Unpacking polarization: Antagonism and Alignment in Signed Networks of Online Interaction

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.06571v3
• Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:41:22 GMT
• Title: Unpacking polarization: Antagonism and Alignment in Signed Networks of Online Interaction
• Authors: Emma Fraxanet, Max Pellert, Simon Schweighofer, Vicen\c{c} G\'omez, David Garcia
• Abstract summary: In the 20th century, major fault lines were formed by structural conflicts, like owners vs workers, center vs periphery, etc. We present the FAULTANA pipeline, a computational method to uncover major fault lines in data of signed online interactions. Our method makes it possible to quantify the degree of antagonism prevalent in different online debates, as well as how aligned each debate is to the major fault line.
• Score: 0.3581083356941628
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Political conflict is an essential element of democratic systems, but can also threaten their existence if it becomes too intense. This happens particularly when most political issues become aligned along the same major fault line, splitting society into two antagonistic camps. In the 20th century, major fault lines were formed by structural conflicts, like owners vs workers, center vs periphery, etc. But these classical cleavages have since lost their explanatory power. Instead of theorizing new cleavages, we present the FAULTANA (FAULT-line Alignment Network Analysis) pipeline, a computational method to uncover major fault lines in data of signed online interactions. Our method makes it possible to quantify the degree of antagonism prevalent in different online debates, as well as how aligned each debate is to the major fault line. This makes it possible to identify the wedge issues driving polarization, characterized by both intense antagonism and alignment. We apply our approach to large-scale data sets of Birdwatch, a US-based Twitter fact-checking community and the discussion forums of DerStandard, an Austrian online newspaper. We find that both online communities are divided into two large groups and that their separation follows political identities and topics. In addition, for DerStandard, we pinpoint issues that reinforce societal fault lines and thus drive polarization. We also identify issues that trigger online conflict without strictly aligning with those dividing lines (e.g. COVID-19). Our methods allow us to construct a time-resolved picture of affective polarization that shows the separate contributions of cohesiveness and divisiveness to the dynamics of alignment during contentious elections and events.

Related papers

• What distinguishes conspiracy from critical narratives? A computational analysis of oppositional discourse [42.0918839418817]
  We propose a novel topic-agnostic annotation scheme that distinguishes between conspiracies and critical texts. We also contribute with the multilingual XAI-DisInfodemics corpus (English and Spanish), which contains a high-quality annotation of Telegram messages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-15T14:18:47Z)
• Understanding the performance gap between online and offline alignment algorithms [63.137832242488926]
  We show that offline algorithms train policy to become good at pairwise classification, while online algorithms are good at generations. This hints at a unique interplay between discriminative and generative capabilities, which is greatly impacted by the sampling process. Our study sheds light on the pivotal role of on-policy sampling in AI alignment, and hints at certain fundamental challenges of offline alignment algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-14T09:12:30Z)
• Dimensions of Online Conflict: Towards Modeling Agonism [2.471304332463658]
  Agonism plays a vital role in democratic dialogue by fostering diverse perspectives and robust discussions. To model these two types of conflict, we collected Twitter conversations related to trending controversial topics. We introduce a comprehensive annotation schema for labelling different dimensions of conflict in the conversations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-06T22:34:17Z)
• 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)
• Factoring the Matrix of Domination: A Critical Review and Reimagination of Intersectionality in AI Fairness [55.037030060643126]
  Intersectionality is a critical framework that allows us to examine how social inequalities persist. We argue that adopting intersectionality as an analytical framework is pivotal to effectively operationalizing fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-16T21:02:09Z)
• Perspective-taking to Reduce Affective Polarization on Social Media [11.379010432760241]
  We deploy a randomized field experiment through a browser extension to 1,611 participants on Twitter. We find that simply exposing participants to "outgroup" feeds enhances engagement, but not an understanding of why others hold their political views. framing the experience in familiar, empathic terms by prompting participants to recall a disagreement does not affect engagement, but does increase their ability to understand opposing views.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-11T20:25:10Z)
• 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)
• News consumption and social media regulations policy [70.31753171707005]
  We analyze two social media that enforced opposite moderation methods, Twitter and Gab, to assess the interplay between news consumption and content regulation. Our results show that the presence of moderation pursued by Twitter produces a significant reduction of questionable content. The lack of clear regulation on Gab results in the tendency of the user to engage with both types of content, showing a slight preference for the questionable ones which may account for a dissing/endorsement behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-07T19:26:32Z)
• Detecting Polarized Topics in COVID-19 News Using Partisanship-aware Contextualized Topic Embeddings [3.9761027576939405]
  Growing polarization of the news media has been blamed for fanning disagreement, controversy and even violence. We propose Partisanship-aware Contextualized Topic Embeddings (PaCTE), a method to automatically detect polarized topics from partisan news sources.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-15T23:05:52Z)
• Quantifying social organization and political polarization in online platforms [2.66512000865131]
  We develop a methodology to quantify the positioning of online communities along social dimensions. Applying our methodology to 5.1B Reddit comments made in 10K communities over 14 years, we measure how the macroscale community structure is organized. We find Reddit underwent a significant polarization event around the 2016 U.S. presidential election, and remained highly polarized for years afterward.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-01T17:59:40Z)
• Information Consumption and Social Response in a Segregated Environment: the Case of Gab [74.5095691235917]
  This work provides a characterization of the interaction patterns within Gab around the COVID-19 topic. We find that there are no strong statistical differences in the social response to questionable and reliable content. Our results provide insights toward the understanding of coordinated inauthentic behavior and on the early-warning of information operation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-03T11:34:25Z)

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.