Liberals and conservatives share information differently on social media.

IF 3.8 Q2 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
PNAS nexus Pub Date : 2025-06-27 eCollection Date: 2025-07-01 DOI:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf206
Ho-Chun Herbert Chang, James N Druckman, Emilio Ferrara, Robb Willer
{"title":"Liberals and conservatives share information differently on social media.","authors":"Ho-Chun Herbert Chang, James N Druckman, Emilio Ferrara, Robb Willer","doi":"10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf206","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Social media provides citizens with direct access to information shared by politicians. Citizens, in turn, play a critical role in diffusing such content. Do conservative and liberal citizens differ in their decisions about which representatives' social media content to share? We analyze more than 13 million users' sharing of 1,293,753 messages by US members of Congress on Twitter from 2009 to 2019, leveraging estimates of users' political ideology from over 3.5 billion prior retweets. We find that liberals retweeted statements covering a broader range of issues than conservatives. Liberals also shared statements with content rated as relatively more toxic by a standard classifier. Given well-established tendencies toward political homophily among social media users, our results suggest that, compared to conservatives, liberals will be exposed to a more diverse set of issues and more toxic content originating from elected representatives. We conclude with a discussion of several possible explanations for these patterns.</p>","PeriodicalId":74468,"journal":{"name":"PNAS nexus","volume":"4 7","pages":"pgaf206"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12280873/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PNAS nexus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf206","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Social media provides citizens with direct access to information shared by politicians. Citizens, in turn, play a critical role in diffusing such content. Do conservative and liberal citizens differ in their decisions about which representatives' social media content to share? We analyze more than 13 million users' sharing of 1,293,753 messages by US members of Congress on Twitter from 2009 to 2019, leveraging estimates of users' political ideology from over 3.5 billion prior retweets. We find that liberals retweeted statements covering a broader range of issues than conservatives. Liberals also shared statements with content rated as relatively more toxic by a standard classifier. Given well-established tendencies toward political homophily among social media users, our results suggest that, compared to conservatives, liberals will be exposed to a more diverse set of issues and more toxic content originating from elected representatives. We conclude with a discussion of several possible explanations for these patterns.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

自由派和保守派在社交媒体上分享信息的方式不同。
社交媒体为公民提供了直接获取政客分享信息的渠道。反过来,公民在传播这些内容方面发挥着关键作用。保守派和自由派公民在决定分享哪位议员的社交媒体内容方面存在分歧吗?我们分析了2009年至2019年期间美国国会议员在推特上分享的1,293,753条消息的1300多万用户,并利用超过35亿次转发对用户的政治意识形态进行了估计。我们发现,与保守派相比,自由派转发的声明涵盖的问题范围更广。自由主义者也分享了一些内容被标准分类器评为相对更有害的言论。鉴于社交媒体用户的政治同质化倾向,我们的研究结果表明,与保守派相比,自由派将接触到更多样化的问题和来自民选代表的更多有害内容。最后,我们讨论了这些模式的几种可能的解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信