Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Beyond Active Engagement: The Significance of Lurkers in a Polarized Twitter Debate

Published 30 Jun 2023 in cs.SI and physics.soc-ph | (2306.17538v1)

Abstract: The emergence of new public forums in the shape of online social media has introduced unprecedented challenges to public discourse, including polarization, misinformation, and the emergence of echo chambers. While existing research has extensively studied the behavior of active users within echo chambers, little attention has been given to the hidden audience, also known as lurkers, who passively consume content without actively engaging. This study aims to estimate the share of the hidden audience and investigate their interplay with the echo chamber effect. Using Twitter as a case study, we analyze a polarized political debate to understand the engagement patterns and factors influencing the hidden audience's presence. Our findings reveal a relevant fraction of users that consume content without active interaction, which underscores the importance of considering their presence in online debates. Notably, our results indicate that the engagement of the hidden audience is primarily influenced by factors such as the reliability of media sources mentioned in tweets rather than the ideological stance of the user that produced the content. These findings highlight the need for a comprehensive understanding of the hidden audience's role in online debates and how they may influence public opinion.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (28)
  1. “The Rise of Partisanship and Super-Cooperators in the U.S. House of Representatives” Publisher: Public Library of Science In PLOS ONE 10.4, 2015, pp. e0123507 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0123507
  2. Alessia Antelmi, Delfina Malandrino and Vittorio Scarano “Characterizing the Behavioral Evolution of Twitter Users and The Truth Behind the 90-9-1 Rule” In Companion Proceedings of The 2019 World Wide Web Conference, WWW ’19 New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2019, pp. 1035–1038 DOI: 10.1145/3308560.3316705
  3. Pablo Barberá “Birds of the Same Feather Tweet Together: Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation Using Twitter Data” Publisher: Cambridge University Press In Political Analysis 23.1, 2015, pp. 76–91 DOI: 10.1093/pan/mpu011
  4. “Tweeting From Left to Right: Is Online Political Communication More Than an Echo Chamber?” In Psychological Science 26.10, 2015, pp. 1531–1542 DOI: 10.1177/0956797615594620
  5. “Emergence of Polarized Ideological Opinions in Multidimensional Topic Spaces” Publisher: American Physical Society In Physical Review X 11.1, 2021, pp. 011012 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevX.11.011012
  6. “Modeling Echo Chambers and Polarization Dynamics in Social Networks” Publisher: American Physical Society In Physical Review Letters 124.4, 2020, pp. 048301 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.048301
  7. “Echo Chambers, Rabbit Holes, and Algorithmic Bias: How YouTube Recommends Content to Real Users” In Available at SSRN 4114905, 2022
  8. Axel Bruns “Echo chamber? What echo chamber? Reviewing the evidence” In 6th Biennial Future of Journalism Conference (FOJ17) 14, 2017 Cardiff, UK
  9. “Will You Take the Knee? Italian Twitter Echo Chambers’ Genesis During EURO 2020” In International Conference on Complex Networks and Their Applications, 2022, pp. 29–40 Springer
  10. “Selective exposure shapes the Facebook news diet” Publisher: Public Library of Science In PLOS ONE 15.3, 2020, pp. e0229129 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229129
  11. “The echo chamber effect on social media” Publisher: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118.9, 2021, pp. e2023301118 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2023301118
  12. “The limited reach of fake news on Twitter during 2019 European elections” Publisher: Public Library of Science In PLOS ONE 15.6, 2020, pp. e0234689 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234689
  13. “Political polarization on twitter” In Proceedings of the international aaai conference on web and social media 5.1, 2011, pp. 89–96
  14. “Falling into the Echo Chamber: The Italian Vaccination Debate on Twitter” In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media 14, 2020, pp. 130–140 DOI: 10.1609/icwsm.v14i1.7285
  15. Gianmarco De Francisci Morales, Corrado Monti and Michele Starnini “No echo in the chambers of political interactions on Reddit” Number: 1 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group In Scientific Reports 11.1, 2021, pp. 2818 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-81531-x
  16. “Echo Chambers: Emotional Contagion and Group Polarization on Facebook” Number: 1 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group In Scientific Reports 6.1, 2016, pp. 37825 DOI: 10.1038/srep37825
  17. “The spreading of misinformation online” Publisher: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113.3, 2016, pp. 554–559 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1517441113
  18. Fernando Diaz-Diaz, Maxi San Miguel and Sandro Meloni “Echo chambers and information transmission biases in homophilic and heterophilic networks” Number: 1 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group In Scientific Reports 12.1, 2022, pp. 9350 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-13343-6
  19. “The echo chamber is overstated: the moderating effect of political interest and diverse media” Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1428656 In Information, Communication & Society 21.5, 2018, pp. 729–745 DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2018.1428656
  20. Arthur Edwards “(How) Do Participants in Online Discussion Forums Create Echo Chambers?: The Inclusion and Exclusion of Dissenting Voices in an Online Forum About Climate Change” In Journal of Argumentation in Context 2.1, 2013, pp. 127–150 DOI: 10.1075/jaic.2.1.06edw
  21. “Growing polarization around climate change on social media” Number: 12 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group In Nature Climate Change 12.12, 2022, pp. 1114–1121 DOI: 10.1038/s41558-022-01527-x
  22. “Political polarization of news media and influencers on Twitter in the 2016 and 2020 US presidential elections” Number: 6 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group In Nature Human Behaviour 7.6, 2023, pp. 904–916 DOI: 10.1038/s41562-023-01550-8
  23. “Quantifying Controversy on Social Media” In ACM Transactions on Social Computing 1.1, 2018, pp. 3:1–3:27 DOI: 10.1145/3140565
  24. Eric Gilbert, Tony Bergstrom and Karrie Karahalios “Blogs are echo chambers: 42nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS” In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS, Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS, 2009 DOI: 10.1109/HICSS.2009.91
  25. Wei Gong, Ee-Peng Lim and Feida Zhu “Characterizing Silent Users in Social Media Communities” In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media 9.1, 2015, pp. 140–149 DOI: 10.1609/icwsm.v9i1.14582
  26. Michael J Greenacre “Correspondence analysis” In Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics 2.5 Wiley Online Library, 2010, pp. 613–619
  27. Marilena Hohmann, Karel Devriendt and Michele Coscia “Quantifying ideological polarization on a network using generalized Euclidean distance” Publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science In Science Advances 9.9, 2023, pp. eabq2044 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abq2044
  28. Jonas L. Juul and Johan Ugander “Comparing information diffusion mechanisms by matching on cascade size” Publisher: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118.46, 2021, pp. e2100786118 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2100786118
Citations (2)

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 1 tweet with 5 likes about this paper.