F., G. (2020). Three Consequences of Big Data on the Practices and Scholarships of Political Communication. https://doi.org/10.3270/96423
Summary
Giglietto’s essay argues that big data and ubiquitous digital platforms have reshaped political communication along three intertwined vectors: (1) the blurring of organizational boundaries via networked, connective action; (2) micro-targeted social media advertising; and (3) competition for scarce attention through strategic amplification. Each vector destabilizes assumptions and methods inherited from broadcast-era political communication research—reliance on official channels, mainstream source lists, self-reported media diets, and clear distinctions between paid and organic persuasion. The paper situates these shifts within debates over disinformation, platform regulation (ad libraries, fact-checking, ad bans), and the hybrid media system, calling for both methodological adaptation and better data access for scholars.
Key Contributions
- A synthetic three-vector framework (networked publics, micro-targeting, attention competition) for understanding big-data effects on political communication.
- An articulation of how the three vectors interact—e.g., fuzzy organizational boundaries undermine ad regulation, and amplification routes around ad-based controls—producing “permanent potential influence.”
- A diagnosis of obsolete methodological assumptions in political communication scholarship (source lists, exposure measurement, official-channel focus).
- A critical assessment of Facebook’s Ad Library as both opportunity and limitation, and a call for greater platform data access.
Methods
A conceptual and theoretical essay rather than an empirical study. Giglietto synthesizes literatures on connective action (Bennett & Segerberg), weak ties (Granovetter), attention economy (Webster), and media manipulation (Marwick & Lewis; Donovan & boyd), illustrated through cases including Cambridge Analytica, the Five Star Movement, Podemos, Occupy Wall Street, the Yellow Vests, and Trump’s Twitter use. Facebook’s Ad Library is discussed as a data resource and a case in transparency limits.
Findings
- “Digital parties” and connective movements exploit weak ties and blurred boundaries, letting fringe actors support mainstream parties without formal affiliation.
- Evidence for the persuasive efficacy of micro-targeted political ads remains weak despite high public salience (e.g., Cambridge Analytica).
- Platform responses to political advertising diverge sharply (Twitter’s ban vs. Facebook’s hands-off stance), reflecting unresolved normative tensions.
- Ad Library transparency stops short of targeting specifications, constraining scholarly utility.
- The flat “all sources are equal” display of social feeds erodes brand-reputation cues and complicates exposure measurement.
- Interaction metrics (likes, shares) are poor proxies for exposure, since users routinely engage without reading.
- Strategic amplification by disguised or central actors creates a low-resistance persuasion environment that especially affects undecided voters.
Connections
This essay sits upstream of much subsequent empirical work on coordinated amplification and platform-level political communication; see Giglietto2022-b30e8b4e and Giglietto2019-e9be81c1 for the author’s own operationalization of coordinated link sharing, and Giglietto2024-cbeb3f70 for related platform-data work. Its emphasis on networked publics and blurred boundaries connects to Iannelli2018-ebd918b7, while the diagnosis of attention competition and strategic amplification anticipates concerns developed in Starbird2025-jj and Marwick2025-ov. The methodological critique—about source lists, exposure, and incidental media diets in high-choice environments—resonates with Gonzalez-Bailon2024-rq and Budak2024-ef.