The object of this research is to exploit the algorithm of Twitter’s trending topic (TT) and identify the elements capable of guiding public opinion in the Italian panorama. The underlying hypotheses that guide the whole article, confirmed by the research results, concern the existence of (a) a limited number of elements at the base of each popular hashtag with very high viral power and (b) hashtags transversal to the themes detected by the Twitter algorithm that define specific opinion polls. Through computational techniques, it was possible to extract and process data sets from six specific hashtags highlighted by TT. In a first step through social network analysis, we analyzed the hashtag semantic network to identify the hashtags transversal to the six TTs. Subsequently, we selected for each data set the contents with high sharing power and created a “potential opinion leader” index to identify users with influencer characteristics. Finally, a cross section of social actors able to guide public opinion in the Twittersphere emerged from the intersection between potentially influential users and the viral contents.
AvnitA. (2009). The million followers fallacy [Internet draft]. Pravda Media. http://tinyurl.com/nshcjg
4.
BakshyE.HofmanJ. M.MasonW. A.WattsD. J. (2011, February). Everyone’s an influencer: Quantifying influence on twitter. In Proceedings of the fourth ACM international conference on web search and data mining (pp. 65−74). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1935826.1935845
5.
BastianM.HeymannS.JacomyM. (2009). Gephi: An open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. In Third international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media. AAAI Publications. https://aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/09/paper/view/154/1009
6.
BentivegnaS. (Ed.). (2014). La politica in 140 caratteri: Twitter e spazio pubblico [Politics in 140 characters: Twitter and public space]. FrancoAngeli.
7.
BentivegnaS. (2015). Colpi di tweet. La politica in prima persona [Tweet shots: First-hand policy]. Il Mulino.
8.
Boccia ArtieriG. (2012). Stati di connessione. Pubblici, cittadini e consumatori nella (social) network society [Connection states: Public, citizens and consumers in the (social) network society]. FrancoAngeli.
9.
CastellsM. (2014). Comunicazione e potere. Egea SpA.
10.
ChaM.BenevenutoF.HaddadiH.GummadiK. (2012). The world of connections and information flow in Twitter. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans, 42(4), 991–998. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCA.2012.2183359
ChoiS. (2015). The two-step flow of communication in Twitter-based public forums. Social Science Computer Review, 33(6), 696−711. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0894439314556599
13.
ChoiS.ParkH. W. (2015). Networking interest and networked structure: A quantitative analysis of Twitter data. Social Science Computer Review, 33(2), 145–162. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0894439314527054
14.
GiurgiuL.BarsanG. (2008). The prosumer—Core and consequence of the Web 2.0 era. Journal of Social Informatics, 9(1), 53−59.
15.
GladwellM. (2006). The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference. Little, Brown and Company.
JavaA.SongX.FininT.TsengB. (2007, August). Why we Twitter: Understanding microblogging usage and communities. In Proceedings of the 9th WebKDD and 1st SNA-KDD 2007 workshop on web mining and social network analysis (pp. 56−65). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1348549.1348556
18.
KatzE. (1957). The two-step flow of communication: An up-to-date report on an hypothesis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 21(1), 61−78. https://doi.org/10.1086/266687
19.
KatzE.LazarsfeldP. F. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communications. The Free Press.
20.
KotlerP. (2010). The prosumer movement. In Blättel-MinkB.HellmannK.-U. (Eds.), Prosumer revisited: Zur aktualität einer Debatte [On the topicality of a debate] (pp. 51−60). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
21.
KrassaM. A. (1988). Social groups, selective perception, and behavioral contagion in public opinion. Social Networks, 10(2), 109–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(88)90018-4
22.
LazarsfeldP. F.BerelsonB.GaudetH. (1968). The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign (Vol. 3). Columbia University Press.
23.
LeavittA.BurchardE.FisherD.GilbertS. (2009). The influentials: New approaches for analyzing influence on Twitter. Web Ecology Project, 4(2), 1−18.
24.
LeeK.PalsetiaD.NarayananR.PatwaryM. M. A.AgrawalA.ChoudharyA. (2011, December). Twitter trending topic classification. In O’ConnerL. (Ed.), 2011 11th IEEE international conference on data mining workshops (pp. 251−258). IEEE.
25.
MarettiM. (2018). Identità e mutamento sociale: Alcune riflessioni sociologiche sulla società che cambia [Identity and social change: Some sociological reflections on the changing society]. In CuculoF. (Ed.), Post-modernità e mondi sociali. Nuovi orientamenti di teoria sociologica [Post-modernity and social worlds: New orientations in sociological theory] (pp. 9−32). Morlacchi.
van den BrinkR.RusinowskaA.SteffenF. (2011). Measuring power and satisfaction in societies with opinion leaders: Dictator and opinion leader properties. Homo Oeconomicus, Accedo Verlag, 28, 161–185. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00633881
33.
van DijckJ. (2011). Tracing Twitter: The rise of a microblogging platform. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics, 7(3), 333−348. https://doi.org/10.1386/macp.7.3.333_1
WaltherJ. B.D’AddarioK. P. (2001). The impacts of emoticons on message interpretation in computer-mediated communication. Social Science Computer Review, 19(3), 324−347. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F089443930101900307
36.
WatzlawickP. (1984). Self-fulfilling prophecies. In O’BrienJ. (Ed.), The production of reality: Essays and readings on social interaction (pp. 392–409). Sage.
