Evolution of topics and hate speech in retweet network communities.
Community evolution
Hate speech classification
Network communities
Retweet networks
Topic detection
Twitter
Journal
Applied network science
ISSN: 2364-8228
Titre abrégé: Appl Netw Sci
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101732938
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
09
10
2021
accepted:
10
12
2021
entrez:
27
12
2021
pubmed:
28
12
2021
medline:
28
12
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Twitter data exhibits several dimensions worth exploring: a network dimension in the form of links between the users, textual content of the tweets posted, and a temporal dimension as the time-stamped sequence of tweets and their retweets. In the paper, we combine analyses along all three dimensions: temporal evolution of retweet networks and communities, contents in terms of hate speech, and discussion topics. We apply the methods to a comprehensive set of all Slovenian tweets collected in the years 2018-2020. We find that politics and ideology are the prevailing topics despite the emergence of the Covid-19 pandemic. These two topics also attract the highest proportion of unacceptable tweets. Through time, the membership of retweet communities changes, but their topic distribution remains remarkably stable. Some retweet communities are strongly linked by external retweet influence and form super-communities. The super-community membership closely corresponds to the topic distribution: communities from the same super-community are very similar by the topic distribution, and communities from different super-communities are quite different in terms of discussion topics. However, we also find that even communities from the same super-community differ considerably in the proportion of unacceptable tweets they post.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34957317
doi: 10.1007/s41109-021-00439-7
pii: 439
pmc: PMC8686097
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
96Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2021.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Références
PLoS One. 2016 May 05;11(5):e0155036
pubmed: 27149621
Sci Rep. 2021 Oct 4;11(1):19655
pubmed: 34608258
PLoS One. 2016 Nov 11;11(11):e0166586
pubmed: 27835683
Appl Netw Sci. 2016;1(1):2
pubmed: 30533494
PLoS One. 2015 Sep 30;10(9):e0138740
pubmed: 26422473
Appl Netw Sci. 2021;6(1):20
pubmed: 33718589
PLoS One. 2018 Mar 13;13(3):e0194317
pubmed: 29534112
PLoS One. 2019 Aug 20;14(8):e0221152
pubmed: 31430308
Comput Soc Netw. 2017;4(1):6
pubmed: 29266132
PLoS One. 2020 Jun 18;15(6):e0234689
pubmed: 32555659
Appl Netw Sci. 2021;6(1):96
pubmed: 34957317
Sci Rep. 2021 Nov 11;11(1):22083
pubmed: 34764344
PLoS One. 2021 Sep 1;16(9):e0256175
pubmed: 34469456