The surge in political information, discourse, and interaction has been one of the most important developments in social media over the past several years. There is rich structure in the interaction among different viewpoints on the ideological spectrum. However, we still have only a limited analytical vocabulary for expressing the ways in which these viewpoints interact.
In this paper, we develop network-based methods that operate on the ways in which users share content; we construct invocation graphs on Web domains showing the extent to which pages from one domain are invoked by users to reply to posts containing pages from other domains. When we locate the domains on a political spectrum induced from the data, we obtain an embedded graph showing how these interaction links span different distances on the spectrum. The structure of this embedded network, and its evolution over time, helps us derive macro-level insights about how political interaction unfolded through 2016, leading up to the US Presidential election. In particular, we find that the domains invoked in replies spanned increasing distances on the spectrum over the months approaching the election, and that there was clear asymmetry between the left-to-right and right-to-left patterns of linkage.
more »
« less
Whose Advantage? Measuring Attention Dynamics across YouTube and Twitter on Controversial Topics
The ideological asymmetries have been recently observed in contested online spaces, where conservative voices seem to be relatively more pronounced even though liberals are known to have the population advantage on digital platforms. Most prior research, however, focused on either one single platform or one single political topic. Whether an ideological group garners more attention across platforms and/or topics, and how the attention dynamics evolve over time, have not been explored. In this work, we present a quantitative study that links collective attention across two social platforms -- YouTube and Twitter, centered on online activities surrounding popular videos of three controversial political topics including Abortion, Gun control, and Black Lives Matter over 16 months. We propose several sets of video-centric metrics to characterize how online attention is accumulated for different ideological groups. We find that neither side is on a winning streak: left-leaning videos are overall more viewed, more engaging, but less tweeted than right-leaning videos. The attention time series unfold quicker for left-leaning videos, but span a longer time for right-leaning videos. Network analysis on the early adopters and tweet cascades show that the information diffusion for left-leaning videos tends to involve centralized actors; while that for right-leaning videos starts earlier in the attention lifecycle. In sum, our findings go beyond the static picture of ideological asymmetries in digital spaces and provide a set of methods to quantify attention dynamics across different social platforms.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2027713
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10334379
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media
- ISSN:
- 2334-0770
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Budak, Ceren ; Cha, Meeyoung ; Quercia, Daniele ; Xie, Lexing (Ed.)We present the first large-scale measurement study of cross-partisan discussions between liberals and conservatives on YouTube, based on a dataset of 274,241 political videos from 973 channels of US partisan media and 134M comments from 9.3M users over eight months in 2020. Contrary to a simple narrative of echo chambers, we find a surprising amount of cross-talk: most users with at least 10 comments posted at least once on both left-leaning and right-leaning YouTube channels. Cross-talk, however, was not symmetric. Based on the user leaning predicted by a hierarchical attention model, we find that conservatives were much more likely to comment on left-leaning videos than liberals on right-leaning videos. Secondly, YouTube's comment sorting algorithm made cross-partisan comments modestly less visible; for example, comments from conservatives made up 26.3% of all comments on left-leaning videos but just over 20% of the comments were in the top 20 positions. Lastly, using Perspective API's toxicity score as a measure of quality, we find that conservatives were not significantly more toxic than liberals when users directly commented on the content of videos. However, when users replied to comments from other users, we find that cross-partisan replies were more toxic than co-partisan replies on both left-leaning and right-leaning videos, with cross-partisan replies being especially toxic on the replier's home turf.more » « less
-
more » « less
Abstract We analyze social media activity during one of the largest protest mobilizations in US history to examine ideological asymmetries in the posting of news content. Using an unprecedented combination of four datasets (tracking offline protests, social media activity, web browsing, and the reliability of news sources), we show that there is no evidence of unreliable sources having any prominent visibility during the protest period, but we do identify asymmetries in the ideological slant of the sources shared on social media, with a clear bias towards right-leaning domains. These results support the “amplification of the right” thesis, which points to the structural conditions (social and technological) that lead to higher visibility of content with a partisan bent towards the right. Our findings provide evidence that right-leaning sources gain more visibility on social media and reveal that ideological asymmetries manifest themselves even in the context of movements with progressive goals.
-
The culture within engineering colleges and departments has been historically quiet when considering social justice issues. Often the faculty in those departments are less concerned with social issues and are primarily focused on their disciplines and the concrete ways that they can make impacts academically and professionally in their respective arena’s. However, with the social climate of the United States shifting ever more towards a politically charged climate, and current events, particularly the protests against police brutality in recent years, faculty and students are constantly inundated with news of injustices happening in our society. The murder of George Floyd on May 25th 2020 sent shockwaves across the United States and the world. The video captured of his death shared across the globe brought everyone’s attention to the glaringly ugly problem of police brutality, paired with the COVID-19 pandemic, and US election year, the conditions were just right for a social activist movement to grow to a size that no one could ignore. Emmanuel Acho spoke out, motivated by injustices seen in the George Floyd murder, initially with podcasts and then by writing his book “Uncomfortable Converstations with a Black Man” [1]. In his book he touched on various social justice issues such as: racial terminology (i.e., Black or African American), implicit biases, white privilege, cultural appropriation, stereotypes (e.g., the “angry black man”), racial slurs (particularly the n-word), systemic racism, the myth of reverse racism, the criminal justice system, the struggles faced by black families, interracial families, allyship, and anti-racism. Students and faculty at Anonymous University felt compelled to set aside the time to meet and discuss this book in depth through the video conferencing client Zoom. In these meetings diverse facilitators were tasked with bringing the topics discussed by Acho in his book into conversation and pushing attendees of these meetings to consider those topics critically and personally. In an effort to avoid tasking attendees with reading homework to be able to participate in these discussions, the discussed chapter of the audiobook version of Acho’s book was played at the beginning of each meeting. Each audiobook chapter lasted between fifteen and twenty minutes, after which forty to forty-five minutes were left in the hour-long meetings to discuss the content of the chapter in question. Efforts by students and faculty were made to examine how some of the teachings of the book could be implemented into their lives and at Anonymous University. For broader topics, they would relate the content back to their personal lives (e.g., raising their children to be anti-racist and their experiences with racism in American and international cultures). Each meeting was recorded for posterity in the event that those conversations would be used in a paper such as this. Each meeting had at least one facilitator whose main role was to provide discussion prompts based on the chapter and ensure that the meeting environment was safe and inclusive. Naturally, some chapters address topics that are highly personal to some participants, so it was vital that all participants felt comfortable and supported to share their thoughts and experiences. The facilitator would intervene if the conversation veered in an aggressive direction. For example, if a participant starts an argument with another participant in a non-constructive manner, e.g., arguing over the definition of ethnicity, then the facilitator will interrupt, clear the air to bring the group back to a common ground, and then continue the discussion. Otherwise, participants were allowed to steer the direction of the conversation as new avenues of discussion popped up. These meetings were recorded with the goal of returning to these conversations and analyzing the conversations between attendees. Grounded theory will be used to first assess the most prominent themes of discussion between attendees for each meeting [2]. Attendees will be contacted to expressly ask their permission to have their words and thoughts used in this work, and upon agreement that data will begin to be processed. Select attendees will be asked to participate in focus group discussions, which will also be recorded via Zoom. These discussions will focus around the themes pulled from general discussion and will aim to dive deeper into the impact that this experience has had on them as either students or faculty members. A set of questions will be developed as prompts, but conversation is expected to evolve organically as these focus groups interact. These sessions will be scheduled for an hour, and a set of four focus groups with four participants are expected to participate for a total of sixteen total focus group participants. We hope to uncover how this experience changed the lives of the participants and present a model of how conversations such as this can promote diversity, equity, inclusion, and access activities amongst faculty and students outside of formal programs and strategic plans that are implemented at university, college, or departmental levels.more » « less
-
Concerns about the spread of misinformation online via news articles have led to the development of many tools and processes involving human annotation of their credibility. However, much is still unknown about how different people judge news credibility or the quality or reliability of news credibility ratings from populations of varying expertise. In this work, we consider credibility ratings from two “crowd” populations: 1) students within journalism or media programs, and 2) crowd workers on UpWork, and compare them with the ratings of two sets of experts: journalists and climate scientists, on a set of 50 climate-science articles. We find that both groups’ credibility ratings have higher correlation to journalism experts compared to the science experts, with 10-15 raters to achieve convergence. We also find that raters’ gender and political leaning impact their ratings. Among article genre of news/opinion/analysis and article source leaning of left/center/right, crowd ratings were more similar to experts respectively with opinion and strong left sources.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- The DOI is not currently available.
