Palabras clave
COVID-19, bots políticos, polarización política, propaganda digital, opinión pública, análisis de redes sociales
Resumen
Los contextos de polarización social y política están generando nuevas formas de comunicar que inciden en la esfera pública digital. En estos entornos, distintos actores sociales y políticos estarían contribuyendo a extremar sus posicionamientos, utilizando «bots» para crear espacios de distanciamiento social en los que tienen cabida el discurso del odio y la «incivility», un fenómeno que preocupa a científicos y expertos. El objetivo principal de esta investigación es analizar el rol que desempeñaron estos agentes automatizados en el debate en redes sociales sobre la gestión del Gobierno de España durante la pandemia global de COVID-19. Para ello, se han aplicado técnicas de «Social Big Data Analysis»: algoritmos de «machine learning» para conocer el posicionamiento de los usuarios; algoritmos de detección de «bots»; técnicas de «topic modeling» para conocer los temas del debate en la red, y análisis de sentimiento. Se ha utilizado una base de datos compuesta por mensajes de Twitter publicados durante el confinamiento iniciado a raíz del estado de alarma español. La principal conclusión es que los «bots» podrían haber servido para diseñar una campaña de propaganda política iniciada por actores tradicionales con el objetivo de aumentar la crispación en un ambiente de emergencia social. Se sostiene que, aunque dichos agentes no son los únicos actores que aumentan la polarización, sí coadyuvan a extremar el debate sobre determinados temas clave, incrementando la negatividad.
Referencias
Abramowitz, A.I. (2010). The disappearing center. Yale University Press. https://bit.ly/3s7UlwC
Link Google Scholar
Adlung, S., Lünenborg, M., & Raetzsch, C. (2021). Pitching gender in a racist tune: The affective publics of the# 120decibel campaign. Media and Communication, 9(2), 16-26. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v9i2.3749
Link DOI | Link Google Scholar
Al-Rawi, A., & Shukla, V. (2020). Bots as active news promoters: A digital analysis of COVID-19 tweets. Information, 11(10), 461. https://doi.org/10.3390/info11100461
Link DOI | Link Google Scholar
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/10.1257/jep.31.2.211
Link DOI | Link Google Scholar
Barberá, P., Jost, J.T., Nagler, J., Tucker, J.A., & 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/10.1177/0956797615594620
Link DOI | Link Google Scholar
Boshmaf, Y., Muslukhov, I., Beznosov, K., & Ripeanu, M. (2013). Design and analysis of a social botnet. Computer Networks, 57(2), 556-578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2012.06.006
Link DOI | Link Google Scholar
Boxell, L., Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, & J.M. (2017). Is the internet causing political polarization? Evidence from demographics. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w23258
Link DOI | Link Google Scholar
Bradshaw, S., & Howard, P.N. (2019). The global disinformation order: 2019 global inventory of organised social media manipulation. Oxford Internet Institute. https://acortar.link/puyazU
Link Google Scholar
Calvo, E., & Aruguete, N. (2020). Fake News, trolls y otros encantos. Cómo funcionan (para bien y para mal) las redes sociales. Siglo XXI. https://doi.org/10.22201/fcpys.24484911e.2020.29.76061
Link DOI | Link Google Scholar
Colleoni, E., Rozza, A., & 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
Link DOI | Link Google Scholar
Fernández, P. (1996). Determinación del tamaño muestral. Cad Aten Primaria, 3(138-14), 1-6. https://bit.ly/3DYcijz
Link Google Scholar
Ferrara, E., Varol, O., Davis, C., Menczer, F., & Flammini, A. (2016). The rise of social bots. Communications of the ACM, 59(7), 96-104. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818717
Link DOI | Link Google Scholar
Fiorina, M.P., & Abrams, S.J. (2008). Political polarization in the American public. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 563-588. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053106.153836
Link DOI | Link Google Scholar
Grün, B., & Hornik, K. (2011). Topicmodels: An R package for fitting topic models. Journal of Statistical Software, 40(13), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v040.i13
Link DOI | Link Google Scholar
Guevara, J.A., Gómez, D., Robles, J M., & Montero, J. (2020). Measuring polarization: A fuzzy set theoretical approach. In M.J. Lesot, S. Vieira, M.z. Reformat, J.O. Carvalho, A. Wilbik, B. Bouchon-Meunier & R.R. Yager, (Eds), Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems (pp. 510-522). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50143-3_40
Link DOI | Link Google Scholar
Hansen, L.K., Arvidsson, A., Nielsen, F.A., Colleoni, E., & Etter, M. (2011). Good friends, bad news-affect and virality in twitter. In J.J. Park, L.T. Yang, C. Lee (Eds.), Future information technology (pp. 34-43). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22309-9_5
Link DOI | Link Google Scholar
Howard, P.N. (2006). New media campaigns and the managed citizen. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600701641532
Link DOI | Link Google Scholar
Howard, P.N., Woolley, S., & Calo, R. (2018). Algorithms, bots, and political communication in the U.S. 2016 election: The challenge of automated political communication for election law and administration. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 15(2), 81-93. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2018.1448735
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(1), 129-146, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034
Link DOI | Link Google Scholar
Kearney, M.W. (2019). Rtweet: Collecting and analyzing Twitter data. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(42). 1829. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01829
Link DOI | Link Google Scholar
Keller, F.B., Schoch, D., Stier, S., & Yang, J.H. (2019). Political astroturfing on Twitter: How to coordinate a disinformation campaign. Political Communication, 37(2), 256-280. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1661888
Link DOI | Link Google Scholar
Keller, T.R., & Klinger, U. (2019). Social bots in election campaigns: Theoretical, empirical, and methodological implications. Political Communication, 36(1), 171-189. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2018.1526238
Link DOI | Link Google Scholar
Kovic, M., Rauchfleisch, A., Sele, M., & Caspar, C. (2018). Digital astroturfing in politics: Definition, typology, and countermeasures. Studies in Communication Sciences, 18(1), 69-85. https://doi.org/10.24434/j.scoms.2018.01.005
Link DOI | Link Google Scholar
Lelkes, Y. (2016). Mass polarization: Manifestations and measurements. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(1), 392-410. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw005
Link DOI | Link Google Scholar
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
Link DOI | Link Google Scholar
Martini, F., Samula, P., Keller, T.R., & Klinger, U. (2021). Bot, or not? Comparing three methods for detecting social bots in five political discourses. Big Data & Society, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211033566
Link DOI | Link Google Scholar
Moffitt, J.D., King, C., & Carley, K.M. (2021). Hunting conspiracy theories during the COVID-19 pandemic. Social Media+Society, 7(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211043212
Link DOI | Link Google Scholar
Morgan, S. (2018). Fake news, disinformation, manipulation and online tactics to undermine democracy. Journal of Cyber Policy, 3(1), 39-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/23738871.2018.1462395
Link DOI | Link Google Scholar
Mueller, S.D., & Saeltzer, M. (2020). Twitter made me do it! Twitter's tonal platform incentive and its effect on online campaigning. Information, Communication & Society, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1850841
Link DOI | Link Google Scholar
Neyazi, T.A. (2019). Digital propaganda, political bots and polarized politics in India. Asian Journal of Communication, 30(1), 39-57. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2019.1699938
Link DOI | Link Google Scholar
Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New media & society, 6(2), 259-283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444804041444
Link DOI | Link Google Scholar
Pastor-Galindo, J., Nespoli, P., Gómez-Mármol, F., & Mártinez-Pérez, G. (2020). Spotting political social bots in Twitter: A use case of the 2019 Spanish general election. IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management, 8, 10282-10304. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2020.2965257
Link DOI | Link Google Scholar
Persily, N. (2017). The 2016 U.S. election: Can democracy survive the internet? Journal of Democracy, 28(2), 63-76. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2017.0025
Link DOI | Link Google Scholar
Price, K.R., Priisalu, J., & Nomin, S. (2019). Analysis of the impact of poisoned data within twitter classification models. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 52(19), 175-180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2019.12.170
Link DOI | Link Google Scholar
Prior, M. (2013). Media and political polarization. Annual Review of Political Science, 16, 101-127. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-100711-135242
Link DOI | Link Google Scholar
Rowe, I. (2015). Civility 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
Santana, L.E., & Huerta-Cánepa, G. (2019). ¿Son bots? Automatización en redes sociales durante las elecciones presidenciales de Chile 2017. Cuadernos.info, 44, 61-77. https://doi.org/10.7764/cdi.44.1629
Link DOI | Link Google Scholar
Sartori, G. (2005). Parties and party systems: A framework for analysis. ECPR press.
Link Google Scholar
Serrano-Contreras, I.J., 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
Shao, C., Ciampaglia, G.L., Varol, O., Flammini, A., Menczer, F., & Yang, K.C. (2018). The spread of low-credibility content by social bots. Nature Communication, 9(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-06930-7
Link DOI | Link Google Scholar
Shu, K., Mahudeswaran, D., Wang, S., Lee, D., & Liu, H. (2020). Fakenewsnet: A data repository with news content, social context, and spatiotemporal information for studying fake news on social media. Big data, 8(3), 171-188. http://doi.org/10.1089/big.2020.0062
Link Google Scholar
Sobieraj, S., & Berry, J.M. (2011). From incivility to outrage: Political discourse in blogs, talk radio, and cable news. Political Communication, 28(1), 19-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2010.542360
Link DOI | Link Google Scholar
Stella, M., Ferrara, E., & De-Domenico, M. (2018). Bots increase exposure to negative and inflammatory content in online social systems. In J. Kleinberg (Ed.), Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(49), 12435-12440. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1803470115
Link DOI | Link Google Scholar
Sunstein, C.R. (2001). Designing democracy: What constitutions do? Oxford University Press.
Link Google Scholar
Sunstein, C.R. (2018). #Republic. Princeton university press.
Link Google Scholar
Taber, C.S., & 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
Link DOI | Link Google Scholar
Uyheng, J., & Carley, K.M. (2020). Bots and online hate during the COVID-19 pandemic: Case studies in the United States and the Philippines. J Comput Soc Sc, 3, 445-468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-020-00087-4
Link DOI | Link Google Scholar
Walker, E.T. (2014). Grassroots for hire: Public affairs consultants in American democracy. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139108829
Link DOI | Link Google Scholar
Yan, H.Y., Yang, K., Menczer, F., & Shanahan, J. (2020). Asymmetrical perceptions of partisan political bots. New Media & Society, 23(10), 3016-3037. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820942744
Link DOI | Link Google Scholar
Ficha técnica
Recibido: 04-10-2021
Revisado: 19-10-2021
Aceptado: 03-12-2021
OnlineFirst: 01-02-2022
Fecha publicación: 01-04-2022
Tiempo de revisión del artículo : 15 (en días) | Media de tiempo de revisión de los manuscritos del número 71: 45 (en días)
Tiempo de aceptación del artículo: 60 (en días) | Media tiempo aceptación de los manuscritos del número 71: 70 (en días)
Tiempo de edición OnlineFirst: 134 (en días) | Media tiempo edición de los OnlineFirst del número 71: 144 (en días)
Tiempo de publicacicón final del artículo: 179 (en días) | Media tiempo de publicación final de los articulos del número 71: 189 (en días)
Métricas
Métricas de este artículo
Vistas: 14808
Lectura del abstract: 13772
Descargas del PDF: 1036
Métricas completas de Comunicar 71
Vistas: 144270
Lectura del abstract: 124334
Descargas del PDF: 19936
Citado por
Citas en Web of Science
Actualmente no existen citas hacia este documento
Citas en Scopus
Actualmente no existen citas hacia este documento
Citas en Google Scholar
Liderazgo y polarización como identidad del partido político. Análisis de la comunicación política en la crisis interna del Partido Popular en 2022 JC Rienda Velasco - 2022 - idus.us.es
https://idus.us.es/handle/11441/136677
Polarización y discurso de odio con sesgo de género asociado a la política: análisis de las interacciones en Twitter I Blanco-Alfonso… - Revista de …, 2022 - revistadecomunicacion.com
https://revistadecomunicacion.com/article/view/2918
José-Manuel Robles, Madrid (España)
