اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدJunk News & Information Sharing During the 2019 UK General Election
75
0
0.0
(
0
)
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
Today, an estimated 75% of the British public access information about politics and public life online, and 40% do so via social media. With this context in mind, we investigate information sharing patterns over social media in the lead-up to the 2019 UK General Elections, and ask: (1) What type of political news and information were social media users sharing on Twitter ahead of the vote? (2) How much of it is extremist, sensationalist, or conspiratorial junk news? (3) How much public engagement did these sites get on Facebook in the weeks leading and (4) What are the most common narratives and themes relayed by junk news outlets
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
The dynamics and influence of fake news on Twitter during the 2016 US presidential election remains to be clarified. Here, we use a dataset of 171 million tweets in the five months preceding the election day to identify 30 million tweets, from 2.2 mi
llion users, which contain a link to news outlets. Based on a classification of news outlets curated by www.opensources.co, we find that 25% of these tweets spread either fake or extremely biased news. We characterize the networks of information flow to find the most influential spreaders of fake and traditional news and use causal modeling to uncover how fake news influenced the presidential election. We find that, while top influencers spreading traditional center and left leaning news largely influence the activity of Clinton supporters, this causality is reversed for the fake news: the activity of Trump supporters influences the dynamics of the top fake news spreaders.
Online Social Networks represent a novel opportunity for political campaigns, revolutionising the paradigm of political communication. Nevertheless, many studies uncovered the presence of d/misinformation campaigns or of malicious activities by genui
ne or automated users, putting at severe risk the credibility of online platforms. This phenomenon is particularly evident during crucial political events, as political elections. In the present paper, we provide a comprehensive description of the structure of the networks of interactions among users and bots during the UK elections of 2019. In particular, we focus on the polarised discussion about Brexit on Twitter analysing a data set made of more than 10 million tweets posted for over a month. We found that the presence of automated accounts fostered the debate particularly in the days before the UK national elections, in which we find a steep increase of bots in the discussion; in the days after the election day, their incidence returned to values similar to the ones observed few weeks before the elections. On the other hand, we found that the number of suspended users (i.e. accounts that were removed by the platform for some violation of the Twitter policy) remained constant until the election day, after which it reached significantly higher values. Remarkably, after the TV debate between Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn, we observed the injection of a large number of novel bots whose behaviour is markedly different from that of pre-existing ones. Finally, we explored the bots stance, finding that their activity is spread across the whole political spectrum, although in different proportions, and we studied the different usage of hashtags by automated accounts and suspended users, thus targeting the formation of common narratives in different sides of the debate.
The advent of social media changed the way we consume content favoring a disintermediated access and production. This scenario has been matter of critical discussion about its impact on society. Magnified in the case of Arab Spring or heavily critici
zed in the Brexit and 2016 U.S. elections. In this work we explore information consumption on Twitter during the last European electoral campaign by analyzing the interaction patterns of official news sources, fake news sources, politicians, people from the showbiz and many others. We extensively explore interactions among different classes of accounts in the months preceding the last European elections, held between 23rd and 26th of May, 2019. We collected almost 400,000 tweets posted by 863 accounts having different roles in the public society. Through a thorough quantitative analysis we investigate the information flow among them, also exploiting geolocalized information. Accounts show the tendency to confine their interaction within the same class and the debate rarely crosses national borders. Moreover, we do not find any evidence of an organized network of accounts aimed at spreading disinformation. Instead, disinformation outlets are largely ignored by the other actors and hence play a peripheral role in online political discussions.
In this paper, we present a type of media disorder which we call `junk news bubbles and which derives from the effort invested by online platforms and their users to identify and share contents with rising popularity. Such emphasis on trending matter
s, we claim, can have two detrimental effects on public debates: first, it shortens the amount of time available to discuss each matter; second it increases the ephemeral concentration of media attention. We provide a formal description of the dynamic of junk news bubbles, through a mathematical exploration the famous public arenas model developed by Hilgartner and Bosk in 1988. Our objective is to describe the dynamics of the junk news bubbles as precisely as possible to facilitate its further investigation with empirical data.
Online government petitions represent a new data-rich mode of political participation. This work examines the thus far understudied dynamics of sharing petitions on social media in order to garner signatures and, ultimately, a government response. Us
ing 20 months of Twitter data comprising over 1 million tweets linking to a petition, we perform analyses of networks constructed of petitions and supporters on Twitter, revealing implicit social dynamics therein. We find that Twitter users do not exclusively share petitions on one issue nor do they share exclusively popular petitions. Among the over 240,000 Twitter users, we find latent support groups, with the most central users primarily being politically active average individuals. Twitter as a platform for sharing government petitions, thus, appears to hold potential to foster the creation of and coordination among a new form of latent support interest groups online.
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
