Advertisement

Information Bridges: Understanding the Informational Role of Network Brokerages in Polarised Online Discourses

Conference paper
  • 1.8k Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11420)

Abstract

Social networking and micro-blogging sites such as Twitter and Weibo have provided new platforms of public discussions for Internet users. As the number of online social movements has increased in recent years, the Chinese government has adopted new media and has strategically confronted online social movements with orchestrated campaigns, which lead to a dichotomy between the Chinese government and civil society. Using a network analysis perspective, this research aims at studying the polarization of Chinese online political discourse, by examining who are playing the key roles in bridging different voices and exchanging various viewpoints in an online debate. I collected data from a conversation network in a massive online protest on Weibo, visualised the polarization between the Chinese government and civil society, and analysed the typological differences between the two groups. This research demonstrated the structural role of brokers in information diffusion within conversation network by using Susceptible-Infected (SI) simulation, showing that brokerage plays a key role in bridging the polarized online opinions and facilitating information diffusion. Taking a social network analysis perspective, this research re-examined Chinese contentious social movement under its political regime and can shed lights onto the understanding of the structural and informational roles of network brokerages for the deliberative democracy.

Keywords

Information diffusion Social media China Social network analysis 

References

  1. Ackland, R.: Mapping the US political blogosphere: are conservative bloggers more prominent? In: BlogTalk Downunder 2005 Conference, Sydney (2005)Google Scholar
  2. Adamic, L.A., Glance, N.: The political blogosphere and the 2004 US election: divided they blog. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Link Discovery, pp. 36–43. ACM, New York, August 2005Google Scholar
  3. Bond, R.M., et al.: A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature 489(7415), 295–298 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boyd, D., Ellison, N.: Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship. IEEE Eng. Manag. Rev. 3(38), 16–31 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brundidge, J.: Encountering “difference” in the contemporary public sphere: the contribution of the Internet to the heterogeneity of political discussion networks. J. Commun. 60(4), 680–700 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruns, A., Liang, Y.: Tools and methods for capturing Twitter data during natural disasters. First Monday 17(4) (2012). https://firstmonday.org/article/view/3937/3193
  7. Burt, R.S.: Structural Holes. The Social Structure of Competition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1992)Google Scholar
  8. Burt, R.: Structural holes versus network closure as social capital. In: Lin, N., Cook, K., Burt, R. (eds.) Social Capital : Theory and Research (Sociology and Economics), pp. 31–56. Aldine de Gruyter, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  9. Burt, R.S.: Brokerage and Closure. An Introduction to Social Capital. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2005)Google Scholar
  10. Castells, M.: Communication Power. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2013)Google Scholar
  11. Coleman, J.S.: Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am. J. Sociol. 94, 95–120 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Conover, M., Ratkiewicz, J., Francisco, M., Gonçalves, B., Menczer, F., Flammini, A.: Political polarization on twitter. In ICWSM, July 2011Google Scholar
  13. Freeman, L.C.: A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry 40(1), 35–41 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Garrett, R.K.: Echo chambers online? Politically motivated selective exposure among Internet news users. J. Comput. Mediated Commun. 14(2), 265–285 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Granovetter, M.S.: The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Sociol. 78(6), 1360–1380 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Granovetter, M.: The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited. Sociol. Theory 1, 201–233 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hadgu, A.T., Kiran, G., Ingmar, W.: Political hashtag hijacking in the US. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 55–56 (2013)Google Scholar
  18. He, Z.: Political communication in dual discourse universes. In: Willnat, L., Aw, A. (eds.) Political Communication in Asia, pp. 43–71. Routledge, London (2009)Google Scholar
  19. Huang, R., Sun, X.: Weibo network, information diffusion and implications for collective action in China. Inf. Commun. Soc. 17(1), 86–104 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Karsai, M., et al.: Small but slow world: How network topology and burstiness slow down spreading. Phys. Rev. E Stat. Nonlinear Soft Matter Phys. 83, 025102 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. King, G., Pan, J., Roberts, M.E.: How censorship in China allows government criticism but silences collective expression. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 107(2), 326–343 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., Moon, S.: What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 591–600. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  23. Le, Y., Yang, B.: Exploring online polarization phenomenon: content analysis of four major Chinese BBS forums. Youth Stud. 2010(2), 1–12 (2010)Google Scholar
  24. Mouffe, C.: Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Soc. Res. 66(3), 745–758 (1999)Google Scholar
  25. Munson, S.A., Resnick, P.: The prevalence of political discourse in non-political blogs. In: Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, July 2011Google Scholar
  26. Newman, M.E., Girvan, M.: Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Phys. Rev. E Stat. Nonlinear Soft Matter Phys. 69, 026113 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nip, J.Y., Fu, K.W.: Challenging official propaganda? Public opinion leaders on sina weibo. China Q. 225, 122–144 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Onnela, J.P., et al.: Structure and tie strengths in mobile communication networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104(18), 7332–7336 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rainie, L., Smith, A., Schlozman, K.L., Brady, H., Verba, S.: Social media and political engagement. Pew Internet & American Life Project (2012). http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/10/19/social-media-and-political-engagement/
  30. Stewart, L.G., Arif, A., Starbird, K.: Examining trolls and polarization with a retweet network. In: MIS2: Misinformation and Misbehavior Mining on the Web, WSDM (2018)Google Scholar
  31. Sun, L.: Gaming: Conflict and Harmony of Interest in the Fractured Society. Social Sciences Academic Press, Beijing (2006)Google Scholar
  32. Sunstein, C.R.: Republic.com 2.0. Princeton University Press, Oxford (2009)Google Scholar
  33. Xinhua News Agency: Integrating traditional mainstream media with new media technology, August 2014. http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2014-08/20/c_1112160707.htm
  34. Yang, G.: Internet activism & the party-state in China. Daedalus 143(2), 110–123 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations