Para além da Bolha (de filtro)
Interações dos Deputados no Twitter
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14195/2183-5462_44_3Palavras-chave:
Twitter, Comunicação Política, Deputados, Análise de Redes Sociais, Filter BubblesResumo
Os modelos de democracia representativa da Europa Ocidental são fortemente baseados nos partidos, gerando diferentes incentivos para a comunicação dos actores políticos. Usando Portugal como exemplo, o nosso estudo analisa se e como os deputados portugueses interagem com o eleitorado no Twitter.
O nosso estudo conclui que, embora mais de metade dos tweets não tenham tido interação avançada, este tipo de interação varia significativamente entre partidos políticos, o que pode sugerir que a organização partidária pode afetar o estilo de comunicação dos seus deputados.
Concluímos também que a homofilia partidária pode ser encontrada em algumas formas de interação, mas não em outras. Estes resultados “estouram” a ideia de que “bolhas de filtro” são criadas sobre a homofilia de valores, mas validam tal afirmação relativamente à homofilia de estatuto, uma vez que a maioria das contas com as quais os deputados interagiram (excluindo as institucionais) eram da “Elite do Twitter”.
Downloads
Referências
Agarwal, P., Sastry, N., & Wood, E. (2019). Tweeting MPs: Digital Engagement between Citizens and Members of Parliament in the UK. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, (pp. 26-37). United States. doi:10.1609/icwsm.v13i01.3359
Barriga, A. (2017). Sobre a ausência de pluralismo nos média: como observar a invisibilidade do debate político nos novos média? In A. Moreira, E. Araújo, & H. Sousa, Comunicação e Política: Tempos, Contextos e Desafios (pp. 21-43). Braga: Centro de Estudos de Comunicação e Sociedade (CECS). Retrieved july 2023, from https://repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/bitstream/1822/45022/1/Moreira_Ana_et-al._2017-comunicacao-politica.pdf
Baxter, G., Marcella, R., & O'Shea, M. (2016). Members of the Scottish Parliament on Twitter: good constituency men (and women)? Aslib journal of information management, 68(4), 428-447. doi:10.1108/AJIM-02-2016-0010
Blumler, J., & Kavanagh, D. (1999). The third age of political communication: influences and features. Political Communication, 16(3), 209-230. doi:10.1080/105846099198596
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2016). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 77-101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Bruns, A. (2012). How long is a tweet? Mapping Dynamic conversations networks on twitter Gwak and Gephi. Information, Communication & Society, 15(9), 1323-1351. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2011.635214
Bruns, A. (2017). Echo Chamber? What Echo Chamber? Reviewing the Evidence. Paper presented at Future of Journalism 2017. Cardiff. Retrieved July 2023, from https://eprints.qut.edu.au/113937/
Bruns, A. (2019). Are Filter Bubbles Real. Medford: Polity Press.
Bruns, A. (2021). Echo chambers? Filter bubbles? The misleading metaphors that obscure the real problem. In M. Peréz-Escolar, & J. M. Noguera-Vivo, Hate speech and polarization in participatory society (pp. 33-48). Routledge.
Bruns, A. (2023). From “the” public sphere to a network of publics: towards an empirically founded model of contemporary public communication spaces. Communication Theory. doi:10.1093/ct/qtad007
Castells, M. (2004). A Galáxia Internet - Reflexões sobre Internet, Negócios e Sociedade. Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian.
Castells, M. (2007). Communication, Power and Counter-Power in the Network Society. International Journal of Communication, 238-266. Retrieved 2023, from https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/46
Coleman, S. (2005). Direct Representation: Towards a Conversational Democracy. IPPR. Retrieved from https://www.ippr.org/files/ecomm/files/Stephen_Coleman_Pamphlet.pdf
Colleoni, E., Rozza, A., & Arvidsson, A. (2014). Echo Chamber or Public Sphere? Predicting Political Orientation and Measuring Political Homophily in Twitter Using Big Data. Journal of Communication. doi:10.1111/jcom.12084
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Enjolras, B. (2014). How Politicians use Twitter and Does it Matter? The case of Norwegian National Politicians. Paper presented to the International Conference Democracy as Idea and Practice. University of Oslo. doi:10.13140/2.1.3177.3123
Esteve Del Valle, M., & Borge Bravo, R. (2018). Echo Chambers in Parliamentary Twitter Networks: The Catalan Case. International Journal of Communication, 12, 1715–1735. doi:1932–8036/20180005
Graham, T., Broersma, M., Hazelhoff, K., & Van't Harr, G. (2013). Between broadcasting political messages and interacting with voters. Information, Communication and Society, 16(5), 692-716. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2013.785581
Grossetti, Q., du Mouza, C., & Travers, N. (2019). Community-Based Recommendations on Twitter: Avoiding the Filter Bubble. In R. Cheng, N. Mamoulis, Y. Sun, & X. Huang, Web Information Systems Engineering – WISE 2019. 20th International Conference, Hong Kong, China (pp. 212-227). Switzerland: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-34223-4_14
Guo, L., Rohde, J. A., & Wu, H. D. (2020). Who is responsible for Twitter’s echo chamber problem? Evidence from 2016 U.S. election networks. Information, Communication & Society, 23(2), 234-251. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2018.1499793
Habermas, J. (2006). Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Communication Theory, 16(4), 411–426. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00280.x
Habermas, J. (2022). Reflections and hypotheses on a further structural transformation of the political public sphere. Theory, Culture & Society, 39(4). doi:10.1177/02632764221112341
Hacker., K., & van Dijk, J. (2000). What is digital democracy? SAGE. doi:10.4135/9781446218891
Haman, M., & Skolnik, M. (2021). Politicians on Social Media. The online database of members of national parliaments on Twitter. Profesional de la Información, 30(2). doi:10.3145/epi.2021.mar.17
Haythornthwaite, C. (1996). Social network analysis: An approach and technique for the study of information exchange. Library & Information Science Research, 18(4), 323-342. doi:10.1016/S0740-8188(96)90003-1
Hemphill, L., Otterbacher, J., & Shapiro, M. (2013). What's Congress doing on twitter? Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), (pp. 877-886). doi:10.1145/2441776.2441876
Keller, T. R. (2020). To Whom Do Politicians Talk and Listen? Mapping Swiss Politicians’ Public Sphere on Twitter. Computational Communication Research, 2(2), 175-202. doi:10.5117/CCR2020.2.003.KELL
Kemp, S. (2021). Digital 2021 - Portugal Report. We are social & Hootsuite. Retrieved from https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2021-portugal
Klimowicz, K. A. (2018). Network parties. A new model to democratise and digitise party politics? Das Progressive Zentrum. Democracy Lab. Discussion paper. Retrieved from https://www.progressives-zentrum.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Network-parties_Katarzyna-Anna-Klimowicz_Das-Progressive-Zentrum.pdf
Larsson, A. O., & Moe, H. (2011). Studying political microblogging: Twitter users in the 2010 Swedish election campaign. New Media & Society, 14(5), 729-747. doi: 10.1177/1461444811422894
Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Merton, R. K. (1954). Friendship as a social process: a substantive and methodological analysis. In M. Berger, Freedom and Control in Modern Society (pp. 18–66). New York: Van Nostrand.
Lisi, M., & Cancela, J. (2019). Types of party members and their implications: Results from a survey of Portuguese party members. Party Politics, 25(3), 390-400. doi:10.1177/1354068817722445
Maireder, A., Ausserhofer, J., & Kittenberger, A. (2012). Mapping the Austrian Political Twittersphere: How politicians, journalists and political strategists (inter-)act on Twitter. In P. Parycek, & N. Edelmann, Proceedings of CeDem12 Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government (pp. 151-164). Krems: Danube University. Retrieved from https://phaidra.univie.ac.at/detail/o:154914
Marwick, A. E., & Boyd, D. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114–133. doi:10.1177/1461444810365313
Miller, R. L., Acton, C., Fullerton, D. A., Maltby, J., & Campling, J. (2002). Correlation and Regression. In J. Campling, SPSS for Social Scientists (pp. 155–173). London: Red Globe Press London. doi:10.1007/978-0-230-62968-4
Möller, J. (2021). Filter bubbles and digital echo chambers. In H. Tumber, & S. Waisbord, The routledge companion to media disinformation and populism (pp. 92-100). Routledge Media and Cultural Studies Companions. doi:10.4324/9781003004431-10
Pariser, E. (2011). The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You. Penguin Press.
Pereira, J. S. (2015). Variety of Media Systems in Third-Wave Democracies. In J. Zielonka, Media and Politics in New Democracies: Europe in a Comparative Perspective (pp. 231-247). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747536.001.0001
Pinto, C. G. (2019). A Força das Ideias: História de uma Eleição. Óbidos: Alêtheia.
Praet, S., Martens, D., & Aelst, P. V. (2021). Patterns of democracy? Social network analysis of parliamentary Twitter networks in 12 countries. Online Social Networks and Media. doi:10.1016/j.osnem.2021.100154
Rodotà, S. (2007). Democracy, innovation, and the information society. In P. Goujon, S. Lavelle, P. Duquenoy, K. Kimppa, & V. Laurent, The Information Society: Innovations, Legitimacy, Ethics and Democracy (pp. 17-26). Boston: IFIP International Federation for Information Processing.
Ruoho, I. A., & Kuusipalo, J. (2019). The Inner Circle of Power on Twitter? How Politicians and Journalists Form a Virtual Network Elite in Finland. Observatorio (OBS*), 13(1), 70-85. doi:10.15847/obsOBS13120191326
Silverstone, R., & Haddon, L. (1996). Design and the Domestication of ICTs: Technical Change and Everyday. In R. Silverstone, & R. Mansell, Communication by Design. The Politics of Information and Communication Technologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/35437856.pdf
Staab, P., & Thiel, T. (2022). Social Media and the Digital Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Theory, Culture & Society, 39(4), 129-143. doi:10.1177/02632764221103527
Sunstein, C. R. (2006). Infotopia - How many minds produce knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Talamanca, G. F., & Arfni, S. (2022). Through the Newsfeed Glass: Rethinking Filter Bubbles and Echo Chambers. Philosophy & Technology, 35(20). doi:10.1007/s13347-021-00494-z
Teixeira, C. P., Freire, A., & Belchior, A. M. (2012). Parliamentary representation in Portugal: Deputies’ focus and style of representation. Portuguese Journal of Social Science, 99-117. doi:10.1386/pjss.11.2.99_1
Toraman, C., Şahinuç, F., Yilmaz, E. H., & Akkaya, I. B. (2022). Understanding social engagements: A comparative analysis of user and text features in Twitter. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 47. doi:10.1007/s13278-022-00872-1
Urman, A. (2020). Context matters: political polarization on Twitter from a comparative perspective. Media, Culture & Society, 42(6), 857-879. doi:10.1177/0163443719876541
Vergeer, M., Hermans, L., & Sams, S. (2011). Online social networks and micro-blogging in political campaigning: The exploration of a new campaign tool and a new campaign style. Party Politics, 19(3), 477-501. doi:10.1177/1354068811407580
##submission.downloads##
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Secção
Licença
Direitos de Autor (c) 2024 Media & Jornalismo
Este trabalho encontra-se publicado com a Licença Internacional Creative Commons Atribuição 4.0.
Os autores conservam os direitos de autor e concedem à revista o direito de primeira publicação, com o trabalho simultaneamente licenciado sob a Licença Creative Commons Attribution que permite a partilha do trabalho com reconhecimento da autoria e publicação inicial nesta revista.
SciELO
DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals)
Elektronischen Zeitschriftenbibliothek
