Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Incivility Balanced? Civil vs. Uncivil Speech in Online Political Discussions as Dependent on Political Parallelism

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Pervasive Knowledge and Collective Intelligence on Web and Social Media (PerSOM 2022)

  • 216 Accesses

Abstract

This paper explores the balance between civility and incivility in Russian online political discussions in their relation to platform-based political parallelism. So far, the deliberative quality of communication on online forums and social networks has been seen as dependent on discussion structure, contextual factors, user traits and intentions, and textual features of the discussions, especially negative ones like incivility. However, of the latter, interdependence of (in)civility patterns and political parallelism of media where the discussions take place have not been explored well. Moreover, while incivility is studied extensively, its balancing practice, namely explicit civility and respect, usually escapes scholarly attention. In Russia, political discussions, media, and even platforms demonstrate strong political polarization, forming a peculiar picture of political parallelism. Polarization fuels political hostility that may have civil and uncivil patterns influencing the way of networked talk. To explore to what extent political positioning of the discussion milieus, e.g., media / media accounts where discussions take place, alters the volume and the nature of political (in)civility, we explore two cases, the first used as a baseline one and the second as the target one. For this, we use discourse analysis and descriptive statistics to show that incivility in the Russian-language online discussions is partly compensated by explicit civility, while remaining dominant in the fabric of political discussions. Moreover, we show the difference in the volume and nature of (in)civility within the comment sections of oppositional and pro-state media. Our results suggest hint to the ‘free speech vs. hate speech’ dilemma, as the comments in the oppositional media appear to be more hostile, while those on the pro-state accounts look less polluted by aggression.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Pfetsch, B.: Dissonant and disconnected public spheres as challenge for political communication research. Javnost – The Public 25, 1–2, 59–65 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bodrunova, S.: Social media and political dissent in Russia and Belarus: an introduction to the special issue. Social Media + Society 7(4), 20563051211063470 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bodrunova, S.S.: Practices of cumulative deliberation: a meta-review of the recent research findings. In: Chugunov, A.V., Janssen, M., Khodachek, I., Misnikov, Y., Trutnev, D. (eds.) EGOSE 2021. CCIS, vol. 1529, pp. 89–104. Springer, Cham (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04238-6_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Bodrunova, S.S., Blekanov, I.S., Maksimov, A.: Public opinion dynamics in online discussions: cumulative commenting and micro-level spirals of silence. In: Meiselwitz, G. (ed.) HCII 2021. LNCS, vol. 12774, pp. 205–220. Springer, Cham (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77626-8_14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Moy, P., Gastil, J.: Predicting deliberative conversation: the impact of discussion networks, media use, and political cognitions. Polit. Commun. 23(4), 443–460 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Stromer-Galley, J.: Measuring deliberation’s content: a coding scheme. J. Public Deliberation 3, 1–35 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Jamieson, K., Hardy, B.: What is civil engaged argument and why does aspiring to it matter? In: Shea, D.M., Fiorina, M. (eds.) Can We Talk? The Rise of Rude, Nasty, Stubborn Politics, pp. 27– 40. Pearson Press, Upper Saddle River (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Boatright, R., Shaffer, T., Sobieraj, S., Young, D. (eds.): A Crisis of Civility?: Political Discourse and Its Discontents, 1st edn. Routledge (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kurtz, H.: Hannity-Ellison dustup shows our broken politics, CNN (2013). http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/01/opinion/kurtz-hannity-ellison-dust-up

  10. Boyd, R.: The value of civility? Urban Stud. 43, 863–878 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980600676105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Papacharissi, Z.: Democracy online: civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media Soc. 6(2), 259–283 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Volkovskii, D.: Experience of applied research in online deliberation: an analysis of civility in American online discussions. In: International Conference “Internet and Modern Society”, IMS 2021, St. Petersburg, Russia, 24–26 June 2021, pp. 199–205 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Filatova, O., Volkovskii, D.: Online deliberation on social media as a form of public dialogue in Russia. In: International Conference “Internet and Modern Society”, IMS 2021, St. Petersburg, Russia, 24–26 June 2021, pp. 146–156 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Volkovskii, D., Filatova, O.: Influence of media type on political E-discourse: analysis of Russian and American discussions on social media. In: Chugunov, A.V., Janssen, M., Khodachek, I., Misnikov, Y., Trutnev, D. (eds.) EGOSE 2021. CCIS, vol. 1529, pp. 119–131. Springer, Cham (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04238-6_10

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Herbst, S.: Rude Democracy: Civility and Incivility in American Politics. Temple University Press, Philadelphia (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Rowe, I.: Civility 2.0: a comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion. Inf. Commun. Soc. 18, 121–138 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sobieraj, S., Berry, J.: From incivility to outrage: political discourse in blogs, talk radio, and cable news. Polit. Commun. 28, 19–41 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Coe, K., Kenski, K., Rains, S.: Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. J. Commun. 64, 659–679 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Pluzer-Sarno, A.: Materny slovar’ kak fenomen russkoy kultury [Mat vocabulary as a phenomenon of Russian culture]. Novaya russkaya kniga, Moscow (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Malyuga, E.N., Orlova, S.N.: Theoretical concepts and notions of Euphemy. In: Malyuga, E.N., Orlova, S.N. (eds.) Linguistic Pragmatics of Intercultural Professional and Business Communication, pp. 79–103. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68744-5_3

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Salimovsky, V.A., Ermakova, L.M.: Ekstremistskiy diskurs v massovoy kommunikatsii Runeta[Extremist discourse in Runet mass communication]. Rossiyskaya i zarubezhnaya filologia 3(15), 71–80 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Vendil Pallin, C.: Internet control through ownership: the case of Russia. Post-Soviet Affairs 33(1), 16–33 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bodrunova, S.S., Litvinenko, A., Blekanov, I., Nepiyushchikh, D.: Constructive aggression? Multiple roles of aggressive content in political discourse on Russian YouTube. Media Commun. 9, 181–194 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Massaro, T.M.: Equality and freedom of expression: the hate speech dilemma. William & Mary Law Rev. 32 (1990). https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1923&context=wmlr

  25. Bodrunova, S., Blekanov, I.: A self-critical public: cumulation of opinion on Belarusian oppositional YouTube before the 2020 protests. Soc. Media + Soc. 7(1), 1–13 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Mancini, P.: Instrumentalization of the media vs. political parallelism. Chin. J. Commun. 5(3), 262–280 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. De Albuquerque, A.: Political parallelism. In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Bodrunova, S., Litvinenko, A.: Fragmentation of society and media hybridisation in today’s Russia: how Facebook voices collective demands. Zhurnal Issledovanii Sotsial’noi Politiki (J. Soc. Policy Res.) 14(1), 113–124 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Bodrunova, S.S., Litvinenko, A.A., Blekanov, I.S.: Influencers on the Russian Twitter: institutions vs. people in the discussion on migrants. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Electronic Governance and Open Society: Challenges in Eurasia, pp. 212–222 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Litvinenko, A.: YouTube as alternative television in Russia: political videos during the presidential election campaign 2018. Soc. Media + Soc. 7(1), 2056305120984455 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Misnikov, Y.: Public Activism Online in Russia: Citizens’ Participation in Web-based Interactive Political Debate in the Context of Civil Society. Development and Transition to Democracy: Ph.D. thesis … Ph. D./Leeds (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Filatova, O., Kabanov, Y., Misnikov, Y.: Public deliberation in Russia: deliberative quality, rationality and interactivity of the online media discussions. Media Commun. 7(3), 133–144 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Bodrunova, S.S.: The boundaries of context: contextual knowledge in research on networked discussions. In: Antonyuk, A., Basov, N. (eds.) NetGloW 2020. LNNS, vol. 181, pp. 165–179. Springer, Cham (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64877-0_11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  34. Habermas, J.: Between Facts and Norms. Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Dahlberg, L.: The Internet and democratic discourse: exploring the prospects of online deliberative forums for extending the public sphere. Inf. Commun. Soc. 4(4), 615–633 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Delli Carpini, M., Cook, F., Jacobs, L.: Public deliberation, discursive participation, and civic engagement: a review of the empirical literature. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 7, 315–344 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Gastil, J., Deess, E., Weiser, P.: Civic awakening in the jury room: a test of the connection between jury deliberation and political participation. J. Polit. 64, 585–595 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Min, S.-J.: Online vs. face-to-face deliberation: effects on civic engagement. J. Comput.-Mediated Commun. 12, 1369–1387 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Laden, A.: Two Concepts of Civility. A Crisis of Civility? Routledge, New York (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Stuckey, M., O’Rourke, S.: Civility, democracy, and national politics. Rhetoric Public Aff. 17(4), Winter 2014, 711–736 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Zurn, C.: Political civility: another illusionistic ideal. Public Aff. Q. 27(4), 341–368 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Reiheld, A.: Asking too much? Civility vs. pluralism. Philos. Top. 41(2), 59–78 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Rood, C.: Rhetorics of civility: theory, pedagogy, and practice in speaking and writing textbooks. Rhetor. Rev. 32(3), 331–348 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Mutz, D.: Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative Versus Participatory Democracy. Cambridge University Press, New York (2006)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  45. Mutz, D., Reeves, B.: The new videomalaise: effects of televised incivility on political trust. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 99, 1–15 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Ng, E., Detenber, B.: The impact of synchronicity and civility in online political discussions on perceptions and intentions to participate. J. Comput.-Mediated Commun. 10(3) (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Benson, T.: The rhetoric of civility: power, authenticity, and democracy. J. Contemp. Rhetoric 1(1), 22–30 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Stryker, R., Conway, B., Danielson, J.: What is political incivility? Commun. Monogr. 83, 535–556 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Vollhardt, J., Coutin, M., Staub, E., Weiss, G., Deflander, J.: Deconstructing hate speech in the DRC: a psycho-logical media sensitization campaign. J. Hate Stud. 5, 15–36 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Miller, M., Vaccari, C.: Digital threats to democracy: comparative lessons and possible remedies. Int. J. Press/Polit. 25(3), 333–356 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Anderson, A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D., Xenos, M., Ladwig, P.: The “nasty effect:” online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 19(3), 373–387 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Hmielowski, J., Hutchens, M., Cicchirillo, V.: Living in an age of online incivility: examining the conditional indirect effects of online discussion on political flaming. Inf. Commun. Soc. (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  53. Hwang, H., Kim, Y., Huh, C.: Seeing is believing: effects of uncivil online debate on political polarization and expectations of deliberation. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 58, 621–633 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Kim, Y., Kim, Y.: Incivility on Facebook and political polarization: the mediating role of seeking further comments and negative emotion. Comput. Hum. Behav. 99, 219–227 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Gervais, B.: Following the news? Reception of uncivil partisan media and the use of incivility in political expression. Polit. Commun. 31, 564–583 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Han, S.-H., Brazeal, L.: Playing nice: modeling civility in online political discussions. Commun. Res. Rep. 32, 20–28 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. McClurg, S.: Political disagreement in context: the conditional effect of neighborhood context, disagreement and political talk on electoral participation. Polit. Behav. 28, 349–366 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Nigmatullina, K., Rodossky, N.: Social media engagement anxiety: triggers in news agenda. In: Meiselwitz, G. (ed.) Social Computing and Social Media: Design, User Experience and Impact: SCSM 2022, pp. 345–357. Springer, Cham (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05061-9_25

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  59. Casteltrione, I., Pieczka, M.: Mediating the contributions of Facebook to political participation in Italy and the UK: the role of media and political landscapes. Palgrave Commun. 4(1), 1–11 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Gilbert, E., Bergstrom, T., Karahalios, K.: Blogs are echo chambers: blogs are echo chambers. In: 2009 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 1–10. IEEE (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  61. Toepfl, F., Piwoni, E.: Public spheres in interaction: comment sections of news websites as counterpublic spaces. J. Commun. 65(3), 465–488 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Savin, N.: Does media matter? Variation of VK and Facebook deliberative capacities (evidence from discussions on the Crimea crisis). Commun. Media Des. 4(3), 119–139 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  63. Ministerstvo ekonomicheskogo razvitia Rossiyskoi Federazii. SP 42.13330.2011 Gradostoitelstvo. Planirovka i zastroika gorodskih i selskih poselenii. Aktualizirovannaya redaczia SNiP 2.07.01–89. [Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation. SR 42.13330.2011 Urban development. Planning and building of urban and rural settlements. Updated edition 2.07.01–89] (2011)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research was supported by the Russian Science Foundation grant No. 22-18-00364 «Institutional Transformation of E-Participation Governance in Russia: a Study of Regional Peculiarities» (https://rscf.ru/project/22-18-00364/) and grant No. 21-18-00454 «Mediatized Communication and Modern Deliberative Process» (https://www.rscf.ru/project/21-18-00454/). The case of verdict court to A. Navalny was done in terms of grant No. 22-18-00364, the case of pension reform – grant No. 21-18-00454.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia

    Daniil Volkovskii

  2. ITMO University, Saint Petersburg, Russia

    Daniil Volkovskii

  3. Saint-Petersburg State University, Saint Petersburg, Russia

    Svetlana Bodrunova

Authors
  1. Daniil Volkovskii
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Svetlana Bodrunova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniil Volkovskii .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. ICAR-CNR, University of Calabria, Rende, Italy

    Carmela Comito

  2. University of Calabria, Rende, Italy

    Domenico Talia

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 ICST Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Volkovskii, D., Bodrunova, S. (2023). Incivility Balanced? Civil vs. Uncivil Speech in Online Political Discussions as Dependent on Political Parallelism. In: Comito, C., Talia, D. (eds) Pervasive Knowledge and Collective Intelligence on Web and Social Media. PerSOM 2022. Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering, vol 494. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31469-8_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31469-8_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-31468-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-31469-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation