In the American Journal of Political Science, authors Anita R. Gohdes and Zachary C. Steinert-Threlkeld have a paper on “Civilian behavior on social media during war.” Research, they write, emphasizes the ability to express shared grievances. But active conflict changes things, and posts indicating loyalties can put civilians at risk.
As the authors write, “Because civilian support is crucial to winning wars and maintaining control over territory, conflict actors have a strong incentive to monitor whether and how civilians display loyalties toward the conflict parties,” and authoritarian governments often demand public displays of loyalty.
They also articulate the ways in which counterinsurgents try to win — and keep an eye on — local support. And while armed conflict is ongoing, “the degree to which information about civilians’ loyalties is relevant and available fluctuates.” One major factor is who controls a given territory. After a conflict, the victor wants to know who’s loyal and who should be punished, and also wants social media proof of widespread support.
The authors thus develop a theory: “After major changes in territorial control, civilians should be more likely to post positive content, and more content that supports the winning side.”
“Situations of Information Scarcity”
As they write, “In the context of armed conflict, major changes in territorial control produce situations of information scarcity that increase the incentives of civilians to publicly show support for the victorious side in order to improve their security.” And given that individuals can choose to self-disclose location, strategic posting “should therefore be strongest in content where individuals disclose their location.”
They also articulate the ways in which counterinsurgents try to win — and keep an eye on — local support.
The authors suspected that three types of posters drive changes in content: individuals loyal to the winners who showed their support before control changed hands; individuals who had no previous public stance on the victor; and individuals who supported the loser but are falsifying their position online (and, for that matter, offline).
They looked at posts during and following the November 2016 siege of Aleppo. They used Twitter specifically because it was used by individuals against, for, and “neutral” on the Assad regime.
The study found a range of behavior. They found that, when self-disclosing their location, users in Aleppo sent more positive, pro-Assad posts. This was true for accounts that did not support the regime prior to the end of the siege. On the other hand, posters who didn’t disclose their location were more likely to post anti-regime content after the end of the siege in Aleppo (there were no changes post-siege in other parts of Syria). The results, the authors write, suggest social media users post strategically.
Digital communication is now a key part of politics of contention. The authors maintain that how civilians use social media every day in war is understudied, and that their paper points to a future direction that more research could take.
