Abstract
In an effort to clean up user comment sections, news organizations have turned to Facebook, the world's largest social network site, as a way to make users more identifiable and accountable for the content they produce. It is hypothesized that users leaving comments via their Facebook profile will be less likely to engage in uncivil and impolite discussion, even when it comes to discussing politically sensitive and potentially divisive issues. By analysing the content of discussion as it occurs in response to political news content on the Washington Post Facebook, and comparing it to that which occurs on the Washington Post website where users are afforded a relatively high level of anonymity, the present study determines the extent to which Facebook increases the level of civility and impoliteness in an area of political discussion renowned for uncivil and impolite communicative behaviour. In line with earlier theories of social interaction, the paper finds that political discussion on The Washington Post website is significantly more likely to be uncivil than discussion of the same content on the Washington Post Facebook page. Moreover, the incivility and impoliteness on the Washington Post website are significantly more likely to be directed towards other participants in the discussion compared to The Washington Post Facebook page.
Acknowledgement
The author would like to thank Kathryn Simpson for her assistance during the coding process, Jennifer Stromer-Galley for her useful insights throughout and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.
Funding
This work was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council [grant number ES/I902767/1].
Notes on contributor
Ian Rowe is a PhD candidate in the School of Politics and International Relations at the University of Kent. His research is funded by the UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and focuses on the relationship between social media use and political behaviour. [email: [email protected]]