Which topics spark the most heated debates on social media? Identifying those topics is not only interesting from a societ al point of view, but also allows the filtering and aggregation of social media content for disseminating news stories. In this paper, we perform a systematic methodological study of controversy detection by using the content and the network structure of social media. Unlike previous work, rather than study controversy in a single hand-picked topic and use domain specific knowledge, we take a general approach to study topics in any domain. Our approach to quantifying controversy is based on a graph-based three-stage pipeline, which involves (i) building a conversation graph about a topic; (ii) partitioning the conversation graph to identify potential sides of the controversy; and (iii) measuring the amount of controversy from characteristics of the graph. We perform an extensive comparison of controversy measures, different graph-building approaches, and data sources. We use both controversial and non-controversial topics on Twitter, as well as other external datasets. We find that our new random-walk-based measure outperforms existing ones in capturing the intuitive notion of controversy, and show that content features are vastly less helpful in this task.
Similarly to the papers discussed above, in our work we quantify controversy based on the graph structure of social interactions. In particular, we assume that controversial and polarized topics induce graphs with clustered structure, representing different opinions and points of view. This assumption relies on the concept of echo chambers,'' which states that opinions or beliefs stay inside communities created by like-minded people, who reinforce and endorse the opinions of each other. This phenomenon has been quantified in many recent studies @cite_17 @cite_28 @cite_5 . A different direction for quantifying controversy followed by and relies on text and sentiment analysis. Both studies focus on language found on news articles. In our case, since we are mainly working with Twitter, where text is short and noisy, and since we are aiming at quantifying controversy in a domain-agnostic manner, text analysis has its limitations. Nevertheless, we experiment with incorporating content features in our approach.
@cite_28 @cite_5 @cite_17
2555891875 2032824579 2768949389 2538660910
The utilization of social media material in journalistic workflows is increasing, demanding automated methods for the identification of mis- and disinformation. Since textual contradiction across social media posts can be a signal of rumorousness, we seek to model how claims in Twitter posts are being textually contradicted. We identify two different contexts in which contradiction emerges: its broader form can be observed across independently posted tweets and its more specific form in threaded conversations. We define how the two scenarios differ in terms of central elements of argumentation: claims and conversation structure. We design and evaluate models for the two scenarios uniformly as 3-way Recognizing Textual Entailment tasks in order to represent claims and conversation structure implicitly in a generic inference model, while previous studies used explicit or no representation of these properties. To address noisy text, our classifiers use simple similarity features derived from the string and part-of-speech level. Corpus statistics reveal distribution differences for these features in contradictory as opposed to non-contradictory tweet relations, and the classifiers yield state of the art performance. Modern social media have increasingly helped people separate themselves by worldview. We watch television shows and follow blogs that agree with our views, and read Twitter streams of people we like. The result is often called the echo chamber. Scholars cite political echo chambers as partly to blame for the divisive and destructive U.S. political climate. In this paper, we introduce a mobile application called Political Blend designed to combat echo chambers: it brings people with different political beliefs together for a cup of coffee. Based on interviews, we discovered that people are open to this kind of application and feel it may help the broader political environment. The primary contribution of this work is evidence that people are open to meeting those different from them, even those who ideologically oppose them. In an environment dominated by applications matching based on similarities, we see that this is an important finding. People are shifting from traditional news sources to online news at an incredibly fast rate. However, the technology behind online news consumption promotes content that confirms the users» existing point of view. This phenomenon has led to polarization of opinions and intolerance towards opposing views. Thus, a key problem is to model information filter bubbles on social media and design methods to eliminate them. In this paper, we use a machine-learning approach to learn a liberal-conservative ideology space on Twitter, and show how we can use the learned latent space to tackle the filter bubble problem. We model the problem of learning the liberal-conservative ideology space of social media users and media sources as a constrained non-negative matrix-factorization problem. Our model incorporates the social-network structure and content-consumption information in a joint factorization problem with shared latent factors. We validate our model and solution on a real-world Twitter dataset consisting of controversial topics, and show that we are able to separate users by ideology with over 90 purity. When applied to media sources, our approach estimates ideology scores that are highly correlated(Pearson correlation 0.9) with ground-truth ideology scores. Finally, we demonstrate the utility of our model in real-world scenarios, by illustrating how the learned ideology latent space can be used to develop exploratory and interactive interfaces that can help users in diffusing their information filter bubble. The widespread adoption of social media for political communication creates unprecedented opportunities to monitor the opinions of large numbers of politically active individuals in real time. However, without a way to distinguish between users of opposing political alignments, conflicting signals at the individual level may, in the aggregate, obscure partisan differences in opinion that are important to political strategy. In this article we describe several methods for predicting the political alignment of Twitter users based on the content and structure of their political communication in the run-up to the 2010 U.S. midterm elections. Using a data set of 1,000 manually-annotated individuals, we find that a support vector machine (SVM) trained on hash tag metadata outperforms an SVM trained on the full text of users' tweets, yielding predictions of political affiliations with 91 accuracy. Applying latent semantic analysis to the content of users' tweets we identify hidden structure in the data strongly associated with political affiliation, but do not find that topic detection improves prediction performance. All of these content-based methods are outperformed by a classifier based on the segregated community structure of political information diffusion networks (95 accuracy). We conclude with a practical application of this machinery to web-based political advertising, and outline several approaches to public opinion monitoring based on the techniques developed herein.