Understanding Online Discussion Across Difference: Insights from Gun Discourse on Reddit
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.03989v1
- Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 02:36:27 GMT
- Title: Understanding Online Discussion Across Difference: Insights from Gun Discourse on Reddit
- Authors: Rijul Magu, Nivedhitha Mathan Kumar, Yihe Liu, Xander Koo, Diyi Yang, Amy Bruckman,
- Abstract summary: 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.
- Score: 41.40699123305595
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
- Abstract: When discussing difficult topics online, is it common to meaningfully engage with people from diverse perspectives? Why or why not? Could features of the online environment be redesigned to encourage civil conversation across difference? In this paper, 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 use two methods: a clustering analysis of Reddit posts to contribute insights about what people discuss, and an interview study of twenty Reddit users to help us understand why certain kinds of conversation take place and others don't. We find that the discussion of gun politics falls into three groups: conservative pro-gun, liberal pro-gun, and liberal anti-gun. Each type of group has its own characteristic topics. While our subjects state that they would be willing to engage with others across the ideological divide, in practice they rarely do. Subjects are siloed into like-minded subreddits through a two-pronged effect, where they are simultaneously pushed away from opposing-view communities while actively seeking belonging in like-minded ones. Another contributing factor is Reddit's "karma" mechanism: fear of being downvoted and losing karma points and social approval of peers causes our subjects to hesitate to say anything in conflict with group norms. The pseudonymous nature of discussion on Reddit plays a complex role, with some subjects finding it freeing and others fearing reprisal from others not bound by face-to-face norms of politeness. Our subjects believe that content moderation can help ameliorate these issues; however, our findings suggest that moderators need different tools to do so effectively. We conclude by suggesting platform design changes that might increase discussion across difference.
Related papers
- Collective moderation of hate, toxicity, and extremity in online
discussions [1.114199733551736]
We analyze a large corpus of more than 130,000 discussions on Twitter over four years.
We identify different dimensions of discourse that might be related to the probability of hate speech in subsequent tweets.
We find that expressing simple opinions, not necessarily supported by facts, relates to the least hate in subsequent discussions.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-03-01T09:35:26Z) - Upvotes? Downvotes? No Votes? Understanding the relationship between
reaction mechanisms and political discourse on Reddit [0.6767885381740952]
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.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-02-19T11:12:45Z) - 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) - Persua: A Visual Interactive System to Enhance the Persuasiveness of
Arguments in Online Discussion [52.49981085431061]
Enhancing people's ability to write persuasive arguments could contribute to the effectiveness and civility in online communication.
We derived four design goals for a tool that helps users improve the persuasiveness of arguments in online discussions.
Persua is an interactive visual system that provides example-based guidance on persuasive strategies to enhance the persuasiveness of arguments.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-04-16T08:07:53Z) - 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) - Online Hate: Behavioural Dynamics and Relationship with Misinformation [0.0]
We perform hate speech detection on a corpus of more than one million comments on YouTube videos.
Our results show that, coherently with Godwin's law, online debates tend to degenerate towards increasingly toxic exchanges of views.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-05-28T17:30:51Z) - How do climate change skeptics engage with opposing views? Understanding
mechanisms of social identity and cognitive dissonance in an online forum [0.0]
We study the impact of opposing views within a major climate change skeptic online community on Reddit.
We find that ideologically dissonant submissions act as a stimulant to activity in the community.
Users who engaged with dissonant submissions were also more likely to return to the forum.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-02-12T13:39:00Z) - Linking the Dynamics of User Stance to the Structure of Online
Discussions [6.853826783413853]
We investigate whether users' stance concerning contentious subjects is influenced by the online discussions they are exposed to.
We set up a series of predictive exercises based on machine learning models.
We find that the most informative features relate to the stance composition of the discussion in which users prefer to engage.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-01-25T02:08:54Z) - 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) - 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.