IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0203104.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Where in the world is my tweet: Detecting irregular removal patterns on Twitter

Author

Listed:
  • Joan C Timoneda

Abstract

Twitter data are becoming an important part of modern political science research, but key aspects of the inner workings of Twitter streams as well as self-censorship on the platform require further research. A particularly important research agenda is to understand removal rates of politically charged tweets. In this article, I provide a strategy to understand removal rates on Twitter, particularly on politically charged topics. First, the technical properties of Twitter’s API that may distort the analyses of removal rates are tested. Results show that the forward stream does not capture every possible tweet –between 2 and 5 percent of tweets are lost on average, even when the volume of tweets is low and the firehose not needed. Second, data from Twitter’s streams are collected on contentious topics such as terrorism or political leaders and non-contentious topics such as types of food. The statistical technique used to detect uncommon removal rate patterns is multilevel analysis. Results show significant differences in the removal of tweets between different topic groups. This article provides the first systematic comparison of information loss and removal on Twitter as well as a strategy to collect valid removal samples of tweets.

Suggested Citation

  • Joan C Timoneda, 2018. "Where in the world is my tweet: Detecting irregular removal patterns on Twitter," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-19, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0203104
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203104
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0203104
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0203104&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0203104?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Clinton, Joshua & Jackman, Simon & Rivers, Douglas, 2004. "The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Data," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 98(2), pages 355-370, May.
    2. Calvo, Ernesto, 2007. "The Responsive Legislature: Public Opinion and Law Making in a Highly Disciplined Legislature," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(2), pages 263-280, April.
    3. Barberá, Pablo, 2015. "Birds of the Same Feather Tweet Together: Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation Using Twitter Data," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(1), pages 76-91, January.
    4. Bafumi, Joseph & Gelman, Andrew & Park, David K. & Kaplan, Noah, 2005. "Practical Issues in Implementing and Understanding Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(2), pages 171-187, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Francis,David C. & Kubinec ,Robert, 2022. "Beyond Political Connections : A Measurement Model Approach to Estimating Firm-levelPolitical Influence in 41 Economies," Policy Research Working Paper Series 10119, The World Bank.
    2. Eijffinger, Sylvester & Mahieu, Ronald & Raes, Louis, 2018. "Inferring hawks and doves from voting records," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 107-120.
    3. Tasos Kalandrakis, 2006. "Roll Call Data and Ideal Points," Wallis Working Papers WP42, University of Rochester - Wallis Institute of Political Economy.
    4. repec:gig:joupla:v:1:y:2009:i:1:p:67-96 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Cindy Cheng & Joan Barceló & Allison Spencer Hartnett & Robert Kubinec & Luca Messerschmidt, 2020. "COVID-19 Government Response Event Dataset (CoronaNet v.1.0)," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 4(7), pages 756-768, July.
    6. Eijffinger, S.C.W. & Mahieu, R.J. & Raes, L.B.D., 2013. "Estimating the Preferences of Central Bankers : An Analysis of Four Voting Records," Discussion Paper 2013-047, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    7. Keng-Chi Chang & Chun-Fang Chiang & Ming-Jen Lin, 2021. "Using Facebook data to predict the 2016 U.S. presidential election," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(12), pages 1-24, December.
    8. Cindy Cheng & Joan Barcelo & Allison Spencer Hartnett & Robert Kubinec & Luca Messerschmidt, 2020. "CoronaNet: A Dyadic Dataset of Government Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic," Working Papers 20200042, New York University Abu Dhabi, Department of Social Science, revised Apr 2020.
    9. Mario Quaranta, 2018. "The Meaning of Democracy to Citizens Across European Countries and the Factors Involved," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 136(3), pages 859-880, April.
    10. Sally Paganin & Christopher J. Paciorek & Claudia Wehrhahn & Abel Rodríguez & Sophia Rabe-Hesketh & Perry de Valpine, 2023. "Computational Strategies and Estimation Performance With Bayesian Semiparametric Item Response Theory Models," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 48(2), pages 147-188, April.
    11. Bjørn Høyland, 2010. "Procedural and party effects in European Parliament roll-call votes," European Union Politics, , vol. 11(4), pages 597-613, December.
    12. Badinger, Harald & Mühlböck, Monika & Nindl, Elisabeth & Reuter, Wolf Heinrich, 2014. "Theoretical vs. empirical power indices: Do preferences matter?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 158-176.
    13. Lucia Dalla Pellegrina & Nuno Garoupa & Marian Gili, 2020. "Estimating Judicial Ideal Points in Bi‐Dimensional Courts: Evidence from Catalonia," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), pages 383-415, June.
    14. Michal Ovádek, 2021. "Supranationalism, constrained? Locating the Court of Justice on the EU integration dimension," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(1), pages 46-69, March.
    15. Shor, Boris & McCarty, Nolan, 2010. "The Ideological Mapping of American Legislatures," Papers 8-11-2010, Princeton University, Research Program in Political Economy.
    16. Pellegrina, Lucia Dalla & Garoupa, Nuno & Gómez-Pomar, Fernando, 2017. "Estimating judicial ideal points in the Spanish Supreme Court: The case of administrative review," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 16-28.
    17. Arianna Degan & Antonio Merlo, 2006. "Do Voters Vote Sincerely?," PIER Working Paper Archive 06-008, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    18. Arianna Degan & Antonio Merlo, 2011. "A Structural Model Of Turnout And Voting In Multiple Elections," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 209-245, April.
    19. Nathan Canen & Kristopher Ramsay, 2023. "Quantifying Theory in Politics: Identification, Interpretation and the Role of Structural Methods," Papers 2302.01897, arXiv.org.
    20. Běla Plechanovová, 2011. "The EU Council enlarged: North-South-East or core-periphery?," European Union Politics, , vol. 12(1), pages 87-106, March.
    21. Julia Gray & Jonathan Slapin, 2012. "How effective are preferential trade agreements? Ask the experts," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 309-333, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0203104. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.