This study explored the factors that influence video popularity and diverse opinions in the comments of YouTube videos about gene-edited babies. 107 most viewed videos and corresponding 56,912 direct comments about gene-edited babies were collected from YouTube. We examined how the uploader characteristics, delivery styles, video tones, and video frames affect the diverse opinions measured by sentiment polarity, sentiment divergence, and the number of topics in the commentary. The sentiments and topics of comments were analyzed using IBM Watson Natural Language Understanding. We found that more effective videos are relatively longer videos from user-created channels with a large number of subscribers and presented in a neutral tone, which is more likely to provide unbiased and comprehensive knowledge about gene-edited babies. Based on our findings, suggestions were made for viewers about how to pick high-quality content, and insights were provided for content creators about how to create compelling videos.
AllgaierJ. (2018). Science and medicine on YouTube. In HunsingerJ.KlastrupL.AllenM. M. (Eds.), Second international handbook of internet research (pp. 1–21). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1202-4_1-1
2.
AmarasekaraI.GrantW. J. (2019). Exploring the YouTube science communication gender gap: A sentiment analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 28(1), 68–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662518786654
BärtlM. (2018). YouTube channels, uploads and views: A statistical analysis of the past 10 years. Convergence, 24(1), 16–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856517736979
BognerA.TorgersenH. (2015). Different ways of problematising biotechnology–and what it means for technology governance. Public Understanding of Science, 24(5), 516–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662514539074
7.
BorgholY.ArdonS.CarlssonN.EagerD.MahantiA. (2012). The untold story of the clones: Content-agnostic factors that impact YouTube video popularity. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, (pp. 1186–1194).
8.
BurnsT. W.O’ConnorD. J.StocklmayerS. M. (2003). Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12(2), 183–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625030122004
9.
CalabreseC.DingJ.MillamB.BarnettG. A. (2020). The uproar over gene-edited babies: A semantic network analysis of CRISPR on Twitter. Environmental Communication, 14(7), 954–970. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2019.1699135
ChatzopoulouG.ShengC.FaloutsosM. (2010). A first step towards understanding popularity in YouTube. In 2010 INFOCOM IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops, 15-19 March 2010, San Diego, CA, USA. https://doi.org/10.1109/INFCOMW.2010.5466701
12.
ChmielA.SobkowiczP.SienkiewiczJ.PaltoglouG.BuckleyK.ThelwallM.Ho\\lystJ. A. (2011). Negative emotions boost user activity at BBC forum. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 390(16), 2936–2944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2011.03.040
13.
DoudnaJ. (2015). Genome-editing revolution: My whirlwind year with CRISPR. Nature News, 528(7583), 469. https://doi.org/10.1038/528469a
14.
EdgerlyS.VragaE. K.DalrympleK. E.MacafeeT.FungT. K. (2013). Directing the dialogue: The relationship between YouTube videos and the comments they spur. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 10(3), 276–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2013.794120
EvansG.DurantJ. (1995). The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in Britain. Public Understanding of Science, 4(1), 57–74. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/4/1/004
17.
FigueiredoF.AlmeidaJ. M.BenevenutoF.GummadiK. P. (2014a). Does content determine information popularity in social media? A case study of YouTube videos’ content and their popularity. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, (pp. 979–982). https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557285
18.
FigueiredoF.BenevenutoF.AlmeidaJ. M. (2011). The tube over time: Characterizing popularity growth of youtube videos. In Proceedings of the Fourth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining - WSDM ’11, (pp. 745–754). https://doi.org/10.1145/1935826.1935925
19.
GrabowiczP. (2014). Tutorial: The transition to digital journalism. UC Berkley Graduate School of Journalism, Advanced Media Institute.
20.
GuoP. J.KimJ.RubinR. (2014). How video production affects student engagement: An empirical study of MOOC videos. In Proceedings of the First ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale Conference, (pp. 41–50).
21.
GurabardhiZ.GuttelingJ. M.KuttschreuterM. (2004). The development of risk communication: An empirical analysis of the literature in the field. Science Communication, 25(4), 323–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547004265148
HoilesW.ApremA.KrishnamurthyV. (2017). Engagement and popularity dynamics of youtube videos and sensitivity to meta-data. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 29(7), 1426–1437. https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2017.2682858
24.
JasanoffS.HurlbutJ. B.SahaK. (2015). CRISPR democracy: Gene editing and the need for inclusive deliberation. Issues in Science and Technology, 32(1), 25–32.
25.
JeonY. A.HaleB.KnackmuhsE.MackertM. (2018). Weight Stigma Goes Viral on the Internet: Systematic Assessment of YouTube Comments Attacking Overweight Men and Women. Interactive Journal of Medical Research, 7(1), Article e9182. https://doi.org/10.2196/ijmr.9182
26.
KeelanJ.Pavri-GarciaV.TomlinsonG.WilsonK. (2007). YouTube as a source of information on immunization: A content analysis. Jama, 298(21), 2482–2484. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.298.21.2482
27.
KimJ. (2012). The institutionalization of YouTube: From user-generated content to professionally generated content. Media, Culture & Society, 34(1), 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443711427199
28.
LeeC. S.OsopH.GohD. H.-L.KelniG. (2017). Making sense of comments on YouTube educational videos: A self-directed learning perspective. Online Information Review, 41(5), 611–625. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-09-2016-0274
29.
LeónB.BourkM. (Eds.). (2018). Communicating science and technology through online video: Researching a new media phenomenon (1st ed). Routledge.
30.
LoA. S.EsserM. J.GordonK. E. (2010). YouTube: A gauge of public perception and awareness surrounding epilepsy. Epilepsy & Behavior, 17(4), 541–545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yebeh.2010.02.004
31.
MorcilloJ. M.CzurdaK.TrothaC. Y. (2016). Typologies of the popular science web video. Journal of Science Communication, 15(4), A02. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.15040202
Natural Language Understanding. (2019). Natural-language-understanding-demo. ng.bluemix.net (Accessed August 22, 2019).
34.
NisbetM. C.HugeM. (2006). Attention cycles and frames in the plant biotechnology debate: Managing power and participation through the press/policy connection. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 11(2), 3–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/1081180X06286701
35.
NisbetM. C.LewensteinB. V. (2002). Biotechnology and the American media: The policy process and the elite press, 1970 to 1999. Science Communication, 23(4), 359–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/107554700202300401
36.
PanZ.KosickiG. M. (1993). Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse. Political Communication, 10(1), 55–75.
RauchfleischA.KaiserJ. (2020). The German far-right on YouTube: An analysis of user overlap and user comments. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 64(3), 373–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2020.1799690
39.
ShapiroM. A.ParkH. W. (2015). More than entertainment: YouTube and public responses to the science of global warming and climate change. Social Science Information, 54(1), 115–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018414554730
40.
SugimotoC. R.ThelwallM.LarivièreV.TsouA.MongeonP.MacalusoB. (2013). Scientists popularizing science: Characteristics and impact of TED talk presenters. Plos One, 8(4), Article e62403. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062403
41.
ThelwallM.SudP.VisF. (2012). Commenting on YouTube videos: From guatemalan rock to El Big Bang. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(3), 616–629. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21679
42.
TianY. (2010). Organ donation on Web 2.0: Content and audience analysis of organ donation videos on YouTube. Journal of Health Communication, 25(3), 238–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410231003698911
43.
TsouA.ThelwallM.MongeonP.SugimotoC. R. (2014). A community of curious souls: An analysis of commenting behavior on TED talks videos. Plos One, 9(4), Article e93609. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0093609
44.
VeletsianosG.KimmonsR.LarsenR.DousayT. A.LowenthalP. R. (2018). Public comment sentiment on educational videos: Understanding the effects of presenter gender, video format, threading, and moderation on YouTube TED talk comments. Plos One, 13(6), Article e0197331. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197331
45.
VelhoR. M.MendesA. M. F.AzevedoC. L. N. (2020). Communicating science with YouTube videos: How nine factors relate to and affect video views. Frontiers in Communication, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.567606
WelbourneD. J.GrantW. J. (2016). Science communication on YouTube: Factors that affect channel and video popularity. Public Understanding of Science, 25(6), 706–718. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515572068
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
