Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Power Laws in Ad Hoc Conflictual Discussions on Twitter

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Digital Transformation and Global Society (DTGS 2018)

Part of the book series: Communications in Computer and Information Science ((CCIS,volume 859))

Included in the following conference series:

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. 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

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Barabási, A.L., Albert, R.: Emergence of scaling in random networks (1999). arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/9910332v1

  3. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  4. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bastos, M.T., Mercea, D., Baronchelli, A.: The Spatial Dimension of Online Echo Chambers. arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.05233 (2017)

  6. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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

  9. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  10. 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

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  12. 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. 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

  14. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Broido, A.D., Clauset, A.: Scale-free networks are rare. arXiv:1801.03400 (2018)

  16. 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

  17. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  18. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  19. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  20. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  21. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Dahlgren, P.: Media and Political Engagement. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  24. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 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

  27. Faloutsos, M., Faloutsos, P., Faloutsos, C.: On power-law relationships of the Internet topology. ACM SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 29(4), 251–262 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 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

  33. 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

  34. 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

  35. 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

  36. 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

  37. 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

  38. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  39. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Papacharissi, Z.: Affective Publics: Sentiment, Technology, and Politics. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  41. 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

  42. Sunstein, C.R.: The law of group polarization. J. Polit. Philos. 10(2), 175–195 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9760.00148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 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

  44. 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

  45. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  47. 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

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in full by Russian Science Foundation, grant 16-18-10125.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. St. Petersburg State University, 7-9 Universitetskaya nab., St. Petersburg, 199034, Russia

    Svetlana S. Bodrunova & Ivan S. Blekanov

Authors
  1. Svetlana S. Bodrunova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ivan S. Blekanov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Svetlana S. Bodrunova .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. National Research University Higher School of Economics, St. Petersburg, Russia

    Daniel A. Alexandrov

  2. Saint Petersburg State University of Information Technologies, St. Petersburg, Russia

    Alexander V. Boukhanovsky

  3. Saint Petersburg State University of Information Technologies, St. Petersburg, Russia

    Andrei V. Chugunov

  4. National Research University Higher School of Economics, St. Petersburg, Russia

    Yury Kabanov

  5. National Research University Higher School of Economics, St. Petersburg, Russia

    Olessia Koltsova

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation