From algorithmic personalization to informational wars: the dynamics of (dis)information bubbles around the September 7, 2021
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2022.e86628Keywords:
Disinformation, Echo chambers, Filter-bubbles, TwitterAbstract
Objective: The anti-democratic rhetoric related to the 2021 Brazilian Independence Day festivities rapidly spread on social media, creating informational bubbles susceptible to the widespread of disinformative pieces. Focusing on the information production', circulation' and use' this study investigates the characteristics of these (dis)information bubbles on Twitter.
Methods: The data analysis was done using a combination of Social Network Analysis and Content Analysis. The data was collected via Twitter's Application Programming Interface (API) using the search term “7 de setembro”.
Results: Based on the analysis of 40,000 tweets it was identified that in six of the eight days analyzed a single bubble presented the most influence in the network. Four characteristics that contributed to this were identified: (1) the prevalence of the use of political bots (77.8% of n = 28) for sharing issues of interest, in addition to the (2) intentional use of hashtags with higher coordination and mobilization efforts, and the (3) use of sources and types of information derived from partisan media (83.3% of n = 20), which mostly appeal to collective aesthetics, affections, and passions.
Conclusions: If, on the one hand, information selection and delivery strategies are fundamental in a world where information is produced on a massive scale of data, on the other hand, the untransparent way in which this personalization is done has become a formula detrimental to the democratic sphere by allowing the spread of misinformation on a large scale, as well as repositioning extremist ideologies that were once peripheral, ethically and morally rejected, to the core of the debate.
Downloads
References
AKERS, J. et al. Technology-Enabled Disinformation: Summary, Lessons, and Recommendations. arXiv.org, [s. l.], v. 1, 2018. Disponível em: https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.09383. Acesso em: 25 fev. 2022.
ARAUJO, R. F.; OLIVEIRA, T. M. Desinformação e mensagens sobre a hidroxicloroquina no Twitter: da pressão política à disputa científica. AtoZ: novas práticas em informação e conhecimento, v. 9, n. 2, p. 196-205, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5380/atoz.v9i2.75929
ATEFEH, F.; KHREICH, W. A Survey of Techniques for Event Detection in Twitter. Computational Intelligence, v. 31, p. 132-164, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/coin.12017
AZEVEDO, M. L.; ROBERTSON, S. L. Authoritarian populism in Brazil: Bolsonaro’s Caesarism, ‘counter-trasformismo’ and reactionary education politics. Globalisation, Societies and Education, v. 20, n. 2, p. 151-162, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2021.1955663
BARAKAT, A.; DABBOUS, K.; TARHINI, A. An empirical approach to understanding users' fake news identification on social media. Online Information Review, v. 45, n. 6, p. 1080-1096, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-08-2020-0333
BARBERÁ, P. How social media reduces mass political polarization. Evidence from Germany, Spain, and the U.S. In: American Political Science Association conference, 2015, Proceedings […] San Francisco, CA, 2015.
BARBERÁ, P. Social Media, Echo Chambers, and Political Polarization. In: PERSILY, Nathaniel; TUCKER, Joshua (org.). Social Media and Democracy: The State of the Field and Prospects for Reform, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020. p. 34-55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108890960.004
BARBERÁ, P.; STEINERT-THRELKELD, Z. How to use social media data for Political Science Research. In: CURINI, Luigi; FRANZESE, Robert (ed.). The SAGE Handbook of Research Methods in Political Science and International Relations.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526486387.n26
BARHATE, S. et al. Twitter bot detection and their influence in hashtag manipulation. In: IEEE India Council International Conference, 17, 2020, India. Proceedings […]. India: IEEE, 2020, p. 1-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/INDICON49873.2020.9342152
BASTIAN, M., HEYMANN, S., & JACOMY, M. Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media, v. 3, n. 1, 2009.
BRAZIL'S Bolsonaro: Only God will remove me from power. BBC, 2021. Disponível em: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-58479028. Acesso em: 18 out. 2021
BEERS, D. The Public Sphere and Online, Independent Journalism. Revue Canadienne de L’éducation, v. 29, n. 1, 2006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/20054149
BERGER, J. M.; MORGAN, J. The ISIS Twitter census: defining and describing the population of ISIS supporters on Twitter. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 2015.
BESSI, A.; FERRARA, E. Social bots distort the 2016 US presidential election online discussion. First Monday, v. 21, n. 11, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v21i11.7090
BEZERRA, A. C. Vigilância e cultura algorítmica no novo regime global de mediação da
Informação. Perspectivas em Ciência da Informação, v. 22, n. 4, p. 68-81, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-5344/2936
BEZERRA, A. C.; ALMEIDA, M. A. Rage against the machine learning: a critical approach to the algorithmic mediation of information. Brazilian Journal of Information Science: research trends, v. 14, n. 2, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36311/1981-1640.2020.v14n2.02.p6
BICALHO, L. A. G. A função mediadora das hashtags no processo de impeachment de Dilma Rousseff: semiose e transmídia. Tese (Doutorado em Comunicação Social) -
Faculdade de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Minas Gerais, 2019.
BOLSOVER, G.; HOWARD, P. Chinese computational propaganda: automation, algorithms and the manipulation of information about Chinese politics on Twitter and Weibo. Information, Communication & Society, v. 22, n. 14, p. 2063-2080, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1476576
BOYD, D. It’s complicated: the social lives of networked teens. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014.
BRADSHAW, S.; HOWARD, P. Social Media and Democracy in Crisis. In: GRAHAM, M.; DUTTON, W. H. (ed.). Society and the Internet: How Networks of Information and Communication are Changing Our Lives. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2019.
BRONIATOWSKI, D. A. et al. Weaponized health communication: Twitter bots and Russian trolls amplify the vaccine debate. American Journal of Public Health, v. 108, n. 10, p. 1378-1384, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304567
CABALLERO, F. S. Guerra informacional y sociedad-red: la potencia inmaterial de los ejércitos. Signo y Pensamiento, v. XXI, n. 40, 2002, p. 32-41.
CASTELLS, Manuel. A sociedade em rede. 6. ed. São Paulo: Paz e Terra, 2002.
CHOI, D. et al. Rumor Propagation is amplified by Echo Chambers in Social Media. Scientific Reports, v. 10, n. 310, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-57272-3
DAHLGREN, P. M. et al. Reinforcing spirals at work? Mutual influences between selective news exposure and ideological leaning. European Journal of Communication, v. 34, n. 2, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323119830056
DEGENNE, A.; FORSÉ, M. Introducing Social Networks. London: SAGE, 1999. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849209373
DRUCKMAN, J. N.; LEVENDUSKY, M. S.; MCLAIN, A. No Need to Watch: How the Effects of Partisan Media Can Spread via Interpersonal Discussions. American Journal of Political Science, v. 62, n. 1, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12325
DUBOIS, E.; GAFFNEY, D. The multiple facets of influence: identifying political influentials and opinion leaders on Twitter. American Behavioral Scientist, v. 58, n. 10, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214527088
EVANS, S. K. et al. Explicating Affordances: a conceptual framework for understanding affordances in Communication Research, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, v. 22, n. 1, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12180
FECHINE, Y. Uma dinâmica interacional complexa. Acta Semiotica, v. 1, n. 1, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.23925/2763-700X.2021n1.54179
FERRARA, E. et al. Characterizing social media manipulation in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. First Monday, v. 25, n. 11, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v25i11.11431
FERRARA, E. et al. The rise of social bots. Communications of the ACM, v. 59, n. 7, p. 96-104, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2818717
FREITAS, E. C.; BOAVENTURA, L. H. Cenografia e ethos: o discurso da intolerância e
polarização política no Twitter. Letras de Hoje, v. 53, n. 3, p. 449-458, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15448/1984-7726.2018.3.30796
FORELLE, M. et al. Political Bots and the Manipulation of Public Opinion in Venezuela. SSRN, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2635800
GIGER, N. et al. Policy or person? What voters want from their representatives on Twitter. Electoral Studies, v. 74, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2021.102401
GRAHAM, T.; WRIGHT, S. Discursive equality and everyday talk online: the impact of “superparticipants”. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, v. 19, n. 3, 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12016
HAUSTEIN, S. et al. Tweets as impact indicators: Examining the implications of automated “bot” accounts on Twitter. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, v. 67, n. 1, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23456
HOLT, K.; FIGENSCHOU, T. U.; FRISCHLICH, L. Key Dimensions of Alternative News Media. Digital Journalism, v. 7, n. 7, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1625715
HUSZÁR, F. et al. Algorithmic Amplification of Politics on Twitter. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 119, n. 1, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2025334119
JACOMY, M. et al. ForceAtlas2, a Continuous Graph Layout Algorithm for Handy Network Visualization Designed for the Gephi Software. PLOS ONE, v. 9, n. 6, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0098679
JAKOBSON, R. Linguistics and poetics. In: SEBEOK, T. (ed.). Style in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1960. p. 350-377.
JUST, N.; LATZER, M. Governance by algorithms: reality construction by algorithmic selection on the Internet. Media, Culture & Society, 39, v. 2, p. 238-258. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443716643157
KADUSHIN, C. Who benefits from network analysis: ethics of social network research Social Networks, v. 27, n. 2, 2005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2005.01.005
KALIL, I.; SILVEIRA, S. C.; PINHEIRO, W.; KALIL, Á.; PEREIRA, J. V.; AZARIAS, W.; AMPARO, A. B. (2021). Politics of fear in Brazil: Far-right conspiracy theories on COVID-19, Global Discourse, v. 11, n. 3, p. 409-425, 2021. Disponível em: https://bristoluniversitypressdigital.com/view/journals/gd/11/3/article-p409.xml. Acesso em: 07 jun. 2022.
KALUŽA, J. Far-reaching effects of the filter bubble, the most notorious metaphor in media studies. AI & Soc, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01399-x
KAWCHUK, G. et al. Misinformation about spinal manipulation and boosting immunity: an analysis of Twitter activity during the COVID-19 crisis. Chiropractic & Manual Therapies, v. 28, n. 34, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12998-020-00319-4
KOLLANYI, B.; HOWARD, P. N.; WOOLLEY, S. C. Bots and Automation over Twitter during the US Election. Data Memo 2016.2. Oxford: UK: Project on Computational Propaganda.
LEE, E.-J.; SOO, Y., S. When the Medium Is the Message: How Transportability Moderates the Effects of Politicians’ Twitter Communication. Communication Research, v. 41, n. 8, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212466407
MELLEUISH, G. Taming the Bubble. M/C Journal, v. 24, n. 1, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5204/mcj.2733
NIKOLOV, D.; FLAMMINI, A.; MENCZER, F. Right and left, partisanship predicts (asymmetric) vulnerability to misinformation. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review, v. 1, n. 7, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-55
OLTMANN, S. M.; COOPER, T. B.; PROFERES, N. How Twitter’s affordances empower dissent and information dissemination: an exploratory study of the rogue and alt government agency Twitter accounts. Government Information Quarterly, v. 37, n. 3, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101475
ORDUÑA-MALEA, E.; AGUILLO, I. F. Cibermetría: midiendo el espacio red. Barcelona: Editorial UOC, 2015.
PARISER, E. The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You. London: Penguin, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3139/9783446431164
PEGABOT. https://pegabot.com.br/ Acesso em: 10, set. 2021.
RAPOSO, J. F. Algoritmos, personalização e filtragem do conteúdo. In: SAAD, E. C.; SILVEIRA, S. C. (org.) Tendências em comunicação digital. São Paulo: ECA USP, 2017, 148-167.
RECUERO, R. et al. Hashtags Functions in the Protests Across Brazil. SAGE Open, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015586000
RECUERO, R.; ARAÚJO, R. On the rise of artificial trending topics in Twitter. In: ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media, 23rd, 2012, Wisconsin. Proceedings […]. Wisconsin: Association for Computing Machinery, 2012. p. 305-306.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2309996.2310046
ROCHA, C.; SOLANO, E.; MEDEIROS, J. The Bolsonaro Paradox: The Public Sphere and Right-Wing Counterpublicity in Contemporary Brazil. Denmark: Springer Cham, 2021.
WANG, S. B. et al. Click traffic analysis of short URL spam on Twitter. In: IEEE International Conference on Collaborative Computing: Networking, Applications and Worksharing, 9th, 2013, Austin. Proceedings […]. Austin: ICST, 2013. p. 250-259. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4108/icst.collaboratecom.2013.254084
ROCHA, N. A.; HOLZ, M. S. A Indústria Bolsonarista de Trending Topics no Twitter: a que se deve a eficiente estratégia Pró-Governo nas Redes Sociais? In: Encontro Nacional de Ensino e Pesquisa do Campo de Públicas, 3., 2019, Rio Grande do Norte. Anais eletrônicos […] Natal, 2019. p. 2137-2147.
RUBIN, V.; CHEN, Y.; CONROY, N. Deception detection for news: three types of fakes. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, v. 52, n. 1, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.2015.145052010083
SANTANA, C.; NUNES, A.; SILVA, F. The role of bots in the disinformation process in brazilian politics between 2014 and 2018. Libri, v. 71, n. 4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/libri-2020-0071
SANTINI, R. M.; SALLES, D.; TUCCI, G. When machine behavior targets future voters: The use of social bots to test narratives for political campaigns in Brazil. International Journal of Communication, v. 15, 2021.
SANTOS-D’AMORIM, K.; MIRANDA, M. K. F. O. Misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation: clarifying the definitions and examples in disinfodemic times. Encontros Bibli: revista eletrônica de biblioteconomia e ciência da informação, v. 26, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2021.e76900
SMITH, M. et al. Mapping Twitter Topic Networks: From Polarized Crowds to Community Clusters. Washington: Pew Research Center, 2014.
STUKAL, D. et al. Detecting Bots on Russian Political Twitter. Big Data, v. 5, n. 4, p. 310-324, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/big.2017.0038
STATISTA. Leading countries based on number of Twitter users as of October 2021. 2021. Disponível em: https://www.statista.com/statistics/242606/number-of-active-twitter-users-in-selected-countries/. Acesso em: 09 março 2022.
STRUDWICKE, I.; GRANT, W. J. 2020. #JunkScience: Investigating pseudoscience disinformation in the Russian Internet Research Agency tweets. Public Understanding of Science, v. 29, n. 5, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520935071
SUNSTEIN, C. #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400884711
SUNSTEIN, C. Echo Chambers. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001.
TSFATI, Y. et al. Causes and consequences of mainstream media dissemination of fake news: literature review and synthesis, Annals of the International Communication Association, v. 44, n. 2, p. 157-173, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2020.1759443
TUBARO, P. et al. Social network analysis: New ethical approaches through collective reflexivity. Introduction to the special issue of Social Networks. Social Networks, v. 67, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2020.12.001
VIEGAS, F. B.; SMITH, M. A. Newsgroup crowds and author lines: visualizing the activity of individuals in conversational cyberspaces. Big Island, HI: IEEE, 2004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2004.1265288
WANG, R.; LIU, W.; GAO, S. Hashtags and information virality in networked social movement: examining hashtag co-occurrence patterns. Online Information Review, v. 40, n. 7, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4108/icst.collaboratecom.2013.254084
WANG, S. B. et al. Click traffic analysis of short URL spam on Twitter. In: IEEE International Conference on Collaborative Computing: Networking, Applications and Worksharing, 9th, 2013, Austin. Proceedings […]. Austin: ICST, 2013. p. 250-259. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4108/icst.collaboratecom.2013.254084
WASSERMAN, S.; FAUST, K. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815478
WEEKS, B. Why Partisan News—Not Just Fake News—Promotes Political Misperceptions. Learn Speak Act. Michigan, 2017. Disponível em: https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/learn-speak-act/2017/04/12/why-partisan-news-not-just-fake-news-promotes-political-misperceptions/. Acesso em: 20. out. 2021.
WELSER, H. T. et al. Visualizing the signatures of social roles in online discussion groups. Journal of Social Structure, v. 8, n. 2, 2007.
WINTOUR, Patrick. Brazil: warning Bolsonaro may be planning military coup amid rallies. The Guardian, 6 set. 2021. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/06/brazil-warning-bolsonaro-may-be-planning-military-coup-amid-rallies
YANG, K-C. et al. Arming the public with artificial intelligence to counter social bots. Human Behavior & Emerging Technologies, v. 1, n. 1, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.115
ZAGO, G.; RECUERO, R.; SOARES, F. Political fandoms and superparticipants in political conversations on twitter. AoIR Selected Papers of Internet Research, v. 18, n. 1, 2018. DOI: ttps://doi.org/10.5210/spir.v2018i0.10514
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Karen Santos-d'Amorim, Raimundo Nonato Macedo dos Santos
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The author must guarantee that:
- there is full consensus among all the coauthors in approving the final version of the document and its submission for publication.
- the work is original, and when the work and/or words from other people were used, they were properly acknowledged.
Plagiarism in all of its forms constitutes an unethical publication behavior and is unacceptable. Encontros Bibli has the right to use software or any other method of plagiarism detection.
All manuscripts submitted to Encontros Bibli go through plagiarism and self-plagiarism identification. Plagiarism identified during the evaluation process will result in the filing of the submission. In case plagiarism is identified in a manuscript published in the journal, the Editor-in-Chief will conduct a preliminary investigation and, if necessary, will make a retraction.
This journal, following the recommendations of the Open Source movement, provides full open access to its content. By doing this, the authors keep all of their rights allowing Encontros Bibli to publish and make its articles available to the whole community.
Encontros Bibli content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Any user has the right to:
- Share - copy, download, print or redistribute the material in any medium or format.
- Adapt - remix, transform and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
According to the following terms:
- Attribution - You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions - You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything that the license permits.