Why it is important to consider negative ties when studying polarized debates: A signed network analysis of a Dutch cultural controversy on Twitter.

Despite the prevalence of disagreement between users on social media platforms, studies of online debates typically only look at positive online interactions, represented as networks with positive ties. In this paper, we hypothesize that the systematic neglect of conflict that these network analyses...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Anna Keuchenius, Petter Törnberg, Justus Uitermark
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2021
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/d99f8ab90bc14a00b3cc392e74c8cde0
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:d99f8ab90bc14a00b3cc392e74c8cde0
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:d99f8ab90bc14a00b3cc392e74c8cde02021-12-02T20:19:20ZWhy it is important to consider negative ties when studying polarized debates: A signed network analysis of a Dutch cultural controversy on Twitter.1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0256696https://doaj.org/article/d99f8ab90bc14a00b3cc392e74c8cde02021-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256696https://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203Despite the prevalence of disagreement between users on social media platforms, studies of online debates typically only look at positive online interactions, represented as networks with positive ties. In this paper, we hypothesize that the systematic neglect of conflict that these network analyses induce leads to misleading results on polarized debates. We introduce an approach to bring in negative user-to-user interaction, by analyzing online debates using signed networks with positive and negative ties. We apply this approach to the Dutch Twitter debate on 'Black Pete'-an annual Dutch celebration with racist characteristics. Using a dataset of 430,000 tweets, we apply natural language processing and machine learning to identify: (i) users' stance in the debate; and (ii) whether the interaction between users is positive (supportive) or negative (antagonistic). Comparing the resulting signed network with its unsigned counterpart, the retweet network, we find that traditional unsigned approaches distort debates by conflating conflict with indifference, and that the inclusion of negative ties changes and enriches our understanding of coalitions and division within the debate. Our analysis reveals that some groups are attacking each other, while others rather seem to be located in fragmented Twitter spaces. Our approach identifies new network positions of individuals that correspond to roles in the debate, such as leaders and scapegoats. These findings show that representing the polarity of user interactions as signs of ties in networks substantively changes the conclusions drawn from polarized social media activity, which has important implications for various fields studying online debates using network analysis.Anna KeucheniusPetter TörnbergJustus UitermarkPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 16, Iss 8, p e0256696 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Anna Keuchenius Petter Törnberg Justus Uitermark Why it is important to consider negative ties when studying polarized debates: A signed network analysis of a Dutch cultural controversy on Twitter.
description	Despite the prevalence of disagreement between users on social media platforms, studies of online debates typically only look at positive online interactions, represented as networks with positive ties. In this paper, we hypothesize that the systematic neglect of conflict that these network analyses induce leads to misleading results on polarized debates. We introduce an approach to bring in negative user-to-user interaction, by analyzing online debates using signed networks with positive and negative ties. We apply this approach to the Dutch Twitter debate on 'Black Pete'-an annual Dutch celebration with racist characteristics. Using a dataset of 430,000 tweets, we apply natural language processing and machine learning to identify: (i) users' stance in the debate; and (ii) whether the interaction between users is positive (supportive) or negative (antagonistic). Comparing the resulting signed network with its unsigned counterpart, the retweet network, we find that traditional unsigned approaches distort debates by conflating conflict with indifference, and that the inclusion of negative ties changes and enriches our understanding of coalitions and division within the debate. Our analysis reveals that some groups are attacking each other, while others rather seem to be located in fragmented Twitter spaces. Our approach identifies new network positions of individuals that correspond to roles in the debate, such as leaders and scapegoats. These findings show that representing the polarity of user interactions as signs of ties in networks substantively changes the conclusions drawn from polarized social media activity, which has important implications for various fields studying online debates using network analysis.
format	article
author	Anna Keuchenius Petter Törnberg Justus Uitermark
author_facet	Anna Keuchenius Petter Törnberg Justus Uitermark
author_sort	Anna Keuchenius
title	Why it is important to consider negative ties when studying polarized debates: A signed network analysis of a Dutch cultural controversy on Twitter.
title_short	Why it is important to consider negative ties when studying polarized debates: A signed network analysis of a Dutch cultural controversy on Twitter.
title_full	Why it is important to consider negative ties when studying polarized debates: A signed network analysis of a Dutch cultural controversy on Twitter.
title_fullStr	Why it is important to consider negative ties when studying polarized debates: A signed network analysis of a Dutch cultural controversy on Twitter.
title_full_unstemmed	Why it is important to consider negative ties when studying polarized debates: A signed network analysis of a Dutch cultural controversy on Twitter.
title_sort	why it is important to consider negative ties when studying polarized debates: a signed network analysis of a dutch cultural controversy on twitter.
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/d99f8ab90bc14a00b3cc392e74c8cde0
work_keys_str_mv	AT annakeuchenius whyitisimportanttoconsidernegativetieswhenstudyingpolarizeddebatesasignednetworkanalysisofadutchculturalcontroversyontwitter AT pettertornberg whyitisimportanttoconsidernegativetieswhenstudyingpolarizeddebatesasignednetworkanalysisofadutchculturalcontroversyontwitter AT justusuitermark whyitisimportanttoconsidernegativetieswhenstudyingpolarizeddebatesasignednetworkanalysisofadutchculturalcontroversyontwitter
_version_	1718374255531393024

Why it is important to consider negative ties when studying polarized debates: A signed network analysis of a Dutch cultural controversy on Twitter.

Ejemplares similares