Kalsnes, B., Mellado, C., Trevisan, F., Veneti, A., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2024; pp. 45–57. [Google Scholar]
- Nguyen, C. Thi. Echo Chambers and Epistemic Bubbles. Episteme 2020, 17, 141–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Battista, D.; Mangone, E. Technological Culture and Politics: Artificial Intelligence as the New Frontier of Political Communication. Societies 2025, 15, 75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bail, C.A.; Argyle, L.P.; Brown, T.W.; Bumpus, J.P.; Chen, H.; Hunzaker, M.B.F.; Lee, J.; Mann, M.; Merhout, F.; Volfovsky, A. Exposure to Opposing Views on Social Media Can Increase Political Polarization. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 9216–9221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koc-Michalska, K.; Klinger, U.; Bennett, L.; Römmele, A. (Digital) Campaigning in Dissonant Public Spheres. Political Commun. 2023, 40, 255–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pascual-Ferrá, P.; Alperstein, N.; Barnett, D.J.; Rimal, R.N. Toxicity and verbal aggression on social media: Polarized discourse on wearing face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. Big Data Soc. 2021, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rossini, P. Toxic for Whom? Examining the Targets of Uncivil and Intolerant Discourse in Online Political Talk. In Voices: Exploring the Shifting Contours of Communication; Moy, P., Matheson, D., Eds.; Peter Lang: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 221–242. [Google Scholar]
- Petlyuchenko, N.; Petranova, D.; Stashko, H.; Panasenko, N. Toxicity Phenomenon in German and Slovak Media: Contrastive Perspective. Available online: https://lartis.sk/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Petlyuchenko_et_al.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2025).
- Üzelgün, M.A.; Giannouli, I.; Archontaki, I.; Odstrčilová, K.; Thomass, B.; Álvares, C. Transforming Toxic Debates towards European Futures: Technological Disruption, Societal Fragmentation, and Enlightenment 2. Cent. Eur. J. Commun. 2024, 17, 82–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Guberman, J.; Schmitz, C.; Hemphill, L. Quantifying Toxicity and Verbal Violence on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing Companion (CSCW ‘16 Companion), San Francisco, CA, USA, 26 February–2 March 2016; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 277–280. [Google Scholar]
- Munn, L. Angry by design: Toxic communication and technical architectures. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2020, 7, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waseem, Z.; Davidson, T.; Warmsley, D.; Weber, I. Understanding Abuse: A Typology of Abusive Language Detection Subtasks. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Abusive Language Online; Association for Computational Linguistics: Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2017; pp. 78–84. [Google Scholar]
- Coe, K.; Kenski, K.; Rains, S.A. Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. J. Commun. 2014, 64, 658–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salminen, J.; Sengün, S.; Corporan, J.; Jung, S.-G.; Jansen, B.J. Topic-Driven Toxicity: Exploring the Relationship between Online Toxicity and News Topics. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0228723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suler, J. The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 2004, 7, 321–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.W.; Guess, A.; Nyhan, B.; Reifler, J. The distorting prism of social media: How self se lection and exposure to incivility fuel online comment toxicity. J. Commun. 2021, 71, 922–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rossini, P. Incivility and Polarization: Causes and Consequences among Politicians and the Public. In The Routledge Handbook of Political Campaigning; Lilleker, D., Jackson, D., Kalsnes, B., Mellado, C., Trevisan, F., Veneti, A., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2024; pp. 427–437. [Google Scholar]
- Mutz, D.C. Effects of “in-your-face” television discourse on perceptions of a legitimate opposition. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 2007, 101, 621–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brooks, D.J.; Geer, J.G. Beyond negativity: The effects of incivility on the electorate. Am. J. Political Sci. 2007, 51, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borah, P. Does It Matter Where You Read the News Story? Interaction of Incivility and News Frames in the Political Blogosphere. Commun. Res. 2014, 41, 809–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kosmidis, S.; Theocharis, Y. Can social media incivility induce enthusiasm? Evidence from survey experiments. Public Opin. Q. 2020, 84, 284–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mutz, D.C.; Reeves, B. The new video malaise: Effects of televised incivility on political trust. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 2005, 99, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rega, R.; Marchetti, R. The strategic use of incivility in contemporary politics. The case of the 2018 Italian general election on Facebook. Commun. Rev. 2021, 24, 107–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skytte, R. Degrees of Disrespect: How Only Extreme and Rare Incivility Alienates the Base. J. Politics 2022, 84, 1746–1759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Druckman, J.N.; Gubitz, S.R.; Levendusky, M.S.; Lloyd, A.M. How incivility on partisan media (De)polarizes the electorate. J. Politics 2019, 81, 291–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zuboff, S. Surveillance Capitalism and the Challenge of Collective Action. New Labor Forum 2019, 28, 10–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burkell, J.; Regan, P.M. Voter preferences, voter manipulation, voter analytics: Policy options for less surveillance and more autonomy. Internet Policy Rev. 2019, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gorton, W.A. Manipulating Citizens: How Political Campaigns’ Use of Behavioral Social Science Harms Democracy. New Political Sci. 2016, 38, 61–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Dalen, A. Political Microtargeting: What is all the fuzz about? In The Routledge Handbook of Political Campaigning; Lilleker, D., Jackson, D., Kalsnes, B., Mellado, C., Trevisan, F., Veneti, A., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2024; pp. 128–140. [Google Scholar]
- Simchon, A.; Edwards, M.; Lewandowsky, S. The persuasive effects of political microtargeting in the age of generative artificial intelligence. PNAS Nexus 2014, 3, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borgesius, F.J.Z.; Möller, J.; Kruikemeier, S.; Fathaigh, R.Ó.; Irion, K.; Dobber, T.; Bodo, B.; De Vreese, C. Online political microtargeting: Promises and threats for democracy. Utrecht Law Rev. 2018, 14, 82–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heawood, J. Pseudo-public political speech: Democratic implications of the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Inf. Polity 2018, 23, 429–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Howard, P.N.; Kreiss, D. Political parties and voter privacy: Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and United States in comparative perspective. First Monday 2010, 15. Available online: http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2975/2627 (accessed on 20 May 2025). [CrossRef]
- Bennett, C. The Politics of Privacy and the Privacy of Politics: Parties, Elections and Voter Surveillance in Western Democracies. First. Monday 2013, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kefford, G.; Dommett, K.; Baldwin-Philippi, J.; Bannerman, S.; Dobber, T.; Kruschinski, S.; Kruikemeier, S.; Rzepecki, E. Data-driven campaigning and democratic disruption: Evidence from six advanced democracies. Party Politics 2022, 29, 448–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Larsen, M.C.; Bélair-Gagnon, V. Social platforms and the spread of disinformation. In The Routledge Handbook of Political Campaigning; Lilleker, D., Jackson, D., Kalsnes, B., Mellado, C., Trevisan, F., Veneti, A., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2024; pp. 286–299. [Google Scholar]
- Tucker, J.A.; Guess, A.; Barberá, P.; Vaccari, C.; Siegel, A.; Sanovich, S.; Stukal, D.; Nyhan, B. Social media, political polarization, and political disinformation: A review of the scientific literature. SSRN 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rathnayake, C. Conceptualizing Satirical Fakes as a New Media Genre: An Attempt to Legitimize ‘Post-Truth Journalism’. Available online: https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/71444/1/Rathnayake_IPP_2018_Conceptualizing_satirical_fakes_as_a_new_media_genre.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2025).
- Palau-Sampio, D. Pseudo-Media Disinformation Patterns: Polarised Discourse, Clickbait and Twisted Journalistic Mimicry. J. Pract. 2023, 17, 2140–2158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.-N.; Gil de Zúñiga, H. Pseudo-Information, Media, Publics, and the Failing Marketplace of Ideas: Theory. Am. Behav. Sci. 2021, 65, 163–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, K. Protecting Political Discourse from Online Manipulation: The International Human Rights Law Framework. Available online: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/issues/religion/cfi-ga76/submissions/2022-12-19/submission-freedom-thought-ga76-others-katejones-2_0.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2025).
- Ortiz, S.M. Trolling as a collective form of harassment: An inductive study of how online users understand trolling. Soc. Media + Soc. 2020, 6, 205630512092851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferrara, E.; Varol, O.; Davis, C.; Menczer, F.; Flammini, A. The rise of social bots. Commun. ACM 2016, 59, 96–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woolley, S.C.; Howard, P.N. Political communication, computation propaganda, and autonomous agents. Int. J. Commun. 2016, 10, 20. Available online: https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/6298 (accessed on 20 May 2025).
- Ratkiewicz, J.; Conover, M.; Meiss, M.; Gonçalves, B.; Flammini, A.; Menczer, F. Detecting and tracking political abuse in social media. Proc. Int. AAAI Conf. Web Soc. Media 2011, 5, 297–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Treré, E. The dark side of digital politics: Understanding the algorithmic manufacturing of consent and the hindering of online dissidence. IDS Bull. 2016, 47, 127–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kollanyi, B.; Howard, P.N.; Samuel, W.C. Bots and Automation over Twitter During the First US Presidential Debate. Available online: https://demtech.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2016/10/Data-Memo-First-Presidential-Debate.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2025).
- Hyzen, A.; Van den Bulck, H. Digital meme culture between political campaigning and participatory propaganda: Blurring the boundaries. In The Routledge Handbook of Political Campaigning; Lilleker, D., Jackson, D., Kalsnes, B., Mellado, C., Trevisan, F., Veneti, A., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2024; pp. 215–228. [Google Scholar]
- Lanuza, J.M.H.; Ong, J.C. From disinformation campaigns to influence operations: New campaign tactics and legacy media bypass in the Philippines. In The Routledge Handbook of Political Campaigning; Lilleker, D., Jackson, D., Kalsnes, B., Mellado, C., Trevisan, F., Veneti, A., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2024; pp. 185–198. [Google Scholar]
- Thorson, K.; Wells, C. Curated flows: A framework for mapping media exposure in the digital age. Commun. Theory 2016, 26, 309–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maréchal, N. Networked authoritarianism and the geopolitics of information: Understanding Russian internet policy. Media Commun. 2017, 5, 29–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Larrondo-Ureta, A.; Meso-Ayerdi, K. Political communication evolution in the digital hybrid media system: Innovation and experimentation as strategies towards a new paradigm. In Digital Political Communication Strategies; García-Orosa, B., Ed.; The Palgrave Macmillan Series in International Political Communication; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 43–58. [Google Scholar]
- Sajad, M.B. Political Communications and Disinformation: The Flow of Unchecked Information and Internet Governance in the 21st Century. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4591045 (accessed on 31 March 2025).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Papathanassopoulos, S.; Giannouli, I. Political Communication in the Age of Platforms. Encyclopedia 2025, 5, 77. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia5020077
Papathanassopoulos S, Giannouli I. Political Communication in the Age of Platforms. Encyclopedia. 2025; 5(2):77. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia5020077
Chicago/Turabian StylePapathanassopoulos, Stylianos, and Iliana Giannouli. 2025. "Political Communication in the Age of Platforms" Encyclopedia 5, no. 2: 77. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia5020077
APA StylePapathanassopoulos, S., & Giannouli, I. (2025). Political Communication in the Age of Platforms. Encyclopedia, 5(2), 77. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia5020077