The Echo Chamber Effect in Twitter: does community polarization increase?

Conference paper
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 693)

Abstract

A recent article criticized social media platforms for failing to mobilize society into action long enough to address any major global issue. This is attributed to the simplistic design of current social media platforms, which encourage ideas to spread virally but do not support consensus formation which might lead to lasting social change. One reason for this could be the well known echo chamber phenomenon, whereby people tend to discuss issues only with other like-minded people. Social media has been blamed for encouraging the echo chamber effect and increasing polarization in society. For example, in Twitter, it is very common for users to be followed by others with similar views. Is this a reflection of real life or does Twitter actually increase polarization of views? This paper investigates this by comparing the Twitter follows network at two points in time and detecting communities in the network of reciprocated follows relationships. We find that new edges are (at least 3-4 times) more likely to be created inside existing communities than between communities, and existing edges are more likely to be removed if they are between communities. This leads to the conclusion that Twitter communities are indeed becoming more polarized as time passes.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    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 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amor, B., Vuik, S., Callahan, R., Darzi, A., Yaliraki, S.N., Barahona, M.: Community detection and role identification in directed networks: understanding the twitter network of the care.data debate. In: N. Adams N Heard (ed.) Dynamic networks and cyber-security., vol. abs/1508.03165. World Scientific Press (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cebrian, M., Rahwan, I., Pentland, A.S.: Beyond viral. Commun. ACM 59(4), 36–39 (2016). DOI  10.1145/2818992. URL http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2818992
  4. 4.
    Clauset, A.: Finding local community structure in networks. Physical review E 72(2), 026,132 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Conover, M., Ratkiewicz, J., Francisco, M.R., Gonc¸alves, B., Menczer, F., Flammini, A.: Political polarization on twitter. ICWSM 133, 89–96 (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dewey, C.: How twitter makes the political echo chamber worse. https: //www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/09/03/how-twitter-makes-the-political-echo-chamber-worse/ (2013)
  7. 7.
    DiFonzo, N.: The echo-chamber effect. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/04/21/barack-obama-and-the-psychology-of-the-birther-myth/the-echo-chamber-effect (2011)
  8. 8.
    Fortunato, S.: Community detection in graphs. Physics reports 486(3), 75–174 (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Newman, M.E.: Mixing patterns in networks. Physical Review E 67(2), 026,126 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Newman, M.E., Girvan, M.: Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Physical review E 69(2), 026,113 (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rosvall, M., Bergstrom, C.T.: Maps of random walks on complex networks reveal community structure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(4), 1118–1123 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of BristolBristolUK

Personalised recommendations