Comparing and mapping difference indices of debate quality on Twitter

Albeit the measurement of debate quality is not a new endeavour, this paper raises two research questions for which we still have limited knowledge: What are important and reliable indicators of debate quality on social media? How does debate quality relate to individual factors on social media? First, we empirically analysed how two well-established discourse’ quality indices (the DQI and CC index) correlate to each other using a random sample of 1000 tweets selected from the full history of tweets written by Swiss elected politicians between 2011 and 2021. While the sample was automatically coded for CC using LIWC, we manually annotated the tweets according to an adapted version of the DQI for social media texts. Second, we conducted a correspondence analysis to investigate the relations between these dimensions, additional debate quality features, as well as individual political factors. Results show a good correlation between both indices ( r up to 0.46), while also highlighting their respective weaknesses. Furthermore, the results highlight the necessity to include alternative dimensions of debate quality (such as emotion and inclusive or exclusive views) to enhance future measurements of debate quality in the realm of social media

Textual indicators of deliberative dialogue: a systematic review of methods for studying the quality of online dialogues

High-quality online dialogues help sustain democracy. Deliberative theory, which predates the internet, provides the primary model for assessing the quality of online dialogues. It conceptualizes high-quality online dialogue as civil, rational, constructive, equal, interactive, and for the common good. More recently, advances in computation have driven an upsurge of empirical studies using automated methods for operationalizing online dialogue and measuring its quality. While related in their aims, deliberative theory and the wider empirical literature generally operate independently. To bridge the gap between the two literatures, we introduce Textual Indicators of Deliberative Dialogue (TIDDs). TIDDs are defined as text-based measures of online dialogue quality under a deliberative model (e.g., disagreement, incivility, justifications). In this study, we identified 123 TIDDs by systematically reviewing 67 empirical studies of online dialogue. We found them to have mid-low reliability, low criterion validity, and high construct validity for measuring two deliberative dimensions (civility and rationality). Our results highlight the limitations of deliberative theory for conceptualizing the variety of ways online dialogues can be operationalized. We report the most promising TIDDs for measuring the quality of online dialogue and suggest deliberative theory would benefit from altering its models in line with the broader empirical literature

A Scheme for the Study of Discussions in the Social Media

In case one wants to study discussions in the social media one needs a template for doing this. The discussions can range from comments on some event to developing a deliberative democracy. This template, or scoring system, should give insight in developments in the substance of the discussion, but it should also allow considering the development of the structure of the discussion. In this text a template is proposed that covers both questions. The information that is collected by using the template might be useful in the context of (new) policy making; it can also be used to study opinions

Hate speech’s double damage: A semi-automated approach toward direct and indirect targets

Democracies around the world have been facing increasing challenges with hate speech online as it contributes to a tense and thus less discursive public sphere. In that, hate speech online targets free speech both directly and indirectly, through harassments and explicit harm as well as by informing a vicious environment of irrationality, misrepresentation, or disrespect. Consequently, platforms have implemented varying means of comment-moderation techniques, depending both on policy regulations and on the quantity and quality of hate speech online. This study seeks to provide descriptive measures between direct and indirect targets in light of different incentives and practices of moderation on both social media and news outlets. Based on three distinct samples from German Twitter, YouTube, and a set of four news outlets, it applies semi-automated content analyses using a set of five cross-sample classifiers. Thereby, the largest amounts of visible hate speech online depict rather implicit devaluations of ideas or behavior. More explicit forms of hate speech online, such as insult, slander, or vulgarity, are only rarely observable and accumulate around certain events (Twitter) or single videos (YouTube). Moreover, while hate speech on Twitter and YouTube tends to target particular groups or individuals, hate speech below news articles shows a stronger focus on debates. Potential reasons and implications are discussed in light of political and legal efforts in Germany

Essays in political text: new actors, new data, new challenges

The essays in this thesis explore diverse manifestations and different aspects of political text. The two main contributions on the methodological side are bringing forward novel data on political actors who were overlooked by the existing literature and application of new approaches in text analysis to address substantive questions about them. On the theoretical side this thesis contributes to the literatures on lobbying, government transparency, post-conflict studies and gender in politics. In the first paper on interest groups in the UK I argue that contrary to much of the theoretical and empirical literature mechanisms of attaining access to government in pluralist systems critically depend on the presence of limits on campaign spending. When such limits exist, political candidates invest few resources in fund-raising and, thus, most organizations make only very few if any political donations. I collect and analyse transparency data on government department meetings and show that economic importance is one of the mechanisms that can explain variation in the level of access attained by different groups. Furthermore, I show that Brexit had a diminishing effect on this relationship between economic importance and the level of access. I also study the reported purpose of meetings and, using dynamic topic models, show the temporary shifts in policy agenda during this period. The second paper argues that civil society in post-conflict settings is capable of high-quality deliberation and, while differing in their focus, both male and female can deliver arguments pertaining to the interests of broader societal groups. Using the transcripts of civil society public consultation meetings across former Yugoslavia I show that the lack of gender-sensitive transitional justice instruments could stem not from the lack of women’s 3 physical or verbal participation, but from the dynamic of speech enclaves and topical focus on different aspects of transitional justice process between genders. And, finally, the third paper maps the challenges that lie ahead with the proliferation of research that relies on multiple datasets. In a simulation study I show that, when the linking information is limited to text, the noise can potential occur at different levels and is often hard to anticipate in practice. Thus, the choice of record linkage requires balancing between these different scenarios. Taken together, the papers in this thesis advance the field of “text as data” and contribute to our understanding of multiple political phenomena

Fact vs. Faction: Polarization in the Information Age

How can individuals in the contemporary media and political environment form better political beliefs? In chapter one, this thesis considers what it means to say American politics is polarized. It evaluates the extent of polarization in American politics. And it presents original evidence that suggests that just as the public and members of Congress have polarized, so too has American political discourse. Through the lens of political psychology, chapter two investigates how America’s polarized politics has influenced the quality of individuals’ beliefs. Chapter three explores the role that the media plays in encouraging or minimizing the biased information processing practices identified in chapter two. Finally, I conclude by arguing that individuals need to fundamentally rethink how they consume political information; advocate for the creation of a completely new social media platform specifically designed to encourage political deliberation; and outline what such a platform might look like

Deliberation and Identity Rules : The Effect of Anonymity, Pseudonyms and Real-Name Requirements on the Cognitive Complexity of Online News Comments

How do identity rules influence online deliberation? We address this question by drawing on a data set of 45 million comments on news articles on the Huffington Post from January 2013 to May 2015. At the beginning of this period, the site allowed commenting under what we call non-durable pseudonyms. In December 2013, Huffington Post moved to regulate its forum by requiring users to authenticate their accounts. And in June 2014, Huffington Post outsourced commenting to Facebook altogether, approximating a ‘real-name’ environment. We find a significant increase in the cognitive complexity of comments (a proxy for one aspect of deliberative quality) during the middle phase, followed by a decrease following the shift to real-name commenting through Facebook. Our findings challenge the terms of the apparently simple trade-off between the goods and bads of anonymous and real-name environments and point to the potential value of durable pseudonymity in the context of online discussion

Empowering local citizens: assessing the inclusiveness of a digital democratic innovation for co-creating a Voting Advice Application

Increasing citizen dissatisfaction with democracy leads governments and municipalities across the globe to seek new ways of including and empowering citizens. Little is known about whether ‘Digital Democratic Innovations’ (DDIs) could contribute to this goal. We developed a new DDI in a Swiss municipality, dubbed Demokratiefabrik, where 1,079 citizens co-created a questionnaire that served as an official Voting Advice Application for candidates and voters in communal elections. We find that while sophisticated and allegiant citizens and left-green voters participated more in the DDI, they did not dominate the process of creating the questionnaire. Intriguingly, citizens with lower political trust were particularly active on the platform, suggesting that DDIs might give disenchanted citizens a new voice in the political process. Overall, carefully designed DDIs can be a venue for inclusive citizen participation, involving and empowering local citizens in decision-making