اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدPolitical Partisanship and Anti-Science Attitudes in Online Discussions about Covid-19
88
0
0.0
(
0
)
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
The novel coronavirus pandemic continues to ravage communities across the US. Opinion surveys identified importance of political ideology in shaping perceptions of the pandemic and compliance with preventive measures. Here, we use social media data to study complexity of polarization. We analyze a large dataset of tweets related to the pandemic collected between January and May of 2020, and develop methods to classify the ideological alignment of users along the moderacy (hardline vs moderate), political (liberal vs conservative) and science (anti-science vs pro-science) dimensions. While polarization along the science and political dimensions are correlated, politically moderate users are more likely to be aligned with the pro-science views, and politically hardline users with anti-science views. Contrary to expectations, we do not find that polarization grows over time; instead, we see increasing activity by moderate pro-science users. We also show that anti-science conservatives tend to tweet from the Southern US, while anti-science moderates from the Western states. Our findings shed light on the multi-dimensional nature of polarization, and the feasibility of tracking polarized opinions about the pandemic across time and space through social media data.
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
The objective of the study is to examine coronavirus disease (COVID-19) related discussions, concerns, and sentiments that emerged from tweets posted by Twitter users. We analyze 4 million Twitter messages related to the COVID-19 pandemic using a lis
t of 25 hashtags such as coronavirus, COVID-19, quarantine from March 1 to April 21 in 2020. We use a machine learning approach, Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA), to identify popular unigram, bigrams, salient topics and themes, and sentiments in the collected Tweets. Popular unigrams include virus, lockdown, and quarantine. Popular bigrams include COVID-19, stay home, corona virus, social distancing, and new cases. We identify 13 discussion topics and categorize them into five different themes, such as public health measures to slow the spread of COVID-19, social stigma associated with COVID-19, coronavirus news cases and deaths, COVID-19 in the United States, and coronavirus cases in the rest of the world. Across all identified topics, the dominant sentiments for the spread of coronavirus are anticipation that measures that can be taken, followed by a mixed feeling of trust, anger, and fear for different topics. The public reveals a significant feeling of fear when they discuss the coronavirus new cases and deaths than other topics. The study shows that Twitter data and machine learning approaches can be leveraged for infodemiology study by studying the evolving public discussions and sentiments during the COVID-19. Real-time monitoring and assessment of the Twitter discussion and concerns can be promising for public health emergency responses and planning. Already emerged pandemic fear, stigma, and mental health concerns may continue to influence public trust when there occurs a second wave of COVID-19 or a new surge of the imminent pandemic.
Political polarization appears to be on the rise, as measured by voting behavior, general affect towards opposing partisans and their parties, and contents posted and consumed online. Research over the years has focused on the role of the Web as a dr
iver of polarization. In order to further our understanding of the factors behind online polarization, in the present work we collect and analyze Web browsing histories of tens of thousands of users alongside careful measurements of the time spent browsing various news sources. We show that online news consumption follows a polarized pattern, where users visits to news sources aligned with their own political leaning are substantially longer than their visits to other news sources. Next, we show that such preferences hold at the individual as well as the population level, as evidenced by the emergence of clear partisan communities of news domains from aggregated browsing patterns. Finally, we tackle the important question of the role of user choices in polarization. Are users simply following the links proffered by their Web environment, or do they exacerbate partisan polarization by intentionally pursuing like-minded news sources? To answer this question, we compare browsing patterns with the underlying hyperlink structure spanned by the considered news domains, finding strong evidence of polarization in partisan browsing habits beyond that which can be explained by the hyperlink structure of the Web.
In an increasingly polarized world, demagogues who reduce complexity down to simple arguments based on emotion are gaining in popularity. Are opinions and online discussions falling into demagoguery? In this work, we aim to provide computational tool
s to investigate this question and, by doing so, explore the nature and complexity of online discussions and their space of opinions, uncovering where each participant lies. More specifically, we present a modeling framework to construct latent representations of opinions in online discussions which are consistent with human judgements, as measured by online voting. If two opinions are close in the resulting latent space of opinions, it is because humans think they are similar. Our modeling framework is theoretically grounded and establishes a surprising connection between opinions and voting models and the sign-rank of a matrix. Moreover, it also provides a set of practical algorithms to both estimate the dimension of the latent space of opinions and infer where opinions expressed by the participants of an online discussion lie in this space. Experiments on a large dataset from Yahoo! News, Yahoo! Finance, Yahoo! Sports, and the Newsroom app suggest that unidimensional opinion models may often be unable to accurately represent online discussions, provide insights into human judgements and opinions, and show that our framework is able to circumvent language nuances such as sarcasm or humor by relying on human judgements instead of textual analysis.
As the COVID-19 pandemic is disrupting life worldwide, related online communities are popping up. In particular, two new communities, /r/China flu and /r/Coronavirus, emerged on Reddit and have been dedicated to COVID- related discussions from the ve
ry beginning of this pandemic. With /r/Coronavirus promoted as the official community on Reddit, it remains an open question how users choose between these two highly-related communities. In this paper, we characterize user trajectories in these two communities from the beginning of COVID-19 to the end of September 2020. We show that new users of /r/China flu and /r/Coronavirus were similar from January to March. After that, their differences steadily increase, evidenced by both language distance and membership prediction, as the pandemic continues to unfold. Furthermore, users who started at /r/China flu from January to March were more likely to leave, while those who started in later months tend to remain highly loyal. To understand this difference, we develop a movement analysis framework to understand membership changes in these two communities and identify a significant proportion of /r/China flu members (around 50%) that moved to /r/Coronavirus in February. This movement turns out to be highly predictable based on other subreddits that users were previously active in. Our work demonstrates how two highly-related communities emerge and develop their own identity in a crisis, and highlights the important role of existing communities in understanding such an emergence.
The COVID-19 pandemic is a global crisis that has been testing every society and exposing the critical role of local politics in crisis response. In the United States, there has been a strong partisan divide which resulted in polarization of individu
al behaviors and divergent policy adoption across regions. Here, to better understand such divide, we characterize and compare the pandemic narratives of the Democratic and Republican politicians on social media using novel computational methods including computational framing analysis and semantic role analysis. By analyzing tweets from the politicians in the U.S., including the president, members of Congress, and state governors, we systematically uncover the contrasting narratives in terms of topics, frames, and agents that shape their narratives. We found that the Democrats narrative tends to be more concerned with the pandemic as well as financial and social support, while the Republicans discuss more about other political entities such as China. By using contrasting framing and semantic roles, the Democrats emphasize the governments role in responding to the pandemic, and the Republicans emphasize the roles of individuals and support for small businesses. Both parties narratives also include shout-outs to their followers and blaming of the other party. Our findings concretely expose the gaps in the elusive consensus between the two parties. Our methodologies may be applied to computationally study narratives in various domains.
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
