Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
169 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Gaining a better understanding of online polarization by approaching it as a dynamic process (2309.10423v1)

Published 19 Sep 2023 in cs.SI

Abstract: Polarization is often a clich{\'e}, its conceptualization remains approximate and no consensus has been reached so far. Often simply seen as an inevitable result of the use of social networks, polarization nevertheless remains a complex social phenomenon that must be placed in a wider context. To contribute to a better understanding of polarization, we approach it as an evolving process, drawing on a dual expertise in political and data sciences. We compare the polarization process between one mature debate (COVID-19 vaccine) and one emerging debate (Ukraine conflict) at the time of data collection. Both debates are studied on Twitter users, a highly politicized population, and on the French population to provide key elements beyond the traditional US context. This unprecedented analysis confirms that polarization varies over time, through a succession of specific periods, whose existence and duration depend on the maturity of the debate. Importantly, we highlight that polarization is paced by context-related events. Bearing this in mind, we pave the way for a new generation of personalized depolarization strategies, adapted to the context and maturity of debates.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (60)
  1. Emily Kubin and Christian von Sikorski. The role of (social) media in political polarization: a systematic review. Annals of the International Communication Association, 45(3):188–206, 2021.
  2. Cass R Sunstein. The law of group polarization. University of Chicago Law School, John M. Olin Law & Economics Working Paper, (91), 1999.
  3. Michael X Delli Carpini and Scott Keeter. What Americans know about politics and why it matters. Yale University Press, 1996.
  4. Katherine J Cramer. The politics of resentment: Rural consciousness in Wisconsin and the rise of Scott Walker. University of Chicago Press, 2016.
  5. Arlie Russell Hochschild. Strangers in their own land: Anger and mourning on the American right. The New Press, 2018.
  6. Michael Saward. The representative claim. Contemporary political theory, 5:297–318, 2006.
  7. RR HUCKFELDT. Politics in context: Assimilation and conflict in urban neighborhoodr new, 1986.
  8. Citizens, politics and social communication: Information and influence in an election campaign. Cambridge University Press, 1995.
  9. The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. Columbia University Press, 1968.
  10. Alan S Zuckerman. The social logic of politics: Personal networks as contexts for political behavior. Temple University Press, 2005.
  11. Conversation, disagreement and political participation. Political Behavior, 31:261–285, 2009.
  12. Nina Eliasoph. Avoiding politics: How Americans produce apathy in everyday life. Cambridge University Press, 1998.
  13. Opinion dynamics: models, extensions and external effects. In Participatory sensing, opinions and collective awareness, pages 363–401. Springer, 2017.
  14. Modeling echo chambers and polarization dynamics in social networks. Physical Review Letters, 124(4):048301, 2020.
  15. Modeling of the public opinion polarization process with the considerations of individual heterogeneity and dynamic conformity. Mathematics, 7(10):917, 2019.
  16. Political polarization on twitter. In Proceedings of the international aaai conference on web and social media, volume 5, pages 89–96, 2011.
  17. A measure of polarization on social media networks based on community boundaries. In Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media, volume 7, pages 215–224, 2013.
  18. Extracting significant signal of news consumption from social networks: the case of twitter in italian political elections. Palgrave Communications, 5(1):1–16, 2019.
  19. News sharing on twitter reveals emergent fragmentation of media agenda and persistent polarization. EPJ Data Science, 11(1):48, 2022.
  20. Political polarization in online news consumption. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, volume 15, pages 152–162, 2021.
  21. The effect of people recommenders on echo chambers and polarization. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, volume 16, pages 90–101, 2022.
  22. The triple-filter bubble: Using agent-based modelling to test a meta-theoretical framework for the emergence of filter bubbles and echo chambers. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58(1):129–149, 2019.
  23. Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1(10):560–576, 2022.
  24. The drivers of online polarization: fitting models to data. Information Sciences, page 119152, 2023.
  25. Markus Prior. Media and political polarization. Annual Review of Political Science, 16:101–127, 2013.
  26. Eli Pariser. The filter bubble: How the new personalized web is changing what we read and how we think. Penguin, 2011.
  27. How" silent citizens" perceive europe?, 2011.
  28. Comparing media systems: Three models of media and politics. Cambridge university press, 2004.
  29. Why and how to create a panel of twitter users. In CeDEM Asia 2014: Conference for E-Democracy an Open Government, pages 247–252. Donau-Universitãt Krems Krems, 2014.
  30. News consumption across social media in 2021. 2021.
  31. Pablo Barberá. Social media, echo chambers, and political polarization. Social media and democracy: The state of the field, prospects for reform, 34, 2020.
  32. The dynamics of public attention: Agenda-setting theory meets big data. Journal of communication, 64(2):193–214, 2014.
  33. The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public opinion quarterly, 36(2):176–187, 1972.
  34. Jan Goldstein. “moral contagion”: a professional ideology of medicine and psychiatry in eighteenth-and nineteenth-century france. Professions and the French State, 1:700–1900, 1984.
  35. Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communications. Routledge, 2017.
  36. Pippa Norris. Preaching to the converted? pluralism, participation and party websites. Party politics, 9(1):21–45, 2003.
  37. Exposure diversity as a design principle for recommender systems. Information, Communication & Society, 21(2):191–207, 2018.
  38. Benefits of diverse news recommendations for democracy: A user study. Digital Journalism, pages 1–21, 2022.
  39. News Diversity and Recommendation Systems: Setting the Interdisciplinary Scene, pages 90–105. Springer, Windisch, Switzerland, 03 2020.
  40. Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(37):9216–9221, 2018.
  41. Political discourse on social media: Echo chambers, gatekeepers, and the price of bipartisanship. In Proceedings of the Web Conference, 2018.
  42. A Multi-Factorial Analysis of Polarization on Social Media. In UMAP’23, Limassol, Cyprus, June 2023.
  43. Quantifying social organization and political polarization in online platforms. Nature, 600(7888):264–268, 2021.
  44. Erving Goffman. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press, 1974.
  45. Being diverse is not enough: Rethinking diversity evaluation to meet challenges of news recommender systems. In Fairness in User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (FairUMAP 2022), 2022.
  46. Measuring polarization in twitter enabled in online political conversation: The case of 2016 us presidential election. In 2017 IEEE international conference on information reuse and integration (IRI), pages 607–613. IEEE, 2017.
  47. Nicolas Turenne. The rumour spectrum. PloS one, 13(1):e0189080, 2018.
  48. BERTweetFR : Domain adaptation of pre-trained language models for French tweets. In Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop on Noisy User-generated Text (W-NUT 2021), pages 445–450, Online, November 2021. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  49. The global k-means clustering algorithm. Pattern Recognition, pages 451–461, 2003.
  50. A cluster separation measure. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, (2):224–227, 1979.
  51. Peter J. Rousseeuw. Silhouettes: A graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis. Journal of computational and applied mathematics, pages 53–65, 1987.
  52. Python reference manual, volume 111. Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica Amsterdam, 1995.
  53. J. D. Hunter. Matplotlib: A 2d graphics environment. Computing in Science & Engineering, 9(3):90–95, 2007.
  54. Array programming with NumPy. Nature, 585(7825):357–362, September 2020.
  55. Wes McKinney et al. pandas: a foundational python library for data analysis and statistics. Python for high performance and scientific computing, 14(9):1–9, 2011.
  56. Visualizing a million time series with the density line chart. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.06019, 2018.
  57. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12:2825–2830, 2011.
  58. SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python. Nature Methods, 17:261–272, 2020.
  59. statsmodels: Econometric and statistical modeling with python. In 9th Python in Science Conference, 2010.
  60. Casper O da Costa-Luis. tqdm: A fast, extensible progress meter for python and cli. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(37):1277, 2019.
Citations (1)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now