Are Tweets Biased by Audience? An Analysis from the View of Topic Diversity

  • Sandra Servia-RodríguezEmail author
  • Rebeca P. Díaz-Redondo
  • Ana Fernández-Vilas
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9021)


The emergence of blogs, and especially microblogs, has granted users the possibility of publishing and sharing ideas, news, opinions and any other kind of content with their audience. But this has also brought them the arduous tasks of self-censorship and adaptation of the content to an audience previously envisioned in order to keep, and even increase, their social influence. Taking into account the impossibility of knowing this imagined audience and using Twitter as a case study, we analyse if the diversity of topics chosen by users in their tweets is biased by the size of their audience. Considering the number of followers as the users’ audience and applying a methodology based on clustering the representative terms in tweets, we found that individuals with large audiences tend to deal with topics more diverse than those with small audiences. Understanding how audience size affects the range of topics chosen by a speaker have theoretical implications for sociological studies and even for the effective design of marketing campaigns.


Topic diversity Twitter Users’ behaviour Audience 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Blei, D.M., Ng, A.Y., Jordan, M.I.: Latent dirichlet allocation. The Journal of Machine Learning Research 3, 993–1022 (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cilibrasi, R.L., Vitanyi, P.M.B.: The google similarity distance. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 19(3), 370–383 (2007). (last accessed on December 11, 2014)
  3. 3.
    Dimitrov, A., Olteanu, A., Mcdowell, L., Aberer, K.: Topick: accurate topic distillation for user streams. In: IEEE 12th International Conference on Data Mining Workshops (ICDMW), pp. 882–885 (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goffman, E.: The presentation of self in everyday life (1959)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jain, A.K., Dubes, R.C.: Algorithms for clustering data. Prentice-Hall, Inc. (1988)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    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, WWW 2010, pp. 591–600 (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Langfelder, P., Zhang, B., Horvath, S.: Defining clusters from a hierarchical cluster tree: the Dynamic Tree Cut package for R. Bioinformatics 24(5), 719–720 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Li, R., Wang, S., Deng, H., Wang, R., Chang, K.C.C.: Towards social user profiling: unified and discriminative influence model for inferring home locations. In: KDD, pp. 1023–1031 (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marwick, A.E., et al.: I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society 13(1), 114–133 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ong, W.J.: The writer’s audience is always a fiction. Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, pp. 9–21 (1975)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Quercia, D., Askham, H., Crowcroft, J.: Tweetlda: supervised topic classification and link prediction in twitter. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Annual ACM Web Science Conference, WebSci 2012 (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rangrej, A., Kulkarni, S., Tendulkar, A.V.: Comparative study of clustering techniques for short text documents. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference Companion on World Wide Web, WWW 2011, pp. 111–112 (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rousseeuw, P.J.: Silhouettes: a graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 20, 53–65 (1987)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Servia-Rodríguez, S., Fernández-Vilas, A., Díaz-Redondo, R., Pazos-Arias, J.: Inferring contexts from Facebook interactions: A social publicity scenario. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia 15(6), 1296–1303 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Servia-Rodríguez, S., Fernández-Vilas, A., Díaz-Redondo, R.P., Pazos-Arias, J.J.: Comparing tag clustering algorithms for mining twitter users’ interests. In: International Conference on Social Computing (SocialCom), pp. 679–684. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Witten, I., Milne, D.: An effective, low-cost measure of semantic relatedness obtained from wikipedia links. In: Proceeding of AAAI Workshop on Wikipedia and Artificial Intelligence: an Evolving Synergy, pp. 25–30 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sandra Servia-Rodríguez
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rebeca P. Díaz-Redondo
    • 1
  • Ana Fernández-Vilas
    • 1
  1. 1.I&C Lab, AtlantTIC Research CenterUniversity of VigoVigoSpain

Personalised recommendations