=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3090/paper13
|storemode=property
|title=Online Deliberation on Social Media as a Form of Public Dialogue in Russia
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3090/paper13.pdf
|volume=Vol-3090
|authors=Olga Filatova,Daniil Volkovskii
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/ims2/FilatovaV21
}}
==Online Deliberation on Social Media as a Form of Public Dialogue in Russia==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3090/paper13.pdf
Online Deliberation on Social Media as a Form of Public Dialogue
in Russia
Olga Filatovaa, Daniil Volkovskiia
a
St. Petersburg State University,7-9 Universitetskaya Emb., St. Petersburg, 199034, Russia
Abstract
The article presents the results of the analysis of online discussions on acute theme in Russian
socio-political discourse correlating with the court sentence to Alexei Navalny. The
investigation is based on modified discourse analysis methodology to identify deliberative
quality of discourse. The analysis is carried out according to such parameters as argumentation,
communication culture, interactivity, dialogicity and the degree of dialogue. Online
discussions on the pages of Vkontakte social network of five Russian media are used as an
empirical basis for the study. The authors come to the conclusion that online deliberation as a
form of public dialogue in Russia is poorly developed and has predominantly entertainment
nature. Russian online deliberations are very interactive, the degree of dialogue in them is high
but the level of argumentation and culture of communication in online discussions is low which
prevents the development of online deliberation on political topics as a form of public dialogue.
Keywords 1
Online deliberation, discourse, dialogue, discourse analysis, social media, Russia, media
1. Introduction
In recent years, democratic systems and institutions have been increasingly attacked [1]. The
integrity of the elections was under threat, the environment in which journalists work and civil society
exist has deteriorated [2], problems related to the appearance of fake information regularly arise and
confrontation on social networks is intensifying. In such a situation the concept of public dialogue and,
in particular, online deliberation as its modern form is becoming more important than ever.
Deliberation is a process of communication between citizens that takes place in a public space
through dialogue, discussions, negotiations with the help of which the search for solutions to common
problems related to the political sphere is carried out. The concepts of democratic deliberation have
been intensively developed as they are aimed at significantly expanding the opportunities for active
inclusion of citizens in politics and their participation in it [3].
In general, issues related to the construction of effective dialogue between citizens, society and state
are among the most discussed in the context of modern humanitarian knowledge. Nevertheless, Russian
science leaves without due attention the problem of dialogical interaction between citizens and state on
political issues in the online environment including generally accepted interpretation of the concept of
online deliberation and the methodology for its study.
In this article we will analyze the discussions on social networks and try to identify what kind of
deliberative potential they have as social media have taken on promising functions in the political
context correlating with active development of the processes of political participation and democracy
[4,5].
The main goal of the article is to assess the quality of online deliberation in social networks as a
form of public dialogue in the modern Russian context. For doing this, a number of parameters such as
argumentation, communication culture, interactivity, dialogicity and the degree of dialogue is used.
IMS 2021 - International Conference "Internet and Modern Society", June 24-26, 2021, St. Petersburg, Russia
EMAIL: filatovo@gmail.com (A. 1); daniil.volkovskii@yandex.com (A. 2)
ORCID: 0000-0001-9568-1002 (A. 1); 0000-0001-9568-1002 (A. 2)
© 2021 Copyright for this paper by its authors.
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
IMS-2021. International Conference “Internet and Modern Society” 147
2. Theoretical basis of investigation
The research presented in this article is based on the concept of J. Habermas. The deliberative model
of democracy proposed by the German scientist comprises diverse forms of communication, continuous
and maximally broad political discourse in society. The results of it are determined by the strength of
arguments [6, p.391]. The concept implies that authentic problems of society are identified and revealed,
directions for their solution, optimal ways to achieve goals are determined in the course of collective
reflections.
In the theory of J. Habermas we come across with the concept of ideal democratic procedure for
negotiation and decision-making which is created in order to achieve reasonable and honest results.
According to the researcher's approach, deliberation “takes into account a higher degree of
intersubjectivity of the processes of mutual understanding which are carried out, on the one hand, in the
institutionalized form of meetings of the parliamentary corps, as well as, on the other, in the
communication network of the political community. These subjectless communications inside and
outside of political associations programmed for decision-making generate an arena where a more or
less rational formation of public opinion and political will about significant for the whole society and
need to be regulated topics can take place" [6, p.395-396]. Civil participation in discussions that unfold
on various Internet platforms can be seen as a prerequisite for discursive democracy.
Online deliberation on issues of common interest to all participants is one of the most discussed
forms of political Internet communication today. It is believed that Internet is a medicine that can help
overcome the crisis of Western democracy [7]. Due to the lack of centralized control, Internet as an
open communication environment has flexibility and enormous potential to quickly implement
multilateral information exchange practically throughout the entire planet which, accordingly,
facilitates interaction between citizens [8, p.48-56]. However, it is still not entirely clear whether
Internet will contribute to the establishment of the principles of deliberative democracy and if so, how
effectively it will be implemented.
It is worth agreeing with T. Davis that online deliberation with emphasis on discussion carries both
future opportunities and disappointments: “The opportunity is due to the flexibility of information and
communication technologies which allows for online discussion and, even possibly, surpasses the usual
off-network form of discussion in cases where access to information, time requirements and other
factors limit the availability of direct discussion in the format "face to face". The disappointment,
however, is that deliberative activity is definitely not in a rush to gain traction on Internet compared to
communication that is more entertainment-oriented and more personal than collective” [9, p.3].
Nevertheless, political institutions have begun to provide citizens with new opportunities for offline
and online participation which should ultimately increase the legitimacy and quality of politics [10].
These expectations are reflected in the ideas formulated by theorists of deliberative democracy who
argue that consensual rational decisions through deliberation could help overcome the socio-political
problems that have arisen in conditions of tension and uncertainty [11-13]. Hence, deliberation is a
political model for formulating policies that could potentially be a solution to a smoldering crisis of
legitimacy [14].
A number of empirical studies on online deliberation has increased in recent years. As a result, a
huge amount of theoretical and empirical literature [15,16,17,18] became available but this triggered
difficulties in defining what deliberation is [19] and stretched the concept. It resulted in that many
authors understand deliberation as almost every type of communication [20].
More often than not, researchers define deliberation first and then speak about online deliberation
using the same definition and linking it to usage of electronic communications. For example, Dennis
Friess uses the concept of "deliberation" to refer to "thoughtful, attentive or prolonged consideration"
by individuals and "formal discussion and discussion" in groups, so he is primarily interested in
reasoned, focused and interactive communication [10]. The term "online" in combination with the
concept of "deliberation" can be used to refer to discussion between participants using electronic
communication technologies that enhance the ability to see and hear distant from us in time or space
information.
In this paper we understand online deliberation as a process of public purposeful, reasoned, rational
and equitable discussion between citizens with prevalence of a dialogical form of communication and
148 PART 1: E-Governance
usage of electronic communication technologies aimed at solving common problems and achieving
mutual understanding.
The point of view of D. Walton who considers deliberation as a form of dialogue in which each side
presents its own view of solving a practical problem is also important for our research. Deliberation is
a collective process of dialogical solution of common problems by participants of communication,
therefore, the purpose of deliberative dialogue is to reach agreement on procedures and actions that can
be considered as a solution to practical problem; the choice must be made between two or more mutually
exclusive options [21].
Also, we will rely on the American School of Dialogue (Dialogue Group) by physicist D. Bohm
who has developed a comparative description of genuine and rhetorical dialogues, i.e. "discussions"
[22].
3. Quality of online deliberation on Russian social media: case of A. Navalny
On February 2, 2021, the Simonovsky Court of Moscow held hearings in the case of Alexei Navalny.
During that meeting the issue of replacing the conditional term with a real one was considered. As a
result, the accused will spend 2 years and 8 months in a general regime colony. This news gave rise to
a lot of discussions on social networks about the fairness and injustice of the decision, critical statements
towards both A. Navalny and the Russian authorities.
For the analysis we selected online discussions on the subject of A. Navalny's court verdict on the
pages of VKontakte social network of leading Russian media: print («Komsomolskaya Pravda»,
«Meduza», «TASS») and television («Channel One», «Rain») dividing them by political affiliation:
independent («Rain», «Meduza»), pro-state («Channel One», «Komsomolskaya Pravda» (KP.RU)) and
neutral «TASS». Posts with news about the court decision and user’s comments below them were posted
from 2 to 6 February 2021.
A total of 1165 comments were analyzed. Table 1 presents online discussions on selected five online
platforms in terms of their source, political affiliation, article title, material, post date and time, number
of likes, reposts, comments and links on discussions.
These online discussions were selected based on three factors. Firstly, the discussions corresponded
to the stated topic (the court verdict of A. Navalny). Secondly, each contained at least one hundred
comments which, as our experience shows, is a prerequisite for encoding them using a machine learning
program. Thirdly, discussions were conducted by ordinary citizens on various media platforms. The
discussions were moderated and comments were removed by administrators of online media groups
whose loyalty to government structures varied. The discussions were not in any way initiated or led by
the authorities. We studied and compared such parameters of online deliberations as argumentation,
communication culture, interactivity, dialogicity and the degree of dialogue in order to identify the
specific features of Russian public dialogue in the form of online deliberation on a current political
topic. We used a modified discourse analysis technique developed by Yu. Misnikov which is described
in detail both in the works of its author and in other works of the authors of the article [23,24,25,26,27].
Yu. G. Misnikov developed «Deliberative Standard to Assess Discourse Quality» [28] and described
seven thematically different discourse parameters corresponding to specific research questions to guide
the process of coding the messages of Internet discussions. These parameters are participatory equality,
argumentation, communication culture, validity of statements, interactivity, dialogicality, thematic
diversity. Each parameter contains a set of specific empirical characteristics designed to reflect certain
discursive qualities.
Discussion materials were collected using parsing and loaded into Excel spreadsheets. When coding
discussions, the following data was entered into an Excel spreadsheet: author’s ID, author’s link,
author's first and last name, author’s gender, link on author's image, link on comment, comment date
and time, comment text and number of likes to the comment.
IMS-2021. International Conference “Internet and Modern Society” 149
Table 1
List of analyzed discussions on media pages on social network «VKontakte»
Sources Rain Meduza Channel One KP.RU TASS
Media type Independent Pro-state Neutral
Article title,
The suspended Will Navalny The Moscow The court Navalny's lawyer
material sentence was be replaced City Court sentenced said that her
replaced with a with a real sentenced Alexei client will spend
real one for one? We Alexei Navalny to about 2 years and
Navalny. Taking follow what Navalny to 3.5 3.5 years in 8 months in the
into account the is happening years in prison prison in a colony.
time spent under in the court - and a fine of general
house arrest, and around 500 thousand regime
Navalny will it. rubles. colony.
spend two years
and eight months
in the colony.
Post time 02.02.2021 02.02.2021 04.02.2021 02.02.2021 02.02.2021
(20:46) (18:34) (14:03) (21:24) (21:20)
Number of 499 154 116 177 92
likes
Number of 152 71 33 41 25
reposts
Number of 602 155 160 148 100
comments
Link on https://vk.com https://vk. https://vk.c https://v https://vk.com
discussions /tvrain?w=wall- com/meduza om/1tv?w=w k.com/kpru /tassagency?w=w
17568841_64877 project?w=w all- ?w=wall- all-
55 all- 25380626_26 15722194_ 26284064_37201
76982440_4 10268 5300931 93
791700
First, the attitude of online discussion participants to Alexei Navalny, his sentence and the actions
of authorities was analyzed. At the first stage of the study, positions of users were analyzed in two
categories:
1) «For» (support for A. Navalny, condemnation of the court verdict and criticism of the authorities,
their actions).
2) «Against» (negative attitude towards A. Navalny, support for the court decision, agreement with
the actions of the authorities).
The total percentage of positions “Against” was 85.2%, “For” - 14.8%. In online discussions of all
five media at least 2/3 of users spoke out against Navalny supporting the court's verdict, although some
people disagreed with him claiming that the term was insufficient but they still supported the actions
of authorities. The highest percentage of negative attitude towards politician was illustrated in online
discussions of pro-state media (92.75%), the lowest on platforms of independent media (75.35%);
neutral TASS is in the middle: the percentage of “Against” positions was 87.5%. Considering each
source separately we note that the largest share of negativity towards A. Navalny was recorded on the
Vkontakte pages of Komsomolskaya Pravda (93.8%) and Channel One (91.7%). Participants of online
deliberation on the Rain page (32.6%) were most positive about politician. Need to add that that data
may not be entirely accurate as some user’s comments have been removed. In addition, in the
discussions of some media there were few opinions about the stated problems which to a certain extent
limits the representativeness of results. Moreover, some participants in the course of online discussions
150 PART 1: E-Governance
indicated on presence of bots and trolls which could leave an imprint on data obtained and discussion
in general due to the fact that the bots were difficult to identify.
Simultaneously with the analysis of participants’ positions in discussions the argumentation forms
were identified.
The following positions were included in the analysis of argumentation [28]:
1) facts and numerical indicators of factual nature;
2) numeric data;
3) examples, cases, comparisons, events, citations;
4) references to political figures;
5) conclusions, generalizations;
6) recommendations, suggestions, calls to action;
7) links on various online sources.
The overall percentage of argumentation was 44.8% (see Table 2), however, we need to add that
some comments had several types of arguments and some only one. The highest indicator of
argumentation was recorded in discussions on the platforms of independent media (51.6%), the lowest
on the neutral source "TASS" (35%); in discussions on pro-state media the percentage of argumentation
was 47.7% which did not differ much from the percentage of argumentation in the discussions of
independent media. The largest indicators of argumentation were found both in the discussions on page
of independent source ("Rain" - 63.8%) and pro-state one ("Komsomolskaya Pravda" - 63.5%). The
lowest percentage of using arguments was demonstrated in the discussion on Channel One (31.9%).
Table 2
Argumentation analysis (results presented in percentage)
Independent Pro-state Neutral
Rain Meduza Channel КP.RU TASS Final data
One
Facts and numerical 8,3 8,2 2 5,3 2,9 5,34
indicators of factual
nature
Numeric data 1,1 3,3 2 1,1 5,7 2,64
Examples, cases, 0,8 0 0 2,1 2,9 1,16
comparisons,
events, citations
References to 31 44,3 35,3 31,9 28,5 34,2
political figures
Conclusions, 53,6 42,6 58,7 56,4 60 54,26
generalizations
Recommendations, 2,3 0 2 3,2 0 1,5
suggestions, calls to
action
Links on various 2,9 1,6 0 0 0 0,9
online sources
General % of 63,8 39,4 31,9 63,5 35 44,8
argumentation
Turning to the analysis of specific forms of arguments, the most popular types of argumentation
were 1) conclusions, generalizations, inferences (54.26%), 2) mentioning politicians (34.2%); least
popular: 1) recommendations, suggestions, calls to action (1.5%), 2) examples, cases, events,
comparisons, quotes (1.16%) and 3) links on online sources (0.9%). Most of conclusions and
generalizations were shown in the discussions on the TASS page (60%) and on the pages of pro-state
sources (Channel One - 58.7% and Komsomolskaya Pravda - 56.4%). Speaking about mentions of
IMS-2021. International Conference “Internet and Modern Society” 151
political figures one should highlight the discussion on the Meduza page (44.3%). It is interesting to
observe that in the discussions on independent media in comparison with other media, arguments of
factual nature were used most of all (Rain - 8.3% and Meduza - 8.2%) and links on online sources (Rain
- 2.9% and Meduza - 1.6%). For example, not a single pro-state source and a neutral one did not use
links on additional online resources as arguments. If we talk about suggestions and recommendations,
then pro-state media showed one of the highest indicators (Komsomolskaya Pravda - 3.2 %, Channel
One - 2%). Most of arguments in the form of numbers (5.7%) and examples, comparisons, cases from
life (2.9%) were used in the discussion on TASS page.
We analyzed the culture of communication ("civility") in online deliberations on the subject of the court
verdict of A. Navalny accordingly to following positions:
1) posts are directly addressed to other participants with mention of name or personal appeal but at
the same time they do not relate to topic, problematics, i.e. they are personalized (this category includes
only phrases or sentences indicating interpersonal characteristics and any other communications
(including neutral));
2) posts mentioning a name of participant but rude and offensive in relation to him, his nationality,
religion, ideology, etc. (including sarcasm);
3) posts mentioning a name of participant but rude and offensive in relation to the object of
discussion;
4) polite and respectful posts in relation to a person with a mention of his name (may contain irony,
humor, sarcasm in a positive aspect);
5) posts without mentioning a name of participant but rude and offensive in relation to him, his
nationality, religion, ideology, etc. (including gross sarcasm);
6) posts without mentioning a name of participant but rude and offensive in relation to the object of
discussion;
7) polite and respectful posts towards a person without mentioning his name (may contain irony,
humor, sarcasm in a positive aspect).
The overall percentage of communication culture ("civility", politeness) was 47.44% (see table 3)
but we need to add that in some comments there could be several positions, although most often one.
It is curious that the percentage of communication culture (47.44%) is slightly higher than the
percentage of argumentation (44.8%) but not significantly. In turn, this suggests that in the discussions
analyzed, priority is given to the form of opinion expression and not to its content which, in our point
of view, characterizes such deliberations from a negative side since the main thing in deliberation is
the essence of position, its argumentation and not in what form it is presented, although this is no less
significant as well.
Consequently, such discussions are more irrational than rational. However, if you look at the general
indicators of communication culture, you can see that its main array is made up of off-topic comments
that have an interpersonal character or are abstracted from main issue (38.8%). We add that the total
percentages of rough communication culture, i.e. impolite, rude attitude towards participant as well as
object of discussion strongly prevail over polite ones, especially the percentage of rude attitude towards
other participants in the discussion which further distracts from constructive dialogue, topic in general,
for sake of discussion of which online deliberation is carried out. The total percentage of intolerant
attitude towards participant was 4.46%. It was calculated by adding the percentage of posts with and
without mentioning a name, on topic but rude in relation to the participant (9.4%, 6.4%, 3.8%, 2.7%,
0%) and dividing by 5 as we analyzed the comments of five discussions.
The general percentage of intolerant attitude towards subject of discussion is 3.84%. It was
calculated in a similar way, only posts were taken with and without a name, on topic but rude in relation
to subject of discussion (2.5%, 2.6%, 4.4%, 6.7%, 3%). Such indicators characterize Russian culture of
communication in the Internet environment as low, immature, intolerant and focused off the topic of
discussion.
152 PART 1: E-Governance
Table 3
Communication culture analysis in Russian online discussions (in percentage)
Rain Meduza Channel One KP.RU TASS Final data
Thematically empty 50 41,9 42,8 22,3 37 38,8
posts with participant
name’s mention, only
interpersonal
communication
Posts with participant 9,1 4,5 2,5 2 0 3,62
name’s mention, dis-
cussion on topic, but
rude towards
participant
Posts with participant 0,7 0,7 3,1 2 2 1,7
name’s mention, dis-
cussion on topic, but
rude towards object of
discussion
Posts with participant 0 0 0 0,7 1 0,34
name’s mention, dis-
cussion on topic in a
polite, tolerant way
Posts without 0,3 1,9 1,3 0,7 0 0,84
participant name’s
mention, with
discussion on topic, but
rude to-wards
participant
Posts without 1,8 1,9 1,3 4,7 1 2,14
participant name’s
mention, with
discussion on topic, but
rude to-wards object of
discussion
Posts without 0 0 0 0 0 0
participant name’s
mention, with
discussion on topic in a
polite way
Total % of negative 9,4 6,4 3,8 2,7 0 4,46
civility towards
participant
Total % of negative 2,5 2,6 4,4 6,7 3 3,84
civility towards object
of discussion
Total % of civility 61,9 50,9 51 32,4 41 47,44
Speaking about specific discussions and media it can be seen that the highest percentage of
communication culture (61.9%), posts of personal and abstract nature (50%) as well as a rude, offensive
attitude towards participant (9.4%) was installed in the discussion on Rain page (50%). The highest
percentage of coarse culture of communication in relation to topic, object of discussion was recorded
IMS-2021. International Conference “Internet and Modern Society” 153
in the discussion of Komsomolskaya Pravda (6.7%). Comparing culture of communication in
discussions of independent and pro-state media, we emphasize that in the discussions on pages of
independent media there were the highest rates of posts of personal and abstract nature (45.95% (for
comparison on pro-state - 32.55%)) as well as coarse culture of communication in relation to participant
(7.9% (on pro-state - 3.25%)), while the largest indicator of coarse communication culture in relation
to topic, object of discussion was demonstrated in discussions on pro-state media (5.55 % (for
comparison on independent - 2.55%)).
Let us turn to analysis of interactivity, dialogicity and the degree of dialogue. As mentioned above,
we adhere to the theory of J. Habermas and Bohm's dialogical approach. Based on comparative
characteristics of dialogue and discussion, we were able to determine the degree of dialogue, i.e.
striving for consensus.
First of all, interactivity was analyzed (see table 4), i.e. all mentions of participants by other users
in the process of communication. To calculate interactivity, you need to divide a number of all mentions
of participants (by name or without) by number of all posts. You can see that the highest proportion of
interactivity was presented in the discussions where there were 155 comments and above. This group
includes Rain (66.6%), Meduza (65.8%) and Channel One (64%). Interestingly, the most highly
interactive discussions were on the platforms of independent media (66.2%), respectively, they turned
out to be the most highly dialogical (62.2%). Next, we calculated dialogicity (see table 4). To do this,
we divided a total number of mentions of participants by name by total number of posts. In all
discussions, the percentage of dialogicity was lower than the percentage of interactivity but
insignificantly. Indicators of dialogicity cannot be higher than indicators of interactivity but they can
be equal. As already mentioned, the most highly dialogical discussions were on the pages of
independent media (Rain - 63.1%, Meduza - 61.3%) as well as on one pro-state source (Channel One -
62%). If we talk about ratio of interactivity and dialogicity, then the smallest gap in percentage between
them was demonstrated in discussions on pro-state media (Channel One - 64% and 62%,
Komsomolskaya Pravda - 52% and 51.4%, respectively) and neutral TASS (57% and 55%,
respectively).
To determine the degree of dialogue, it is necessary to take all posts where an interaction between
participants was recorded and analyze them guided by Bohm. As a result, we can assert (see Table 4)
that in Russian online discussions the degree of dialogue is high: 55% on the page of neutral TASS,
54.3% on the pages of independent media, and 52.15% on pro-state media, and in all discussions, the
degree of dialogue significantly dominated the degree of discussion, polemics (their indicators range
from 2 to 14.1%) which confirms our hypothesis. This is a positive pattern but if we take into account
the indicators of argumentation and culture of communication in Russian discussions, then it
immediately becomes clear that the dialogue was predominantly not on topic of discussion but was
more entertaining or abstract from discussion of main topic and political issues in general. Therefore,
the Russian public dialogue in form of online deliberation can be characterized as entertaining,
politically immature and of poor quality; accordingly, one can hardly speak of constructive role of such
a dialogue in the field of interaction with state and adoption of joint political decisions based on
deliberative discussions of political issues by citizens.
The highest indicator of the degree of dialogue was found in the discussion on Channel One (57%)
despite the fact that a number of interactive posts there is not the largest (64%) compared to other
discussions. However, returning to nature of dialogue, we argue that it is of low quality since despite
the fact that the percentage of coincidence of positions was one of the highest (91.7% but few opinions
were presented on topic of the particular court verdict of A. Navalny), accordingly, the degree of
discussion, disputes is low (7%) with 57% of the degree of dialogue, the percentage of argumentation
was the lowest (31.9%), and the percentage of posts of interpersonal nature, off-topic - one of the
highest (42.8%). The smallest degree of discussion, controversy was in the discussions of TASS (at
least 2% or less) and Komsomolskaya Pravda (at least 4.7% or less) while in the discussion of Rain it
was the highest (at least 14 %). This is obvious as opinions of participants split in the following ratio:
almost 1/3 for Navalny and against his sentence (32.6%), 2/3 against Navalny and for his sentence
(67.4%). The smallest degree of discussion, controversy was in the discussions of TASS (at least 2%
or less) and Komsomolskaya Pravda (at least 4.7% or less) whereas in the discussion of Rain it was the
highest (at least 14%). This is obvious since opinions of participants split in the following ratio: almost
1/3 for Navalny and against his sentence (32.6%), 2/3 against Navalny and for his sentence (67.4%).
154 PART 1: E-Governance
Table 4
Interactivity, dialogicity and the degree of dialogue analysis (in percentage)
Independent Pro-state Neutral
Rain Medusa Channel One KP.RU TASS
Interactivity 66,6 65,8 64 52 57
Total % of 66,2 58
interactivity
Dialogicity 63,1 61,3 62 51,4 55
Total % of 62,2 56,7
dialogicity
The degree of 52,5 56,1 57 47,3 55
dialogue
Total % of the 54,3 52,15
degree of dialogue
Number of posts 602 155 160 148 100
Speaking about quality of public dialogue in form of online deliberation on Rain, we note that
ambivalent tendencies are noticeable: on the one hand, such a dialogue is better than others since the
highest percentage of argumentation was recorded there (63.8%) due to the fact that there is a division
of opinions, different positions are presented in the above ratio, on the other hand, of poor quality as
the percentage of posts not discussing the main issue (50%) and with a rough culture of communication
in relation to participant (9.4%) were the biggest. In our opinion, public dialogue of better quality
compared to others can be traced in the discussion of Komsomolskaya Pravda as it is more aimed at
discussing A. Navalny's court verdict. For example, the percentage of coincidence of opinions
(“against”) was the highest (93.8%), respectively, the degree of discussion, disputes, polemics was
small (4.7%), with 47.3% of the degree of dialogue; the percentage of argumentation was one of the
highest (63.5%) while the percentage of off-topic posts was the lowest (22.3%), although with rough
culture of communication in relation to topic, subject of discussion is more than the rest (6,7%), which,
in turn, could give rise to controversy and debate on the part of participants, to some extent, offended
by this form of expression.
Based on several examples it can be concluded that in form of dialogue a discussion is much more
effective than in form of discussion, polemics as participants are less distracted by clarifying
relationship between each other, they show less rude attitude towards other participants and object of
discussion and more direct efforts to search for new arguments, conclusions, truth. Although there are
situations when it is a discussion that is useful, as, for example, in the discussion on Rain page because
this can generate more motivation from participants to find the truth and, therefore, more arguments.
However, if these efforts are not aimed at reaching agreement and discussion of topic but on participant,
then the likelihood of escalation of interpersonal conflict increases which, in general, can harm the
discussion reducing the degree of its deliberation and the quality in general and alienate participants
from reaching the truth and rational consensus.
4. Conclusion
All in all, online deliberation as an implementation of dialogical relations between citizens can take
a form of both dialogue and discussion. In either case, it will be a public dialogue but the quality of
discussion will be different: online deliberation in form of cooperative dialogue is much better and more
effective than in form of discussion.
To assess nature and quality of online deliberation as a form of public dialogue, one should analyze
1) positions of participants, to what extent their opinions coincide and differ; 2) general level of
argumentation in discussions, 3) culture of communication, especially in terms of posts of personal
IMS-2021. International Conference “Internet and Modern Society” 155
nature, off-topic, as well as a rude, intolerant attitude towards participant and object of discussion and
4) the degree of dialogue, discussion, disputes, polemics as a form of communication. These are not all
but main parameters for analyzing the quality of public dialogue.
Definitely, online deliberation does not always resolve all disagreements in society and reach a
rationally based consensus.
As indicated in other studies including ours, a type of media plays a role in achieving results of
discussion [29]. That is, pro-state and open government media hold discussions in support of
government policies and actions. Likewise, media outlets that are independent of government control
are more critical of authorities. However, influence of media identity has its limits. The study's findings
support findings of those studies that argue that when it comes to political conversation, citizens are
more likely to talk with like-minded people than with others. However, these are only general
observations that require more research.
Further studies include a need to study online discussions in foreign countries for comparative
analysis. So far, we can only assume that in countries with established democratic traditions, the quality
of online deliberation as a form of public dialogue is higher than in Russia. In our country, at the
moment, online deliberation as a form of public dialogue is poorly developed and is largely
entertainment in nature. Russian online deliberations are interactive, the degree of dialogue in them is
high but levels of argumentation and communication culture in online discussions are low which
prevents development of online deliberation on political topics as a form of public dialogue.
5. Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Russian Science Foundation, project No. 21-18-00454.
6. References
[1] President von der Leyen’s Political Guidelines. URL: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-
political/files/political-guidelines-next-commission_en.pdf.
[2] Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, A Blueprint to Safeguard
Europe’s Water Resources. Brussels, 19.2.2020, COM 66 final.
[3] D. Held, Models of Democracy. Moscow: Delo Publishing House, 2014 (in Rus.)
[4] D. T. Green, J. M. Pearson, Social Software and Cyber Networks: Ties That Bind or Weak
Associations within the Political Organization? In Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences, 2005.
[5] S. Stieglitz and L. Dang-Xuan, Impact and Diffusion of Sentiment in Political Communication -
An Empirical Analysis of Public Political Facebook Pages, in Proceedings of the 20th European
Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), 2012.
[6] J. Habermas, Involvement of the other. Essays on political theory. Saint Petersburg, 2001. (in Rus.)
[7] T. Zittel, Participatory Engineering: Can Democratic Reform Increase Political Participation, in
Annual Conference of the American Political Science Association, Washington D.C., 2005.
[8] M.N. Grachev, Online deliberation as a component of "electronic democracy", in Materials of the
Second International Scientific and Practical Conference "Social Computing: Foundations,
Development Technologies, Social and Humanitarian Effects (ISC-13)", Moscow, Publishing
house of MGGU im. M. A. Sholokhova, 2013, pp. 48–56 (in Rus.)
[9] T. Davies, The Blossoming Field of Online Deliberation, in: Todd Davies and Seeta Pena
Gangadharan (Eds.), Online Deliberation: Design, Research, and Practice, Stanford, Calif., 2009.
[10] D. Friess. Online Deliberation Complete, in International Communication Association
Conference, Puerto Rico, 2015.
[11] J.S. Dryzek, Deliberative democracy and beyond, New York, Oxford University Press, 2000.
[12] A. Gutmann, D. Thompson, Democracy and Disagreement, Cambridge, Belknap Harvard, 1996.
156 PART 1: E-Governance
[13] J. Habermas, Between Facts and Norms, Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and
Democracy, Cambridge, MIT Press, 1996.
[14] J. Habermas, Legitimation Crisis, Boston, Beacon Press, 1975.
[15] L.W. Black, H.T.Welser, D. Cosley, J.M. DeGroot, Self-Governance through Group Discussion
in Wikipedia: Measuring Deliberation in Online Groups Small Group Research, 2011, 42(5), pp.
595-634.
[16] A. Davis, New media and fat democracy: the paradox of online participation? In New media &
Society, 2010, 12(5), pp. 745-761.
[17] J. Gerhards, M.S. Schäfer, Is the internet a better public sphere? Comparing old and new media
in the USA and Germany, in New Media & Society, 2010, 12(1), pp. 143-160.
[18] T. Davies, S.P. Gangadharan, Online Deliberation. Design, Research, and Practice, CSLI,
Publications, 2009.
[19] M. Delli Carpini, F. Cook, L. Jacobs, Public deliberation, discursive partiсipation, and citizen
engagement. A review of empirical literature, in Annual Review of Political Science, 2004, 7, pp.
315-344.
[20] A. Bächtiger, S. Pedrini, Dissecting deliberative democracy. A review of theoretical concepts and
empirical findings, in: I. Kenichi, L. Morales & M. Wolf (Ed.), The Role of Political Discussion
in Modern Democracies in a Comparative Perspective, London, Routledge, 2010.
[21] D. Walto, The ad Hominem argument as an informal fallacy, in Argumentation 1, 317–331 (1987)
doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0013678
[22] D. Bohm, On Dialogue, Lee Nichol (Ed.), London, Routledge, 1997.
[23] Y. Misnikov, Democratisating the Eastern partnership in the digital age: challenges and
opportunities of political association beyond the language of official texts, in: Political and Legal
Perspectives of the EU Eastern Partnership Policy, 2016, pp. 59-79.
[24] O. Filatova, D. Volkoskii, Key Parameters of Internet Discussions: Testing the Methodology of
Discourse Analysis, in Chugunov, A.V. et.al (ed.) Digital Transformation and Global Society
(DTGS 2020). Proceedings of the 5th International Conference, St. Petersburg, 2021, pp.32-46.
[25] O. Filatova O., D. Volkoskii, The online discourse as a form of e-Participation: the experience of
internet discourse research, in Proceedings of the 13 the International Conference on Theory and
Practice of Electronic Governance (ICEGOV 2020), Athens, Greece, 2020, pp. 326-333.
[26] O. Filatova, D. Volkovskii, P. Begen, Usage of Artificial Intelligence in Internet Discourse
Analysis: from Manual Mechanisms of Data Processing to Electronic Ones, in Proceedings of the
22nd Conference on Scientific Services & Internet (SSI-2020), 2020, pp. 352-360.
[27] O. Filatova, D. Volkovskii, R. Bolgov, Online deliberation on social media: dialogue or
discussion? In Proceedings of EGOV2021 – IFIP EGOV-CeDEM-EPART 2021, Granada, Spain.
2021.
[28] Y. Misnikov, Public Activism Online in Russia: Citizens’ Participation in Webbased Interactive
Political Debate in the Context of Civil Society. Development and Transition to Democracy: PhD
thesis. Leeds University, 2011.
[29] Y. Misnikov, A. Chugunov, O. Filatova, Converting the outcomes of citizen’s discourses in the
cyberspace into policy inputs for more democratic and effective government Public Administration
and Information Technology, 2017 (25), pp. 259-287.