El valor jurídico de la prueba caligráfica

RQ 2.3: How does Facebook contribute to British and Italian citizens’ political discussion?

Figure 15 – Facebook and Political Discussion: Main Findings

IPs slightly more active

As with the other measures of political participation used, the samples’ scores for political discussion were compared across the three considered channels. higher scores (i.e., moderate) than the BS (i.e., limited).

 The main difference between these scores and the other measures of political participation relates to how the scores were distributed across the channels. Both

samples displayed the lowest possible level of Internet political discussion, while scoring the same with regards to Facebook and offline political discussion.

The quantitative results were supported by the qualitative data. Participants observed that Facebook frequently replaced other online platforms, in particular in the IS, but did not become a substitute for offline discussion. In relation to this last point, Facebook operated as an additional discussion venue for individuals already interested in politics. These participants deemed Facebook a valuable tool that can increase the frequency of political discussion. Furthermore, interviewees identified a number of possible reasons behind the capacity Facebook has for promoting political discussion: the flexibility of Facebook – it can be accessed throughout the day from both computers and mobiles, enabling users to fit political discussions into their daily schedules (another reference to the flexibility of Facebook as a political platform is made in Section 5.1.2); the constant exposure to political information and news shared by politically interested Facebook friends; and the expansion and diversification of the discussion network.

[Flexibility and exposure to political information]:

Alastair – BP: “I’ll say I’ve become more involved in political discussion because of [Facebook as] you can access it any time, while you are not always with people who want to have political discussions … I hang around with a lot of political friends; they constantly post articles, views and things.”

Tracey – BP: “I am much more involved with the political discussions online because [of Facebook]. [One of its advantages it is that] as soon as somebody posts an article you can go and read it and then write a response to it, whereas if you are looking at newspapers you maybe won’t remember to discuss a particular article or something that you have seen with somebody if they are not there at the time.”

[Expanding and diversifying the discussion network]:

Tracey – BP: “Because I really use Facebook as a means to stay in contact with people I no longer see, whether because they live in another country or they have moved on …[on Facebook I tend to communicate] more generally with people that actually I don’t have face-to-face contact with.”

Mario IP: “[Facebook] is a tool which opens the discussion up to people you wouldn’t have spoken with offline … it can happen that you communicate with people you don’t meet every day, but only talk to digitally.”

Antonio – IP: “[Facebook] has increased the number of people I can reach. It enabled me to build a network of relations that I didn’t have before, or only had in a limited way because I would have to travel or use the phone [to communicate with them].”

Ciro – IP: “[On Facebook] when you say something, you speak – so to say – to seven hundred people rather than to three people … When a political discussion happens on Facebook, very often people who are contacts of my interlocutors and are not my friends tend to join in.”

The expansion of the discussion network, which participants highlighted as one of the greatest affordances of this SNS in terms of political discussion, plays a crucial role with regards to the exposure to political difference, an issue addressed also on the previous section. In this respect, participants recognised that by discussing politics with a wider range of people, often including people they would not normally have any interaction with, they tended to be exposed on Facebook to more varied political views than they would be offline, and on other Internet platforms such as forums or discussion lists.

[A more politically diverse discussion network]:

Rachel – BP: “[On Facebook I] probably discuss [politics] with a slightly different population [from] when I discussed within the sort of closed [Internet] forums … I think Facebook has broadened [the discussion in comparison to] these sorts of closed forums and closed discussion lists [as there is a] much wider breadth of people.”

Alastair – BP: “[On Facebook] I tend to comment on friends’ statuses and their friends can get involved, especially if it’s a page or an event because it’s so public and there is lots of different views coming in. So [in these occasions] I talk to people with more different views than myself.”

Martina – IP: “On Facebook you tend more [than offline] to interact with people who think differently from you. On the other hand, in a political meeting taking place outside the Internet, meeting people face-to-face, it’s clear you’ll meet people who think like you.”

Luigi – IP: “Offline discussion, with some exceptions, is often limited to persons who think like you, whereas online you have a global village where you can interact with a bigger and more diverse range of people.”

However, despite the fact that participants acknowledged the value of Facebook and the Internet as additional venues for political discussion, most of them stressed their preference for offline discussion over computer-mediated discussion. Both BPs and IPs noted the more confrontational nature of online discussion and how not being able to interpret a person’s body language or tone of voice, the way you could in a face-to-face interaction, can often lead to misunderstandings and to harsher and more aggressive dialectical exchanges. In this regard, an IP made a very interesting point and spoke of right of inclusion with reference to the limited control Facebook users have over their public conversations and on the people who can intervene.

[Limited control over discussion and its participants]:

Luca – IP: “There is a difference between face-to-face and online discussion. I would call it the right of inclusion. If I talk to an individual about politics, I wilfully chose to talk with that particular person. At some point, if another person … interferes in our discussion both of us have to agree that he can participate … Therefore, in face-to-face discussion, the participants’ control is extremely high. The problem with online discussion, which is characterised by a freer access, is that … the possibility of someone interfering is much higher ... In offline communication, I select the participants, set the tone and I can choose how to direct the conversation, [but it is] very difficult to do this online.”

[Harsher and more aggressive tones online]:

Tracey – BP: “On Facebook … I think there is a tendency that people will anticipate what the person is going to say next and then be quite aggressive in their tone, and that has happened to me before where I have been discussing something and then the person which I have been discussing [it] with has become very aggressive because I can’t see their point of view or my opinion is different from theirs.”

Callum – BP: “Face-to-face discussions are very different from online discussions.

[Online] it’s sometimes possible to be misunderstood [because these types of interactions] don’t fully include the tone of voice.”

Martina – IP: “The visual contact is important because often misunderstandings happen on the web. You don’t hear the tone of voice. For instance, I am a person who uses irony a lot and I have to be careful when I write because if I joke in a certain way and a person can’t see my face or hear the tone of my voice, he can get offended. [On Facebook] I have been targeted and people intervened in the discussions to harass me and I had to block them … I use my real name, surname, and picture but some people create fake profiles and they feel protected because they are anonymous, and know that they can offend because they will not face the consequences.”

Ciro – IP: “The communication mediated by computers and which happens through social networks [such as Facebook] exaggerates a series of dynamics which lead to confrontation. This is because when a person writes, he concentrates on replying to what has been said by the other person, without considering the facial expressions, the smiles, the natural pauses which occur in the spoken language, and therefore there is a ping pong of sharp replies which can sometimes appear harsh and stir up troubles in the long run.”

The samples thus identified the physical absence, and consequently the absence of visual and acoustic cues in conversation, as the main difference between online and offline discussions.

According to participants, such a difference can often lead to misunderstandings and confrontation. However, the physical absence in online conversation was not unanimously considered detrimental to the quality of discussion, with some participants believing that it could actually foster greater honesty and encourage participation.

[More honesty and participation in online discussion]:

Alastair – BP: “I prefer [discussing politics] online only because if you are in a discussion with someone and you do it face-to-face, it is easy to get too involved.”

Andrew – BP: “I think you can be a lot more open online ... It’s difficult to talk to people about [certain] things whereas online you can say whatever crazy [thing] you want.”

Ciro – IP: “It seems that [online] more people feel that they can express an opinion. This is due to the lack of direct contact, as if they can avoid a negative look or comment people tend to speak up more”

To conclude, similarly to all the considered measures of political participation, IPs participated slightly more than BPs in political discussions – moderate vs limited participation. The difference with the other measures was that for both BPs and IPs the

Internet was the least used venue for political discussion, while Facebook and the offline world were equivalent in terms of scores.

Interviews indicated that Facebook can contribute to political discussion by operating as an additional discussion venue for individuals already interested in politics. Facebook often replaced other online platforms, in particular in the IS, but did not become a substitute for offline discussion. Participants who used this SNS for political discussion highlighted how it could promote their participation by providing flexibility and expanding and diversifying their discussion networks. As a result, participants believed that they encountered a wider range of political views through Facebook than they would offline or through other online platforms. Despite these advantages, both BPs and IPs tended to prefer offline discussion to computer-mediated discussion. Participants stressed the benefits of body language and tone of voice as communication aids in face-to-face discussion, noting the often more confrontational nature of online discussion, in which the absence of visual and acoustic cues can often lead to misunderstandings and to harsher, more aggressive exchanges.

Nonetheless, some participants seemed to value such a physical absence arguing that it can promote honesty and encourage wider participation in political discussion.

5.3 Research Question 3 – Factors Mediating the Contributions of Facebook