关键词

公共领域,Youtube,网络政治,深度学习,两极分化,新冠疫情

摘要

社交网络明显改变了政治对话的发生方式,促进了公共领域的数字化配置。本文旨在分析社交网络中展开的讨论,特别是两极分化问题。我们以 2020 年在YouTube 上观察到的西班牙、意大利和英国关于新冠疫情的评论为基础,取得一份由 111808 条评论组成的样本,通过一系列基于算法的自动技术对其进行了分析,该方法是本领域定量研究方法中的创新。与之前的研究一致,本文提出的假设是不同国家数字领域中评论的两极分化程度不同。通过这种方式,研究预期南欧国家数字领域的两极分化程度更高,这是由于这些国家属于两极分化多元主义模型,而不具有其他模型,比如自由主义模型。结果证实了这一假设,表明了不仅在西班牙和意大利观察到的两极分化程度比在英国的更高,而且从细分上看,研究结果还表明在研究样本中的地中海国家评论里,两极分化程度越高的活动获得的认可越多。

查看信息图

参考资料

Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 211-36. https://doi.org/10.3386/w23089

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Allgaier, J. (2019). Science and environmental communication via online video: Strategically distorted communications on climate change and climate engineering on YouTube. Frontiers in Communication, 4(36), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00036

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Arias-Maldonado, M. (2016). La digitalización de la conversación pública: Redes sociales, afectividad política y democracia. Revista de Estudios Políticos, 173, 27-54. https://doi.org/10.18042/cepc/rep.173.01

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130-1132. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1160

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Berry, C., Kim, S., & Spigel, L. (2010). Electronic elsewheres: Media technology and the experience of social space. University of Minnesota Press. https://bit.ly/33AbcKO

Link Google Scholar

Bimber, B. (1998). The Internet and political transformation: Populism, community, and accelerated pluralism. Polity, 31(1), 133-160. https://doi.org/10.2307/3235370

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Blumler, J. (2018). The Crisis of Public Communication 1995-2017. Javnost – The Public, 25(1-2), 83-92. https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2018.1418799

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Boxell, L., Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. (2017). Greater Internet use is not associated with faster growth in political polarization among US demographic groups. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(40), 10612-10617. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1706588114

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Boxell, L., Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. (2020). Cross-country trends in affective polarization. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w26669

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Bruns, A. (2008). Blogs, Wikipedia second life, and beyond: from production to produsage. Peter Lang.

Link Google Scholar

Conover, M., Ratkiewicz, J., Francisco, M., Gonçalves, B., Menczer, F., & Flammini, A. (2011). Political polarization on twitter. In N. Nicolov & J.G. Shanahan (Eds.), Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (pp. 89-96). The AAAI Press. https://bit.ly/3bxioeB

Link Google Scholar

Dahlberg, L. (2004). The Habermasian public sphere: A specification of the idealized conditions of democratic communication. Studies in Social and Political Thought, 10, 2-18. https://bit.ly/2Nr1BBU

Link Google Scholar

Davis, A. (2019). Political communication: A new introduction for crisis times. Polity. https://bit.ly/3o85j17

Link Google Scholar

Demsar, J., Curk, T., Erjavec, A., Gorup, C., Hocevar, T., Milutinovic, M., Mozina, M., Polajnar, M., Toplak, M., Staric, A., Stajdohar, M., Umek, L., Zagar, L., Zbontar, J., Zitnik, M., & Zupan, B. (2013). Orange: Data mining toolbox. Python. The Journal of machine Learning research, 14(1), 2349-2353. https://bit.ly/3pMIPBR

Link Google Scholar

Dougan, M., & Smith, A. (2016). The political environment on social media. Pew Research Center. https://pewrsr.ch/2NyZWdh

Link Google Scholar

Druckman, J.N., & Levendusky, M.S. (2019). What do we measure when we measure affective polarization? Public Opinion Quarterly, 83(1), 114-122. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfz003

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Fleig, A., & von-Scheve, C. (2020). Introduction: Public spheres of resonance – Constellations of affect and language. In A. Fleig, & C. von-Scheve (Eds.), Public spheres of resonance. Constellations of affect and language (pp. 1-16). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429466533-1

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Fletcher, R., & Jenkins, J. (2019). Polarisation and the news media in Europe. European Parliamentary Research Service. https://bit.ly/2ZKKpcQ

Link Google Scholar

Fletcher, R., Cornia, A., & Nielsen, R.K. (2020). How polarized are online and offline news audiences? A comparative analysis of twelve countries. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 25(2), 169-195. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161219892768

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Fuchs, C. (2017). Social media. A critical introduction. Sage. https://bit.ly/3tDtDsD

Link Google Scholar

Fung, A., Gilman, H.G., & Shkabatur, J. (2013). Six models for the Internet and politics. International Studies Review, 15(1), 30-47. https://doi.org/10.1111/misr.12028

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

García-Marín, J., & Calatrava, A. (2018). The use of supervised learning algorithms in political communication and media studies: Locating frames in the press. Comunicación & Sociedad, 31(3), 175-188. https://doi.org/10.15581/003.31.3.175-188

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Gidron, N., Adams, J., & Horne, W. (2019). How ideology, economics and institutions shape affective polarization in democratic polities. [Conference]. Annual Conference of the American Political Science Association, Washington DC, United States. https://bit.ly/3aJkmJx

Link Google Scholar

Gozálvez-Pérez, V. (2011). Education for democratic citizenship in a digital culture. [Educacio?n para la ciudadani?a democra?tica en la cultura digital]. Comunicar, 36, 131-138. https://doi.org/10.3916/c36-2011-03-04

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Gruzd, A., & Roy, J. (2014). Investigating political polarization on Twitter: A Canadian perspective. Policy & Internet, 6(1), 28-45. https://doi.org/10.1002/1944-2866.POI354

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Hallin, D., & Mancini, H. (2004). Comparing media systems. Three models of media and politics. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790867

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S.J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 129-146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Jaidka, K., Zhou, A., & Lelkes, Y. (2019). Brevity is the soul of Twitter: The constraint affordance and political discussion. Journal of Communication, 69(4), 345-372. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3287552

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Lee, J.K., Choi, J., Kim, C., & Kim, Y. (2014). Social media, network heterogeneity, and opinion polarization. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 702-722, https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12077

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Letsche, T.A., & Berry, M.W. (1997). Large-scale information retrieval with latent semantic indexing. Information sciences, 100(1-4), 105-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-0255(97)00044-3

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

López-García, G. (2005). Modelos de comunicación en Internet. Tirant Lo Blanch.

Link Google Scholar

Margetts, H. (2009). Public management change and e-government: The emergence of digital-era governance. In A. Chadwick, & P.N. Howard (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics (pp. 119-131). Routledge. https://bit.ly/3bkxQeI

Link Google Scholar

Mason, L. (2014). ‘I disrespectfully agree’: The differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(1), 128-145. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12089

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Meyer, D., Hornik, K., & Feinerer, I. (2008). Text mining infrastructure. Journal of Statistical Software, 25(5), 1-54. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v025.i05

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Morlino, L., & Sorice, M. (2021). Quello che abbiamo appreso. In Idd. L’illusione della scelta. Come si manipola l’opinione pubblica in Italia. Luiss University Press.

Link Google Scholar

Olsson, E.J. (2013). A Bayesian simulation model of group deliberation and polarization. In F. Zenker (Ed.), Bayesian argumentation: The practical side of probability (pp. 113-133). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5357-0_6

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Oz, M., Zheng, P., & Chen, G. (2018). Twitter versus Facebook: Comparing incivility, impoliteness, and deliberative attributes. New Media & Society, 20, 3400-3419. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817749516

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. Penguin. https://doi.org/10.3139/9783446431164

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Prior, M. (2007). Post-broadcast democracy: How Media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139878425

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Reese, S., Rutigliano, L., Hyun, K., & Jeong, J. (2007). Mapping the blogosphere: Professional and citizen-based media in the global news arena. Journalism, 8(3), 235-261. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884907076459

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Rowe, I. (2014). Incivility 2.0: A comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion. Information, Communication & Society, 18(2), 121-138. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2014.940365

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Rubio, R. (2000). Internet en la participación política. Revista de Estudios Políticos, 19, 285-302. https://bit.ly/3unSTVv

Link Google Scholar

Scheufele, D.A. (2001). Democracy for some? How political talk both informs and polarizes the electorate. In R.P. Hart, & D. Shaw (Eds.), Communication and U.S. elections: New agendas (pp. 19-32). Rowman and Littlefield.

Link Google Scholar

Schlesinger, P. (2020). After the post-public sphere. Media Culture and Society, 42(7-8), 1545-1563. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443720948003

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Serrano-Contreras, I., García-Marín, J., & Luengo, O.G. (2020). Measuring online political dialogue: Does polarization trigger more deliberation? Media and Communication, 8(4), 63-72. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i4.3149

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Sorice, M. (2020). La ‘piattaformizzazione’ della sfera pubblica. Comunicazione Politica, 3, 371-388. https://doi.org/10.3270/98799

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Spohr, D. (2017). Fake news and ideological polarization: Filter bubbles and selective exposure on social media. Business Information Review, 34(3), 150-160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266382117722446

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Stromer-Galley, J., & Wichowski, A. (2011). Political discussion online. In M.C. Ess (Ed.), The handbook of Internet studies (pp. 168-187). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444314861.ch8

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Sunstein, C.R. (2008). Republic.com 2.0. Princeton University Press. https://bit.ly/3vZ7R4b

Link Google Scholar

Sunstein, C.R. (2018). #Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv8xnhtd

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Valera-Orgaz, L. (2017). Comparing the democratic value of Facebook discussions across the profiles of Spanish political candidates during the 2011 General Election. Revista Internacional de Sociología, 75(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3989/ris.2017.75.1.15.119

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

van-Dijck, J., de-Waal, M., & Poell, T. (2018). The platform society public values in a connective world. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190889760.001.0001

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Volkmer, I. (2014). The global public sphere: Public communication in the age of reflective interdependence. Polity.

Link Google Scholar

Crossmark

技术信息

收到: 25-01-2021

修订: 20-03-2021

公认: 26-04-2021

OnlineFirst: 15-06-2021

发布日期: 01-10-2021

文章修改时间: 54 天 | 期刊编号的平均时间修订 69: 30 天

文章接受时间: 90 天 | 期刊编号的平均接受时间 69: 68 天

预印本编辑时间: 203 天 | 期刊编号的平均编辑时间预印 69: 180 天

文章编辑时间: 248 天 | 期刊编号的平均编辑时间 69: 225 天

度量

这篇文章的度量

浏览次数: 10513

对摘要的解读: 8787

PDF下载: 1726

的全部指标 69

浏览次数: 89779

对摘要的解读: 72339

PDF下载: 17440

被引用

引述 Web of Science

Robles, Jose-Manuel; Guevara, Juan-Antonio; Casas-Mas, Belen; Gomez, Daniel; . When negativity is the fuel. Bots and Political Polarization in the COVID-19 debate The disappearing center, 2022.

https://doi.org/10.3916/C71-2022-05

引述 Scopus

Robles, J.-M., Guevara, J.-A., Casas-Mas, B., Gömez, D. . When negativity is the fuel. Bots and Political Polarization in the COVID-19 debate | [Cuando la negatividad es el combustible. Bots y polarización política en el debate sobre el COVID-19]), Comunicar, .

https://doi.org/10.3916/C71-2022-05

引述 Google Scholar

Robles, J. M., Guevara, J. A., Casas-Mas, B., & Gómez, D. (2022). When negativity is the fuel. Bots and Political Polarization in the COVID-19 debate. Comunicar, 30(71), 63-75.

http://eprints.rclis.org/42973/

Robles, J. M., Guevara, J. A., Casas-Mas, B., & Gómez, D. (2022). Cuando la negatividad es el combustible. Bots y polarización política en el debate sobre el COVID-19. Comunicar: Revista Científica de Comunicación y Educación, 30(71).

...

Arévalo-Martínez, R. I., Flores, R. D. P., & Cuevas, G. E. G. (2021). Comunicación presidencial sobre la COVID-19 vía Twitter: México, España y Estados Unidos. Global Media Journal México, 18(35), 151-175.

https://gmjmexico.uanl.mx/index.php/GMJ_EI/article/view/457

Robles, J. M., Guevara, J. A., Casas-Mas, B., & Gómez, D. (2022). Cuando la negatividad es el combustible. Bots y polarización política en el debate sobre el COVID-19. Comunicar, 30(71), 63-75.

https://www.revistacomunicar.com/ojs/index.php/comunicar/article/view/C71-2022-05

下载

替代指标

如何引用

Luengo, O., García-Marín, J., & de-Blasio, E. (2021). COVID-19 on YouTube: Debates and polarisation in the digital sphere. [COVID-19 en YouTube: Debates y polarización en la esfera digital]. Comunicar, 69, 9-19. https://doi.org/10.3916/C69-2021-01

分享

           

邮政信箱 527

21080 韦尔瓦(西班牙)

行政管理

编辑部

Creative Commons

本网站使用cookies来获取用户导航的统计数据。如果您继续浏览,我们认为您接受其使用。 +info X