La polarización y echo chambers en el debate de la #LeydeEutanasia en Twitter

  1. Eider Urcola Eceiza 1
  2. Imanol Elezgarai Ibañez 1
  1. 1 Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea
    info

    Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea

    Lejona, España

    ROR https://ror.org/000xsnr85

Revista:
Revista de Comunicación de la SEECI

ISSN: 1576-3420

Año de publicación: 2021

Número: 54

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.15198/SEECI.2021.54.E723 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: Revista de Comunicación de la SEECI

Resumen

Political dialogue taken to extremes and the positioning of political actors on the margins of the debate is one of the main concerns of citizens in Spain (CIS, 2020). Far from being a phenomenon exclusive to the political class, this distancing is reflected among citizens themselves who, driven by the characteristics of social networks, have developed a special tendency to listen to themselves and avoid connecting with divergent opinions (Sunstein, 2003). The main objective of this study is to analyse the polarization on Twitter around the #LeydeEutanasia debate in Spain. For the analysis of this phenomenon, NodeXL software has been used for data collection and Gephi for its visualization. In addition, an emotional framing table (Menseres, Del Campo & Rueda-Zárate, 2018) has been recreated in order to analyse the Tweets of Spanish political actors and study their content. In this way, the research has demonstrated the presence of two echo chambers or polarized groups around the debate, which are in line withthe ideological blocks on the left/right axis, and which are also observed in the language used to expose their position. However, offensive language is not used in the majority of interactions with the ideological adversary. These data reaffirm the results of previous work in this field of study.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Arias-Maldonado, M. (2016). La democracia sentimental: política y emociones en el siglo XXI. Página indómita.
  • Bakshy, E., Messing, S., y Adamic, L. A. (2015). Political science. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science (New York, N.Y.), 348(6239), 1130-1132. https://10.1126/science.aaa1160 [doi]
  • Barberá, P., Jost, J. T., Nagler, J., Tucker, J. A., y Bonneau, R. (2015). Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber? Psychological Science, 26(10), 1531-1542. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0956797615594620
  • Bessi, A., Petroni, F., Del Vicario, M., Zollo, F., Anagnostopoulos, A., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., y Quattrociocchi, W. (2016). Homophily and polarization in the age of misinformation. The European Physical Journal Special Topics, 225(10), 2047-2059. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjst/e2015-50319-0
  • Buder, J., Rabl, L., Feiks, M., Badermann, M., y Zurstiege, G. (2021). Does negatively toned language use on social media lead to attitude polarization? Computers in Human Behavior, 116, 106663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106663
  • Bueno, A., y Martinez, H.L. (2019, april 5). Todas las veces que la eutanasia llegó al Congreso. El País. https://bit.ly/3k2l9Iz
  • Castells, M. (2011). The rise of the network society. John wiley & sons. Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas (Ed.) (2020). Barómetro de diciembre 2020. https://bit.ly/3dGCXYw
  • Cherven, K. (2015). Mastering Gephi network visualization. Packt Publishing Ltd.
  • Colleoni, E., Rozza, A., y Arvidsson, A. (2014). Echo chamber or public sphere? Predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in Twitter using big data. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 317-332. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12084
  • Conover, M., Ratkiewicz, J., Francisco, M., Gonçalves, B., Menczer, F., y Flammini, A. (2011). Political polarization on twitter. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, , 5(1). https://bit.ly/2NWsgq5
  • Davidson, S. S., Bradshaw Hoppock, A., Rohmeyer, R. A., Keebler, J., y Frederick, C. M. (2020). Deindividuation in Anonymous Social Media: Does Anonymous Social Media Lead to an Increase in Non-Normative Behavior? https://bit.ly/3knzgZ1
  • Gaol, F. L., Maulana, A., y Matsuo, T. (2020). News consumption patterns on Twitter: fragmentation study on the online news media network. Heliyon, 6(10). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05169
  • Garimella, V. R. K., y Weber, I. (2017). A long-term analysis of polarization on Twitter. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 11(1). https://bit.ly/3pY1gUx
  • Garrett, R. K. (2009). Echo chambers online?: Politically motivated selective exposure among Internet news users. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(2), 265-285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01440.x
  • Gualda, E., y Borrero, J. D. (2015). La'Spanish Revolution'en Twitter (2): Redes de hashtags (#) y actores individuales y colectivos respecto a los desahucios en España. Redes.Revista Hispana Para El Análisis De Redes Sociales, 26(1), 1-22. https://bit.ly/3bsyAxm
  • Guerra, P., Meira Jr, W., Cardie, C., y Kleinberg, R. (2013). A measure of polarization on social media networks based on community boundaries. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 7(1). https://bit.ly/2NxYPdS
  • Hermida, X. (2020, december 19). El Congreso aprueba la primera ley de eutanasia con amplia mayoría. El País. https://bit.ly/3k1o30j
  • Hahn, K. S., Ryu, S., y Park, S. (2015). Fragmentation in the Twitter following of news outlets: The representation of South Korean users’ ideological and generational cleavage. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 92(1), 56-76. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1077699014559499
  • Kuz, A., Falco, M., Nahuel, L., y Giandini, R. S. (2015). Análisis de Redes Sociales a través de Gephi y NodeXL. Paper presented at the II Simposio Argentino Sobre Tecnología y Sociedad (STS)-JAIIO 44 (Rosario, 2015). https://bit.ly/2NWBzX2
  • Lee, J. K., Choi, J., Kim, C., y Kim, Y. (2014). Social media, network heterogeneity, and opinion polarization. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 702-722. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12077
  • Matakos, A., Terzi, E., y Tsaparas, P. (2017). Measuring and moderating opinion polarization in social networks. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 31(5), 1480-1505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10618-017-0527-9
  • McSweeney, P. J. (2009). Gephi network statistics. Google Summer of Code, 1-8. https://bit.ly/3sk1qa5
  • Meneses, M., Martin-del-Campo, A., y Rueda-Zarate, H. (2018). #TrumpenMexico. Transnational connective action on Twitter and the border wall dispute. Comunicar.Media Education Research Journal, 26(1). https://doi.org/10.3916/C55-2018-04
  • Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The virtual sphere: The internet as a public sphere. New Media & Society, 4(1), 9-27.https://doi.org/10.1177%2F14614440222226244
  • Quattrociocchi, W., Scala, A., y Sunstein, C. R. (2016). Echo chambers on Facebook. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2795110
  • Rim, H., Lee, Y., y Yoo, S. (2020). Polarized public opinion responding to corporate social advocacy: Social network analysis of boycotters and advocators. Public Relations Review, 46(2), 101869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101869
  • Rodríguez, D. E. A., Aguilar, E., y Hung, E. S. (2010). Identidad y subjetividad en las redes sociales virtuales. Zona Próxima, (12) https://bit.ly/3qLqGpj
  • Rojas Hernández, H., y Puig-i-Abril, E. (2007). Comunicación y participación política Colombia 2006. Centro Para La Investigación En Comunicación Política, Facultad De Comunicación Social, Bogotá, Universidad Externado De Colombia y Centro Para La Comunicación y Democracia, University of Winsconsin Madison,
  • Sindermann, C., Elhai, J. D., Moshagen, M., y Montag, C. (2020). Age, gender, personality, ideological attitudes and individual differences in a person's news spectrum: how many and who might be prone to “filter bubbles” and “echo chambers” online? Heliyon, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03214
  • Stroud, N. J. (2010). Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 556-576. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01497.x
  • Sunstein, C. R. (2003). República.com. Paidós Ibérica
  • Taber, C. S., y Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755-769. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x
  • Törnberg, P. (2018). Echo chambers and viral misinformation: Modeling fake news as complex contagion. PloS One, 13(9). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203958
  • Tsai, W. S., Tao, W., Chuan, C., y Hong, C. (2020). Echo chambers and social mediators in public advocacy issue networks. Public Relations Review, 46(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2020.101882
  • UNESCO (Ed.) (-). Libertad de prensa en los medios. https://bit.ly/3soEpmD
  • Urman, A. (2020). Context matters: political polarization on Twitter from a comparative perspective. Media, Culture & Society, 42(6), 857-879. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0163443719876541
  • Vaccari, C., Valeriani, A., Barberá, P., Jost, J. T., Nagler, J., y Tucker, J. A. (2016). Of echo chambers and contrarian clubs: Exposure to political disagreement among German and Italian users of Twitter. Social Media Society, 2(3). https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2056305116664221
  • Weber, I., Garimella, V. R. K., y Batayneh, A. (2013). Secular vs. islamist polarization in egypt on twitter. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining, 290-297. https://doi.org/10.1145/2492517.2492557
  • Wu, A. X. (2013). Ideological polarization over a China-as-superpower mindset: An exploratory charting of belief systems among Chinese Internet users, 2008-2011. International Journal of Communication, 8, 2243-2272. https://bit.ly/2NzrX4A
  • Zuiderveen Borgesius, F., Trilling, D., Möller, J., Bodó, B., De Vreese, C. H., y Helberger, N. (2016). Should we worry about filter bubbles? Internet Policy Review.Journal on Internet Regulation, 5(1). https://bit.ly/37ISO4Y
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet