This study conducts a computational and comparative analysis to investigate cross-cultural divergences in sociotechnical imaginaries of artificial intelligence (AI), as reflected in user discourses on social media platforms Weibo and X (formerly Twitter). A total of 8741 Weibo posts and 7020 X posts were analyzed across three dimensions: theme, narrative, and sentiment. Results reveal that Weibo users emphasize national strategic goals and practical AI applications marked by prevailing optimism, while X users highlight privacy risks and ethical implications, demonstrating greater caution. These divergences illustrate how sociotechnical imaginaries of AI differ across different cultural contexts. This study further discusses how these divergences are rooted in specific sociocultural settings and, in turn, influence the distinct patterns of AI development and governance, revealing the co-constitutive dynamics among technology, society, and imagination.
AndersonB. (2005). Imagined communities. In SpencerP.WollmanH. (Eds.) Nations and Nationalism: A Reader, (pp. 48–60). Edinburgh University Press.
2.
AndersonB. (2008). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. In SeidmanS.AlexanderJ. C. (Eds.), The new social theory reader (2nd ed., pp. 282–288). Routledge.
3.
BastianM.HeymannS.JacomyM. (2009). Gephi: An open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 3(1), 361–362. https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v3i1.13937
4.
BauchspiesW. K. (2006). Science, technology, and society: A sociological approach. Routledge.
5.
BeckU. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. Sage.
BolsoverG.HowardP. (2019). Chinese computational propaganda: Automation, algorithms and the manipulation of information about Chinese politics on Twitter and Weibo. Information, Communication & Society, 22(14), 2063–2080. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2018.1476576
BrownT.MannB.RyderN.SubbiahM.KaplanJ.DhariwalP.NeelakantanA.ShyamP.SastryG.AskellA.AgarwalS.Herbert-VossA.KruegerG.HenighanT.ChildR.RameshA.ZieglerD. M.WuJ.WinterC.AskellA. (2020). Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33, 1877–1901. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2005.14165
10.
CardosoG.CastellsM. (2006). The network society. Johns Hopkins University Press.
11.
CastoriadisC. (1987). The imaginary institution of society. Polity Press.
12.
CaveS.CoughlanK.DihalK. (2019). “Scary robots”: Examining public responses to AI. In Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM conference on AI, ethics, and society, Honolulu, HI, USA, 27–28 January, 2019, pp. 331–337.
13.
CaveS.CraigC.DihalK.DillonS.MontgomeryJ.SinglerB.TaylorL. (2018). Portrayals and perceptions of AI and why they matter. Oxford University Press.
CaveS.DihalK. (2023). Technogenesis as White Mythology. In Mapping the Posthuman (pp. 92-98). Routlege.
16.
CaveS.DihalK.DillonS. (Eds.), (2020). AI narratives: A history of imaginative thinking about intelligent machines. Oxford University Press.
17.
CaveS.ÓhÉigeartaighS. S. (2018). An AI race for strategic advantage: Rhetoric and risks. In Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM conference on AI, ethics, and society, New Orleans, LA, USA, 2–3 February, 2018, pp. 36–40.
18.
ChangJ.GerrishS.WangC.Boyd-GraberJ.BleiD. (2009). Reading tea leaves: How humans interpret topic models. Advances in neural informationprocessing systems, 22.
19.
CohenJ. E. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. Surveillance and Society, 17(1/2), 240–245.
20.
CurranJ. (2013). Reinterpreting internet history. In JewkesY.YarM. (Eds.), Handbook of internet crime (pp. 17–37). Willan.
21.
DengW.YangY. (2021). Cross-platform comparative study of public concern on social media during the COVID-19 pandemic: An empirical study based on Twitter and Weibo. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(12), 6487. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18126487
22.
DwivediY. K.HughesL.IsmagilovaE.AartsG.CoombsC.CrickT.DuanY.DwivediR.EdwardsJ.EirugA.GalanosV.IlavarasanP. V.JanssenM.JonesP.KarA. K.KizginH.KronemannB.LalB.LuciniB.WilliamsM. D. (2021). Artificial Intelligence (AI): Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges. International Journal of Information Management, 57(7), Article 101994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102194
FisherW. R. (1984). Narration as a human communication paradigm: The case of public moral argument. Communication Monographs, 51(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758409390180
25.
FloridiL.CowlsJ.BeltramettiM.ChatilaR.ChazerandP.DignumV.LuetgeC.MadelinR.PagalloU.RossiF.SchaferB.ValckeP.VayenaE. (2018). AI4People—An ethical framework for a good AI society. Minds and Machines, 28(4), 689–707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5
26.
FreyC. B.OsborneM. (2023). Generative AI and the future of work: A reappraisal. Brown Journal of World Affairs, 30(1), 161–174.
27.
GaoQ.AbelF.HoubenG. J.YuY. (2012). A comparative study of users' microblogging behavior on Sina Weibo and Twitter. In MasthoffJ.MobasherB.DesmaraisM. C.NkambouR. (Eds.), User modeling, adaptation, and personalization: 20th International Conference, UMAP 2012,Montreal, Canada, July16–20, 2012. Proceedings (pp. 88–101). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31454-4_9
GezerlisA. (2001). Castoriadis and the Project of autonomy: A review of the imaginary Institution of society. Democracy & Nature, 7(3), 469–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/10855660120092320
HajerM. A.PelzerP. (2018). 2050—An energetic odyssey: Understanding “techniques of futuring” in the transition towards renewable energy. Energy Research & Social Science, 44(2), 222–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.01.013
32.
HanW.ZhuX.ZhuZ.ChenW.ZhengW.LuJ. (2016). A comparative analysis on Weibo and Twitter. Tsinghua Science and Technology, 21(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1109/tst.2016.7399279
33.
Hennig-ThurauT.AlimanD. N.HertingA. M.CziehsoG. P.LinderM.KüblerR. V. (2023). Social interactions in the metaverse: Framework, initial evidence, and research roadmap. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 51(4), 889–913. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-022-00908-0
34.
HineE.FloridiL. (2024). Artificial intelligence with American values and Chinese characteristics: A comparative analysis of governmental AI policies. AI & Society, 39(1), 257–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-023-01729-7
35.
HoffK. A.BashirM. (2015). Trust in automation: Integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Human Factors, 57(3), 407–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720814547570
36.
HofstedeG. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context.Online reading in. psychology and, culture, 2(1), 8.
JasanoffS. (2015). Future imperfect: Science, technology, and the imaginations of modernity. In JasanoffS.KimS. H. (Eds.), Dreamscapes of modernity: Sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power (pp. 1–33). University of Chicago Press.
40.
JasanoffS.KimS. H. (2009). Containing the atom: Sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva, 47(2), 119–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-009-9124-4
KimS.SungK. H.JiY.XingC.QuJ. G. (2021). Online firestorms in social media: Comparative research between China Weibo and USA Twitter. Public Relations Review, 47(1), Article 102010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102010
46.
KitchinR. (2021). Data lives: How data are made and shape our world. Bristol University Press.
47.
KolibaC. J.MillsR. M.ZiaA. (2011). Accountability in governance networks: An assessment of public, private, and nonprofit emergency management practices following Hurricane Katrina. Public Administration Review, 71(2), 210–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02332.x
48.
KrepsS.GeorgeJ.WatsonN.CaiG.DingK. (2022). (Mis) information on digital platforms: Quantitative and qualitative analysis of content from Twitter and Sina Weibo in the COVID-19 pandemic. JMIR infodemiology, 2(1), Article e31793. https://doi.org/10.2196/31793
49.
La CavaL.MandaglioD.TagarelliA. (2024). Polarization in decentralized online social networks. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM web science conference, Stuttgart, Germany, 21–24 May, 2024, pp. 48–52.
50.
LiY. (2006). On the continuity of technological development. Journal of Huaiyin Teachers College: Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition, 28(5), 599–602.
51.
LiL.MaZ.FanL.LeeS.YuH.HemphillL. (2024). ChatGPT in education: A discourse analysis of worries and concerns on social media. Education and Information Technologies, 29(9), 10729–10762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12597-z
52.
LiaoT. (2018). Mobile versus headworn augmented reality: How visions of the future shape, contest, and stabilize an emerging technology. New Media & Society, 20(2), 796–814. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816672019
53.
LinX.LachlanK. A.SpenceP. R. (2016). Exploring extreme events on social media: A comparison of user reposting/retweeting behaviors on Twitter and Weibo. Computers in Human Behavior, 65(2016), 576–581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.032
54.
LuJ.ClarkC.ZellersR.MottaghiR.KembhaviA. (2022). Unified-io: A unified model for vision, language, and multi-modal tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.08916.
55.
MarcusG. E.NeumanW. R.MacKuenM. (2000). Affective intelligence and political judgment. University of Chicago Press.
56.
MarienM. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. Cadmus, 2(2), 174–177.
57.
MarkhamA. N. (2013). Fieldwork in social media: What would Malinowski do?Qualitative Communication Research, 2(4), 434–446. https://doi.org/10.1525/qcr.2013.2.4.434
58.
MasonR. O. (2000). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. The Information Society, 16(3), 233–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240050133670
59.
MazzucatoM. (2013). Financing innovation: Creative destruction vs. destructive creation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 22(4), 851–867. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtt025
60.
MicuA.CapatinaA.MicuA. E. (2018). Exploring artificial intelligence techniques’ applicability in social media marketing. Journal of Emerging Trends in Marketing and Management, 1(1), 156–165.
61.
MillerC. A.JasanoffS. (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. Routledge.
62.
MoweryD. C.NelsonR. R. (1999). Explaining industrial leadership. In MoweryD. C.NelsonR. R. (Eds.), Sources of industrial leadership (pp. 359–382). Cambridge University Press.
63.
NguyenD.HekmanE. (2022). A “new arms race”? Framing China and the USA in AI news reporting. Global Media and China, 7(1), 58–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/20594364221088061
64.
PancaldiG. (1994). The technology of nature: Marx’s thoughts on Darwin. In CohenR. S. (Ed.), The natural sciences and the social sciences (pp. 257–274). Springer.
65.
ParkC. S. (2013). Does Twitter motivate involvement in politics? Tweeting, opinion leadership, and political engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1641–1648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.044
66.
PatalanoR. (2007). Imagination and society: The affective side of institutions. Constitutional Political Economy, 18(4), 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10602-007-9019-z
67.
PfotenhauerS.JasanoffS. (2017). Traveling imaginaries: The “practice turn” in innovation policy. In TyfieldD.LaveR.RandallsS.ThorpeC. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of the political economy of science (pp. 416–428). Routledge.
68.
PinchT. (2012). The social construction of technology: A review. In FoxR. (Ed.), Technological change (pp. 17–35). Elsevier.
69.
QiY.ShabrinaZ. (2023). Sentiment analysis using Twitter data: A comparative application of lexicon- and machine-learning-based approaches. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 13(1), 31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-023-01037-4
70.
QiuJ. L. (2019). Goodbye iSlave: Making alternative subjects through digital objects. In ChandlerD.FuchsC. (Eds.), Digital objects, digital subjects (pp. 151–164). University of Westminster Press.
71.
ReinertM. (1983). Une méthode de classification descendante hiérarchique: Application à l'analyse lexicale par contexte. Les Cahiers de l'Analyse des Données, 8(2), 187–198.
72.
RudekT. J. (2022). Capturing the invisible: Sociotechnical imaginaries of energy. Science and Public Policy, 49(2), 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scab076
73.
SaidE. W. (2023). Orientalism. In GoodwinJ.JasperJ. M. (Eds.), Social theory re-wired (pp. 362–374). Routledge.
74.
ShenB.LiY. (2014). Analysis of co-occurrence networks with clique occurrence information. International Journal of Modern Physics C, 25(5), Article 1440015. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0129183114400154
StevensK.KegelmeyerP.AndrzejewskiD.ButtlerD. (2012). Exploring topic coherence over many models and many topics. In Proceedings of the 2012 joint conference on empirical methods in natural language processing and computational natural language learning, Jeju Island, Korea, 12–14 July, 2012, pp. 952–961.
80.
SuchmanL. A. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
TaylorC. (2004). Modern social imaginaries. Duke University Press.
83.
WagnerA.GałuszkaD. (2020). Let's play the future: Sociotechnical imaginaries and energy transitions in serious digital games. Energy Research & Social Science, 70(2020), Article 101674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101674
84.
Wahl-JorgensenK. (2019). Emotions, media and politics. Polity Press.
85.
WangW.DowneyJ.YangF. (2023). AI anxiety? Comparing the sociotechnical imaginaries of artificial intelligence in UK, Chinese and Indian newspapers. Global Media and China. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/20594364231196547
86.
WilliamsH. T.McMurrayJ. R.KurzT.LambertF. H. (2015). Network analysis reveals open forums and echo chambers in social media discussions of climate change. Global Environmental Change, 32(2015), 126–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.006
YaqoobI.HashemI. A. T.GaniA.MokhtarS.AhmedE.AnuarN. B.VasilakosA. V. (2016). Big data: From beginning to future. International Journal of Information Management, 36(6), 1231–1247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.07.009
89.
ZhuG.PanZ.WangQ.ZhangS.LiK. C. (2020). Building multi-subtopic bi-level network for micro-blog hot topic based on feature co-occurrence and semantic community division. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 170(1), Article 102815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2020.102815
