Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper analyzes 38 million geolocated tweets from 20 European countries during the first eight months of the Ukraine war to understand how different European publics debated the crisis on Twitter. The study identifies "hawkish" and "doveish" opinion clusters within almost every country and finds that structural polarization is driven by the exit of casual users rather than radicalization. The key finding is that whether opposing sides orient to the same events depends on the issue: they form an agonistic public sphere on pragmatist issues but operate as affective publics and counterpublics on interpretive issues, leading to divergent meanings.
Polarization isn't always about echo chambers: Europeans can agree on *what* happened in the Ukraine war, but vehemently disagree on *why* it matters.
How do European publics debate a geopolitical crisis on social media, and do they inhabit a shared informational reality? We analyze over 38 million geolocated tweets from 20 European countries during the first eight months of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Using retweet community detection and stance annotation across six issues, we identify'hawkish'and'doveish'opinion clusters present within almost every country studied. We find that structural polarization is driven not by radicalization, but by the exit of casual users. Crucially, whether opposing sides orient to the same events depends on the issue. On pragmatist issues, both sides react to the same high-profile events, forming an agonistic public sphere. Instead, on interpretive issues, they operate as affective publics and counterpublics constructing divergent meanings. We propose conditional publics to describe formations whose relational structure, sharing or fracturing a referential frame, depends on the epistemic character of the debated issue.
ETH