IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jcsosc/v5y2022i1d10.1007_s42001-021-00133-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Operation gridlock: opposite sides, opposite strategies

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew Babcock

    (Carnegie Mellon University)

  • Kathleen M. Carley

    (Carnegie Mellon University)

Abstract

Twitter and other social media platforms are important tools for competing groups to push their preferred messaging and respond to opposing views. Special attention has been paid to the role these tools play in times of emergency and important public decision-making events such as during the current COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we analyze the Pro- and Anti-Protest sides of the Twitter discussion surrounding the first few weeks of the anti-lockdown protests in the United States. We find that these opposing groups mirror the partisan divide regarding the protests in their use of specific phrases and in their sharing of external links. We then compare the users in each group and their actions and find that the Pro-Protest side acts more proactively, is more centrally organized, engages with the opposing side less, and appears to rely more on bot-like or troll-like users. In contrast, the Anti-Protest side is more reactive, has a larger presence of verified account activity (both as actors and targets), and appears to have been more successful in spreading its message in terms of both tweet volume and in attracting more regular type users. Our work provides insights into the organization of opposing sides of the Twitter debate and discussions over responses to the COVID-19 emergency and helps set the stage for further work in this area.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew Babcock & Kathleen M. Carley, 2022. "Operation gridlock: opposite sides, opposite strategies," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 477-501, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jcsosc:v:5:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s42001-021-00133-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s42001-021-00133-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s42001-021-00133-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s42001-021-00133-9?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pablo Barberá & Ning Wang & Richard Bonneau & John T Jost & Jonathan Nagler & Joshua Tucker & Sandra González-Bailón, 2015. "The Critical Periphery in the Growth of Social Protests," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(11), pages 1-15, November.
    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. Leopoldo Fergusson & Carlos Molina, 2020. "Facebook Causes Protests," HiCN Working Papers 323, Households in Conflict Network.
    2. Shelley Boulianne & Mireille Lalancette & David Ilkiw, 2020. "“School Strike 4 Climate”: Social Media and the International Youth Protest on Climate Change," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 208-218.
    3. Angelo Antoci & Alexia Delfino & Fabio Paglieri & Fabrizio Panebianco & Fabio Sabatini, 2016. "Civility vs. Incivility in Online Social Interactions: An Evolutionary Approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-17, November.
    4. Stephen A Meserve & Daniel Pemstein, 2020. "Terrorism and internet censorship," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(6), pages 752-763, November.
    5. Grover, Purva & Kar, Arpan Kumar & Dwivedi, Yogesh K. & Janssen, Marijn, 2019. "Polarization and acculturation in US Election 2016 outcomes – Can twitter analytics predict changes in voting preferences," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 438-460.
    6. Gisli Gylfason, 2023. "From Tweets to the Streets: Twitter and Extremist Protests in the United States," PSE Working Papers halshs-04188189, HAL.
    7. Yin, Gaofei & Wang, Xiaofei & Du, Huiying & Shen, Shizhou & Liu, Canran & Zhang, Keqiang & Li, Wenchao, 2019. "N2O and CO2 emissions, nitrogen use efficiency under biogas slurry irrigation: A field study of two consecutive wheat-maize rotation cycles in the North China Plain," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 232-240.
    8. Ekaterina Zhuravskaya & Maria Petrova & Ruben Enikolopov, 2020. "Political Effects of the Internet and Social Media," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 12(1), pages 415-438, August.
    9. Schaub, Max & Morisi, Davide, 2020. "Voter mobilisation in the echo chamber: Broadband internet and the rise of populism in Europe," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 59(4), pages 752-773.
    10. J. Garcia-Algarra & J. M. Pastor & M. L. Mouronte & J. Galeano, 2018. "A Structural Approach to Disentangle the Visualization of Bipartite Biological Networks," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2018, pages 1-11, February.
    11. Masías, Víctor Hugo & Crespo R., Fernando A. & Navarro R., Pilar & Masood, Razan & Krämer, Nicole C. & Hoppe, H. Ulrich, 2021. "On spatial variation in the detectability and density of social media user protest supporters," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 65, pages 1-1.
    12. Mengyang Zhao, 2019. "Media Freedom and Protest Events in the Global South," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1254-1267, June.
    13. Pedro Ramaciotti Morales & Jean-Philippe Cointet & Caterina Froio, 2022. "Posters and protesters," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 1129-1157, November.

    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:spr:jcsosc:v:5:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s42001-021-00133-9. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.