To Reply or to Quote: Comparing Conversational Framing Strategies on Twitter

Abstract

Social media platform affordances allow users to interact with content and with each other in diverse ways. For example, on Twitter, 1 users can like, reply, retweet, or quote another tweet. Though it’s clear that these different features allow various types of interactions, open questions remain about how these different affordances shape the conversations. We examine how two similar, but distinct conversational features on Twitter — specifically reply vs. quote — are used differently. Focusing on the polarized discourse around Robert Mueller’s congressional testimony in July 2019, we look at how these features are employed in conversations between politically aligned and opposed accounts. We use a mixed methods approach, employing grounded qualitative analysis to identify the different conversational and framing strategies salient in that discourse and then quantitatively analyzing how those techniques differed across the different features and political alignments. Our research (1) demonstrates that the quote feature is more often used to broadcast and reply is more often used to reframe the conversation; (2) identifies the different framing strategies that emerge through the use of these features when engaging with politically aligned vs. opposed accounts; (3) discusses how reply and quote features may be re-designed to reduce the adversarial tone of polarized conversations on Twitter-like platforms.