The aim of this research is to describe the pattern of interactions of Brazilian legislators on Twitter during 2019 in the construction of political discourses. Based on 20,076 replies during 2019, posted on Twitter by 514 Brazilian legislators, we conducted descriptive analysis of legislators’ Twitter profiles, social network analyses from their interactions, and content analysis of the messages. We found that (1) there are large disparities between legislators in the use of Twitter; (2) the pattern of interactions depicted five clusters defined by political affinities; (3) each cluster had different features regarding their composition and impact; (4) the centrality of the legislators within the network was positively associated with public endorsement on Twitter; and (5) the topics of messages within the clusters reinforce discourses aligned to political ideologies. We argue that the pattern of interactions on Twitter allows to identify online coalitions that reinforce particular discourses within the Brazilian parliament.
AlmeidaHdoNFerreiraMAS, et al. (2018) Tweetocracia e o populismo 2.0 da direita: o caso do Brasil Helga. São Paulo, Brazil: ANPOCS.
2.
AmaralMSde PinhoJAG (2017) Ideologias partidárias em 140 caracteres: Uso do Twitter pelos parlamentares Brasileiros. Revista de Administracao Publica51(6): 1041–1057.
3.
BarberáP (2015) Birds of the same feather tweet together: Bayesian ideal point estimation using twitter data. Political Analysis23(1): 76–91.
4.
BarberáPRiveroG (2015) Understanding the political representativeness of Twitter users. Social Science Computer Review33(6): 712–729.
5.
BarberáPZeitzoffT (2018) The new public address system: why do world leaders adopt social media?International Studies Quarterly62(1): 121–130.
6.
BarberáPCasasANaglerJ, et al. (2019) Who leads? Who follows? Measuring issue attention and agenda setting by legislators and the mass public using social media data. American Political Science Review113(4): 883–901.
7.
BarberáPJostJTNaglerJ, et al. (2015) Tweeting From left to right: is online political communication more than an echo chamber?Psychological Science26(10): 1531–1542.
8.
BardinL (2002) Análisis de Contenido. 3rd ed.Madrid: Ediciones Akal.
9.
Barreto-GaleanoMIMedina-ArboledaIFZambrano-HernándezS, et al. (2019) Rhetoric, political ideology and the peace process in Colombia: a Twitter® analysis. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, Routledge. Epub ahead of print 22 May. DOI: 10.1080/1057610X.2019.1615256.
BragaSCarlomagnoM (2018) Eleições como de costume? Uma análise longitudinal das mudanças provocadas nas campanhas eleitorais brasileiras pelas tecnologias digitais (1998-2016). Revista Brasileira de Ciência Política26: 7–62.
12.
BrightJ (2018) Explaining the emergence of political fragmentation on social media: The role of ideology and extremism. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication23(1): 17–33.
13.
BrunsA (2012) How long is a tweet? Mapping dynamic conversation networks on Twitter using Gawk and Gephi. Information Communication and Society15(9): 1323–1351.
CasasADavesaFCongostoM (2016) Media coverage of a “connective” action: the interaction between the 15-M movement and the mass media. Revista Espanola de Investigaciones Sociologicas155: 73–95.
16.
ColleoniERozzaAArvidssonA (2014) Echo chamber or public sphere? Predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in Twitter using big data. Journal of Communication64(2): 317–332.
17.
ConoverMDGonçalvesBFlamminiA, et al. (2012) Partisan asymmetries in online political activity. EPJ Data Science1(1): 1–19.
18.
DuboisEGaffneyD (2014) The multiple facets of influence: identifying political influentials and opinion leaders on Twitter. American Behavioral Scientist58(10): 1260–1277.
19.
EngesserSErnstNEsserF, et al. (2017) Populism and social media: how politicians spread a fragmented ideology. Information Communication and Society20(8): 1109–1126.
20.
EntmanRMUsherN (2018) Framing in a fractured democracy: impacts of digital technology on ideology, power and cascading network activation. Journal of Communication68(2): 298–308.
21.
FaircloughN (2010) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language, 2nd ed.London: Routledge.
22.
FarrellH (2012) The consequences of the internet for politics. Annual Review of Political Science15(1): 35–52.
23.
FoucaultM (1971) L’ordre du discours. Paris: Gallimard.
24.
FreelonD (2015) Discourse architecture, ideology, and democratic norms in online political discussion. New Media and Society17(5): 772–791.
25.
FreelonDMcIlwainCDClarkMD (2016) Beyond the Hashtags: #Ferguson, #Blacklivesmatter, and the Online Struggle for Offline Justice. Washington, D.C.: Center for Media & Social Impact.
26.
GerbaudoP (2018) Social media and populism: an elective affinity?Media, Culture & Society40(5): 745–753.
27.
GervaisBT (2015) Incivility online: affective and behavioral reactions to uncivil political posts in a web-based experiment. Journal of Information Technology and Politics12(2): 167–185.
28.
GilmoreJ (2012) Ditching the pack: digital media in the 2010 Brazilian congressional campaigns. New Media & Society14(4): 617–633.
29.
GomesW (2018) A Democracia No Mundo Digital: História, Problemas e Temas. São Paulo, Brazil: Edições Sesc.
30.
GrahamR (2016) Inter-ideological mingling: white extremist ideology entering the mainstream on Twitter. Sociological Spectrum36(1): 24–36.
31.
GrahamTJacksonDBroersmaM (2014) New platform, old habits? Candidates’ use of Twitter during the 2010 British and Dutch general election campaigns. New Media and Society18(5): 765–783.
32.
GuoLARohdeJWuHD (2020) Who is responsible for Twitter’s echo chamber problem? Evidence from 2016 U.S. election networks. Information Communication and Society23(2): 234–251.
33.
HemphillLOtterbacherJShapiroMA (2013) What’s congress doing on Twitter? In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, (CSCW), San Antonio, TX, 23–27 February, pp. 877–886. New York: ACM.
34.
HimelboimIMccreerySSmithM (2013) Birds of a feather tweet together: integrating network and content analyses to examine cross-ideology exposure on Twitter. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication18(2): 40–60.
35.
JakobJ (2020) Supporting digital discourse? The deliberative function of links on Twitter. New Media and Society. Epub ahead of print 11 November. DOI: 10.1177/1461444820972388.
36.
JostJT (2006) The end of the end of ideology. The American Psychologist61(7): 651–670.
37.
JostJTBarberáPBonneauR, et al. (2018a) How social media facilitates political protest: information, motivation, and social networks. Political Psychology39(3): 85–118.
38.
JostJTVan der LindenSPanagopoulosC, et al. (2018b) Ideological asymmetries in conformity, desire for shared reality, and the spread of misinformation. Current Opinion in Psychology23: 77–83.
39.
JungherrA (2016) Twitter use in election campaigns: a systematic literature review. Journal of Information Technology and Politics13(1): 72–91.
40.
JungherrAPoseggaOAnJ (2019) Discursive power in contemporary media systems: a comparative framework. International Journal of Press/Politics24(4): 404–425.
41.
KearneyM (2019) rtweet: collecting and analyzing Twitter data. Journal of Open Source Software4(42): 1829.
42.
LarssonAO (2020) Right-wingers on the rise online: insights from the 2018 Swedish elections. New Media & Society22(12): 2108–2127.
43.
López-MeriAMarcos-GarcíaSCasero-RipollesA (2017) What do politicians do on twitter? Functions and communication strategies in the Spanish electoral campaign of 2016. Profesional de La Informacion26(5): 795–804.
44.
MarquesFPJAde AquinoJAMiolaE (2014) Parlamentares, representação política e redes sociais digitais: Perfis de uso do Twitter na Câmara dos Deputados. Opiniao Publica20(2): 178–203.
45.
MasroorFKhanQNAibI, et al. (2019) Polarization and ideological weaving in Twitter discourse of politicians. Social Media + Society5(4): 1–14.
46.
MutzDC (2002) Cross-cutting social networks: testing democratic theory in practice. American Political Science Review96(1): 111–126.
47.
PearceKE (2015) Democratizing kompromat: the affordances of social media for state-sponsored harassment. Information Communication and Society18(10): 1158–1174.
48.
PereiraMAAlmeidaHdoN, et al. (2017) Parlamentares e mídias sociais—comparando o uso do Facebook e Twitter pelos parlamentares federais da 54a e 55a legislaturas. IN: 41o Encontro Anual Da ANPOCS, Caxambu, Brazil, 23–27 October. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
49.
R Core Team (2020) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: https://www.r-project.org/
RossASRiversDJ (2018) Discursive deflection: accusation of “fake news” and the spread of mis- and disinformation in the tweets of president Trump. Social Media and Society4(2): 1–12.
52.
ScottJ (2017) Social Network Analysis. 4th ed.Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
53.
SilveiraRDe AraújoS (2019) Representações Políticas Alternativas no Congresso Nacional: uma Proposta Conceitual para Compreender as Frentes Parlamentares. Revista Direito Público16(88): 232–256.
54.
SterlingJJostJTBonneauR (2020) Political psycholinguistics: a comprehensive analysis of the language habits of liberal and conservative social media users. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology118(4): 805–834.
TheocharisYJungherrA (2020) Computational social science and the study of political communication. Political Communication, Routledge38(1–2): 1–22.
57.
TheocharisYBarberáPFazekasZ, et al. (2016) A bad workman blames his tweets: the consequences of citizens’ uncivil Twitter use when interacting with party candidates. Journal of Communication66(6): 1007–1031.
58.
TheocharisYBarberáPFazekasZ, et al. (2020) The dynamics of political incivility on Twitter. SAGE Open10: 1–15.
59.
TraagVAWaltmanLVan EckNJ (2019) From Louvain to Leiden: guaranteeing well-connected communities. Scientific Reports9(1): 1–12.
60.
Van DijkT (2002) Political discourse and political cognition. In: ChiltonPSchaffnerC (eds) Politics as Text and Talk: Analytical Approaches to Political Discourse. Amsterdam; Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 203–237.
61.
Van DijkT (2003) Political discourse and ideology. Revista Interdisciplinar de Estudios de Comunicación y Ciencias Sociales1: 207–225.
62.
WaisbordSAmadoA (2017) Populist communication by digital means: presidential Twitter in Latin America. Information Communication and Society20(9): 1330–1346.
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.
