Abstract
Ad hoc discussions have been gaining a growing amount of attention in scholarly discourse. But earlier research has raised doubts in comparability of ad hoc discussions in social media, as they are formed by unstable, affective, and hardly predictable issue publics. We have chosen inter-ethnic conflicts in the USA, Germany, France, and Russia (six cases altogether, from Ferguson riots to the attack against Charlie Hebdo) to see whether similar patterns are found in the discussion structure across countries, cases, and vocabulary sets. Choosing degree distribution as the structural proxy for differentiating discussion types, we show that exponents change in the same manner across cases if the discussion density changes, this being true for neutral vs. affective hashtags, as well as hashtags vs. hashtag conglomerates. This adds to our knowledge on comparability of ad hoc discussions online, as well as on structural differences between core and periphery in them.
Keywords
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Albert, R., Barabási, A.L.: Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Rev. Mod. Phys. 74(1), 1–54 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.74.47
Barabási, A.L., Albert, R.: Emergence of scaling in random networks (1999). arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/9910332v1
Barberá, P.: How Social Media Reduces Mass Political Polarization: Evidence from Germany, Spain, and the US, pp. 1–46. Job Market Paper, New York University (2014)
Barberá, P., Jost, J.T., Nagler, J., Tucker, J.A., Bonneau, R.: Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber? Psychol. Sci. 26(10), 1531–1542 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615594620
Bastos, M.T., Mercea, D., Baronchelli, A.: The Spatial Dimension of Online Echo Chambers. arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.05233 (2017)
Bastos, M.T., Raimundo, R.L.G., Travitzki, R.: Gatekeeping Twitter: message diffusion in political hashtags. Media Cult. Soc. 35(2), 260–270 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443712467594
Bennett, W.L., Segerberg, A.: The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Inf. Commun. Soc. 15(5), 739–768 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.670661
Blekanov, I., Sergeev, S., Maksimov, A., Moskalets, R.: Research of university sites internal links distribution. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Science and Computer Technology (ICST 2017), #8011875, pp. 182–185 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/icstc.2017.8011875
Blekanov, I.S., Sergeev, S.L., Martynenko, I.A.: Constructing topic-oriented web crawlers with generalized core. Sci. Res. Bull. St.Petersburg State Polytech. Univ. 5(157), 9–15 (2012)
Boccaletti, S., Latora, V., Moreno, Y., Chavez, M., Hwang, D.U.: Complex networks: Structure and dynamics. Phys. Rep. 424(4), 175–308 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2005.10.009
Bodrunova, S.S., Blekanov, I.S., Maksimov, A.: Measuring influencers in Twitter ad-hoc discussions: active users vs. internal networks in the discourse on Biryuliovo bashings in 2013. In: Proceedings of the AINL FRUCT 2016 Conference, #7891853 (2017)
Bodrunova, Svetlana S., Litvinenko, Anna A., Blekanov, Ivan S.: Comparing influencers: activity vs. connectivity measures in defining key actors in Twitter Ad Hoc discussions on migrants in Germany and Russia. In: Ciampaglia, G.L., Mashhadi, A., Yasseri, T. (eds.) SocInfo 2017. LNCS, vol. 10539, pp. 360–376. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67217-5_22
Bodrunova, S.S., Litvinenko, A.A., Blekanov, I.S.: Influencers on the Russian Twitter: institutions vs. people in the discussion on migrants. In: ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, pp. 212–222. ACM (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/3014087.3014106
Broder, A., et al.: Graph structure in the web. Comput. Netw. 33(1), 309–320 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-1286(00)00083-9
Broido, A.D., Clauset, A.: Scale-free networks are rare. arXiv:1801.03400 (2018)
Bruns, A., Burgess, J.E.: The use of Twitter hashtags in the formation of ad hoc publics. In: Proceedings of the 6th European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) General Conference 2011 (2011). http://eprints.qut.edu.au/46515/1/The_Use_of_Twitter_Hashtags_in_the_Formation_of_Ad_Hoc_Publics_(final).pdf. Accessed 20 Feb 2018
Bruns, A., Burgess, J.: Twitter hashtags from ad hoc to calculated publics. In: Hashtag Publics: The Power and Politics of Discursive Networks, pp. 13–28 (2015)
Bruns, A., Highfield, T.: Is Habermas on Twitter? Social media and the public sphere. In: Bruns, A., Enli, G., Scogerbo, E., Larsson, A.O., Christensen, C. (eds.)The Routledge companion to social media and politics, pp. 56–73. Routledge, New York (2016)
Cha, M., Haddadi, H., Benevenuto, F., Gummadi, P.K.: Measuring user influence in Twitter: the million follower fallacy. In: ICWSM Proceedings, vol.10, pp. 10–17 (2010)
Chen, Q., Chang, H., Govindan, R., Jamin, S.P.: The origin of power laws in Internet topologies revisited. In: 21st Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies Proceedings, vol. 2, pp. 608–617. IEEE, Piscataway (2002)
Colleoni, E., Rozza, A., Arvidsson, A.: Echo chamber or public sphere? Predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in Twitter using big data. J. Commun. 64(2), 317–332 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12084
Conover, M., Ratkiewicz, J., Francisco, M.R., Gonçalves, B., Menczer, F., Flammini, A.: Political polarization on Twitter. In: ICWSM Proceedings, vol. 133, pp. 89–96 (2011)
Dahlgren, P.: Media and Political Engagement. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009)
Donato, D., Laura, L., Leonardi, S., Millozzi, S.: Large-scale properties of the web graph. Eur. Phys. J. Condens. Matter Complex Syst. 38(2), 239–243 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjb/e2004-00056-6
Dubois, E., Gaffney, D.: The multiple facets of influence: identifying political influentials and opinion leaders on Twitter. Am. Behav. Sci. 58(10), 1260–1277 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214527088
Ediger, D., Jiang, K., Riedy, J., Bader, D. A., Corley, C.: Massive social network analysis: mining Twitter for social good. In: 39th International Conference on Parallel Processing (ICPP), pp. 583–593. IEEE (2010). https://doi.org/10.1109/icpp.2010.66
Faloutsos, M., Faloutsos, P., Faloutsos, C.: On power-law relationships of the Internet topology. ACM SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 29(4), 251–262 (1999)
Habermas, J.: Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Commun. Theory 16(4), 411–426 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00280.x
Hansen, L.K., Arvidsson, A., Nielsen, F.Å., Colleoni, E., Etter, M.: Good friends, bad news-affect and virality in Twitter. Futur. Inf. Technol. 185, 34–43 (2011)
Harrigan, N., Achananuparp, P., Lim, E.P.: Influentials, novelty, and social contagion: The viral power of average friends, close communities, and old news. Soc. Netw. 34(4), 470–480 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2012.02.005
Huberman, B.A., Adamic, L.A.: Internet: growth dynamics of the world-wide web. Nature 401(6749), 131 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1038/43604
Java, A., Song, X., Finin, T., Tseng, B.: Why we Twitter: understanding microblogging usage and communities. In: Proceedings of the 9th WebKDD and 1st SNA-KDD 2007 Workshop on Web Mining and Social Network Analysis, pp. 56–65. ACM (2007). https://doi.org/10.1145/1348549.1348556
Karthika, S., Geetha, R., Bose, S.: Whom to remove? Breaking the covert network. In: Fifth International Conference on Advanced Computing (ICoAC), pp. 348–354. IEEE (2013). https://doi.org/10.1109/icoac.2013.6921975
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). https://doi.org/10.1145/1772690.1772751
Lynn, T., Rosati, P., Nair, B.: Calculated vs. Ad Hoc Publics in the #Brexit Discourse on Twitter. http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pierangelo_Rosati/publication/319528530_Calculated_vs_Ad_Hoc_Pulics_in_the_Brexit_Discourse_on_Twitter/links/59b12cebaca2728472d0fbe4/Calculated-vs-Ad-Hoc-Publics-in-the-Brexit-Discourse-on-Twitter.pdf
Meusel, R., Vigna, S., Lehmberg, O., Bizer, C.: Graph structure in the web - revisited: a trick of the heavy tail. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 427–432. ACM (2014). https://doi.org/10.1145/2567948.2576928
Mislove, A., Marcon, M., Gummadi, K. P., Druschel, P., Bhattacharjee, B.: Measurement and analysis of online social networks. In: Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Internet measurement, pp. 29–42. ACM (2007). https://doi.org/10.1145/1298306.1298311
Myers, S.A., Sharma, A., Gupta, P., Lin, J.: Information network or social network? The structure of the Twitter follow graph. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 493–498. ACM (2014)
Newman, M.E.J.: Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipf’s law. Contemp. Phys. 46(5), 323–351 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1080/00107510500052444
Papacharissi, Z.: Affective Publics: Sentiment, Technology, and Politics. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2015)
Poblete, B., Garcia, R., Mendoza, M., Jaimes, A.: Do all birds tweet the same?: characterizing Twitter around the world. In: Proceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pp. 1025–1030. ACM (2011). https://doi.org/10.1145/2063576.2063724
Sunstein, C.R.: The law of group polarization. J. Polit. Philos. 10(2), 175–195 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9760.00148
Welch, M.J., Schonfeld, U., He, D., Cho, J.: Topical semantics of Twitter links. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, pp. 327–336. ACM (2011). https://doi.org/10.1145/1935826.1935882
Weng, J., Lim, E.P., Jiang, J., He, Q.: Twitterrank: finding topic-sensitive influential twitterers. In: Proceedings of the third ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, pp. 261–270. ACM (2010). https://doi.org/10.1145/1718487.1718520
Yardi, S., Boyd, D.: Dynamic debates: an analysis of group polarization over time on Twitter. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 30(5), 316–327 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467610380011
Ye, S., Wu, S.Felix: Measuring message propagation and social influence on Twitter.com. In: Bolc, L., Makowski, M., Wierzbicki, A. (eds.) SocInfo 2010. LNCS, vol. 6430, pp. 216–231. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16567-2_16
Zhou, Z., Bandari, R., Kong, J., Qian, H., Roychowdhury, V.: Information resonance on Twitter: watching Iran. In: Proceedings of the First Workshop on Social Media Analytics, pp. 123–131. ACM (2010). https://doi.org/10.1145/1964858.1964875
Acknowledgements
This work was supported in full by Russian Science Foundation, grant 16-18-10125.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Bodrunova, S.S., Blekanov, I.S. (2018). Power Laws in Ad Hoc Conflictual Discussions on Twitter. In: Alexandrov, D., Boukhanovsky, A., Chugunov, A., Kabanov, Y., Koltsova, O. (eds) Digital Transformation and Global Society. DTGS 2018. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 859. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02846-6_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02846-6_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-02845-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-02846-6
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)