Polarización, heterogeneidad política y redes sociales en México: un análisis comparativo de #PresidenteRompaElPacto, #FRENA y #RevocacionDeMandato en Twitter
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24137/raeic.10.19.12Keywords:
polarization, Twitter, echo chamber, user, ideologyAbstract
A review of research on social media polarization suggests that digital platforms like Twitter contribute to ideological polarization by locking like-minded users into echo chambers where they are not exposed to political information that challenges their views. The study tests this argument for the Mexican case using data collected on three key events that occurred between 2020 and 2022 (#PresidenteRompaElPacto, #FRENAAA and #RevocacionDeMandato). The data was extracted through the Twitter API and analyzed with network visualization tools using the RStudio programming language. The results show that online polarization depends to a lesser extent on the so-called echo chambers and is higher when the political conversation is energized by the ideological dimension (left-right) of the political actors and sympathizers who actively participate in the networks. social networks and filter the content with a partisan perspective. With this result, this study, in addition to adding to the growing body of literature on the relationship between social networks and political polarization, shows that polarization on Twitter is a phenomenon limited to a certain part of the citizenry.
Downloads
References
Ackerman, J., Aguilar, E., Alanis, S., Atilano, J., Caloca, E., Dávila, R., . . . Zumaya, M. (06 de 04 de 2022). El sinuoso camino de la democracia. Los obstáculos hacia la consulta de Revocación de Mandato. Obtenido de Tlatelolco Lab, PUEDJS-UNAM: https://bit.ly/3bAMIZj
Al Zamal, F., Liu, W., y Ruths, D. (2021). Homophily and latent attribute inference: Inferring latent attributes of twitter users from neighbors. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 6(1), 387-390. https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v6i1.14340
Aruguete, N. (2018). #2X1 diálogos al costado de la grieta. Intersecciones en Comunicación, 1(12), 1-9. https://bit.ly/3Izp8co
Aruguete, N. (2019). ¿Twitter acrecienta la polarización política? El club de la comunicación política(02), 22-25. https://bit.ly/3mdSiGx
Aruguete, N., Calvo , E., y Ventura, T. (2020). Polarization, News Sharing, and Gatekeeping: A study of the #Bolsonaro Election. Digital Journalism, 9(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2020.1852094
Bail, C., Argyle, L., Brown, T., Bumpus, J., Chen, H., Hunzaker, M., . . . Volfovsky, A. (2018). Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. PNAS, 115(37), 9216–9221. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1804840115
Bakshy, E., Messing, S., y Adamic, L. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science Magazine, 348(6239), 1130-1132. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1160
Banks, A., Calvo, E., David, K., y Telhami, S. (2021). #PolarizedFeeds: Three Experiments on Polarization, Framing, and Social Media. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 26(3), 609–634. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161220940964
Barberá, P. (2015a). Birds of the Same Feather Tweet Together: Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation Using Twitter Data. Political Analysis, 23(1), 76-91. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpu011
Barberá, P. (27 de 05 de 2015b). How Social Media Reduces Mass Political Polarization. Evidence from Germany, Spain, and the U.S. https://bit.ly/3SE03Bt
Barberá, P. (2020). Social Media, Echo Chambers, and Political Polarization. En N. Persily y J. Tucker (Eds.), Social Media and Democracy: The State of the Field (pp. 34-55). Cambridge University Press.
Barberá, P., Jost, J., Nagler, J., Tucker, J., y Bonneau, R. (2015). Tweeting From Left to Right: Is Online Political Communication More Than an Echo Chamber? Psychological Science, 26(10), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615594620
Boxell, L., Gentzkow, M., y Shapiro, J. (2017). Greater Internet use is not associated with faster growth in political polarization among US demographic groups. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(40), 10612-10617. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1706588114
Calvo, E. (2015). Anatomía política de Twitter en Argentina: Tuiteando #Nisman. Buenos Aires: Capital Intelectual.
Calvo, E., y Aruguete, N. (2018). #Tarifazo. Medios tradicionales y fusión de agenda en redes sociales. InMediaciones de la Comunicación , 13(1), 189-213. https://doi.org/10.18861/ic.2018.13.1.2831
Calvo, E., y Aruguete, N. (2020). Fake news, trolls y otros encantos. Cómo funcionan (para bien y para mal) las redes sociales. Buenos Aires: Siglo Veintiuno Editores.
Calvo, E., y Aruguete, N. (2020b). #AbortoLegal: la antired. En E. Calvo, y N. Aruguete, Fake news, trolls y otros encantos. Cómo funcionan (para bien y para mal) las redes sociales (pp. 189-209). Siglo Veintiuno Editores.
Cardenal, A., Aguilar-Paredes, C., Cristancho, C., y Majó-Vázquez, S. (2019). Echo-chambers in online news consumption: Evidence from survey and navigation data in Spain. European Journal of Communication, 34(4), 360-376. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323119844409
Cinelli, M., De Francisci Morales, G., Galeazzic, A., Quattrociocchid, W., y Starnini, M. (2021). The echo chamber effect on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(9), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023301118
Conover, M., Ratkiewicz, J., Francisco, M., Goncalves, B., Menczer, F., y Flammini, A. (2011). Political Polarization on Twitter. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 5(1), 89-96. https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v5i1.14126
Dubois, E., y Blank, G. (2018). The echo chamber is overstated:the moderating effect of political interest and diverse media. Information, Communication & Society, 21(5), 729-745. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1428656
El Universal (2021). Piden a AMLO romper "pacto patriarcal" por Félix Salgado Macedonio. El Universal. https://bit.ly/3TH2Biy
Fonseca, D. 2020). López Obrador, Frena y la oposición por hartazgo. The New York Times. https://nyti.ms/3kyz9hY
Garrett, K. (2017). The “Echo Chamber” Distraction: Disinformation Campaigns are the Problem, Not Audience Fragmentation. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 370-376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.09.011
Garrett, K. (2009). Echo chambers online?: Politically motivated selective exposure among Internet news users. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(2), 265-285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01440.x
Gómez, L., & Ochoa, O. (2021). Polarización ideológica, segregación y los nuevos medios en México. Política y Gobierno, 28(1), 1-31. https://bit.ly/3SCaohj
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380 . https://doi.org/10.1086/225469
Gruzd, A., y Roy, J. (2014). Investigating Political Polarization on Twitter: A Canadian Perspective. Policy and Internet, 6(1), 28-45. https://doi.org/10.1002/1944-2866.POI354
Himelboim, I., Smith, M., y Shneiderman, B. (2013). Tweeting Apart: Applying Network Analysis to Detect Selective Exposure Clusters in Twitter. Communication Methods and Measures, 7(3-4), 195-223. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2013.813922
Igal Browarnik, M., Ortiz de Zarate, J., y Feuerstein, E. (2020). Identificación de comunidades en intervalos de tiempo a trav´es del lenguaje. AGRANDA, Simposio Argentino de Ciencia de Datos y Grandes Datos. Buenos Aires: Universidad Nacional de La Plata. http://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/handle/10915/116417
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., y Cook, a. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual review of sociology, 27(1), 415–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
Méndez de Hoyos, I. (2007). El sistema de partidos en México: fragmentación y consolidación. Perfiles Latinoamericanos , 14(29), 7-45. Obtenido de: https://bit.ly/3Ra9RCF
Messing, S., y Westwood, S. (2014). Selective Exposure in the Age of Social Media: Endorsements Trump Partisan Source Affiliation When Selecting News Online. Communication Research, 41(8), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212466406
Newman, M. (2004). Detecting community structure in networks. The European Physical Journal B, 2(321-330), 38. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjb/e2004-00124-y
Pariser, E. (2017). El filtro burbuja: cómo la red decide lo que leemos y lo que pensamos. Taurus.
Quattrociocchi, W., Scala, A., y Sunstein, C. (2016). Echo Chambers on Facebook. Social Science Research Network, 1-15. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2795110
Rios, V. (05 de 10 de 2020). ¿Por qué FRENA está ganando fuerza? Expansión Política. https://bit.ly/41y3U7q
Ross Arguedas, A., Robertson, C., Fletcher, R., y Nielsen, R. (2022). Echo Chambers, Filter Bubbles, and Polarisation: a Literature Review. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. https://bit.ly/3Jba5HF
Schmidt, A. L., Zollo, F., Scala, A., Betsch, C., y Quattrociocchi, W. (2018). Polarization of the Vaccination Debate on Facebook. Vaccine, 36(25), 3606-3612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.05.040
Semaan, B., Robertson, S., Douglas, S., y Maruyama, M. (2014). Social Media Supporting Political Deliberation Across Multiple Public Spheres: Towards Depolarization. Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing - CSCW '14 (pp. 1409–1421). Baltimore: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2531602.2531605
Sunstein. (2003). Republica.com: Internet, Democracia Y Libertad. Ediciones Paidós.
Sunstein. (2009). Republic.com 2.0. Princeton University Press.
Terren, L., y Borge-Bravo, R. (2021). Echo Chambers on Social Media: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Review of Communication Research, 9, 99-118. https://rcommunicationr.org/index.php/rcr/article/view/94
The Competitive Intelligence Unit. (2022). 18° Estudio sobre los hábitos de personas usuarias de Internet en México. Asociacion de Internet Mx.
Waisbord, S. (2020). ¿Es válido atribuir la polarización política a la comunicación digital? Sobre burbujas, plataformas ypolarización afectiva. Revista SAAP, 14(2), 249-279. https://doi.org/10.46468/rsaap.14.2.a1
Wu, S., Hofman, J., Mason, W., y Watts, D. (2011). Who says what to whom on Twitter. Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World wide Web (pp. 705-714). New York: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1963405.1963504
Yardi, S., y Boyd, D. (2010). Dynamic debates: An analysis of group polarization over time on twitter. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(5), 316–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467610380011
