Twitter (X) and the Commercial Determinants of Health: Characterizing the Most Amplified, Influential, and Connected Voices Driving Twitter Discourse About Tobacco Regulatory Policy From September 2019 to July 2021

IF 5.5 1区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION
Nathan A. Silver, Miao Feng, Elexis C. Kierstead, Hy Tran, Steven Binns, Sherry Emery, Barbara A. Schillo
{"title":"Twitter (X) and the Commercial Determinants of Health: Characterizing the Most Amplified, Influential, and Connected Voices Driving Twitter Discourse About Tobacco Regulatory Policy From September 2019 to July 2021","authors":"Nathan A. Silver, Miao Feng, Elexis C. Kierstead, Hy Tran, Steven Binns, Sherry Emery, Barbara A. Schillo","doi":"10.1177/20563051251314611","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Tobacco content on Twitter (X) generally opposes regulation. Although a near real-time data source of the public’s response to prominent events heightens the allure of extrapolating public sentiment from Twitter content, tobacco policy sentiment on the platform may be more indicative of industry-affiliated top users. We examined 2 years of tobacco policy discussion on Twitter (X) at the user level ( N = 3,159,807 posts) from September 2019 to July 2021. We sampled the 100 most followed, amplified (retweets), influential (H index), and connected (betweenness centrality) users at three different time periods: pre-COVID (September 2019 to February 2020), COVID lockdown (March 2020 to March 2021), and post vaccine rollout (April to July 2021) to characterize top users. The Louvain method was used to partition users into communities based on retweet behavior. The 100 most amplified users received between 48% and 71% of all retweets across time periods, with e-cigarette advocates dominating the most amplified (64.7%), influential (38.4%) and connected users (42.1%). The vast majority of interaction took place in communities dominated by e-cigarette advocates, but only reaching 2.5% to 8.2% of users. We identified 58 tobacco policy top users who had 1,000 or more total retweets and were among the top 100 for any of our influence metrics at more than one time period. Among top users, 50 were e-cigarette advocates, and 24 had quantifiable ties to the tobacco industry. Practitioners and researchers should be wary of mischaracterizing industry public relations on social media as public sentiment.","PeriodicalId":47920,"journal":{"name":"Social Media + Society","volume":"94 7 Suppl 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Media + Society","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051251314611","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Tobacco content on Twitter (X) generally opposes regulation. Although a near real-time data source of the public’s response to prominent events heightens the allure of extrapolating public sentiment from Twitter content, tobacco policy sentiment on the platform may be more indicative of industry-affiliated top users. We examined 2 years of tobacco policy discussion on Twitter (X) at the user level ( N = 3,159,807 posts) from September 2019 to July 2021. We sampled the 100 most followed, amplified (retweets), influential (H index), and connected (betweenness centrality) users at three different time periods: pre-COVID (September 2019 to February 2020), COVID lockdown (March 2020 to March 2021), and post vaccine rollout (April to July 2021) to characterize top users. The Louvain method was used to partition users into communities based on retweet behavior. The 100 most amplified users received between 48% and 71% of all retweets across time periods, with e-cigarette advocates dominating the most amplified (64.7%), influential (38.4%) and connected users (42.1%). The vast majority of interaction took place in communities dominated by e-cigarette advocates, but only reaching 2.5% to 8.2% of users. We identified 58 tobacco policy top users who had 1,000 or more total retweets and were among the top 100 for any of our influence metrics at more than one time period. Among top users, 50 were e-cigarette advocates, and 24 had quantifiable ties to the tobacco industry. Practitioners and researchers should be wary of mischaracterizing industry public relations on social media as public sentiment.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Social Media + Society
Social Media + Society COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
3.80%
发文量
111
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Social Media + Society is an open access, peer-reviewed scholarly journal that focuses on the socio-cultural, political, psychological, historical, economic, legal and policy dimensions of social media in societies past, contemporary and future. We publish interdisciplinary work that draws from the social sciences, humanities and computational social sciences, reaches out to the arts and natural sciences, and we endorse mixed methods and methodologies. The journal is open to a diversity of theoretic paradigms and methodologies. The editorial vision of Social Media + Society draws inspiration from research on social media to outline a field of study poised to reflexively grow as social technologies evolve. We foster the open access of sharing of research on the social properties of media, as they manifest themselves through the uses people make of networked platforms past and present, digital and non. The journal presents a collaborative, open, and shared space, dedicated exclusively to the study of social media and their implications for societies. It facilitates state-of-the-art research on cutting-edge trends and allows scholars to focus and track trends specific to this field of study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信