Social Media and Radicalization: An Affordance Approach for Cross-Platform Comparison

To accentuate which platform characteristics particularly foster radicalization and extremist dynamics, this contribution investigates the affordances of social media as delineated in contemporary literature, conducting a platform comparison encompassing Telegram, WhatsApp, and X (formerly Twitter). Based on a scoping review, 17 affordances identified from studies researching radicalization dynamics on social media were extracted and categorized. The most frequently mentioned affordances—anonymity, visibility, and collectivity—were then further analyzed concerning their contribution to radicalization and the radicalization potential of these specific platforms. The platform-comparative affordance discussion shows that, although, in principle each of the three compared platforms can foster an environment conducive to radicalization depending on user intention and usage context, the specific characteristics of each platform necessitate a nuanced consideration. On one hand, it is imperative to discern affordances differentially along various dimensions when assessing their implications (e.g., internal vs. external visibility). On the other hand, it is beneficial to consider which affordances emerge from the actualization of other affordances. For instance, collectivity can result from the interplay of several affordances, such as interactivity and anonymity, and can be referred to as a meta-affordance. Furthermore, the analysis shows that platform branding and self-presentation not only affect platform architecture and affordances but also shape users’ perceptions of the platform, thereby influencing the actualization of affordances. This was particularly noted in the literature for Telegram and increasingly for X. Specific assertions, nevertheless, are hindered by the conceptual diffusion of the affordance approach and a lack of empirical analyses directly and systematically examining platform affordances in conjunction with radicalization dynamics.

为凸显哪些平台特性尤为促进激进化和极端主义动态，本研究深入探讨当代文献中描绘的社交媒体功能，并对比分析了包括Telegram、WhatsApp和X（前身为Twitter）在内的多个平台。基于范围审查，从研究社交媒体上激进化动态的17项功能中提取并进行了分类。其中提及频率最高的功能——匿名性、可见性和集体性——随后进一步分析了它们对激进化的贡献以及这些特定平台潜在的激进化能力。平台比较功能讨论表明，尽管从原则上讲，三个比较平台中的每一个均能在用户意图和用法环境下培育出有利于激进化的环境，但每个平台的具体特征要求进行细致的考量。一方面，在评估其影响时，必须从不同维度区分不同的功能（例如，内部与外部可见性）。另一方面，考虑哪些功能是其他功能的实现结果是有益的。例如，集体性可能源于互动性和匿名性等几个功能的相互作用，并可称之为元功能。此外，分析还表明，平台品牌建设和自我呈现不仅影响平台架构和功能，还塑造了用户对平台的认识，从而影响功能的实现。这在Telegram的文献中尤为明显，而在X平台则日益凸显。然而，具体的断言受到功能方法概念上的扩散以及缺乏直接且系统地考察平台功能与激进化动态相结合的实证分析的制约。