Beyond Left and Right: Real-World Political Polarization in Twitter Discussions on Inter-Ethnic Conflicts

Studies of political polarization in social media demonstrate mixed evidence for whether discussions necessarily evolve into left and right ideological echo chambers. Recent research shows that, for political and issue-based discussions, patterns of user clusterization may differ significantly, but that cross-cultural evidence of the polarization of users on certain issues is close to non-existent. Furthermore, most of the studies developed network proxies to detect users’ grouping, rarely taking into account the content of the Tweets themselves. Our contribution to this scholarly discussion is founded upon the detection of polarization based on attitudes towards political actors expressed by users in Germany, the USA and Russia within discussions on inter-ethnic conflicts. For this exploratory study, we develop a mixed-method approach to detecting user grouping that includes: crawling for data collection; expert coding of Tweets; user clusterization based on user attitudes; construction of word frequency vocabularies; and graph visualization. Our results show that, in all the three cases, the groups detected are far from being conventionally left or right, but rather that their views combine anti-institutionalism, nationalism, and pro- and anti-minority views in varying degrees. In addition to this, more than two threads of political debate may co-exist in the same discussion. Thus, we show that the debate that sees Twitter as either a platform of 'echo chambering' or 'opinion crossroads' may be misleading. In our opinion, the role of local political context in shaping (and explaining) user clusterization should not be under-estimated

Real-World Political Polarization in Twitter Discussions on Inter-Ethnic Conflicts

Studies of political polarization in social media demonstrate mixed evidence for whether discussions necessarily evolve into left and right ideological echo chambers. Recent research shows that, for political and issue-based discussions, patterns of user clusterization may differ significantly, but that cross-cultural evidence of the polarization of users on certain issues is close to non-existent. Furthermore, most of the studies developed network proxies to detect users’ grouping, rarely taking into account the content of the Tweets themselves. Our contribution to this scholarly discussion is founded upon the detection of polarization based on attitudes towards political actors expressed by users in Germany, the USA and Russia within discussions on inter-ethnic conflicts. For this exploratory study, we develop a mixed-method approach to detecting user grouping that includes: crawling for data collection; expert coding of Tweets; user clusterization based on user attitudes; construction of word frequency vocabularies; and graph visualization. Our results show that, in all the three cases, the groups detected are far from being conventionally left or right, but rather that their views combine anti-institutionalism, nationalism, and pro- and anti-minority views in varying degrees. In addition to this, more than two threads of political debate may co-exist in the same discussion. Thus, we show that the debate that sees Twitter as either a platform of ‘echo chambering’ or ‘opinion crossroads’ may be misleading. In our opinion, the role of local political context in shaping (and explaining) user clusterization should not be under-estimated

The role of social media and confirmation bias in victimization: Information consumption and opinion polarization

Technological advancement has contributed to the smooth and fast communication system where social media remain the top priority for human kind. Confirmation bias is a cognitive bias of human tendency to deducting information. Therefore, getting biased through unconfirmed media stories became a disease to the modern society. This article aims to explore and analyse the phenomenon of confirmation bias in cyber media, focusing on its impact on information consumption and polarization of opinions within online environments. Drawing upon existing literature and theoretical frameworks, namely Social Identity Theory, Cognitive Dissonance Theory, Selective Exposure Theory, and Agenda Setting Theory, this study provides a comprehensive understanding of the underlying mechanisms and effects of confirmation bias in the digital age. The research design combines qualitative analysis of selected scholarly articles and quantitative analysis of user data from social media platforms. The analysis provides a comprehensive understanding of the impact of confirmation biases in cyber media by synthesizing insights from scholarly literature and analysing user data. It helps identify the mechanisms through which confirmation biases manifest in online environments, sheds light on the potential consequences of such biases, and informs strategies for addressing and mitigating their effects

Freedom of the Press in Post-Truthism America

Freedom of the press in America is at a critical crossroads in a number of ways, but one stands out as most fundamental: the stark impact of the current debate over “Post-Truthism.” Press freedom jurisprudence has long been structured around the concept of an audience member’s search for truth in a marketplace of ideas. But social science research increasingly suggests that individual information consumers are in fact often driven by emotion, affirmation of political identity, and the need for cognitive shortcuts, and that they may not possess the truth-seeking, rational processing, or information-updating capabilities that the Court assumes. Whether this divide between jurisprudence and reality actually exists—and what to do about it if it does—are pressing questions for both the courts and the media, made all the more pressing as the changing media landscape and the hyperpartisan political climate exacerbate some components of the Post-Truthism critique. The concern for some is that if press jurisprudence has rested on flawed assumptions about the nature of press audiences, the new awareness of those limitations may undermine the marketplace-of-ideas justification for press freedom and its associated press protections. This Article investigates both questions. It finds that the factual premise—that the Supreme Court has made erroneous assumptions about the motivations and behaviors of information audiences—is accurate, but argues that the theoretical consequence of this gap is just the opposite of what some have suggested. Instead of undercutting the rationales for press protection, this wider modern understanding of the information-processing and truth-seeking limitations of individual press consumers in the marketplace of ideas actually underscores the need for protection of the press as a market-enhancing institution. The Article argues that a fuller appreciation of this dynamic can provide timely and helpful insight into why the Constitution might separately provide unique Press Clause protections and can offer insight into some of the functions that would qualify an institutional actor as “the press” for purposes of that constitutional protection—an identification process that will be increasingly vital as information consumers shift from legacy media to new forms of news and content delivery. The Article probes these functions and offers a conceptual framework for granting Press Clause protection to market-enhancing entities that compensate for the inherent shortcomings of individual information consumers

Freedom of the Press in Post-Truthism America

Freedom of the press in America is at a critical crossroads in a number of ways, but one stands out as most fundamental: the stark impact of the current debate over “Post-Truthism.” Press freedom jurisprudence has long been structured around the concept of an audience member’s search for truth in a marketplace of ideas. But social science research increasingly suggests that individual information consumers are in fact often driven by emotion, affirmation of political identity, and the need for cognitive shortcuts, and that they may not possess the truth-seeking, rational processing, or information-updating capabilities that the Court assumes. Whether this divide between jurisprudence and reality actually exists—and what to do about it if it does—are pressing questions for both the courts and the media, made all the more pressing as the changing media landscape and the hyperpartisan political climate exacerbate some components of the Post-Truthism critique. The concern for some is that if press jurisprudence has rested on flawed assumptions about the nature of press audiences, the new awareness of those limitations may undermine the marketplace-of-ideas justification for press freedom and its associated press protections. This Article investigates both questions. It finds that the factual premise—that the Supreme Court has made erroneous assumptions about the motivations and behaviors of information audiences—is accurate, but argues that the theoretical consequence of this gap is just the opposite of what some have suggested. Instead of undercutting the rationales for press protection, this wider modern understanding of the information-processing and truth-seeking limitations of individual press consumers in the marketplace of ideas actually underscores the need for protection of the press as a market-enhancing institution. The Article argues that a fuller appreciation of this dynamic can provide timely and helpful insight into why the Constitution might separately provide unique Press Clause protections and can offer insight into some of the functions that would qualify an institutional actor as “the press” for purposes of that constitutional protection—an identification process that will be increasingly vital as information consumers shift from legacy media to new forms of news and content delivery. The Article probes these functions and offers a conceptual framework for granting Press Clause protection to market-enhancing entities that compensate for the inherent shortcomings of individual information consumers

Social Media and Journalism: 10 Years Later, Untangling Key Assumptions

Amid a broader reckoning about the role of social media in public life, this article argues that the same scrutiny can be applied to the journalism studies field and its approaches to examining social media. A decade later, what hath such research wrought? We need a more particular accounting of the assumptions, biases, and blind spots that have crept into this line of research as well as the study of mediated conversations broadly. Our purpose is to provoke reflection and chart a path for future research by critiquing themes of what has come before. In particular, we seek to untangle three faulty assumptions—often implicit but no less influential—that have been overlooked in the rapid take-up of social media as a key phenomenon for journalism studies particularly and digital media studies generally: (1) that social media would be a net positive; (2) that social media reflects reality; and (3) that social media matters over and above other factors

Stance detection on social media: State of the art and trends

Stance detection on social media is an emerging opinion mining paradigm for various social and political applications in which sentiment analysis may be sub-optimal. There has been a growing research interest for developing effective methods for stance detection methods varying among multiple communities including natural language processing, web science, and social computing. This paper surveys the work on stance detection within those communities and situates its usage within current opinion mining techniques in social media. It presents an exhaustive review of stance detection techniques on social media, including the task definition, different types of targets in stance detection, features set used, and various machine learning approaches applied. The survey reports state-of-the-art results on the existing benchmark datasets on stance detection, and discusses the most effective approaches. In addition, this study explores the emerging trends and different applications of stance detection on social media. The study concludes by discussing the gaps in the current existing research and highlights the possible future directions for stance detection on social media.Comment: We request withdrawal of this article sincerely. We will re-edit this paper. Please withdraw this article before we finish the new versio

Red Show, Blue Show: A Content Analysis of Liberals’ and Conservatives’ Respective Television Favorites

Ideological partisans in the United States are increasingly “sorting” themselves along cultural lines, from the cable news stations they watch to the chain restaurants they prefer. How do partisans seem to “know” how to sort themselves along ideological lines in cultural realms that offer no obvious political cues? To investigate this question, I look to the realm of narrative television, where conservatives and liberals have certain unique favorite programs despite the programs lacking any overt political content. I employ a quantitative content analysis to demonstrate that the substance of these polarizing shows relate to the social traits of curiosity, conformity, relativism, dogmatism, tribalism, vigilance, and chastity, which have previously been demonstrated to correspond to political ideology

Civic Media Literacies

Civic life today is mediated. Communities small and large are now using connective platforms to share information, engage in local issues, facilitate vibrant debate, and advocate for social causes. In this timely book, Paul Mihailidisexplores the texture of daily engagement in civic life, and the resources—human, technological, and practical—that citizens employ when engaging in civic actions for positive social impact. In addition to examining the daily civic actions that are embedded in media and digital literacies and human connectedness, Mihailidis outlines a model for empowering young citizens to use media to meaningfully engage in daily life

Optimising Emotions, Incubating Falsehoods: How to Protect the Global Civic Body from Disinformation and Misinformation

This open access book deconstructs the core features of online misinformation and disinformation. It finds that the optimisation of emotions for commercial and political gain is a primary cause of false information online. The chapters distil societal harms, evaluate solutions, and consider what must be done to strengthen societies as new biometric forms of emotion profiling emerge. Based on a rich, empirical, and interdisciplinary literature that examines multiple countries, the book will be of interest to scholars and students of Communications, Journalism, Politics, Sociology, Science and Technology Studies, and Information Science, as well as global and local policymakers and ordinary citizens interested in how to prevent the spread of false information worldwide, both now and in the future