Have a personal or library account? Click to login
What do we know about digital public debate? Technological affordances and democratic dilemmas Cover

What do we know about digital public debate? Technological affordances and democratic dilemmas

Open Access
|Jun 2025

References

  1. Ahmed, S. (2004). Affective economies. Social Text, 22(2), 117–139. https://doi.org/10.1215/01642472-22-2_79-117
  2. Allan, S. (2010). Journalism and its publics: The Lippmann-Dewey debate. In S. Allan (Ed.), The Routledge companion to news and journalism (1st ed.) (pp. 60–70). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203869468
  3. *Almgren, S. M., & Olsson, T. (2016). Commenting, sharing and tweeting news. Nordicom Review, 37(2), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1515/nor-2016-0018
  4. *Ampuja, M., Koivisto, J., & Väliverronen, E. (2014). Strong and weak forms of mediatization theory: A critical review. Nordicom Review, 35(S1), 111–124. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2014-0107
  5. Andersen, J. G., & Hoff, J. (2001). Democracy and citizenship in Scandinavia. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230507968
  6. *Andreassen, R. (2016). Online kinship: Social media as a site for challenging notions of gender and family. MedieKultur, 32(61), 76–92. https://doi.org/10.7146/mediekultur.v32i61.22157
  7. *Andreassen, R., Kaun, A., & Nikunen, K. (2021). Fostering the data welfare state: A Nordic perspective on datafication. Nordicom Review, 42(2), 207–223. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2021-0051
  8. Asenbaum, H. (2021). Rethinking digital democracy: From the disembodied discursive self to new materialist corporealities. Communication Theory, 31(3), 360–379. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtz033
  9. Ashcraft, K. (2021). Communication as constitutive transmission? An encounter with affect. Communication Theory, 31(4), 571–592. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtz027
  10. *Askanius, T. (2021). “I just want to be the friendly face of national socialism”: The turn to civility in the cultural expressions of neo-Nazism in Sweden. Nordicom Review, 42(S1), 17–35. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2021-0004
  11. *Askanius, T., & Hartley, J. M. (2019). Framing gender justice. Nordicom Review, 40(2), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2019-0022
  12. *Backholm, K., Ruohonen, H., & Strandberg, K. (2024). Online discussion threads as promotors of citizen democracy: Current opportunities and challenges for small- and medium-sized media organizations in Finland. Nordicon Review, 45(S1), 173–192. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2024-0012
  13. *Baggesen, R. H. (2014). Augmenting the agora: Media and civic engagement in museums. MedieKultur, 30(56), 117–131. https://doi.org/10.7146/mediekultur.v30i56.8964
  14. Bakardjieva, M. (2012). Mundane citizenship: New media and civil society in Bulgaria. Europe-Asia Studies, 64(8), 1356–1374. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2012.712247
  15. *Baltz, A. (2020). A longitudinal analysis of Swedish local governments on Facebook: A visualisation of communication. Nordicom Review, 41(2), 147–162. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2020-0020
  16. *Bechmann, A. (2019). Inequality in posting behaviour over time: A study of Danish Facebook users. Nordicom Review, 40(1), 31–49. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2019-0012
  17. Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Duke University Press.
  18. Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2012). The logic of connective action. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 739–768. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.670661
  19. *Bhroin, N. N., Sand, S., & Rasmussen, T. (2021). Indigeneous journalism, media innovation, and social change: A review of previous research and a call for more critical approaches. Nordicom Review, 42(2), 185–206. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2021-0050
  20. *Blaagaard, B., & Roslyng, M. M. (2022). Rethinking digital activism: The deconstruction, inclusion, and expansion of the activist body. MedieKultur, 38(72), 45–64. https://doi.org/10.7146/mk.v38i72.125721
  21. Bodó, B. (2021). Mediated trust: A theoretical framework to address the trustworthiness of technological trust mediators. New Media & Society, 23(9), 2668–2690. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820939
  22. *Bolin, N., Grusell, M., & Nord, L. (2024). Second thoughts on digital first: Exploring the development of election campaigns among Swedish political parties, 2010–2022. Nordicom Review, 45(1), 15–35. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2024-0006
  23. boyd, d. (2010). Social network sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, and implications. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites (pp. 39–58). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203876527
  24. *Brems, M. K. (2024). Who are the users of Danish alternative media? A survey study on the prevalence of alternative news use in Denmark and profiles of the users. Nordicom Review, 45(1), 81–113. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2024-0014
  25. Bruns, A. (2023). From “the” public sphere to a network of publics: Towards an empirically founded model of contemporary public communication spaces. Communication Theory, 33(2-3), 70–81. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtad007
  26. *Bruns, A., & Enli, G. (2018). The Norwegian Twittersphere: Structure and dynamics. Nordicom Review, 39(1), 129–148. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2018-0006
  27. *Bruns, A., & Moon, B. (2019). One day in the life of a national Twittersphere. Nordicom Review, 40(S1), 11–30. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2019-0011
  28. Bucher, T. (2017). The algorithmic imaginary: Exploring the ordinary affects of Facebook algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1154086
  29. Bucher, T., & Helmond, A. (2018). The affordances of social media platforms. In J. Burgess, A. Marwick, & T. Poell (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social media (pp. 233–253). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473984066
  30. *Cermak-Sassenrath, D. (2018). On political activism in digital games. MedieKultur, 34(64), 87–115. https://doi.org/10.7146/mediekultur.v34i64.96924
  31. Chaput, C. (2010). Rhetorical circulation in late capitalism: Neoliberalism and the overdetermination of affective energy. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 43(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.43.1.0001
  32. *Christensen-Strynø, M. B. (2016). Mainstreaming and misfitting: Exploring disability and its intersection with gender in online disability awareness-raising videos. MedieKultur, 32(61), 58–75. https://doi.org/10.7146/mediekultur.v32i61.22387
  33. *Christiansen, L. B., & Heiselberg, M. H. (2022). When we shine, we shine together: A carnivalesque reading of affective solidarity among Danish fat-accepting Instagrammers. MedieKultur, 38(72), 28–44. https://doi.org/10.7146/mk.v38i72.129079
  34. Dahlberg, L. (2011). Re-constructing digital democracy: An outline of four “positions”. New Media & Society, 13(6), 855–872. https://doi.org/10.1177/146144481038956
  35. Dahlgren, P. (2006). Doing citizenship: The cultural origins of civic agency in the public sphere. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 9(3), 267–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549406066073
  36. Dahlgren, P. (2018). Media, knowledge, and trust: The deepening epistemic crisis of democracy. Javnost – the Public, 25(1-2), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2018.1418819
  37. *Dahlgren, P. M. (2021). A critical review of filter bubbles and a comparison with selective exposure. Nordicom Review, 42(1), 15–33. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2021-0002
  38. Dahlman, S., Gulbrandsen, I. T., & Just, S. N. (2021). Algorithms as organizational figuration: The sociotechnical arrangements of a fintech start-up. Big Data & Society, 8(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211026702
  39. *Dahlman, S., Just, S. N., Munk Petersen, L., Valiant Lantz, P. M., & Würtz Kristiansen, N. (2023). Datafied female health: Sociotechnical imaginaries of femtech in Danish public discourse. MedieKultur, 39(74), 105–126. https://doi.org/10.7146/mk.v39i74.133900
  40. *Damkjær, M. S., Gammelby, A. K., Johansen, S. L., & Mahnke, M. S. (2021). Struggling with technology: Perspectives on everyday life. Nordicom Review, 42(4), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2021-0037
  41. Dean, J. (2003). Why the net is not a public sphere. Constellations, 10(1), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.00315
  42. Dean, J. (2019). Communicative capitalism and revolutionary form. Millennium, 47(3), 326–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829819840624
  43. Deseriis, M. (2021). Rethinking the digital democratic affordance and its impact on political representation: Toward a new framework. New Media & Society, 23(8), 2452–2473. https://doi.org/10.1177/146144482092967
  44. *Dmitrow-Devold, K. (2017). Performing the self in the mainstream: Norwegian girls in blogging. Nordicom Review, 38(2), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1515/nor-2016-0391
  45. *Ekman, M. (2014). The dark side of online activism: Swedish right-wing extremist video activism on YouTube. MedieKultur, 30(56), 79–99. https://doi.org/10.7146/mediekultur.v30i56.8967
  46. *Ekman, M., & Widholm, A. (2024). Political communication as television news: Party-produced news of the Sweden Democrats during the 2022 election. Nordicom Review, 45(1), 66–91. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2024-0008
  47. *Ekström, M. (2023). Authoritarianism in the discourse of online forums: A study of its articulation in the Swedish context. Nordicom Review, 44(2), 194–216. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2023-0011
  48. *Elgesem, D. (2019). The meaning of links: On the interpretation of hyperlinks in the study of polarization in blogging about climate change. Nordicom Review, 40(1), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2019-0014
  49. *Engebretsen, M. (2023). Communicating health advice on social media: A multimodal case study. MedieKultur, 39(74), 164–184. https://doi.org/10.7146/mk.v39i74.134085
  50. Ervasti, H., Fridberg, T., Hjerm, M., Ringdal, K., & Kangas, O. (2008). The Nordic model. In H. Ervasti, T. Fridberg, M. Hjerm, & K. Ringdal (Eds.), Nordic social attitudes in a European perspective (pp. 1–21). Edward Elgar.
  51. *Farjam, M., Bruhn, T., Gustofsson, N., & Segesten, A. D. (2024). The uses of the term polarisation in Swedish newspapers, 2010–2021. Nordicom Review, 45(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2024-0002
  52. *Farkas, J., & Schousboe, S. (2024). Facts, values, and the epistemic authority of journalism: How journalists use and define the terms fake news, junk news, misinformation, and disinformation. Nordicom Review, 45(1), 137–157. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2024-0016
  53. *Farkas, J., & Schwartz, S. A. (2018). Please like, comment and share our campaign! How social media managers for Danish political parties perceive user-generated content. Nordicom Review, 39(2), 19–33. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2018-0008
  54. *Flensburg, S., & Lai, S. S., (2020a). Comparing digital communication systems: An empirical framework for analysing the political economy of digital infrastructures. Nordicom Review, 41(2), 127–145. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2020-0019
  55. Flensburg, S., & Lai, S. S. (2020b). Mapping digital communication systems: Infrastructures, markets, and policies as regulatory forces. Media, Culture & Society, 42(5), 692–710. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443719876533
  56. *Friis, J. A. (2022). Mellem underholdende kedsomhed og bedøvende overstimulering: Affektive rytmer i oplevelsen af hashtag-fænomenet #ProudBoys på Twitter [Between entertaining boredom and numbing overstimulation: Affective rhythms and experiences of the hashtag phenomenon #ProudBoys on Twitter]. MedieKultur, 38(72), 6–27. https://doi.org/10.7146/mk.v38i72.125739
  57. *Gelfgren, S. (2015). Why does the archbishop not tweet? Nordicom Review, 36(1), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1515/nor-2015-0009
  58. Gibson, J. J. (2015). The ecological approach to visual perception. Psychology Press. (Original work published 1979)
  59. Gillespie, T. (2014). The relevance of algorithms. In T. Gillespie, P. J. Boczkowski, & K. A. Foot (Eds.), Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society (pp. 167–193). The MIT Press.
  60. Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the internet: Platforms, content moderations, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press.
  61. *Givskov, C., & Trenz, H.-J. (2014). Civic engagement through mainstream online newspapers: Possibilities and shortcomings. MedieKultur, 30(56), 44–60. https://doi.org/10.7146/mediekultur.v30i56.16969
  62. *Grønning, A., & Sandberg, H. (2023). Introduction: The entanglements of media and health in everyday life. MedieKultur, 39(74), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.7146/mk.v39i74.136096
  63. *Guðmundsson, B. (2019). Logics of the Icelandic hybrid media system: Snapchat and media-use before the 2016 and 2017 Alting elections. Nordicom Review, 40(1), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2019-0001
  64. Gulbrandsen, I. T., & Just, S. N. (2016). In the wake of new media: Connecting the who with the how of strategizing communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 10(4), 223–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2016.1150281
  65. Gulbrandsen, I. T., & Just, S. N. (2020). Strategizing communication: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). Samfundslitteratur.
  66. Gunkel, D. (2019). The medium of truth: Media studies in the post-truth era. Review of Communication, 19(4), 309–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2019.1667015
  67. *Haanshuus, B. P., & Ihlebæk, K. A. (2021). Recontextualising the news. Nordicom Review, 42(1), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2021-0005
  68. *Haastrup, H. K. (2018). Hermione’s feminist book club: Celebrity activism and cultural critique. MedieKultur, 34(65), 98–116. https://doi.org/10.7146/mediekultur.v34i65.104842
  69. *Haastrup, H. K. (2022). Personalising climate change on Instagram: Self-presentation, authenticity, and emotion. MedieKultur, 38(72), 65–85. https://doi.org/10.7146/mk.v38i72.129149
  70. Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. The MIT Press. (Original work published 1962)
  71. Habermas, J. (1998). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Polity Press.
  72. Habermas, J. (2022). Reflections and hypotheses on a further structural transformation of the political public sphere. Theory, Culture & Society, 39(4), 145–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/02632764221112341
  73. *Hansen, S. S. (2022). Public AI imaginaries: How the debate on artificial intelligence was covered in Danish newspapers and magazines 1956–2021. Nordicom Review, 43(1), 56–78. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2022-0004
  74. Hartley, J. M., Bengtsson, M., Hansen, A. S., & Sivertsen, M. F. (2023). Researching publics in a datafied society: Insights from four approaches to the concept of ‘publics’ and a (hybrid) research agenda. New Media & Society, 25(7), 1668–1686. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211021045
  75. *Hartley, J. M., & Pedersen, L. H. (2019). Beyond the informed citizen? Narratives of news engagement and civic experiences among Danish news users. MedieKultur, 35(66), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.7146/mediekultur.v35i66.112626
  76. *Hornmoen, H., Hågvar, Y., Hyde-Clarke, N., Fonn, B. K., & Stuedahl, D. (2022). Media narratives, agonistic deliberation, and Skam: An analysis of how young people communicate in digital spaces. Nordicom Review, 43(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2022-0001
  77. *Isaksson, M., & Jørgensen, P. E. F. (2018). Connecting with citizens: The emotional rhetoric of Norwegian and Danish municipal websites. Nordicom Review, 39(1), 111–128. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2018-0005
  78. *Jaakkola, M. (2018). Vernacular reviews as a form of co-consumption: The user-generated review videos on YouTube. MedieKultur, 34(65), 10–30. https://doi.org/10.7146/mediekultur.v34i65.104485
  79. *Jangdal, L. (2019). Local democracy and the media. Nordicom Review, 40(2), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2019-0027
  80. *Jensen, J. L. (2014). Online deliberation and beyond? A time-based and comparative study of Danish political debates online. MedieKultur, 30(56), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.7146/mediekultur.v30i56.16327
  81. *Jensen, J. L., & Dalbøge, J. (2023). I deres egen verden: Danske journalisters interaktioner på Twitter [In their own world: Danish journalists’ interactions on Twitter]. MedieKultur, 39(75), 136–155. https://doi.org/10.7146/mk.v39i75.134991
  82. Jensen, K. B. (2013). Definitive and sensitizing conceptualizations of mediatization. Communication Theory, 23(3), 203–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12014
  83. *Jensen, M., B., & Hvidtfeldt, K. (2023). Reconfigurations of illness and masculinity on Instagram. MedieKultur, 39(74), 73–104. https://doi.org/10.7146/mk.v39i74.133885
  84. *Johansen, S. L., Lundtofte, T. E., & Mortensen, C. H. (2023). Pandemedia: How Covid-19 has affected the role of media in society. MedieKultur, 38(73), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.7146/mk.v38i73.134829
  85. *Johansen, S. L., & Givskov, C. (2014). Media and civic engagement. MedieKultur, 30(56), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.7146/mediekultur.v30i56.17286
  86. Jungherr, A., & Schroeder, R. (2021). Disinformation and the structural transformations of the public arena: Addressing the actual to democracy. Social Media + Society, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305121988928
  87. Just, S. N. (2016). This is not a pipe: Rationality and affect in European public debate. Communication and the Public, 1(3), 276–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/205704731665581
  88. Just, S. N. (2019). An assemblage of avatars: Digital organization as affective intensification in the GamerGate controversy. Organization, 26(5), 716–738. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508419842710
  89. Just, S. N. (2024). Controversial encounters in the age of algorithms: How digital technologies are stifling public debate and what to do about it. Bristol University Press.
  90. Just, S. N., Christensen, J. F., & Schwarzkopf, S. (2025). Disconnective action: Online activism against a corporate sponsorship at WorldPride 2021. New Media & Society, 27(1), 502–521. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231178775
  91. Jäger, A. (2024). Hyperpolitik. Informations Forlag.
  92. *Jørgensen, R. F. (2016). The right to privacy under pressure. Nordicom Review, 37(S1), 165–170. https://doi.org/10.1515/nor-2016-0030
  93. *Jørgensen, R. F., & Zuleta, L. (2020). Private governance of freedom of expression on social media platforms: EU content regulation through the lens of human rights. Nordicom Review, 41(1), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2020-0003
  94. Kalsnes, B., Falasca, K., & Kammer, A. (2021). Scandinavian political journalism in a time of fake news and disinformation. In E. Skogerbø, Ø. Ihlen, N. N. Kristensen, & L. Nord (Eds.), Power, communication, and politics in the Nordic countries (pp. 283–304). Nordicom, University of Gothenburg. https://doi.org/10.48335/9789188855299-14
  95. *Karlsson, M., Van Couvering, E. & Lindell, J. (2022). Publishing, sharing, and spreading online news: A case study of gatekeeping logics in the platform era. Nordicom Review, 43(2), 190–213. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2022-0012
  96. *Kjær, K. M., Christiansen, L. B., & Heiselberg, M. H. (2022). Introduction digital activism and participation: Affect, feelings and politics. MedieKultur, 38(72), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.7146/mediekultur.v38i72.131969
  97. Klinger, U., & Svensson, J. (2015). The emergence of network media logic in political communication: A theoretical approach. New Media & Society, 17(8), 1241–1257. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814522952
  98. Klinger, U., & Svensson, J. (2018). The end of media logics? On algorithms and agency. New Media & Society, 20(12), 4653–4670. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818779750
  99. *Klitgård, I. (2020). “Critical parents against plaster”: The MMR vaccination drama as satirical parody. MedieKultur, 36(68), 4–24. https://doi.org/10.7146/mediekultur.v36i68.118571
  100. *Klug, D., Evans, M., & Kaufman, G. (2022). How TikTok served as a platform for young people to share and cope with lived COVID-19 experiences. MedieKultur, 38(73), 152–170. https://doi.org/10.7146/mk.v38i73.128463
  101. *Knudsen, G. H., & Nielsen, M. V. (2019). Exploring the mediatization of organizational communication by religious communities in digital media. MedieKultur, 35(66), 101–121. https://doi.org/10.7146/mediekultur.v35i66.106274
  102. Kranzberg, M. (1986). Technology and history: “Kranzberg’s laws”. Technology and Culture, 27(3), 544–560. https://doi.org/10.2307/3105385
  103. *Kristensen, N. N., & From, U. (2018). Cultural journalists on social media. MedieKultur, 34(65), 76–97. https://doi.org/10.7146/mediekultur.v34i65.104488
  104. *Kristensen, N. N., Haastrup, H. K., & Holdgaard, N. (2018). Cultural critique: Re-negotiating cultural authority in digital media culture. MedieKultur, 34(65), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.7146/mediekultur.v34i65.111265
  105. *Krzyżanowski, M., Ekman, M., Nilsson, P.-E., Gardell, M., & Christensen, C. (2021). Uncivility, racism, and populism: Discourses and interactive practices in anti- and post-democratic communication. Nordicom Review, 42(S1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2021-0003
  106. Lafont, C. (2019). Democracy without shortcuts: A participatory conception of deliberative democracy. Oxford University Press.
  107. *Lai, S. S., Pagh, J., & Zeng, F. H. (2019). Tracing communicative patterns: A comparative ethnography across platforms, media and contexts. Nordicom Review, 40(1), 141–157. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2019-0019
  108. *Larsson, A. O. (2014). Everyday elites, citizens, or extremists? Assessing the use and users of non-election political hashtags. MedieKultur, 30(56), 61–78. https://doi.org/10.7146/mediekultur.v30i56.8951
  109. *Larsson, S. (2014). Battling mainstream media, commentators and organized debaters: Experiences from citizens’ online opinion writing in Sweden. Nordicom Review, 35(2), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2014-0016
  110. *Lie, M. P. (2018). Local newspapers, Facebook and local civic engagement: A study of media use in two Norwegian communities. Nordicom Review, 39(2), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2018-0011
  111. *Liminga, A., & Strömbäck, J. (2023). Undermining the legitimacy of news media: How Swedish members of parliament use Twitter to criticise the news media. Nordicom Review, 44(2), 279–298. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2023-0015
  112. Lomborg, S., & Kapsch, P. H. (2020), Decoding algorithms. Media, Culture & Society, 42(5), 745–761. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443719855301
  113. Lorenz-Spreen, P., Oswald, L., Lewandowsky, S., & Hertwig, R. (2023). A systematic review of worldwide causal and correlational evidence on digital media and democracy. Nature Human Behaviour, 7, 74–101. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01460-1
  114. *Maagaard, C., & Lundholt, M. W. (2018). Taking spoofs seriously: Spoofs as counter-narratives in volunteer discourse. MedieKultur, 34(64), 116–137. https://doi.org/10.7146/mediekultur.v34i64.24837
  115. *Magin, M., Larsson, A. O., Skogerbø, E., & Tønnesen, H. (2024). What makes the difference? Social media platforms and party characteristics as contextual factors for political parties’ use of populist political communication. Nordicom Review, 45(1), 36–65. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2024-0007
  116. *Mai, J.-E. (2016). Three models of privacy: New perspectives on informational privacy. Nordicom Review, 37(S1), 171–175. https://doi.org/10.1515/nor-2016-0031
  117. Marres, N. (2005). Issues spark a public into being: A key but often forgotten point of the Lippmann-Dewey debate. In B. Latour, & P. Weibel (Eds.), Making things public: Atmospheres of democracy (pp. 208–217). The MIT Press.
  118. *Mathieu, D., & Jorge, A. (2020). The datafication of media (and) audiences: An introduction. MedieKultur, 36(69), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.7146/mediekultur.v36i69.122585
  119. *Mattus, M. (2014). The anyone-can-edit syndrome: Intercreation stories of three featured articles on Wikipedia. Nordicom Review, 35(1), 189–204. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2014-0112
  120. *Mayerhöffer, E., Kristensen, J. B., & Ramsland, T. (2024). Curators of digital counterpublics: Mapping alternative news environment in Sweden and Denmark. Nordicom Review, 45(S1), 92–119. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2024-0009
  121. McMahon, L., Kleinman, Z., & Subramanian, C. (2025). Facebook and Instagram to get rid of fact checkers. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly74mpy8klo
  122. Mejias, U. A., & Couldry, N. (2019). Datafication. Internet Policy Review, 8(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.4.1428
  123. Ministry of Digital Affairs. (2024). Tech-giganternes rolle som digital infrastruktur [The role of the tech giants as digital infrastructure]. https://tinyurl.com/2jawmjfj
  124. *Moe, H., Lindtner, S., & Ytre-Arne, B. (2023). Polarisation and echo chambers? Making sense of the climate issue with social media in everyday life. Nordicom Review, 44(1), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2023-0002
  125. Moyo, L. (2009). Digital democracy: Enhancing the public sphere. In G. Creeber, & R. Martin (Eds.), Digital cultures: Understanding new media (pp. 139–150). Open University Press.
  126. *Mozdeika, L. (2024). Between civic virtue and vice: Self-censorship of political views on social media among Norwegian young adults. Nordicom Review, 45(S1), 152–172. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2024-0011
  127. *Møller, K., & Nordtug, M. (2022). Platformed bodies. MedieKultur, 37(71), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.7146/mediekultur.v37i71.128779
  128. Neuberger, C., Bartsch, A., Fröhlich, R., Hanitzsch, T., Reinemann, C., & Schindler, J. (2023). The digital transformation of knowledge order: A model for the analysis of the epistemic crisis. Annals of the International Communication Association, 47(2), 180–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2023.2169950
  129. *Nielsen, L. Y. (2018). PewDiePie som kulturkritisk aktør – metakritik og konstruktionen af ‘indie’ [PewDiePie as a culturally critical actor – metacriticism and the construction of ‘indie’]. MedieKultur, 34(65), 31–53. https://doi.org/10.7146/mediekultur.v34i65.104552
  130. *Nielsen, L. Y., & Petersen, F. B. (2021). Regarding the mains of others: The spectacular bodies of mukbang videos. MedieKultur, 37(71), 122–144. https://doi.org/10.7146/mediekultur.v37i71.125685
  131. *Nielsen, R. K. (2014). Political communication research: New media, new challenges, and new opportunities. MedieKultur, 30(56), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.7146/mediekultur.v30i56.9712
  132. *Nilsson, P.-E. (2021). “The new extreme right”: Uncivility, irony, and displacement in the French re-information sphere. Nordicom Review, 42(S1), 89–102. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2021-0008
  133. Nordbrandt, M. (2023). Affective polarization in the digital age: Testing the direction of the relationship between social media and users’ feelings for out-group parties. New Media & Society, 25(12), 3392–3411. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211044393
  134. Nordic Council of Ministers. (2023). A Nordic approach to democratic debate in the age of big tech: Recommendations from the Nordic think tank for tech and democracy. https://doi.org/10.6027/nord2023-004
  135. *Nordtug, M. (2020). Creating opportunities for digital engagement and participation. MedieKultur, 36(68), 25–41. https://doi.org/10.7146/mediekultur.v36i68.114919
  136. O’Hara, K., & Hall, W. (2018). Four internets: The geopolitics of digital governance. Centre for International Governance Innovation. https://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/documents/Paper%20no.206web.pdf
  137. *Oh, D., Elayan, S., Sykora, M., & Downey, J. (2021). Unpacking uncivil society: Incivility and intolerance in the 2018 Irish abortion referendum discussions on Twitter. Nordicom Review, 42(S1), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2021-0009
  138. *Olesen, M. (2018). #walkouton77: football fan activism in Premier League. MedieKultur, 34(65), 117–137. https://doi.org/10.7146/mediekultur.v34i65.104550
  139. Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The virtual sphere: The internet as a public sphere. New Media & Society, 4(1), 9–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614440222226244
  140. Papacharissi, Z. (2015). Affective publics. Sentiment, technology, and politics. Oxford University Press.
  141. *Paulsen, I. H. (2023). Is mental health normalised in Norwegian news media? How mental health was framed in VG.no and NRK.no, 2018–2021. MedieKultur, 39(75), 114–135. https://doi.org/10.7146/mk.v39i75.141485
  142. Pfetsch, B. (2020). Democracy and digital dissonance: The co-occurrence of the transformation of political culture and communication infrastructure. Central European Journal of Communication, 13(25), 96–110. https://doi.org/10.19195/1899-5101.13.1(25).7
  143. *Photiou, I., Papadopoulou, L., Eleftheriadou, A., & Maniou, T. A. (2019). Visual Infotainment in the political news: A cultural approach in the post-truth era. MedieKultur, 35(66), 75–100. https://doi.org/10.7146/mediekultur.v35i66.105281
  144. Picone, I. Kleut, J., Pavlíčková, T., Romic, B., Hartley, J. M., & De Ridder, S. (2019). Small acts of engagement: Reconnecting productive audiences with everyday practices. New Media & Society, 21(9), 2010–2028. https://doi.org/10.1177/146144481983756
  145. Pond, P., & Lewis, J. (2019). Riots and Twitter: Connective politics, social media and framing discourses in the digital public sphere. Information, Communication & Society, 22(2), 213–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1366539
  146. *Rasmussen, P. K. B., & Søndergaard, D. M. (2022). Sexualized, platformed female bodies in male online practices: Negotiating boundaries of masculinity, gendered positioning and intimacy. MedieKultur, 37(71), 73–97. https://doi.org/10.7146/mediekultur.v37i71.125300
  147. *Raun, T., & Petersen, M. N. (2021). The mediatization of self-tracking: Knowledge production and community building in YouTube videos. Mediekultur, 37(71), 161–186. https://doi.org/10.7146/mediekultur.v37i71.125250
  148. *Raun, T., Rudloff, M., Thorhauge, A. M., & Sandvik, K. (2016). Introduction to gender and media revisited. MedieKultur, 32(61), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.7146/mediekultur.v32i61.24788
  149. *Reißmann, W., Siemon, M., Lünenborg, M., & Raetzsch, C. (2023). Making (female) health care work matter: The performative publics of #systemrelevant during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. MedieKultur, 38(73), 73–99. https://doi.org/10.7146/mk.v38i73.128451
  150. *Robinson, J. Y. (2024). American media, Scandinavian audiences: Contextual fragmentation and polarization among Swedes and Norwegians engaging in American politics. Nordicom Review, 45(1), 120–152. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2024-0010
  151. *Ruzza, C. (2021). The institutionalisation of populist political discourse and conservative uncivil society in the European Union: From the margins to the mainstream? Nordicom Review, 42(S1), 119–133. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2021-0010
  152. *Sakariassen, H. (2020). A digital public sphere: Just in theory or a perceived reality for users of social network sites? MedieKultur, 36(68), 126–146. https://doi.org/10.7146/mediekultur.v36i68.118440
  153. *Salonen, M., & Laaksonen, S.-M. (2023). Post-publication gatekeeping practices: Exploring conversational and individual gatekeeping in Finnish newspapers’ Instagram accounts. Nordicom Review, 44(2), 253–278. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2023-0014
  154. *Sandberg, L. A. C., Bjereld, U., Bunyik, K., Forsberg, M., & Johansson, R. (2019). Issue salience on Twitter during Swedish party leaders’ debates. Nordicom Review, 40(2), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2019-0033
  155. *Schreiber, M. (2023). #strokesurvivor on Instagram: Conjunctive experiences of adapting to disability. MedieKultur, 39(74), 50–72. https://doi.org/10.7146/mk.v39i74.132468
  156. *Segaard, S. B. (2015). Perceptions of social media. Nordicom Review, 36(2), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1515/nor-2015-0017
  157. *Severin-Nielsen, M. K. (2023). Politicians’ social media usage in a hybrid media environment: A scoping review of the literature between 2008–2022. Nordicom Review, 44(2), 172–193. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2023-0010
  158. *Solverson, E. (2024). Active spectating in the digital public sphere: A qualitative exploration. Nordicom Review, 45(2), 170–194. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2024-0018
  159. Stark, D., & Vanden Broeck, P. (2024). Principles of algorithmic management. Organization Theory, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877241257213
  160. *Steinveg, B., & Bjørnå, H. (2023). Social media as an agenda-setting instrument in local politics. Nordicom Review, 44(2), 299–314. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2023-0016
  161. *Stenström, K., & Pargman, T. C. (2021). Existential vulnerability and transition: Struggling with involuntary childlessness on Instagram. Nordicom Review, 42(S4), 168–184. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2021-0048
  162. *Stenström, K., & Winter, K. (2022). Collective, unruly, and becoming: Bodies in and through TTC communication. MedieKultur, 37(71), 31–53. https://doi.org/10.7146/mediekultur.v37i71.122653
  163. *Storsul, T. (2014). Deliberation or self-presentation? Young people, politics and social media. Nordicom Review, 35(2), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2014-0012
  164. *Svendsen, E. (2018). Danske intellektuelle på Facebook - eksemplificeret ved Svend Brinkmann og Carsten Jensen [Danish intellectuals on Facebook – exemplified by Svend Brinkmann and Carsten Jensen]. MedieKultur, 34(65), 54–75. https://doi.org/10.7146/mediekultur.v34i65.104886
  165. *Sveningsson, M., Vestberg, A., & Hedström, J. (2022). “Not quite the struggle of normatives”: Belonging and entitlement in Swedish “body activism”. Nordicom Review, 43(1), 38–55. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2022-0003
  166. *Svensson, E.-M., & Edström, M. (2016). Market-driven challenges to freedom of expression and the interaction between the state, the market, and the media. Nordicom Review, 37(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1515/nor-2016-0013
  167. Teorell, J., Torcal, M., & Montero, J. R. (2007). Political participation: Mapping the terrain. In J. W. van Deth, J. R. Montero, & A. Westholm (Eds.), Citizenship and involvement in European democracies (pp. 334–357). Routledge.
  168. Thomsen, M., Steinitz, S., Sivertsen, M. F., & Just, S. N. (2025). Digital community centers of the 21st century? A mixed-methods study of Facebook groups as fora for connective democracy. Social Media + Society, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051251329063
  169. Treem, J. W., & Leonardi, P. M. (2013). Social media use in organizations: Exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Annals of the International Communication Association, 36(1), 143–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2013.11679130
  170. *Tuomola, S. (2021). Who are you, the people? Nordicom Review, 42(1), 51–65. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2021-0006
  171. *Valtysson, B. (2015). After the performance. Nordicom Review, 36(2), 61–64. https://doi.org/10.1515/nor-2015-0016
  172. van Dijk, J. (2000). Models of democracy and concepts of communication. In K. L. Hacker, & J. van Dijk (Eds.), Digital democracy: Issues of theory and practice (pp. 30–53). Sage.
  173. Warner, M. (2002). Public and Counterpublics. Zone Books. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446218891
  174. Whipple, M. (2005). The Dewey-Lippmann debate today: Communication distortions, reflective agency, and participatory democracy. Sociological Theory, 23(2), 156–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0735-2751.2005.00248.x
  175. *Widholm, A., & Ekman, M. (2024). Democracy and digital disintegration: Platforms, actors, citizens. Nordicom Review, 45(S1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2024-0005
  176. Winseck, D. (2002). Illusions of perfect information and fantasies of control in the information society. New Media & Society, 4(1), 93–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614440222226280
  177. *Ytre-Arne, B. (2016). The social media experiences of long-term patients: Illness, identity, and participation. Nordicom Review, 37(1), 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1515/nor-2016-0002
  178. *Zhao, J. (2017). Hong Kong protests: A quantitative and bottom-up account of resistance against Chinese social media (sina weibo) censorship. MedieKultur, 33(62), 72–99. https://doi.org/10.7146/mediekultur.v33i62.24325
  179. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2025-0014 | Journal eISSN: 2001-5119 | Journal ISSN: 1403-1108
Language: English
Page range: 148 - 174
Published on: Jun 18, 2025
Published by: University of Gothenburg Nordicom
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 2 issues per year

© 2025 Ib T. Gulbrandsen, Sine N. Just, published by University of Gothenburg Nordicom
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.