Over the past decade, locally-run Facebook discussion groups—often referred to as puskaradio (literally, “bush radio”) — have gained significant popularity in Finland. These virtual town squares can be found in every corner of the country, often with multiple groups per municipality. In many cases, they have gathered more followers than the official municipal social media channels — sometimes even more than the municipality’s actual population.
Discussions in these groups are lively and cover a wide range of topics. Alongside the annual springtime debates about dog poop and the late-autumn arguments over snow plowing, members discuss local governance, recreational opportunities, community news, and upcoming events.
As with many online communities, the vast majority of users remain silent, passively reading posts with varying levels of interest. Only a small fraction actively participates in discussions, and even fewer initiate conversations.
Despite their reputation for complaints and controversy, “puskaradio” groups bring together a substantial number of residents, summer visitors, and even former locals who have moved away. Their role as community hubs became particularly evident during the COVID-19 pandemic when traditional gathering places were temporarily out of reach due to public health restrictions.
Should We Take “Puskaradio” Seriously or Just Laugh It Off?
Can Facebook’s “puskaradio” groups be a meaningful platform for influence? Do they serve as a real channel for civic engagement? Should their discussions be taken seriously, or are they just online chatter that deserves little more than a chuckle?
A common misconception is that the virtual world and the real world exist as entirely separate realms. From this perspective, discussions in “puskaradio” groups might seem insignificant — easily dismissed as irrelevant noise by those who believe that “real” conversations happen only in face-to-face settings.
For example, a local politician might actively use social media groups during their election campaign but then dismiss ongoing discussions by insisting that “real” political conversations only happen in official meetings. The irony, of course, is that social media is not a separate island disconnected from reality.
In truth, online and offline conversations are deeply intertwined. The discussions that start in puskaradio groups often continue in grocery stores, at sports clubs, and in everyday encounters. Similarly, topics that arise in local cafés and gas station hangouts frequently find their way back to social media discussions.
Puskaradio Has Become a Core Part of Public Discourse
These groups have become a significant part of the local civic conversation. In many ways, they have also filled the gap left by the decline of traditional local journalism, as smaller newspapers shut down or reduce their publication frequency. Alongside professional journalism, an active form of citizen journalism has emerged, with residents reporting news and community updates via social media.
Unofficial discussion groups allow for faster and broader information sharing than ever before. However, this is a double-edged sword. In the “puskaradio” world, media literacy and source criticism are more important than ever. Fact-checking is often needed to separate truth from misinformation.
Despite their flaws, “puskaradio” groups are here to stay. They reach more residents than official municipal channels and have the potential to serve as a direct link between citizens and decision-makers. If used constructively, they could foster greater community engagement, encouraging residents to take an active role in shaping their hometown’s development and vitality. Instead of dismissing them, we should recognize their potential and harness them for positive community-building.