Analysis of Political Sentiment Demonstrations on Twitter under COVID-19 Pandemic
Context: In the last decades, there has been a significant expansion of the Internet among the world's population and, together with this growth, social network platforms have consolidated as a trend and established themselves as social and political environments due to their functionalities, low costs and growing number of users. Problem: Given the presented context, it is very important to identify, analyze and bring knowledge about political demonstrations that have taken place on social networks to understand this new era of social and political activism on digital platforms. Solution: In this research, political demonstrations on Twitter were studied with the central objective of bringing knowledge about how they have been organized on this platform. Particularly, in the context of restrictions on the circulation of people resulting from the peak period of the COVID-19 pandemic. IS Theory: This work was elaborated based on concepts of Graph Theory. Method: Posts made on Twitter were monitored and collected during an established period of time, and then the most prominent virtual political demonstrations were selected for analysis. The analysis of the results were carried out with a quantitative approach along with qualitative observations made during the period of data collection. Summary of Results: Based on a defined methodology, it was possible to identify the network structures and actors of the political demonstrations selected for analysis and to show the similarities between these structures. Contributions and Impact in the IS area: The main contributions of this work bring knowledge about the organization of political demonstrations and how related messages are distributed on Twitter, and present an asynchronous data collection methodology.
Y. Almeida, F. S. Rubin, A. C. F. Alvim, V. Dias, and R. Santos. 2020. O Uso das Redes Sociais para Interferir nas Democracias: Um Mapeamento Sistemático da Literatura. In Anais do IX Brazilian Workshop on Social Network Analysis and Mining (Cuiabá). SBC, Porto Alegre, 178–183. https://doi.org/10.5753/brasnam.2020.11173
M. Bastian, S. Heymann, and M. Jacomy. 2009. Gephi: An Open Source Software for Exploring and Manipulating Networks. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media 3, 1 (Mar. 2009), 361–362.
V. D. Blondel, J. L. Guillaume, R. Lambiotte, and E. Lefebvre. 2008. Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2008, 10 (2008), 11 pages. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/p10008
Pew Research Center. 2012. Social Networking Popular Across Globe. [link].
S. González-Bailón and N. Wang. 2016. Networked discontent: The anatomy of protest campaigns in social media. Social Networks 44 (2016), 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2015.07.003
D. Intyaswati, E. Maryani, D. Sugiana, and A. Venus. 2021. Social Media as an Information Source of Political Learning in Online Education. SAGE Open 11, 2 (2021), 8 pages. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211023181
L. Jayawardena. 2017. Impact of internet and social networks on the final result of 2016 presidential election of the United States. In 2017 National Information Technology Conference (NITC). IEEE, Colombo, 80–85. https://doi.org/10.1109/NITC.2017.8285651
S. Kemp. 2022. Digital 2022: Brazil. [link]
S. Kemp. 2022. Digital 2022 Global Overview Report. [link]
J. Kleinberg and E. Tardos. 2005. Algorithm Design (1 ed.). Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., USA.
S. Lee and M. Xenos. 2019. Social distraction? Social media use and political knowledge in two U.S. Presidential elections. Computers in Human Behavior 90 (2019), 18–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.006
E. Martins, K. Gonçalves, and R. Miranda Filho. 2019. Caracterizando a campanha presidencial brasileira em 2018 usando dados do Twitter. In Anais do VIII Brazilian Workshop on Social Network Analysis and Mining (Belém). SBC, Porto Alegre, 131–142. https://doi.org/10.5753/brasnam.2019.6555
Folke Mitzlaff, Martin Atzmueller, Andreas Hotho, and Gerd Stumme. 2014. The social distributional hypothesis: a pragmatic proxy for homophily in online social networks. Social Network Analysis and Mining 4 (2014), 14 pages. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-014-0216-2
M. E. J. Newman. 2005. Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipf's law. Contemporary Physics 46, 5 (2005), 323–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/00107510500052444
N. Newman, R. Fletcher, A. Schulz, S. Andi, and R. Kleis Nielsen. 2020. Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2020.
S. J. Park, Y. S. Lim, and H. W. Park. 2015. Comparing Twitter and YouTube networks in information diffusion: The case of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 95 (2015), 208–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.02.003
D. Rofrío, A. Ruiz, E. Sosebee, Q. Raza, A. Bashir, J. Crandall, and R. Sandoval. 2019. Presidential Elections in Ecuador: Bot Presence in Twitter. In 2019 Sixth International Conference on eDemocracy eGovernment (ICEDEG). IEEE, Quito, 218–223. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEDEG.2019.8734426
S. Strogatz. 2001. Exploring Complex Networks. Nature 410 (2001), 268–276. https://doi.org/10.1038/35065725
Maksim Tsvetovat and Alexander Kouznetsov. 2011. Social Network Analysis for Startups. O'Reilly Media, Inc., Sebastopol.
Inc. Twitter. 2021. Getting started. [link].