Interaction and Transformation on Social Media: The Case of Twitter Campaigns https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117750721 Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). Social Media + Society January-March 2018: 1 –12 © The Author(s) 2018 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/2056305117750721 journals.sagepub.com/home/sms SI: Social Media, Activism and Organizations Introduction: New Digital Spaces and Activism The increasing popularity of social media platforms creates new digital social networks in which individuals can interact and share information, news, and opinion with unprece- dented speed and ease. Consequently, the use of such tech- nologies appears to have the capacity to transform current social configurations and relations —not least within the public and civic spheres. In this article, we develop the notion of transformation in relation to the particular affor- dances and characteristics of micro-interaction within social media environments. Social media are emerging as a new research topic across fields, including social science, web science, computer sci- ence, and psychology. Within the social sciences, much emphasis has been placed on conceptualizing social media’s role in modern society (Mossberger, Tolbert, & McNeal, 2008; Trottier, 2012) and the interrelationships between online and offline actors, institutions, events, and political and social change (Edwards et al., 2013; Harlow, 2012; Housley et al., 2014; Lupton, 2015; Murthy, 2012, 2013; Williams et al., 2013). Empirical work has given attention to categorizing types of content posted on social media (Diakopoulos & Shamma, 2010; Garcia Esparza, O’Mahony, & Smyth, 2010) and identifying the discursive practices employed by “trolls” and users posting inflammatory mes- sages (Awan, 2014; Hardaker, 2010; McCosker, 2014). Social scientific work also benefits from the computational analysis of large aggregated data sets, for instance, to trace 750721 SMSXXX10.1177/2056305117750721Social Media + SocietyHousley et al. research-article20182018 1Cardiff University, UK 2University of Oxford, UK 3University of Warwick, UK 4De Montfort University, UK Corresponding Author: Helena Webb, Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford, Wolfson Building, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QD, UK. Email: helena.webb@cs.ox.ac.uk Interaction and Transformation on Social Media: The Case of Twitter Campaigns William Housley1, Helena Webb2, Meredydd Williams2, Rob Procter3, Adam Edwards1, Marina Jirotka2, Pete Burnap1, Bernd Carsten Stahl4, Omer Rana1, and Matthew Williams1 Abstract The increasing popularity of social media platforms creates new digital social networks in which individuals can interact and share information, news, and opinion. The use of these technologies appears to have the capacity to transform current social configurations and relations, not least within the public and civic spheres. Within the social sciences, much emphasis has been placed on conceptualizing social media’s role in modern society and the interrelationships between online and offline actors and events. In contrast, little attention has been paid to exploring user practices on social media and how individual posts respond to each other. To demonstrate the value of an interactional approach toward social media analysis, we performed a detailed analysis of Twitter-based online campaigns. After categorizing social media posts based on action(s), we developed a typology of user exchanges. We found these social media campaigns to be highly heterogeneous in content, with a wide range of actions performed and substantial numbers of tweets not engaged with the substance of the campaign. We argue that this interactional approach can form the basis for further work conceptualizing the broader impact of activist campaigns and the treatment of social media as “data” more generally. In this way, analytic focus on interactional practices on social media can provide empirical insight into the micro-transformational characteristics within “campaign communication.” Keywords activism, interaction analysis, qualitative analysis, social media https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/journals-permissions https://journals.sagepub.com/home/sms mailto:helena.webb@cs.ox.ac.uk http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F2056305117750721&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2018-02-01 2 Social Media + Society the spread of posts during times of societal tension and unease (Williams et al., 2013; Zubiaga, Liakata, Procter, Hoi, & Tolmie, 2016) and to explore effects such as a homophily, in which social media users follow and associate with others sharing the same opinions as themselves (Murthy, 2013), a tendency that some claim is now being amplified by personal- ization algorithms to create “echo chambers” (Pariser, 2011). Thus, it is possible that networked digital technologies are disrupting and transforming mass public communications in various ways facilitating not only new forms of deliberation, debate, and civil participation but also antagonism and social fragmentation (Edwards et al., 2013; Housley et al., 2014; Russo, Watkins, Kelly, & Chan, 2008). In order to further understand the transformative capacity of these new digital spaces, it is first necessary to understand in detail how prac- tices in these spaces are conducted. It is therefore crucial to observe the interconnections between social media and com- munication, both on a large scale and at micro levels. This includes observing the ways these interconnections trans- form the flow of communicative practices and content that surround topics and “trending items” as they are negotiated, discussed, debated, and refuted by social actors online. Activism is one area in which social media have the capac- ity to facilitate the spread of relevant communicative content (Cox, 2015). By activism, we mean the organization of peo- ple around a particular issue or event in order to effect social, economic, cultural, or political change. Recent years have seen social media platforms play a key role in the emergence and/or growth of activist campaigns that are both highly dis- tributed and centrally organized. For instance, the “Black Lives Matter” movement began in the United States (Frosch & Calvert, 2015) as a hashtag (#BlackLivesMatter) on Twitter and has grown to include rallies and protest marches, as well as local groups and organizations. Meanwhile, long-estab- lished civil society organizations such as the Red Cross now routinely use social media to spread campaign messages and fundraise (Briones, Kuch, Liu, & Jin, 2011). Advocates of social media use in activism have argued that the wide reach and fast pace of digital communications provide grassroots movements, charities, and humanitarian organizations with opportunities to galvanize support (Chadwick & Howard, 2008) and enable citizens to take action and “speak critically to power” (Elgot, 2015). However, others suggest (Davies, 2013; White, 2010) that social media reduce activism to mere “clicktivism” or “slacktivism” in which users “like” or for- ward some content to show their approval for a message, cause, and so on, but do nothing further. Also relevant are broader public debates over the capacity for rapidly propagat- ing content on social media to cause harm through unverified claims and malicious campaigns (Starbird, Maddock, Orand, Achterman, & Mason, 2014; World Economic Forum, 2013). Throughout these public discourses, we observe a tendency toward implicit assumptions that social media content, in par- ticular content posted within specific campaigns and move- ments, is homogeneous in character and comprises similar practices and tactics for digital communication. Debates over the role of social media in activism raise a number of challenges for contemporary social research. It is necessary to conceptualize and identify means to explore activism in action on social media and to trace its interrela- tionships with offline actors and events. This article contrib- utes to this work by taking as its focus the detailed examination of user interaction as part of activist campaigns. We report on the development of a novel methodological framework that identifies and visualizes the communicative actions occurring within conversational “threads” on Twitter (Housley, Webb, Edwards, Procter, & Jirotka, 2017). We illustrate this frame- work by reporting on the analysis of case studies of activist campaigns and describe its potential implications. We argue that a highly detailed interactional approach can deepen understanding of the practices of social media activism. For instance, it demonstrates the wide number of communicative actions that may be occurring within an apparently homoge- neous campaign and highlights differing the levels of engage- ment that might occur. Analyzing Activism in Action: Toward an Interactional Approach A growing volume of research provides valuable insights into the interrelationships between new digital spaces and activist campaigning, for instance, by conceptualizing the role social media can play in the organized pursuit of societal change. Gerbaudo (2012, 2014) describes the ways that social media are used to re-appropriate the public sphere (Habermas, 1991), creating opportunities to mobilize citi- zens and reflecting features of traditional populism such as openness, directness, and democracy. The ability for users to post and propagate content on social media in real time ensures that critical incidents can be publicized rapidly and campaign messages built around them can reach wide audi- ences while they are still topical. Freelon, Mcllwain and Clark (2016) described social media posts as essential to publicizing the Michael Brown shooting and galvanizing the Black Lives Matter campaign. Opportunities for anonymous messaging can provide individuals in repressive environ- ments with a safe space in which to promote dissent (Tufekci, 2011). In reference to the clicktivism debate, Tufekci and Wilson (2012) found that the use of social media greatly increased the probability that individuals attended the first day of the Egyptian Tahir Square protests. Further work in this field helps us to understand the inter- connections between activist practices and the affordances of specific social media sites. Focusing on Twitter, we can see how microblogging on this open platform can support activ- ist goals. Poell and Rajagopalan (2015) and Segerberg and Bennett (2011) describe how Twitter can connect diverse users. The former studied tweets referring to a controversial gang rape incident in New Delhi in December 2012 and found that the popular activity of retweeting provided a low- effort means through which users could connect with each other and collate collective accounts. The hashtag can be a Housley et al. 3 particularly powerful tool: Thrift (2014) describes how the #YesAllWomen hashtag was used to share stories of female harassment and formed a counterpoint to the defensive #NotAllMen. The responsive capacity of the hashtag is also described by Horeck (2014), who traces the repurposing of the commercial hashtag #AskThicke into a feminist one. Poell and Borra (2012) and Duguay (2016) highlight a limi- tation of Twitter in activism: tweets within a specific cam- paign can be dominated by a small number of, often high profile, users who seek to self-promote and avoid reference to potentially contentious issues. One final area of insight relates to the conduct of com- municative practices in and through the posting of social media content. This is a potentially highly fruitful area of work but one that remains underdeveloped. Analysis can illuminate how users communicate with each other in par- ticular technological environments and thereby advance understanding of how online campaigns emerge and spread. This kind of analysis presents a number of methodological challenges (Driscoll & Thorson, 2015), such as the time- consuming nature of social media data collation, and ethical barriers to accessing content posted on private platforms (Webb et al., 2017). Nevertheless, existing work has begun to produce some valuable insights. For instance, Theocharis, Lowe, van Deth, and García-Albacete (2015) conducted a comparative content analysis of activist-related tweets from three case study data sets, with each post coded in terms of its purpose, sender “type,” and evaluation of the larger move- ment it referred to. They argued that while Twitter was used to discuss issues and advertise protests, only a small minority of posts concerned protest organization. Earl, Hurwitz, Mesinas, Tolan, and Arlotti (2013) described how Twitter’s real-time status enables protestors to share information about the whereabouts of law enforcement agencies and thus reduce police–protester asymmetries. Burgess and Matamoros-Fernández (2016) mapped posts that related to the GamerGate controversy across digital platforms during a particular time period. They produced a social network anal- ysis of online activity and actor relationships, visualizing the associations among accounts and hashtags. A particular con- tribution of this approach was its ability to reveal the exis- tence of minority perspectives which can sometimes be hidden within apparently binary debates online. Unsurprisingly, given the newness of digital social spaces and the methodological challenges this kind of analysis cre- ates, work in this particular area is currently underdeveloped. Nevertheless, there is great value in taking this strand of work forward in order to advance the detailed understanding of communication in the conduct of social media activism and thereby also add to broader knowledge about the social organization of online campaigns. We note that in much existing work, there is a tendency to analyze social media posts in isolation, treating them as a series of discrete items or as networks of users at a macro level. This risks overlook- ing the (potential) relationships between posts and the development of activism through the interconnected actions of different users. We propose a more granular, interactional approach to the study of social media communications (Housley et al., 2017). This type of approach has already been used, in part, by Procter, Vis and Voss (2013). When applied to the study of activism in action, it offers particular methodological benefits. As we describe further below, it facilitates the detailed description of how social media com- munications are organized, provides the means of under- standing the transformation of interaction in terms of topics and relevant (or otherwise) everyday social categories and actions, and operationalizes a lens through which to consider both the organization and transformation of small-scale interactions in terms of a wider view of the organization of campaign activity on social media Methodology The analysis described in this article was conducted as part of a wider study on the spread of antagonistic content on social media (Webb et al., 2016). One of the aims of this study was to identify the interactional features of social media—specifically Twitter—threads that have “conversa- tional” features, without assuming that interaction on tweet- ing is “just” conversation (Housley et al., 2017). This detailed qualitative analysis provides insight into the micro-organiza- tion of social media posts and also supports large-scale quan- titative analyses. We observed Twitter posts across the period April to May 2015 and identified occurrences of social media activism.1 These occurrences were manifest as groups of tweets identi- fied through the use of the Twitter web client “reply” facility and referencing actions or ideas designed to effect social, economic, cultural, or political change and were identified through a common hashtag. Observation was first under- taken through the monitoring of the official Twitter website to identify “trending,” popular hashtags. Subsequently, we used TweetDeck, a software tool that supports sophisticated and efficient keyword searching, plus the COSMOS plat- form (Burnap et al., 2015), which is designed to assist aca- demic social scientists with the collection and analysis of Twitter data. Three campaigns were selected for analysis. These were chosen in order to represent activist campaigns pursuing different aims, and each involved a high volume of posting across the period of the observation: •• #NotGuilty: Student Ione Wells was sexually assaulted in London in April 2015 (BBC Newsbeat, 2015). As a result of her attack, she established the #NotGuilty campaign, which looked to oppose victim-blaming in rape cases. Wells appeared in numerous newspapers (e.g., Wells, 2015) and by 6 May, her name was trend- ing on UK Twitter. •• #NepalEarthquake: Two devastating earthquakes struck Nepal in early 2015 (BBC News, 2015). 4 Social Media + Society Appeals for aid were quickly established through Twitter; US$17 million was donated through Facebook (Carey-Simos, 2015), and Google launched a People Finder Tool (Frizell, 2015). By 14 May, 30% of UK donations had been made online (Charities Aid Foundation, 2015). •• #VoteYes: In the run-up to the Irish Gay Marriage Referendum in May 2015 (Reuters, 2015), there was strong social media support for a “yes” vote, with #VoteYes being the largest global Twitter trend before the event (BT Home, 2015). We used the COSMOS tool to collect relevant tweets for each campaign during a set period of time. COSMOS col- lects tweets via the Twitter Application Programming Interface (API); this allows for the automatic extraction and processing of tweets and provides a faster and more system- atic approach to data collection and management than man- ual methods. COSMOS captured tweets containing specific hashtags and we were then able to review the collected data and identify other frequently occurring hashtags and key phrases that might be relevant to the analysis. Using the API enables tweets to be collected in real time, and our data sets therefore included posts that were subsequently deleted by users themselves. This ensured the data did not include any omissions, which proved valuable when examining the detail of unfolding social media campaigns. We collected between 9,000 and 25,000 tweets per cam- paign. Using TweetDeck, we conducted keyword searches bounded by size of engagement. This was specified by the number of retweets, likes, or replies that a tweet received and enabled us to identify and rank tweets by the degree of attention they attracted from other Twitter users. We dis- carded non-English tweets and selected a subset of 1,200 tweets for analysis based on rank and occurrence of appro- priate keywords—for example, “Nepal” and “NotGuilty.” These “opening” tweets were then used to collect the con- versational threads they initiated (Webb et al., 2016). Twitter does not provide an API end point to retrieve con- versational threads; however, it is possible to collect them by scraping tweets through the web client interface. Using a customized Javascript tool ensured that the tweets within each thread could be observed in chronological posting order (Webb et al., 2016; Zubiaga et al., 2016). The tool also enabled the threads to be loaded into a spreadsheet that recorded the content, user details (@ handle and user- name), and timestamp of each tweet alongside other details such as the number of retweets, replies, and likes received. This spreadsheet served as the preliminary resource for analysis, the equivalent to an interview or conversation transcript. We selected 20 threads for each campaign, each contain- ing between 4 and 604 posts. This provided rich data to sup- port in-depth analysis while also providing insight into the variety within and between campaign data sets. Analysis drew on insights from the associated fields of ethnomethodology (Garfinkel, 1967), conversation analy- sis (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974), membership cat- egorization analysis (Housley & Fitzgerald, 2015; Sacks, 1992), and interactionism (Housley, 2003). These fields share an understanding of interaction as comprising taken- for-granted behaviors that are central to social order and as a form of social organization in and of itself. They share a methodological focus on the analysis of naturally occurring and sequentially unfolding interactions. Utilizing these approaches, we conducted the following analytic activities. Identification of Conversational Actions in Twitter Posts Taking an inductive approach, we began by identifying the “conversational” actions performed by each tweet in the thread. Beginning with the opening tweet and proceeding through it in order of posting, we viewed the content of the post to identify activities occurring such as information- giving, questioning, agreeing, and disagreeing. Particular attention was given to the ways that subsequent posts responded to prior ones and how interactions within the thread evolved as posting continued. We note that a more fine-grained sequential analysis of Twitter threads and mul- tiparty interaction is salient (see Housley et al., 2017; Tolmie, Procter, Rouncefield, Liakata, & Zubiaga, 2017) and treated this focus on action as an important first step in the process of interactional feature identification of social media posts. Examination of Accounts and Membership Categorization Practice Each post in the thread was treated as a type of “account” (Housley & Fitzgerald, 2008; Scott & Lyman, 1968; Stokes & Hewitt, 1976) built up through the use of mem- bership categorization devices and associated predicates (Housley & Fitzgerald, 2015). Accounts make visible the inherently moral character of interaction. They are to be understood as features of the “interaction order” and draw on Goffmanian analyses of remedial work and social repair in everyday encounters (Housley & Fitzgerald, 2008). Accounts are organized and patterned interactional moves that include practices such as justifications, apolo- gies, acceptance and penitence for blame, and requests that place a moral obligation on the recipient (Housley & Fitzgerald, 2008). The examination of membership categorization practices, combined with the identification of conversational actions, provided a means of describing the detail of social media posts as forms of accountable action(s) that are socially and morally constituted and occasioned but, within the context of Twitter threads, tied to particular “real-world events.” Housley et al. 5 Development of a Twitter Typology Once we had analyzed individual threads, we compared across the data set to identify general patterns. We iteratively developed a typology to categorize the actions performed in individual tweets during an online campaign. We used this typology as a basis to annotate tweets within threads and identify the interactional features occurring as threads unfolded. This consolidated the earlier analysis and also paved the way to generate quantitative analyses of “Twitter interaction-as-data” at scale. Findings In this section, we describe some of the key findings result- ing from the analysis. We begin by outlining the interactions occurring in two Twitter threads. These have been selected as they typify the kinds of interactions occurring in the wider data set. They are represented in the form of the spreadsheet used for analysis—here simplified to show account name, tweet content, and a line number for each tweet for easy identification. We illustrate the nuanced understandings of Twitter-based interactions that can be gained via focusing on action, accounts, and membership categorization. We then describe how this fine-grained analysis led to the develop- ment of our typology of interactions on Twitter. Thread 1 comes from the #NepalEarthquake campaign (Figure 1). For reasons of space, we focus here on the tweets most salient to our analysis. The text and web link within Tweet 1 perform the action of information-giving and the hashtag frames the topic of the tweet, making it “discover- able” to other Twitter users. In the following tweets (2-26), a variety of users post tweets that engage with the topic of the natural disaster and orient to the humanitarian response as moral in character. A variety of actions occur. One kind is questions/requests for information. For instance, in Tweet 2, the poster asks whether there is an opportunity for nurses to go out and work and assist; in Tweet 5, another poster enquires about the possibil- ity of sending “stuff” to Nepal via the Red Cross; in Tweet 6, the poster notes his or her availability and asks “how can I help?”; and in Tweet 10, the user notes his or her desire to help and asks “How can I be involved?” In making these requests, users satisfy the informational parameters of the opening tweet and engage directly with the topic at hand. They also position a humanitarian response—including their own suggested activities—as morally creditworthy. Tweets 7-9 come from the same poster and perform a dif- ferent kind of action. The poster generates a list of engaged action request formulations. These request formulations are morally constituted in terms of a range of supportive human- itarian activities that concludes on Tweet 9 with an appeal to prayer. A further kind of action is an “echo” which repeats available information without adding anything extra—for instance, the retweet in Tweet 4 and the tweets solely con- taining relevant @ handles in Tweet 3 and later in Tweet 19. All the tweets described so far engage with the topic of the humanitarian response and align with it as appropriate. At Tweet 12, something different happens. The content ques- tions the efficacy of prayer in helping “those who are demol- ished” and is concluded with the hashtag “#wakeupmorons.” While this post still engages with the topic of the humanitar- ian response, it adopts a critical and sarcastic tone rather than a supportive one. At Tweet 15, this critical account is Figure 1. Thread 1. 6 Social Media + Society contested and an appeal to respecting other people’s beliefs is posted. This can be understood as a reaction to provocation and an attempt to counter the earlier antagonistic post. The thread continues with further offers of support and use of the “@” function in relation to the Red Cross account, the insti- gator of this particular disaster appeal thread. Then at Tweet 23 a poster asks, “Are you trying to make a business out of this?” The post is contextualized by two hashtags one of which is the Red Cross. Once again, the post engages with the topic of humanitarian response and the “call for help” made in Tweet 1 but in a critical way. It questions the motive for the appeal—Is this a moral matter or one which is, through reference to business, driven by another set of motives? In membership category terms, the thread’s prior contributions (at Tweet 2, for example, through its reference to jobs and occupational categories) may have provided the categorical grounds for this form of reasoning and reframing. At the very least, it indicates some form of orientation to the content of the thread and previous postings as a sequentially relevant matter within a multiparty exchange. This engaged criticism does not receive any direct response in the remain- der of the thread. It is followed by another critical response from a different poster (a complaint about lack of support following Hurricane Sandy), a response from an official account directly answering the request for information made in Tweet 10 and a further request formulation from the user who posted previously in Tweets 7-9. Examination of this thread reveals several important interactional features relevant across our data. One is an opening tweet that sets up the topic parameters for subse- quent posts, in terms of content, hashtag, and @ handle. Another is the engagement (or non-engagement) of other posters with this topic. Engagement may be supportive or critical and take the form of actions such as requests for information, requests for action, or echoes. We can also see that posters in the thread not only engage and interact with the opening post but at times also with subsequent posts made by others. As our analysis continued, the reoccurrence of these features helped us to identify patterns of interactions in the threads. We can see this develop in Thread 2. This thread (Figure 2) comes from the #VoteYes cam- paign. The interactions occurring within it share similar fea- tures to Thread 1. Once again, an opening tweet (Tweet 1) sets up the topic parameters for subsequent posts; @revk posts, in paraphrase, that “not all Christians are against equal marriage” and concludes with the #VoteYes hashtag to express support for the campaign and frame the content of the post. Subsequent posts engage with this issue; they use the opening poster’s @ handle to mark direct responses to it and produce posts that are both supportive (for instance, Tweets 2, 3, 4, 5, 13, and 16) and critical (for instance, Tweets 8 and 14) of @revk’s expressed stance. In Thread 1, we high- lighted the occurrence of posts that perform the action of asking questions about the information provided in the open- ing tweet. In this thread, many posts perform actions of agreeing or disagreeing with the opening post. Once again, users also interact with subsequent posts in the thread in addition to the opening one. In particular, a debate develops around the understanding of “Christians,” and this involves a range of category-identity work, which we discuss here. The opening poster’s account name and handle (shortened for anonymity) contain the word “rev”—often short for “rev- erend” and a title given to members of the clergy. This orien- tation to religion is accompanied by an explicit reference to it in Tweet 1. Tweet 1 deploys an “n-population device.” The population group “Christians” is tied to the category-bound association (or predicate) of anger from a general population device, in this case “people.” The reference to “people angry at Christians for being against equal marriage” is then fol- lowed by a predicate clause that not all Christians agree on the issue. This, in turn, carries the implication that some Christians may well agree with equal marriage. In this way, Figure 2. Thread 2. Housley et al. 7 the membership category device of “Christians” is afforded alternative forms of opinion in relation to the issues raised by the forthcoming referendum. We might understand the account provided by the post as informational in terms of how different groups are being positioned in relation to lines of moral and social opinion. We can also see that through the use of “we” and “rev” @revk positions himself or herself as within the category of Christians and therefore someone who has credible knowledge about this issue. The poster also makes clear that, despite being within this category that includes some who are against “equal marriage,” he or she supports it. Tweets 2 and 3 respond directly to the opening tweet through the presence of the @ handle and repetition of parts of @revk’s account name. Both tweets express explicit agreement with Tweet 1—and therefore the #VoteYes cam- paign—via affirmative (“yeah”) and supportive statements (“go Rev K” and “Thankfully Anglicans . . .”). Tweet 4 pro- vides a positive receipt of the statement that some Christians support equal marriage (“That’s good to know”) and by extension marks support for the #VoteYes campaign. However, the positive stance toward Tweet 1 is qualified; the user positions being “confused” over whether Christians support equal marriage as reasonable (“you can see why”), giving as an example “Leviticus”—a book of the Bible that condemns homosexuality. At Tweet 5, further qualified agreement with Tweet 1 is exhibited. Reference is made to “All Christians” (rather than the “some” implied in Tweet 1) that the poster knows “sharing” the same views; this includes a member of the Irish clergy who, it is claimed, is going to vote for equal marriage. Here, the poster draws on apparent personal experience to legitimate and extend the claim made that not all Christians are against equal marriage. The post can be seen to imply that because all the Christians the user knows support equal marriage, many other Christians must therefore also support it; this is an operationalization of the “etcetera” principle and Sacks’ (1992) consistency rule. In Tweet 8, the user directly addresses @revk: “You can’t disown the people of the religion you spread. You are com- plicit in their hatred.” This challenges the identity-category work that has been done so far and explicitly topicalizes the operationalization of the consistency rule in relation to previ- ous posts describing the stance of Christians toward equal marriage. In essence, the post positions Christians (“the peo- ple of the religion you spread”) as sharing the same identity; this is not distinguishable by particular stance toward equal marriage because Christians are morally responsible for each other and the consequences of their religion (“complicit in the their hatred”). The poster invokes the economy rule (Sacks, 1992) that refers to the conversational process by which if a member uses a single category from any device, then he or she can be recognized to be doing adequate refer- ence to a person. In doing so, the post problematizes the stance in Tweet 1 that some Christians are in favor of equal marriage. This argument made by the poster of Tweet 8 is mocked and challenged by direct responses in Tweets 9 and 10, first from @revk (“faceplam”) and then by a new poster (User 10): “that is probably the silliest thing . . .”) entering into the discussion. The argument is then challenged in Tweet 11 through the (possibly) extreme application of this category logic to a separate issue: in this case, that “living in Britain” equals agreeing with the “Iraq War” with no space for differ- ence of opinion, and so on. The post mirrors the design of Tweet 8, for instance, through the use of “complicit,” but is built as a response to @revk rather than User 9. It acts as a commentary on Tweet 8, rather than a response to it and thereby positions User 9 as outside the discussion. The rest of the thread elaborates on this “membership categorization” issue where the moral position and “accountability” of spe- cific groups such as Christians in “owning opinions” are questioned, criticized, or supported. This analysis highlights further features of Twitter inter- actions that were identified across our data set. In particular, posters draw on various rhetorical devices in their discus- sions regarding activist campaigns and invoke different kinds of normative concerns and categories when doing so. Threads 1 and 2 reveal the variety of actions and activities that can be found within Twitter threads. Detailed qualitative analysis of this kind is necessary to develop a nuanced under- standing of these activities; however, there is also scope to move from the particular to the general, as discussed next. From the Particular to the General: Developing a Typology To visualize how threads transform interactionally, we pro- duced a diagrammatic scheme. This marks the order and sequence of posts and the actions performed within them. The typology shown in Figure 3 represents the different kinds of actions that might be performed by tweets in a thread. For instance, as described in our analysis of Threads 1 and 2, we observe actions such as information-giving, agreement, disagreement, requests, and criticisms. This typology also notes nuances of action such as whether an agreement is explicit or implicit or whether a request is engaged or unengaged with the topic of a prior post. We used the typology to label each tweet in a thread (Figure 4, box) and then to create a visualization of the thread as it developed tweet by tweet (Figure 4, circles). The transposition of the detailed qualitative inspection of threads into the typology is not without its problems, not least through the level of interactional detail that is lost within an analytic process where complexity is reduced. Nevertheless, typologies of this kind allow for “drilling down” into the data to continually ground any quantitative analysis (including the identification of false positives) in the actual “ground truth” of Twitter interactions. The typol- ogy can act as a bridging instrument between small and big data that can be constantly refined in an iterative and 8 Social Media + Society recursive manner while helping to aid and discover points of interest in large data sets that enable repeated interac- tion-oriented sociological inspection across different cases. To demonstrate this, we discuss some of the patterns observed via the visualization of Twitter threads using the typology. These relate to engagement, retweets, and sub-conversations. One consistent pattern was the recurrence of tweets char- acterized as unengaged with the opening tweet or topic in a thread (Figure 5). While engaged responses take up the topic at hand, for instance, through expressing agreement or requesting additional information, unengaged ones appear to do something different. For example, they might refer to an unrelated topic or praise the original poster without making Figure 3. Twitter thread typology. Figure 4. Thread visualization of tweet action. Housley et al. 9 reference to the campaign itself. The consistency of this pat- tern across our data indicates that while at an aggregate level a social media campaign might appear concordant, it is het- erogeneous in nature, with a substantial number of posts deviating from the opening topic. Retweets, in which users forward on a prior tweet, were very frequent across the three campaigns studied. The most common retweets were of posts performing praise (of a user rather than the campaign) and echoes (which repeat or para- phrase earlier posts). Retweets therefore played a valuable role in spreading and amplifying “on message” content related to the campaign. It appears that the forwarding of content plays a key role in the propagation of a campaign across social media; this is confirmed by studies of informa- tion flow and “sentiment” across social media during digital public reaction to signal events (see Burnap et al., 2014, 2016). It is critical to continue to link this to qualitative inspection in order to understand the interaction that drives propagation and to help inform our understanding of the potential role of phenomena such as homophily. Posters frequently responded to each other and thereby played a key role in extending a thread. While entire threads might contribute to one conversation, often individual con- versations deviate from the main topic, resulting in sub-con- versations between certain posters. As threads extend, tweets are increasingly likely to deviate from the topic of the origi- nal post and perform actions that do not relate to the cam- paign itself. For example, after posters exchange successive disagreements they may begin to trade personal criticisms rather than engage with the substance of the campaign (Figure 5). These might be seen to represent points where campaign communication meets more socially antagonistic and oppositional interactions on social media platforms. A more nuanced reading derived from the qualitative analysis suggests that matters of morality and accountability are embedded features of Twitter threads that are concerned with controversial topics of pressing humanitarian importance. This nuanced view is vital to analysis. Typologies are neces- sary for a “1,000-foot view” of social media in relation to critical events and the quantitative documentation of online activism. However, it remains important to return to the “manual inspection” of threads in order to augment macro- scopic visualization and analysis with more granular detail. These interactions are subject to many of the ordinary and mundane rituals of everyday life, albeit within the particular confines and features of 140 characters. Finally, platforms and their associated “functional affor- dances” configure the context in and through which social media in action takes place. For example, the process of “@”-ing a user in a thread can initiate forms of interaction that scale into antagonistic exchanges confined to the short form of 140 characters; further work needs to support cross- platform studies that empirically investigate how the length and detail of posts and “functional affordances” help shape and configure online discourse in different ways with possi- ble implications for antagonism, deliberation, discussion, and the exchange of information online. Discussion We studied three online social media campaigns and ana- lyzed them at an interactional level. We have illustrated our analysis here by presenting the findings of two of those campaigns. We iteratively developed a typology for catego- rizing the actions performed in social media posts, before constructing a diagrammatic scheme for studying user inter- action. Through this we identified a large range of actions performed within single campaigns, with a substantial num- ber of tweets appearing not to engage with the campaign at all. While threads often begin on a particular topic, they fre- quently deviate through the emergent voices of the partici- pants as they unfold over time. Our analysis demonstrates the ways in which attention to interactional practices can provide empirical insight into the micro-transformational characteristics of social media posts within “campaign communication.” We argue that social media activist campaigns should not be considered as homogeneous in content, but rather formed through individual posts that perform a wide range of accountable actions and respond to each other. Campaigns include actions that often do not appear to be engaged with the campaign itself, despite the use of a particular hashtag. Furthermore, these campaigns develop, at least in part, through interactions between posters, which, once again, might not directly engage with the campaign. Our microlevel approach can complement computational analyses of Twitter interactions. For example, machine learn- ing classifiers could be trained on existing data, enabling automated categorization of future messages. This could assist the real-time identification of uncivil behavior, which could then be defused by online moderators as well as informing additional computational approaches such as Natural Language Processing (NLP) that may enable the cat- egorization of tweets in real time and at scale. The challenge, however, is integrating macro and micro levels of analysis and social and computational approaches into a coherent framework of interdisciplinary work. In conclusion, we are mindful that our analyses suggest that social media “campaign” interaction forms an ecology of topics and associated actions that represent an emerging value base through which digital activism and related issues of stake and interest (Potter, Edwards, & Wetherell, 1993) might organize. They also inform an emerging understanding of how a continuum of inter-actions constitute a temporal and Figure 5. Engaged and unengaged actions. 10 Social Media + Society therefore transformational trajectory that may differentiate forms of online campaign—especially where certain claims, facts, the right to speak, or information are contested. Consequently, interactionist analyses may provide a set of concepts and techniques through which online campaigns can be seen to be processed, through the actions, in real time, of participants on social media, as legitimate, contested, mali- cious, or irrelevant to specific social groups. “Topic prolifera- tion” through social media streams provides an opportunity to document the “norms-in-action” associated with online, activist Twitter campaigns, and trace the salience of core claims and aligned “stakes and interest” (or otherwise) dis- played through members’ accounts through time. In this way, we respecify the transformation of social media campaign communications in and through interactional practices docu- mented and discussed through the course of this article. Declaration of Conflicting Interest The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Data collection and analysis in this paper were conducted as part of the ESRC sponsored project “Digital Wildfire: (mis)information flows, propagation, and responsible governance” (Ref. ES/LO13398/1). Meredydd Williams’ contribution was also supported by the Centre for Doctoral Training in Cyber Security at the University of Oxford. He is funded through an EPSRC studentship (Ref. EP/P00881X/1). Note 1. As yet, no consensus exists on whether tweets—which are posted on an open platform—need to be anonymized in publi- cations. In this article, we follow a practice agreed in December 2015 with the University of Oxford Central Research Ethics Office, which oversees the Digital Wildfire project. All tweets are anonymized with the exception of those from official accounts already in the public eye. References Awan, I. (2014). Islamophobia and Twitter: A typology of online hate against Muslims on social media. Policy & Internet, 6, 133–150. BBC News. (2015, May 12). Nepal earthquake: Dozens die in new tremor near Everest. BBC News. Retrieved from http://www. bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-32701385 BBC Newsbeat. (2015, April 30). “Dear sex attacker, you will not win”: Oxford University student published letter. BBC Newsbeat. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/arti- cle/32509311/dear-sex-attacker-you-will-not-win—oxford- university-student-published-letter Briones, R. L., Kuch, B., Liu, B. F., & Jin, Y. (2011). Keeping up with the digital age: How the American Red Cross uses social media to build relationships. Public Relations Review, 37, 37–43. BT Home. (2015, May 22). Why #VoteYes is the number one trend worldwide. BT Home. Retrieved from https://home.bt.com/ news/news-extra/why-voteyes-is-the-number-one-trend- worldwide-11363982595110 Burgess, J., & Matamoros-Fernández, A. (2016). Mapping sociocul- tural controversies across digital media platforms: One week of #gamergate on Twitter, Youtube, and Tumblr. Communication Research and Practice, 2, 79–96. Burnap, P., Rana, O., Williams, M., Housley, W., Edwards, A., Morgan, J., & Conejero, J. (2015). COSMOS: Towards an integrated and scalable service for analysing social media on demand. International Journal of Parallel, Emergent and Distributed Systems, 30, 80–100. doi:10.1080/17445760.2014 .902057 Burnap, P., Williams, M., Sloan, L., Rana, O., Housley, W., Edwards, A., & Voss, A. (2014). Tweeting the terror: model- ling the social media reaction to the Woolwich terrorist attack. Social Network Analysis and Mining 4(1), 206. doi:10.1007/ s13278-014-0206-4 Carey-Simos, G. (2015, December 12). Facebook adds “donate” button making it easier to give to charity. WERSM. Retrieved from http://wersm.com/facebook-adds-donate-button-making- it-easier-to-give-to-charity/ Chadwick, A., & Howard, P. N. (2008). Routledge handbook of Internet politics. New York, NY: Routledge. Charities Aid Foundation. (2015, May 14). One in four donate to DEC Nepal earthquake appeal. Charities Aid Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.cafonline.org/about-us/media- office/1405-dec-nepal-appeal Cox, D. (2015, May 30). After the ice bucket challenge: They raised $115m for the fight against ALS. So how did they spend it? The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/ society/2015/may/30/als-after-the-ice-bucket-challenge Davies, A. (2013, June 25). “Slacktivism” vs. thick, impactful civic participation. European Social Innovation Research. Retrieved from http://siresearch.eu/blog/slacktivism-vs-thick-impactful- civic-participation Diakopoulos, N. A., & Shamma, D. A. (2010). Characterizing debate performance via aggregated twitter sentiment. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1195-1198). New York, NY: ACM. Driscoll, K., & Thorson, K. (2015). Searching and clustering meth- odologies: Connecting political communication content across platforms. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 659, 134–148. Duguay, S. (2016). Constructing public space “legit can’t wait for #Toronto #WorldPride!”: Investigating the Twitter pub- lic of a large-scale LGBTQ festival. International Journal of Communication, 10, 274–298. Earl, J., Hurwitz, H. M., Mesinas, A. M., Tolan, M., & Arlotti, A. (2013). This protest will be tweeted: Twitter and protest polic- ing during the Pittsburgh G20. Information, Communication & Society, 16, 459–478. Edwards, A., Housley, W., Williams, M., Sloan, L., & Williams, M. (2013). Digital Social research, social media and the sociologi- cal imagination: Surrogacy, augmentation and re-orientation. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 16, 245–260. doi:10.1080/13645579.2013.774185 Elgot, J. (2015, August 28). Don’t sniff at clicktivism, says new British boss at Change.org. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-32701385 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-32701385 http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/32509311/dear-sex-attacker-you-will-not-win�oxford- university-student-published-letter http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/32509311/dear-sex-attacker-you-will-not-win�oxford- university-student-published-letter http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/32509311/dear-sex-attacker-you-will-not-win�oxford- university-student-published-letter https://home.bt.com/news/news-extra/why-voteyes-is-the-number-one-trend-worldwide-11363982595110 https://home.bt.com/news/news-extra/why-voteyes-is-the-number-one-trend-worldwide-11363982595110 https://home.bt.com/news/news-extra/why-voteyes-is-the-number-one-trend-worldwide-11363982595110 http://wersm.com/facebook-adds-donate-button-making-it-easier-to-give-to-charity/ http://wersm.com/facebook-adds-donate-button-making-it-easier-to-give-to-charity/ https://www.cafonline.org/about-us/media-office/1405-dec-nepal-appeal https://www.cafonline.org/about-us/media-office/1405-dec-nepal-appeal http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/may/30/als-after-the-ice-bucket-challenge http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/may/30/als-after-the-ice-bucket-challenge http://siresearch.eu/blog/slacktivism-vs-thick-impactful-civic-participation http://siresearch.eu/blog/slacktivism-vs-thick-impactful-civic-participation Housley et al. 11 http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/28/dont-sniff- at-clicktivism-says-new-british-boss-at-changeorg Freelon, D. G., McIlwain, C. D., & Clark, M. D. (2016, February 29). Beyond the hashtags: #Ferguson, #Blacklivesmatter, and the online struggle for offline justice. Retrieved from http:// cmsimpact.org/resource/beyond-hashtags-ferguson-black- livesmatter-online-struggle-offline-justice/ Frizell, S. (2015, April 25). Google deploys person-finder tool to help survivors of Nepal earthquake. Time. Retrieved from http://time.com/3835665/nepal-earthquake-relief-google-per- son-finder/ Frosch, D., & Calvert, S. (2015, August 9). A year after Ferguson, “Black Lives Matter” still wields influence. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/articles/a- year-after-ferguson-black-lives-matter-still-wields-influ- ence-1439143426 Garcia Esparza, S., O’Mahony, M. P., & Smyth, B. (2010, August 30-September 1). Towards tagging and categorization for micro-blogs. National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science, Galway. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Gerbaudo, P. (2012). Tweets and the streets: Social media and con- temporary activism. London, England: Pluto Press. Gerbaudo, P. (2014). Populism 2.0. In D. Trottier & C. Fuchs (Eds.), Social media, politics and the state: Protests, revolu- tions, riots, crime and policing in the age of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube (pp. 67–87). New York, NY: Routledge. Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the pub- lic sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge: MIT press. Hardaker, C. (2010). Trolling in asynchronous computer-mediated communication: From user discussions to academic defini- tions. Journal of Politeness Research, 6, 215–242. Harlow, S. (2012). Social media and social movements: Facebook and an online Guatemalan justice movement that moved offline. New Media & Society, 14, 225–243. Horeck, T. (2014). #AskThicke: “Blurred lines,” rape culture, and the Feminist Hashtag takeover. Feminist Media Studies, 14, 1105–1107. Housley, W. (2003). Interaction in multidisciplinary teams. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Housley, W., & Fitzgerald, R. (2008). Motives and social organi- zation: Sociological amnesia, psychological description and the analysis of accounts. Qualitative Research, 8, 237–256. doi:10.1177/1468794107087483 Housley, W., & Fitzgerald, R. (2015). Introduction to membership categorisation analysis. In R. Fitzgerald & W. Housley (Eds.), Advances in membership categorisation analysis (pp. 1–22). London, England: SAGE. Housley, W., Procter, R., Edwards, A., Burnap, P., Williams, M., Sloan, L., & Greenhill, A. (2014). Big and broad social data and the sociological imagination: A collab- orative response. Big Data & Society, 1 (2). doi:10.1177/ 2053951714545135 Housley, W., Webb, H., Edwards, A., Procter, R., & Jirotka, M. (2017). Digitizing sacks? Approaching social media as data. Qualitative Research, 17, 627–644. Lupton, D. (2015). Digital sociology. New York, NY: Routledge. McCosker, A. (2014). Trolling as provocation YouTube’s agonistic publics. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 20, 201–217. Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & McNeal, R. S. (2008). Digital citi- zenship: The Internet, society and participation. Cambridge: MIT Press. Murthy, D. (2012). Towards a sociological understanding of social media: Theorizing Twitter. Sociology, 46, 1059–1073. Murthy, D. (2013). Twitter: Social communication in the Twitter age. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. London, England: Penguin. Poell, T., & Borra, E. (2012). Twitter, YouTube, and Flickr as plat- forms of alternative journalism: The social media account of the 2010 Toronto G20 protests. Journalism, 13, 695–713. Poell, T., & Rajagopalan, S. (2015). Connecting activists and jour- nalists: Twitter communication in the aftermath of the 2012 Delhi rape. Journalism Studies, 16, 719–733. Potter, J., Edwards, D., & Wetherell, M. (1993). A model of dis- course in action. American Behavioural Scientist, 36, 383– 401. Procter, R., Vis, F., & Voss, A. (2013). Reading the riots on Twitter: Methodological innovation for the analysis of big data. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 16, 197–214. Reuters. (2015, May 22). High turnout seen favouring yes in Irish gay marriage vote. Thomson Reuters. Retrieved from http:// www.trust.org/item/20150522140302-ajwj0 Russo, A., Watkins, J., Kelly, L., & Chan, S. (2008). Participatory communication with social media. Curator: The Museum Journal, 51, 21–31. Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation (vols. 1 and 2). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking conversation. Language, 50, 696–735. Scott, M. B., & Lyman, S. M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33, 46–62. Segerberg, A., & Bennett, W. L. (2011). Social media and the organization of collective action: Using Twitter to explore the ecologies of two climate change protests. The Communication Review, 14, 197–215. Starbird, K., Maddock, J., Orand, M., Achterman, P., & Mason, R. M. (2014). Rumors, false flags, and digital vigilantes: Misinformation on Twitter after the 2013 Boston marathon bombing. In iConference proceedings. Retrieved from http:// faculty.washington.edu/kstarbi/Starbird_iConference2014- final.pdf Stokes, R., & Hewitt, J. P. (1976). Aligning actions. American Sociological Review, 41, 838–849. Theocharis, Y., Lowe, W., van Deth, J. W., & García-Albacete, G. (2015). Using Twitter to mobilize protest action: Online mobi- lization patterns and action repertoires in the occupy wall street, Indignados, and Aganaktismenoi movements. Information, Communication & Society, 18, 202–220. Thrift, S. C. (2014). #YesAllWomen as Feminist meme event. Feminist Media Studies, 14, 1090–1092. Tolmie, P., Procter, R., Rouncefield, M., Liakata, M., & Zubiaga, A. (2017). Microblog analysis as a programme of work: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/28/dont-sniff-at-clicktivism-says-new-british-boss-at-changeorg http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/28/dont-sniff-at-clicktivism-says-new-british-boss-at-changeorg http://cmsimpact.org/resource/beyond-hashtags-ferguson-blacklivesmatter-online-struggle-offline-justice/ http://cmsimpact.org/resource/beyond-hashtags-ferguson-blacklivesmatter-online-struggle-offline-justice/ http://cmsimpact.org/resource/beyond-hashtags-ferguson-blacklivesmatter-online-struggle-offline-justice/ http://time.com/3835665/nepal-earthquake-relief-google-person-finder/ http://time.com/3835665/nepal-earthquake-relief-google-person-finder/ http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-year-after-ferguson-black-lives-matter-still-wields-influence-1439143426 http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-year-after-ferguson-black-lives-matter-still-wields-influence-1439143426 http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-year-after-ferguson-black-lives-matter-still-wields-influence-1439143426 http://www.trust.org/item/20150522140302-ajwj0 http://www.trust.org/item/20150522140302-ajwj0 http://faculty.washington.edu/kstarbi/Starbird_iConference2014-final.pdf http://faculty.washington.edu/kstarbi/Starbird_iConference2014-final.pdf http://faculty.washington.edu/kstarbi/Starbird_iConference2014-final.pdf 12 Social Media + Society ACM transactions on social computing. arXiv preprint arXiv: 1511.03193. Trottier, D. (2012). Social media as surveillance. Farnham, UK: Ashgate. Tufekci, Z. (2011, August 30). New media and the people-powered uprisings. Technology Review. Retrieved from https://www. technologyreview.com/s/425280/new-media-and-the-people- powered-uprisings/ Tufekci, Z., & Wilson, C. (2012). Social media and the decision to participate in political protest: Observations from Tahrir Square. Journal of Communication, 62, 363–379. Webb, H., Burnap, P., Procter, R., Rana, O., Stahl, B., Williams, A., & Jirotka, M. (2016). Digital wildfires? Propagation, verifica- tion, regulation and responsible innovation ACM Transactions on Information Systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 34 (3), 15. Webb, H., Jirotka, M., Stahl, B. C., Housley, W., Edwards, A., Williams, M., & Burnap, P. (2017). The ethical challenges of publishing Twitter data for research dissemination. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Web Science Conference (pp. 339–348). Troy, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/3091478.3091489 Wells, I. (2015, December 12). I am a daughter, friend and girl- friend: You will not win: A letter to my sexual attacker. The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ women/womens-life/11567547/Oxford-university-female- student-A-letter-to-my-sexual-attacker.html White, M. (2010, August 12). Clicktivism is ruining leftist activ- ism. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian. com/commentisfree/2010/aug/12/clicktivism-ruining-leftist- activism Williams, M., Edwards, A., Housley, W., Burnap, P., Rana, O., Avis, N., & Sloan, L. (2013). Policing cyber-neighbourhoods: Tension monitoring and social media networks. Policing and Society, 23, 461–481. doi:10.1080/10439463.2013.780225 World Economic Forum. (2013). Digital wildfires in a hypercon- nected world: Global Risks Report. World Economic Forum. Retrieved from http://reports.weforum.org/global-risks-2013/ risk-case-1/digital-wildfires-in-a-hyperconnected-world/ Zubiaga, A., Liakata, M., Procter, R., Hoi, G. W. S., & Tolmie, P. (2016). Analysing how people orient to and spread rumours in social media by looking at conversational threads. PLoS ONE, 11(3), e0150989. Author Biographies William Housley (PhD, University of Wales, DSc Econ, Cardiff University) is professor in Sociology at Cardiff University. His research interests include the emerging contours of digital society, social interaction, and social research methods. Helena Webb (PhD, University of Nottingham) is a senior researcher in the Department of Computer Science at the University of Oxford. Her research interests include interaction, organization, and the interrelationships between technologies and social practices. Meredydd Williams (MPhil, University of Cambridge) is a PhD stu- dent in Cyber Security at the University of Oxford. His research interests include online privacy, behavior change, and the security aspects of the Internet-of-Things. Rob Procter (PhD, University of Manchester) is professor of Social Informatics at the University of Warwick. His research interests include applications of social media analytics, methodologies for social data science, and socio-technical systems. Adam Edwards (PhD, Cardiff University) is reader in Politics and Criminology at Cardiff University. His research interests include collaborative and interdisciplinary research, including work with lawyers, political scientists, computer scientists, and sociologists interested in the impact of emergent technologies, such as social media, on issues of law, governance, and regulation in relation to problems of crime, security, and justice. Marina Jirotka (PhD, University of Oxford) is professor of Human Centred Computing at the University of Oxford. Her research inter- ests include co-producing user and community requirements and human computer interaction, particularly for collaborative systems (CSCW). Pete Burnap (PhD, Cardiff University) is a reader in Data Science and Cyber Analytics at Cardiff University. His research interests include the prediction and understanding of Web-enabled human and software behavior, with a particular interest in emerging and future risks posed to civil society, business (economies), and governments. Bernd Carsten Stahl (PhD, Witten/Herdecke University) is professor of Critical research in Technology at De Montfort University. His research interests include philosophical issues arising from the intersections of business, technology, and information. Omer Rana (PhD, Imperial College, University of London) is professor of Performance Engineering at Cardiff University. His research interests include high performance distributed computing and scalable data analysis. Matthew Williams (PhD, Cardiff University) is professor of Criminology at Cardiff University. His research interests include hate crime, hate speech, and extremism online, computational social science and human factors in Cybersecurity. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/425280/new-media-and-the-people-powered-uprisings/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/425280/new-media-and-the-people-powered-uprisings/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/425280/new-media-and-the-people-powered-uprisings/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11567547/Oxford-university-female-student-A-letter-to-my-sexual-attacker.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11567547/Oxford-university-female-student-A-letter-to-my-sexual-attacker.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11567547/Oxford-university-female-student-A-letter-to-my-sexual-attacker.html http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/aug/12/clicktivism-ruining-leftist-activism http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/aug/12/clicktivism-ruining-leftist-activism http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/aug/12/clicktivism-ruining-leftist-activism http://reports.weforum.org/global-risks-2013/risk-case-1/digital-wildfires-in-a-hyperconnected-world/ http://reports.weforum.org/global-risks-2013/risk-case-1/digital-wildfires-in-a-hyperconnected-world/