This article empirically revisits the idea of ideological segregation and homogeneity in social networks with an exhaustive analysis of the website Reddit.com. Using a computer-assisted analysis on a corpus of multiple billion comments, it studies the relation between the tone of comments and three political topics, immigration, macroeconomics and defense. Looking at the standard deviation of the average tone of users and communities over time on these specific topics, results show an overall trend toward more ideological heterogeneity as a product of new users’ influx, while multiple communities studied and long-term users show a trend toward homogeneity. Results also show that digital heuristics, such as upvotes and downvotes, illustrate a far greater diversity of opinion than a study solely on published comments could let on.
AllportG. W. (1929). The composition of political attitudes. American Journal of Sociology, 35(2), 220–238.
3.
AllportG. W. (1935). Attitudes. In A Handbook of Social Psychology (p. 798–844). Clark University Press.
4.
ArceneauxK.JohnsonM.MurphyC. (2012). Polarized political communication, oppositional media hostility, and selective exposure. The Journal of Politics, 74(1), 174–186.
5.
BakshyE.MessingS.AdamicL. A. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130–1132.
6.
BarberáP.JostJ. T.NaglerJ.TuckerJ. A.BonneauR. (2015). Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber?Psychological Science, 26(10), 1531–1542.
7.
BaumgartnerJ. (2015). Reddit’s entire publicly available comment dataset [Dataset]. Available via Torrent.
8.
BennettW. L.IyengarS. (2008). A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication, 58(4), 707–731.
9.
BerminghamA.SmeatonA. (2011). On using Twitter to monitor political sentiment and predict election results. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Sentiment Analysis where AI meets Psychology (SAAIP 2011; pp. 2–10).
10.
BoutylineA.WillerR. (2017). The social structure of political echo chambers: Variation in ideological homophily in online networks. Political Psychology, 38(3), 551–569.
11.
CeronA.CuriniL.IacusS. M.PorroG. (2014). Every tweet counts? How sentiment analysis of social media can improve our knowledge of citizens’ political preferences with an application to Italy and France. New Media & Society, 16(2), 340–358.
12.
CodyE. M.ReaganA. J.DoddsP. S.DanforthC. M. (2016). Public opinion polling with Twitter. arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.02024. https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.02024
DavisR. (2005). Politics online: Blogs, chatrooms, and discussion groups in American democracy. Routledge.
15.
Delli CarpiniM. X. (2000). Gen. Com: Youth, civic engagement, and the new information environment. Political Communication, 17(4), 341–349.
16.
DruckmanJ. N.NelsonK. R. (2003). Framing and deliberation: How citizens’ conversations limit elite influence. American Journal of Political Science, 47(4), 729–745.
17.
DuguayP. (2020). Posivotes, recommandations et autres «j’aime» : Les heuristiques numériques d’acceptabilité sociale comme vecteur d’homogénéisation en contexte délibératif. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 53(2), 421–437.
18.
EslamiM.RickmanA.VaccaroK.AleyasenA.VuongA.KarahaliosK.HamiltonKSandvigC. (2015, April). I always assumed that I wasn’t really that close to [her]: Reasoning about invisible algorithms in news feeds. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 153–162). ACM.
19.
EsterlingK. M.FungALeeT. (2015). How much disagreement is good for democratic deliberation?Political Communication, 32(4), 529–551.
20.
FlaxmanS.GoelSRaoJ. M. (2016). Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1), 298–320.
21.
GentzkowMShapiroJ. M. (2011). Ideological segregation online and offline. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(4), 1799–1839.
22.
González-BailónS.PaltoglouG. (2015). Signals of public opinion in online communication: A comparison of methods and data sources. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 659(1), 95–107.
23.
HuckfeldtR. (2001). The social communication of political expertise. American Journal of Political Science, 45(2), 425–438.
24.
HuckfeldtRSpragueJ. (1991). Discussant effects on vote choice: Intimacy, structure, and interdependence. The Journal of Politics, 53(1), 122–158.
25.
JohnsonT. J.KayeB. K. (2003). A boost or a bust for democracy? How the Web influenced political attitudes and behaviors in the 1996 and 2000 presidential elections. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 8, 9–34.
26.
KatzE.LazarsfeldP. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communication. Free Press.
27.
KlofstadC. A.SokheyA. EMcClurgS. D. (2013). Disagreeing about disagreement: How conflict in social networks affects political behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 57(1), 120–134.
28.
LazarsfeldP. F.BerelsonB. R.GaudetH. (1948). The people’s choice(7th ed.). Columbia University Press.
29.
McClurgS. D. (2003). Social networks and political participation: The role of social interaction in explaining political participation. Political Research Quarterly, 56(4), 449–464.
30.
McClurgS. D. (2006). Political disagreement in context: The conditional effect of neighborhood context, disagreement and political talk on electoral participation. Political Behavior, 28(4), 349–366.
31.
MuhlbergerP. (2005). Human agency and the revitalization of the public sphere. Political Communication, 22(2), 163–178.
32.
MukherjiJ.MukherjiA.NicovichS. (1998, January). Understanding dependency and use of the internet: A uses and gratifications perspective. InAmerican Marketing Association. Conference Proceedings (Vol. 9, p. 37). American Marketing Association.
33.
MutzD. C. (2002). Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 111–126.
34.
MutzD. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge University Press.
35.
O’ConnorB.BalasubramanyanR.RoutledgeB. R.SmithN. A. (2010). From tweets to polls: Linking text sentiment to public opinion time series. ICWSM, 11(122–129), 1–2.
36.
PapacharissiZ. (2002). The virtual sphere: The Internet as a public sphere. New Media & Society, 4(1), 9–27.
37.
PriorM. (2005). News vs. entertainment: How increasing media choice widens gaps in political knowledge and turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 577–592.
38.
SorokaS.YoungL.BalmasM. (2015). Bad news or mad news? Sentiment scoring of negativity, fear, and anger in news content. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 659(1), 108–121.
39.
SwansonD. L. (1987). Gratification seeking, media exposure, and audience interpretations: Some directions for research. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 31(3), 237–254.
40.
TumasjanA.SprengerT. O.SandnerP. G.WelpeI. M. (2010). Predicting elections with Twitter: What 140 characters reveal about political sentiment. ICWSM, 10(1), 178–185.
41.
WojcieszakM. E.MutzD. C. (2009). Online groups and political discourse: Do online discussion spaces facilitate exposure to political disagreement?Journal of Communication, 59(1), 40–56.
42.
YoungL.SorokaS. (2012a). Affective news: The automated coding of sentiment in political texts. Political Communication, 29(2), 205–231.
