After the #DemocraticConsolidation: Social networks, polarization and fake news
Keywords:
Digital Social Networks, Micro-messaging, Influencers, Disinformation, Governmental InstitutionsAbstract
En las últimas cuatro décadas, las redes sociales digitales experimentaron una transformación sin precedentes, pasando de la inexistencia a desempeñar un papel fundamental en el ámbito político y social. La polarización era ideológica y no afectiva, y los procesos políticos estaban dominados por gobiernos, partidos, sindicatos y asociaciones empresarias. Hoy, la dinámica ha cambiado drásticamente. La deliberación en las democracias ya no se basa en largos intercambios filosóficos, sino en la circulación descentralizada de millones de micro-mensajes en espacios dominados por una élite de influencers. Este nuevo entorno también facilita la propagación de noticias falsas y teorías de conspiración, minando la confianza en las instituciones gubernamentales, en los medios de comunicación tradicionales y en la información educativa y científica. La sociedad se enfrenta, entonces, desafíos fundamentales relacionados con la gestión de la desinformación, la regulación de las redes sociales y la promoción de un diálogo político más constructivo en un contexto en el cual las mismas continuaran siendo una parte integral de la vida cotidiana de las y los ciudadanos.
Downloads
References
Aruguete, N. et al. (2023). Truth Be Told: How ‘True’ and ‘False’ Labels Influence User Engagement with Fact-Checks. New Media & Society Early Von, 68(3), 480–502.
Aruguete, N., Calvo, E. and Ventura, T. (2023a). Network Activated Frames: Content Sharing and Perceived Polarization in Social Media. Journal of Communication Early view: 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqac035.
Aruguete, N., Calvo, E. and Ventura, T. (2023b). News by Popular Demand: Ideological Congruence, Issue Salience, and Media Reputation in News Sharing. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 28(3), 558–79.
Bakshy, E., Messing, S. and Adamic, L. (2015). Exposure to Ideologically Diverse News and Opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130–1132.
Barberá, P. et al. (2015). Tweeting from Left to Right: Is Online Political Communication More than an Echo Chamber? Psychological Science, 26(10), 1531–42.
Barnidge, M. (2017). Exposure to Political Disagreement in Social Media versus Face-to-Face and Anonymous Online Settings. Political Communication, 34(2), 302–21.
Calvo, E. (2015). Anatomía Política de Twitter En Argentina. Tuiteando #Nisman. Buenos Aires: Capital Intelectual.
Calvo, E. and Ventura, T. (2021). Will I Get COVID-19? Partisanship, Social Media Frames, and Perceptions of Health Risk in Brazil. Latin American Politics and Society, 63(1), 1–26.
Christensen, K. R. (2020). The Neurology of Negation: Fmri, Erp, and Aphasia. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation (pp. 725–39). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Clerici, P., Cruz, F. and Goyburu, L. (2017). Dos Territorios. Las Elecciones Argentinas 2015 En Twitter. Más Poder Local, 30(14–16).
Conover, M. D. et al. (2011). Political Polarization on Twitter. In Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. Recuperado de https://aaai.org/conference/icwsm/icwsm11/
Fletcher, R., and Nielsen, R. K. (2018). Are People Incidentally Exposed to News on Social Media? A Comparative Analysis. New Media & Society, 20(7), 2450–68.
Gentzkow, M. and Shapiro, J.M. (2011). Ideological Segregation Online and Offline. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(4), 1799–1839.
Guess, A. M., Barberá, P. , Munzert, S. and Yang, J. (2021). The Consequences of Online Partisan Media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(14).
Lyengar, S., Sood, G. and Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. MacMillan.
Kaiser, J., Vaccari, C. and Chadwick, A. (2022). Partisan Blocking: Biased Responses to Shared Misinformation Contribute to Network Polarization on Social Media. Journal of Communication, 72(2), 214–240.
Mason, L. (2013). The Rise of Uncivil Agreement: Issue Versus Behavioral Polarization in the American Elec-torate. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(1), 140–59.
Mason, L. (2018). Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. University of Chicago Press.
Merrill, S., Grofman, B. and Adams, J. (2001). Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Voter Projections of Party Locations: Evidence from Norway, France, and the USA. European Journal of Political Research, 40, 199–223.
Pariser, E. (2011). The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You. London: Peguin.
Törnberg, P. (2018). Echo Chambers and Viral Misinformation: Modeling Fake News as Complex Contagion. PLoS ONE, 13(9). https://doi.org/%0A10.1371/journal.pone.0203958.
Waisbord, S. (2022). Más Que Infodemia: Pandemia, Posverdad y El Peligro Del Irracionalismo. InMediaciones de la Comunicación, 17(1), 31–53.
Walter, N., Cohen, J., Holbert, L. and Morag, Y. (2020). Fact-Checking: A Meta-Analysis of What Works and for Whom. Political Communication, 37(3), 350–75.
Wardle, C. and Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information Disorder: Toward an Interdisciplinary Framework for Research and Policy Making. Council of Europe, 27.DOSSIER. XXVII Congreso de la International Political Science Association.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors retain the copyright to their published work, but authorise the copying, distribution and creation of derivative works based on the original work, provided that the authorship of the work is always attributed in the manner specified by the author or licensor of the work. This licence does not, however, permit the use of the work or any derivative works for commercial purposes.
For their part, authors retain the rights to the work and guarantee that it is unpublished and original. Furthermore, authors grant *Desarrollo Económico. Revista de Ciencias Sociales* the non-exclusive right to publish their work electronically. Consequently, authors may retain the final versions and disseminate them in institutional or subject-specific repositories, on personal websites, or for any other relevant purpose, provided that the original source of publication is cited.
