Upvotes? Downvotes? No Votes? Understanding the relationship between reaction mechanisms and political discourse on Reddit

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2302.09540v1
• Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2023 11:12:45 GMT
• Title: Upvotes? Downvotes? No Votes? Understanding the relationship between reaction mechanisms and political discourse on Reddit
• Authors: Orestis Papakyriakopoulos, Severin Engelmann, Amy Winecoff
• Abstract summary: This study investigates the relationship between social media reaction mechanisms and political rhetoric in user discussions. We analyze 155 million user comments in 55 political subforums on Reddit between 2010 and 2018. We find that political discourse theories describe political discussions on Reddit to a large extent.
• Score: 0.6767885381740952
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: A significant share of political discourse occurs online on social media platforms. Policymakers and researchers try to understand the role of social media design in shaping the quality of political discourse around the globe. In the past decades, scholarship on political discourse theory has produced distinct characteristics of different types of prominent political rhetoric such as deliberative, civic, or demagogic discourse. This study investigates the relationship between social media reaction mechanisms (i.e., upvotes, downvotes) and political rhetoric in user discussions by engaging in an in-depth conceptual analysis of political discourse theory. First, we analyze 155 million user comments in 55 political subforums on Reddit between 2010 and 2018 to explore whether users' style of political discussion aligns with the essential components of deliberative, civic, and demagogic discourse. Second, we perform a quantitative study that combines confirmatory factor analysis with difference in differences models to explore whether different reaction mechanism schemes (e.g., upvotes only, upvotes and downvotes, no reaction mechanisms) correspond with political user discussion that is more or less characteristic of deliberative, civic, or demagogic discourse. We produce three main takeaways. First, despite being "ideal constructs of political rhetoric," we find that political discourse theories describe political discussions on Reddit to a large extent. Second, we find that discussions in subforums with only upvotes, or both up- and downvotes are associated with user discourse that is more deliberate and civic. Third, social media discussions are most demagogic in subreddits with no reaction mechanisms at all. These findings offer valuable contributions for ongoing policy discussions on the relationship between social media interface design and respectful political discussion among users.

Related papers

• Polarized Patterns of Language Toxicity and Sentiment of Debunking Posts on Social Media [5.301808480190602]
  The rise of misinformation and fake news in online political discourse poses significant challenges to democratic processes and public engagement. We examined over 86 million debunking tweets and more than 4 million Reddit debunking comments to investigate the relationship between language toxicity, pessimism, and social polarization in debunking efforts. We show that platform architecture affects informational complexity of user interactions, with Twitter promoting concentrated, uniform discourse and Reddit encouraging diverse, complex communication.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-10T08:00:58Z)
• Analyzing political stances on Twitter in the lead-up to the 2024 U.S. election [1.2764774886497106]
  We investigate the ideological positioning of tweets related to the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election. We classify ideological stances into Pro-Democrat, Anti-Republican, Pro-Republican, Anti-Democrat, and Neutral categories. We find that Republican candidates author significantly more tweets in criticism of the Democratic party and its candidates than vice versa.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-28T07:05:34Z)
• Understanding Online Discussion Across Difference: Insights from Gun Discourse on Reddit [41.40699123305595]
  We study discussions of gun policy on Reddit, with the overarching goal of developing insights into the potential of the internet to support understanding across difference. We find that the discussion of gun politics falls into three groups: conservative pro-gun, liberal pro-gun, and liberal anti-gun. While our subjects state that they would be willing to engage with others across the ideological divide, in practice they rarely do.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-06T02:36:27Z)
• Generalizing Political Leaning Inference to Multi-Party Systems: Insights from the UK Political Landscape [10.798766768721741]
  An ability to infer the political leaning of social media users can help in gathering opinion polls. We release a dataset comprising users labelled by their political leaning as well as interactions with one another. We show that interactions in the form of retweets between users can be a very powerful feature to enable political leaning inference.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-04T09:02:17Z)
• Understanding Divergent Framing of the Supreme Court Controversies: Social Media vs. News Outlets [56.67097829383139]
  We focus on the nuanced distinctions in framing of social media and traditional media outlets concerning a series of U.S. Supreme Court rulings. We observe significant polarization in the news media's treatment of affirmative action and abortion rights, whereas the topic of student loans tends to exhibit a greater degree of consensus.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-18T06:40:21Z)
• Non-Polar Opposites: Analyzing the Relationship Between Echo Chambers and Hostile Intergroup Interactions on Reddit [66.09950457847242]
  We study the activity of 5.97M Reddit users and 421M comments posted over 13 years. We create a typology of relationships between political communities based on whether their users are toxic to each other.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-25T22:17:07Z)
• Reaching the bubble may not be enough: news media role in online political polarization [58.720142291102135]
  A way of reducing polarization would be by distributing cross-partisan news among individuals with distinct political orientations. This study investigates whether this holds in the context of nationwide elections in Brazil and Canada.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-18T11:34:04Z)
• Who Responded to Whom: The Joint Effects of Latent Topics and Discourse in Conversation Structure [53.77234444565652]
  We identify the responding relations in the conversation discourse, which link response utterances to their initiations. We propose a model to learn latent topics and discourse in word distributions, and predict pairwise initiation-response links. Experimental results on both English and Chinese conversations show that our model significantly outperforms the previous state of the arts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-17T17:46:00Z)
• Detecting Group Beliefs Related to 2018's Brazilian Elections in Tweets A Combined Study on Modeling Topics and Sentiment Analysis [0.0]
  2018's Brazilian presidential elections highlighted the influence of alternative media and social networks, such as Twitter. In this work, we perform an analysis covering politically motivated discourses related to the second round in Brazilian elections. We collect a set of tweets related to political hashtags at that moment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-31T10:58:35Z)
• Echo Chambers on Social Media: A comparative analysis [64.2256216637683]
  We introduce an operational definition of echo chambers and perform a massive comparative analysis on 1B pieces of contents produced by 1M users on four social media platforms. We infer the leaning of users about controversial topics and reconstruct their interaction networks by analyzing different features. We find support for the hypothesis that platforms implementing news feed algorithms like Facebook may elicit the emergence of echo-chambers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-20T20:00:27Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.