This study analyses the X (a.k.a. Twitter) discussion about a recent criminal law reform in Spain in order to (1) better understand the network structure of the virtual public sphere and (2) identify leaders in this debate. This article is part of a larger inquiry into the increase in citizen participation and the conditions of deliberative participation regarding criminal law in the current media environment. Based on a sample of tweets published during the week in which criminal law was a trending topic, we analysed patterns in the relationships between participants in the debate modelled as networks. Our results show that (1) the debate is polarized between partisan political opinions that are removed from the technical-legal discussion and (2) the debate is not horizontal. Rather, agents in the political and media sphere lead the debate together with digital agents. We discuss implications, especially regarding social networks as echo chambers and their role in deliberative democracy. Limitations and future avenues of research are pointed out.
AguerriJCMolnarLMiró-LlinaresF (2023) Old crimes reported in new bottles: The disclosure of child sexual abuse on Twitter through the case #MeTooInceste. Social Network Analysis and Mining13: 27.
Arrabal-SánchezGde-Aguilera-MoyanoM (2016) Communicating in 140 characters. How journalists in Spain use Twitter. [Comunicar en 140 caracteres. Cómo usan Twitter los comunicadores en España]. Comunicar46: 9–17.
5.
BailCAArgyleLPBrownTW, et al. (2018) Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences115(37): 9216–9221.
6.
BarrieCHoJ (2021) AcademictwitteR: An R package to access the Twitter Academic Research Product Track v2 API endpoint. Journal of Open Source Software6(62): 3272.
7.
BastianMHeymannSJacomyM (2009) Gephi: An open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. In: International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Online. Available at: bit.ly/3YyVABP
8.
Baucells LladosJPeres-NetoL (2008). Discurso televisivo sobre el crimen: Los programas especializados en sucesos. In: AránGCorralB (eds) Malas noticias. Medios de comunicación, política criminal y garantías penales en España. Madrid: Tirant, pp. 109–152.
9.
BlondelVGuillaumeJLLambiotteR, et al. (2008) Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment10: P10008.
10.
BogenKBleiweissKLeachN, et al. (2021) #MeToo: Disclosure and response to sexual victimization on Twitter. Journal of Interpersonal Violence36(17–18): 8257–8288.
11.
BottomsA (1995) The philosophy and politics of punishment and sentencing. In: ClarksonCMVMorganR (eds), The Politics of Sentencing Reform. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 17–49.
12.
BrunsA (2019) Digital public spheres in Australia. In: BrunsA (ed.) Digitizing Democracy. London: Routledge, pp. 133–146.
13.
Camargo FernándezL (2021) El nuevo orden discursivo de la extrema derecha española: de la deshumanización a los bulos en un corpus de tuits de Vox sobre la inmigración. Cultura, Lenguaje y Representación26: 63–82.
14.
Casero-RipollésA (2021) Influencers in the political conversation on Twitter: Identifying digital authority with big data. Sustainability13: 2851.
15.
CastellsM (1997) La era de la información: economía, sociedad y cultura. Grove, UT: Alianza.
16.
CastellsM (2015) Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
17.
ChaMHaddadiHBenevenutoF, et al. (2010, May) Measuring user influence in Twitter: The million follower fallacy. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media4: 10–17.
18.
CherepnalkoskiDMozetičI (2016) Retweet networks of the European Parliament: Evaluation of the community structure. Applied Network Science1: 2.
19.
ClausetANewmanMEMooreC (2004) Finding community structure in very large networks. Physical Review70(6): 66–111.
20.
CohenS (1972) Folk Devils and Moral Panics. London: MacGibbon & Kee.
21.
DagoulaC (2019) Mapping political discussions on Twitter: Where the elites remain elites. Media and Communication7(1): 225–234.
22.
DrewettCOxladMAugoustinosM (2021) Breaking the silence on sexual harassment and assault: An analysis of #MeToo tweets. Computers in Human Behavior123: 106896.
23.
DuboisEBlankG (2018) The echo chamber is overstated: The moderating effect of political interest and diverse media. Information, Communication & Society21(5): 729–745.
24.
EvkoskiBMozetičILjubešićN, et al. (2021) Community evolution in retweet networks. PLoS One16(9): e0256175.
25.
EvolviG (2019) #Islamexit: Inter-group antagonism on Twitter. Information, Communication & Society22(3): 386–401.
26.
FishkinJS (2011) When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27.
Flores-YeffalNVidalesGMartinezG (2019) #WakeUpAmerica, #IllegalsAreCriminals: The role of the cyber public sphere in the perpetuation of the Latino cyber-moral panic in the US. Information, Communication & Society22(3): 402–419.
28.
García RivasN (2019) Injusta condena por sedición: un delito anacrónico y derogable. El Cronista del Estado Social y Democrático de Derecho82–83: 92–99. Available at: bit.ly/3XjppFs
29.
GarlandD (2001) The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30.
GEPC (2019) Comunicado sobre la reforma de las agresiones y abusos sexuales. Available at: bit.ly/3lmtsUt (accessed 8 February 2022).
31.
GretenkortT (2023) The Semiotics of Consensus: Impact of Network Topology on Communication Strategies in Spanish Language Interaction Networks. Peter Lang: Berlin.
32.
González-BailónSLelkesY (2023) Do social media undermine social cohesion? A critical review. Social Issues and Policy Review17: 155–180.
33.
HabermasJ (1981) Historia y crítica de la opinión pública. La transformación estructural de la vida pública. Cambridge: Polity Press.
34.
HaidtJ (2022) Yes, social media really is undermining democracy. The Atlantic. Available at: bit.ly/3RXJlwR (accessed 8 February 2022).
35.
LambiotteRDelvenneJCBarahonaM (2015) Laplacian dynamics and multiscale modular structure in networks. IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering1(2): 76–90.
36.
LoaderBDVromenAXenosMA (2014) The networked young citizen: Social media, political participation and civic engagement. Information, Communication & Society17(2): 143–150.
37.
LuengoOGarcía-MarínJde-BlasioE (2021) COVID-19 on YouTube: Debates and polarisation in the digital sphere. [COVID-19 en YouTube: Debates y polarización en la esfera digital]. Comunicar69: 9–19.
38.
Manfredi-SánchezJAmado-SuárezAWaisbordS (2021) Presidential Twitter in the face of COVID-19: Between populism and pop politics. [Twitter presidencial ante la COVID-19: Entre el populismo y la política pop]. Comunicar66: 83–94.
39.
Miró-LlinaresF (2023) El Derecho penal como coartada: Aprosimación a la estructura de la comunicación sobre el crimen y la ley penal en Twitter. InDret2: 10.31009/InDret.2023.i2.10.
40.
Moya SánchezMHerrera DamasS (2015) Cómo puede contribuir Twitter a una comunicación política más avanzada. Arbor191(774): a257.
41.
OttB (2017) The age of Twitter: Donald J. Trump and the politics of debasement. Critical Studies in Media Communication34(1): 59–68.
42.
Pérez-CurielCVelasco- MolpeceresAM (2020) Trend and fact-checking narratives on Twitter. Verification codes and fake news in the Procés riots (14-O). Adcomunica-Revista científica de estrategias tendencias e innovación en comunicación20: 95–122.
43.
Pozuelo PérezL (2013) La política criminal mediática. Madrid: Marcial Pons.
44.
R CoreTeam (2021) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (Version 3.6.1). Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
45.
RobertsJVStalansLJHoughMIndermaurDTonryMMorrisN (2003) Penal Populism and Public Opinion Lessons from Five Countries. Oxford University Press.
46.
RoblesJGuevaraJCasas-MasB, et al. (2022) When negativity is the fuel. Bots and Political Polarization in the COVID-19 debate. [Cuando la negatividad es el combustible. Bots y polarización política en el debate sobre el COVID-19]. Comunicar71: 63–75.
47.
RoblesJMAtienzaJGómezD, et al. (2020) La polarización de ‘La Manada’: el debate público en España y los riesgos de la comunicación política digital. Tempo Social31: 193–216.
48.
RobsonL (2021) Has digital technology made the public sphere more equal? [Blog post]. Available at: bit.ly/3XgEcAW (accessed 8 February 2023).
49.
SeeligerMSevignaniS (2022) A new structural transformation of the public sphere? An introduction. Theory, Culture & Society39(4): 3–16.
50.
Segado-BojFDíaz-CampoJLloves SobradoB (2016) Objetivos y estrategias de los políticos españoles en Twitter. Index Comunicación6(1): 77–98. Available at: bit.ly/3RXK8hj
51.
SunsteinCR (2017) #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
52.
TuckerJAGuessABarberaP, et al. (2018) Social Media, Political Polarization, and Political Disinformation: A Review of the Scientific Literature. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3144139
53.
TufekciZWilsonC (2012) Social media and the decision to participate in political protest: Observations from Tahrir Square. Journal of Communication62: 363–379.
54.
VaidhyanathanS (2018) Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
55.
ValtyssonB (2010) Access culture: Web 2.0 and cultural participation. International Journal of Cultural Policy16(2): 200–214.
56.
Van VlietLTörnbergPUitermarkJ (2021) Political systems and political networks: The structure of parliamentarians’ retweet networks in 19 Countries. International Journal of Communication15: 21. Available at: https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/15867/3436
57.
Varona GómezD (2018) Derecho penal democrático y participación ciudadana. InDret, 2(2). Available at: bit.ly/3I7XC6F
