Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Discourse of Complaining on Social Networks in Russia: Cumulative Opinions vs. Decentering of Institutions

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Networks in the Global World VI (NetGloW 2022)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems ((LNNS,volume 663))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Social networks have become a platform for expressing dissatisfaction, support, and social tensions in general. During the pandemic of COVID-19, the audiences’ need to find solutions and answers has put heavy burden on authorities and professional journalists. The study addresses the question of to what extent a social network can provide space for deliberation in tackling social issues that organizes the public dialogue for problem solving. Also, we ask whether traditional media and political actors preserve their important roles as major deliberative actors. For answering these questions, we have conducted three-step research. On the first stage, we qualitatively assessed the complaints and responses to them in media-like accounts on VK.com and Instagram, local media, and official portals, as well as conducted 21 structured interviews to contextualize the practice on online complaining in Russia. Then, we collected user comments to posts that contained complaints from 63 accounts on VK.com in 21 regions of November 2020 and February 2021. Via textual analysis, we defined the dominant topics of complaints and the dominant discourse around complaints, as well as the potential for growth of conflict or possible harmonization of discussions. By expert opinions, local media and authorities react differently to the increase in the intensity of complaints. They feel pressure from the platform audiences to increase their involvement. Despite this, neither the nature of the discussions nor the roles of media and authorities’ accounts help turn the discussions into deliberative spaces. We have discovered an institutional vacuum in the VK.com discussions, as well as nearly complete absence of deliberative discussion patterns. More often, user comments produce cumulative opinion spaces within complaint-containing commenting, quite in opposition to the normative view of deliberation processes on social media. The result of smoothing out emotions is a fragmented, even if intense, discourse where solutions are not discussed.

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 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Almond, G.A., Powell, G.B.: Comparative politics: A developmental approach. Little Brown, Boston, MA (1966)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Jangdal, L.: Local democracy and the media: can hyperlocals fill the gap? Nordicom Review 40(s2), 69–83 (2019). https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2019-0027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Dovbysh, O.: New gatekeepers in town: how groups in social networking sites influence information flows in Russia’s provinces. Soc. Media Soc. 7(2), 1–11 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211013253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Zubarevich, N.: Chetyre Rossii (Four Russias). Vedomosti, 30 Dec 2011 (2011). https://www.vedomosti.ru/opinion/articles/2011/12/30/chetyre_rossii

  5. 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 

  6. Schroth, F., Glatte, H., Kaiser, S., Heidingsfelder, M.: Participatory agenda setting as a process — of people, ambassadors and translation: a case study of participatory agenda setting in rural areas. Euro. J. Futures Res. 8(1), 1–12 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40309-020-00165-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Coleman, S., Freelon, D.: Handbook of digital politics. Edward Elgar Publishing (2015). https://doi.org/10.4337/9781782548768

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. Bodrunova, S.S.: Contributive action: socially mediated activities of Russians during the COVID-19 lockdown. Media Int. Aust. 177(1), 139–143 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X20953536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Nielsen, R.K.: News media, search engines and social networking sites as varieties of online gatekeepers. In: Rethinking Journalism Again (pp. 93–108). Routledge (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gunarathne, P., Rui, H., Seidmann, A.: Whose and what social media complaints have happier resolutions? Evidence from Twitter. J. Manage. Inf. Syst. 34(2), 314–340 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2017.1334465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hogreve, J., Eller, T., Firmhofer, N.: When the whole world is listening – an exploratory investigation of individual complaints on social media platforms. In: Bruhn, M.; Hadwich, K.; Eds. Dienstleistungsmanagement und Social Media, Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden, Germany, pp. 515–540 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-01248-9_23

  12. Swart, J., Groot Kormelink, T., Costera Meijer, I., Broersma, M.: Advancing a radical audience turn in journalism fundamental dilemmas for journalism studies. Digital Journalism 10(1), 8–22 (2022)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Wahl-Jorgensen, K.: News production, ethnography, and power: on the challenges of newsroom-centricity. In: Bird, S.E. (ed.) The Anthropology of News and Journalism: Global Perspectives. Indiana University Press, Bloomington (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bodrunova, S.S., Litvinenko, A.A., Blekanov, I.S.: Please follow us: media roles in Twitter discussions in the United States, Germany, France, and Russia. Journal. Pract. 12(2), 177–203 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Smoliarova, A.S., Bodrunova, S.S., Blekanov, I.S.: Politicians driving online discussions: are institutionalized influencers top twitter users? In: Kompatsiaris, I., et al. (eds.) INSCI 2017. LNCS, vol. 10673, pp. 132–147. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70284-1_11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Bodrunova, S., Smoliarova, A., Achkasova, V., Blekanov, I.: Who is to blame? Patterns of blaming and responsibility assignment in networked discussions on immigrants in Russia and Germany. J. Soc. Policy Stud. 16(4), 627–644 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Chen, J.: Useful complaints: how petitions assist decentralized authoritarianism in China. Lexington Books: Lanham, MD, p. 204 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Stockmann, D., Gallagher, M.E.: Remote control: how the media sustain authoritarian rule in China. Comp. Pol. Stud. 44(4), 436–467 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Toepfl, F., Litvinenko, A.: Transferring control from the backend to the frontend: a comparison of the discourse architectures of comment sections on news websites across the post-Soviet world. New Media Soc., pp. 1–18 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817733710

  20. 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 

  21. Bodrunova, S.S., Blekanov, I.S.: A self-critical public: cumulation of opinion on Belarusian oppositional YouTube before the 2020 protests. Soc. Media Soc. 7(4), 205630512110634 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211063464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Toepfl, F.: Comparing authoritarian publics: the benefits and risks of three types of publics for autocrats. Commun. Theory 30(2), 105–125 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Toepfl, F., Litvinenko, A.: Critically commenting publics as authoritarian input institutions: how citizens comment beneath their news in Azerbaijan, Russia, and Turkmenistan. J. Stud. 22(4), 475–495 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2021.1882877

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Litvinenko, A., Toepfl, F.: The (non-)adoption of participatory newsroom innovations under authoritarian rule: how comment sections diffused in Belarus and Azerbaijan (1998–2017). Digit. Journal. 6(7), 1–22 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2021.1888137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Internet control through ownership: the case of Russia. Post-Soviet Affairs 33(1), 16–33 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/1060586X.2015.1121712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Bodrunova, S.S.; Litvinenko, A.A.: Four Russias in communication: fragmentation of the Russian public sphere in the 2010 s. In: Dobek-Ostrowska, B., Glowacki, M.; Eds. Democracy and media in Central and Eastern Europe 25 years on, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 63–79 (2015). https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-04452-2

  27. 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). https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v9i1.3469

  28. Litvinenko, A., Toepfl, F.: The “gardening” of an authoritarian public at large: how Russia’s ruling elites transformed the country’s media landscape after the 2011/12 protests “For Fair Elections.” Publizistik 64(2), 225–240 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11616-019-00486-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Litvinenko, A., Nigmatullina, K.: Local dimensions of media freedom: a comparative analysis of news media landscapes in 33 Russian regions. Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization 28(3), 393–418 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Nigmatullina, K., Rodossky, N.: Pandemic discussions in VKontakte: hopes and fears. In: Meiselwitz, G. (ed.) HCII 2021. LNCS, vol. 12775, pp. 407–423. Springer, Cham (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77685-5_30

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  31. Mediascope WEB-Index. https://webindex.mediascope.net/report/general-statitics?byGeo=1&byDevice=3&byDevice=1&byDevice=2&byMonth=202005&id=16571&id=88155&id=156688&id=12808. Accessed 26 July 2021

  32. Smoliarova, A., Bodrunova, S.S.: InstaMigrants: global ties and mundane publics of Russian-speaking bloggers with migration background. Soc. Media Soc. 7(3), 205630512110338 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211033809

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Nepiyushchikh, D., Blekanov, I.: Data crawling approaches for user discussion analysis on web 2.0 platforms. In: Smirnov, N., Golovkina, A. (eds.) SCP 2020. LNCISP, pp. 793–800. Springer, Cham (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87966-2_91

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research has been supported in full by the project ‘Center for International Media Research’ by St. Petersburg State University, project #92564627.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russia

    Kamilla Nigmatullina, Svetlana S. Bodrunova, Nikolay Rodossky & Dmitry Nepiyushchikh

Authors
  1. Kamilla Nigmatullina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Svetlana S. Bodrunova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nikolay Rodossky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dmitry Nepiyushchikh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kamilla Nigmatullina .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for German and European Studies, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany

    Artem Antonyuk

  2. Department of Social Statistics, School of Social Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

    Nikita Basov

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Nigmatullina, K., Bodrunova, S.S., Rodossky, N., Nepiyushchikh, D. (2023). Discourse of Complaining on Social Networks in Russia: Cumulative Opinions vs. Decentering of Institutions. In: Antonyuk, A., Basov, N. (eds) Networks in the Global World VI. NetGloW 2022. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 663. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29408-2_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation