The large availability of user provided contents on online social media facilitates people aggregation around shared beliefs, interests, worldviews and narratives. In spite of the enthusiastic rhetoric about the so called collective intelligence unsubstantiated rumors and conspiracy theories—e.g., chemtrails, reptilians or the Illuminati—are pervasive in online social networks (OSN). In this work we study, on a sample of 1.2 million of individuals, how information related to very distinct narratives—i.e. main stream scientific and conspiracy news—are consumed and shape communities on Facebook. Our results show that polarized communities emerge around distinct types of contents and usual consumers of conspiracy news result to be more focused and self-contained on their specific contents. To test potential biases induced by the continued exposure to unsubstantiated rumors on users’ content selection, we conclude our analysis measuring how users respond to 4,709 troll information—i.e. parodistic and sarcastic imitation of conspiracy theories. We find that 77.92% of likes and 80.86% of comments are from users usually interacting with conspiracy stories.
Digital traces of conversations in micro-blogging platforms and OSNs provide information about user opinion with a high degree of resolution. These information sources can be exploited to understand and monitor collective behaviors. In this work, we focus on polarization classes, i.e., those topics that require the user to side exclusively with one position. The proposed method provides an iterative classification of users and keywords: first, polarized users are identified, then polarized keywords are discovered by monitoring the activities of previously classified users. This method thus allows tracking users and topics over time. We report several experiments conducted on two Twitter datasets during political election time-frames. We measure the user classification accuracy on a golden set of users, and analyze the relevance of the extracted keywords for the ongoing political discussion.
We propose an analytical framework able to investigate discussions about polarized topics in online social networks from many different angles. The framework supports the analysis of social networks along several dimensions: time, space and sentiment. We show that the proposed analytical framework and the methodology can be used to mine knowledge about the perception of complex social phenomena. We selected the refugee crisis discussions over Twitter as a case study. This difficult and controversial topic is an increasingly important issue for the EU. The raw stream of tweets is enriched with space information (user and mentioned locations), and sentiment (positive vs. negative) w.r.t. refugees. Our study shows differences in positive and negative sentiment in EU countries, in particular in UK, and by matching events, locations and perception, it underlines opinion dynamics and common prejudices regarding the refugees
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.