Protests, social movements, political party members: all are actively being broadcasted on social media next to mainstream media. As media, and particularly social media, are part of everyday life, how we engage and come into contact with political content and conflict has been intensified and altered. In the context of the Netherlands, a movement such as Extinction Rebellion Nederland becomes mediatised or turns to platforms like Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter to mobilise supporters, share and frame issues, or share accounts of actions like road blockades or fast fashion protests in front of stores (i.e. Kuiper and van der Ploeg 2023; Sorgdrager 2025). At the same time, farmers’ organizations and groups opposing government climate and nitrogen policies have harnessed social media to organise large demonstrations, disseminate counter-frames, and rally public support. Hashtags, viral videos, and live streams make these conflicts highly visible, which has the ability to amplify both consensus and polarisation.
In this sense, social media do not simply mirror existing political divides. They actively shape the dynamics of contentious politics in the Dutch sustainability debate. By lowering barriers to participation, they enable rapid mobilisation, coordination, and the construction of collective identities or shared perspectives. Yet they also provide fertile ground for disinformation, selective framing, and echo chambers, which complicate public deliberation and policy-making. Understanding contentious politics surrounding sustainability issues and how these impact transitions and democracy, should therefore not neglect social media usage and how conflicts, actors and topics are represented via social media.
Social media versus mainstream media
Although social media is widely used within contentious politics, it is important to note that, for instance, Tilly and Tarrow (2015) mark how in the evolution of contentious politics technologies of communications evolved too, so impacting the shapes of contentious politics as well. It is also stated that ‘[p]rotest and organizational work is occurring both online and off, using technologies of different capabilities, sometimes making the online/offline distinction relevant, but more often not (Earl & Kimport, 2011; Bimber et al., in press)’ (Benett and Segerberg 2012, 751). Alongside the present scepticism surrounding what exactly is new about digitally networked action, several sites can be marked as interesting to explore, in order to understand contemporary contentious politics effectively: the underlying logics, communication online, organisational forms, and investigations into their political effectiveness (Bennett and Segerberg 2012).
Social media and democratic engagement: an opportunity or challenge?
Protest actions, demonstrating, and the use of social media are often argued to constitute or support constructive contributions to democracy, active citizenship and participation. However, the role of social media in contentious politics and the positive characterisation of protesting for democracy have been impacted negatively with the sharp rise of populism and extremism. Misinformation, or so called fake news, filter bubbles, and associated algorithms are often deemed the sources of societal polarisation and the success of populist sentiments (Bakker et al. 2021, 3). Combined with these processes, social media can harm or challenge democratic engagement. Especially by eroding trust and weakening democratic debate (Dahlgren 2018).
On the other hand, there are also connective, networking and mobilisation capacities to using digital media and technologies for contentious politics and collective action. Even though questions remain regarding the meaning of collective action and who the collective is “online,” the potential exists to reach diverse peoples and to coordinate individuals without a need of a formal organisation. This points to another form of logic for using digital technologies for contentious politics, namely connective action (Kavada 2016; Bennett and Segerberg 2012; Steinert-Threkeld et al. 2015). Moreover, the ability of individuals to contribute to online communication, remains relevant with regards to digital traces of contentious politics, political interactions, and political agency (Milan 2018). For all of these reasons, researchers are interested in uncovering how digital spaces are used in contentious politics. Social media present a mediatised reality and publicly-generated content a valuable resource of data on contentious politics’ shape, but also their objectives and processes.
Researching social media content
Recognising the importance of social media in everyday life and for (contentious) politics, within Trans4Demo several studies will employ social media event analysis and visual analysis. These types of analyses are used so that empirically practical examples of contentious politics can be uncovered in its manifold forms. In particular, the research within Trans4Demo aims to contribute to studying how contentious politics are shaped and impacting both sustainability transitions and democracy.
Bibliography
Bakker, J., Cornelisse, D., Mohamed, S., Schaefer, M., & Veerbeek, J. Van scherm naar straat: Hoe sociale media-conversaties protest op straat mobiliseren. Utrecht Data School, Universiteit Utrecht, 2021.
Bennett, W.L. and Segerberg, A. ‘ The Logic of Connective Action: The Personalization of Contentious Politics.’ Information, Communication & Society 15 no. 5 (2012): 739-768.
Dahlgren, P. ‘Media, Knowledge and Trust: The Deepening Epistemic Crisis of Democracy.’ Javnost - The Public (2018).
Hoffmann, M., Liu, J., Neumayer, C., and Trenz H.-J. ‘Social media and political contention - challenges and opportunities for comparative research.’ Journal of Information Technology & Politics 21 no. 3 (2024): 209-217.
Kavada, A. ‘Social Movements and Political Agency in the Digital Age: A Communication Approach.’ Media and Communication 4, no. 4 (2016): 8-12.
Kuiper, R. and van der Ploeg, J. ‘Groep George, onderdeel van Extinction Rebellion, laat zich wegslepen van het asfalt – You. Are. Not. Alone.’ De Volkskrant. Last modified January 28, 2023. https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/groep-george-onderdeel-van-extinction-rebellion-laat-zich-wegslepen-van-het-asfalt-you-are-not-alone~b60e7db9/.
Milan, S. ‘Political Agency, Digital Traces, and Bottom-Up Data Practices.’ International Journal of Communication 12 (2018): 507-527.
Sorgdrager, M. ‘Video | Extinction Rebellion spuit ‘olie’ op vloer kledingwinkels in binnenstad. “Fast fashion is dodelijk.”’ Sikkom. Accessed September 26, 2025. https://sikkom.nl/nieuws/video-extinction-rebellion-spuit-olie-op-vloer-kledingwinkels-in-binnenstad.-fast-fashion-is-dodelijk-47199056.html.
Steinert-Threlkeld, Z., Mocanu, D., Vespignani, A., and Fowler, J. ‘Online social networks and offline protest.’ EPJ Data Science 4, no. 19 (2015): 1-19.
Tilly, C. and Tarrow, S. Contentious Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.