(the link is to an online page containing an abstract and metadata. The full article must be downloaded as a PDF.
Abstract
Can decentralized, digitally-enabled movements sustain solidarity over time? What is the role of digital media in such a process? Existing studies point to the tendency of such movements towards fragmentation. We focus on the case the 2019 Anti-ELAB Movement in Hong Kong and one of the primary digital platforms for mobilization, LIHKG. We argue that LIHKG users maintain the dominance of solidarity through a strategy of normative crowding out, whereby users strategically promote solidaristic rhetoric and emotions while sanctioning divisive ones. Empirically, we analyze millions of discussion posts on LIHKG with rich text and emoji data. We first document the rising trend of online solidaristic contents despite contemporaneous tactical radicalization. Regression analyses further show that such a pattern can be produced by user-driven mechanisms in sanctioning solidaristic and divisive contents. This study has implications on the role of digital media and the sustainability of decentralized collective action.
From the full article:
In the Anti-ELAB Movement, we did see decentralization and radicalization trends over time, but we did not observe either diminished commitment or internal conflict due to the establishment of solidarity norms. In other words, the tendency towards fragmentation was counterbalanced by the presence of solidarity norms. We argue that such a creation of norms is one of the affordances of digital media. Before the digital age, it would be difficult to communicate and reach consensus across different groups within decentralized movements. However, the presence of digital media breaks this difficulty. In the Anti-ELAB Movement, participants were able to make extensive communication and coordination before and after launching a protest. While such contact is unlikely to achieve complicated consensus in decision-making extensive and iterative communication exposes users to the constant (re)negotiation of the collective frames of the movement, and makes possible the emergence of new protest norms. However, we caution that the norm-generating function is an affordance rather than an essence of digital media usage.
This article, while interesting and useful, is (necessarily) limited. "Decentralization", in this article, refers to the structure of the organization IRL, not to the social platform -- which seems to be some variation on Reddit or, perhaps, Discourse. Indeed, federation of posts might have been unnecessarily dangerous at worst, irrelevant and unnecessary at best.
Since, at least on first skim, the authors don't seem to have gone deep into consideration of alternative social media models it is interesting to ask whether how it might be possible to design an online platform that moves norm-generation and consensus-negotiation further along the spectrum from "affordance" to "essence".
