Artificial Polarisation: How Expressive Discourses Inflame the Perception of Political Polarisation on the Internet
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
In this work I analyze the phenomenon of political polarization on the internet. I argue that the approach centered on the filter bubble and echo chambers has shortcomings. To solve them, I propose the concept of artificial polarization. This concept refers to the process by which the expressive uses of communication, such as flaming or moral grandstanding, provoke fictitious forms of polarization. Recognizing the artificial polarization will allow a better understanding of the polarization processes in the network and their effects on the democratic debate.
Downloads
Article Details
References
Arias Maldonado, Manuel (2016). La democracia sentimental. Política y emociones en el siglo XXI. Barcelona: Página indómita.
Barberá, Pablo (2014). How social media reduces mass political polari-zation. Evidence from Germany, Spain and the US. Recuperado de: http://pablobarbera.com/static/barbera_polarization_APSA.pdf [Consultado el 28 de mayo de 2020].
Basil, Christopher A., Argyle, Lisa P., Brown, Taylor W., Bumpus, John P., Chen, Haohan, Hunzaker, M.B. Fallin, Lee, Jaemin, Mann Mar-cus, Merhout, Frieden y Volfovsky, Alexander (2018). Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. PNAS, 15, 9216-9221.
Beam, Michael, Hutchens, Myiah y Hmielowski, Jay (2018). Facebook news and (de)polarization: reinforcing spirals in the 2016 US elec-tions. Information, communication and society, 21, 940-958.
Boxell, Levi, Gentzkow, Matthew y Shapiro, Jesse M. (2017). Greater internet use is not associated with faster growth in political polar-ization among US demographic groups. PNAS, 114, 10.612-10.617.
Brady, William, Crockett, Molly J. y Van Bavel, Jay (2020). The MAD Model of Moral Contagion: The role of Motivation, Attention and Design in the spread of moralized content online. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15, 978-1010.
Calvo, Patrici (2020). Democracia aumentada: un ecosistema cibernéti-co para una participación política basada en algoritmos. Ápeiron. Estudios de filosofía, 12, 129-141.
Cho, Jaeho, Ahmed, Saifuddin, Hilbert, Martin, Liu, Billy y Luu, Jo-nathan (2020). Do search algorithms endanger democracy? An ex-perimental investigation of algorithm effects on political polariza-tion. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 64, 150-172.
Clark, Cory y Winegard, Bo. (2020). Tribalism in War and Peace: the nature and evolution of ideological epistemology and its signifi-cance for modern social science. Psychological Inquiry, 31, 1-22.
Cortina, Adela (2007). Ética de la razón cordial. Oviedo: Nobel.
Cortina, Adela (2017). Aporofobia, el rechazo al pobre. Barcelona: Paidós.
Cortina, Adela (2021). Ética cosmopolita. una apuesta por la cordura en tiempos de pandemia. Barcelona: Paidós.
Dubois, Elizabeth y Blank, Grant (2018). The echo chamber is overstat-ed: the moderating effect of political interest and diverse media. Information, Communication & Society, 21, 729-745.
Dutton, William y Fernández, Laleah (2018). How susceptible are in-ternet users? InterMEDIA, 46, 36-40.
Flaxman, Seth, Goel, Sharad y Rao, Justin M. (2016). Filter bubbles, echo chambers and online news consumption. Public Opinion Quar-terly, 80, 298-320.
Groshek, Jacob y Koc-Michalska, Karolina (2017). Helping populism win? Social media use, filter bubbles, and support for populist presidential candidates in the 2016 US election campaign. Infor-mation, Communication and Society, 20, 9, 1389-1407.
Grubbs, Joshua B., Warmke, Brandon, Tosi, Justin, James, Shanti y Campbell, Keith (2019). Moral grandstanding in public discourse: Status-seeking motives as a potential explanatory mechanism in predicting conflict. PLOS ONE, 14(10), e0223749.
Gruzd, Anatoly y Roy, Jeffrey (2014). Investigating political polariza-tion on Twitter: a Canadian perspective. Policy & Internet, 6, 28-45.
Haidt, Jonathan (2019). La mente de los justos. Barcelona: Deusto.
Haidt, Jonathan y Lukianoff, Greg (2019). La transformación de la mente moderna. Barcelona: Deusto.
Han, Byung-Chul (2014). En el enjambre. Barcelona: Herder.
Hong, Sounman y Kim, Sun H. (2016). Political polarization on twitter: Implications for the use of social media in digital governments. Government Information Quarterly, 33, 777-782.
Hwang, Hyunseo, Kim, Youngju y Huh, Catherine (2014). Seeing is Believing: Effects of Uncivil Online Debate on Political Polariza-tion and Expectations of Deliberation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 58, 621-633.
Isenberg, Daniel (1986). Group polarization: a critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Psychology, 50, 1141-1151.
Jamieson, Kathleen H. y Cappella, Joseph N. (2010). Echo chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the conservative media establishment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Johnen, Marius, Jungblut, Marc y Ziegele, Marc (2017). The digital out-cry: What incites participation behavior in an online firestorm? New Media & Society, 20, 3140-3160.
Kim, Youngju (2016). How do news frames influence mass political polariza-tion? Tesis doctoral. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama.
Lawrence, Eric, Sides, John y Farrell, Henry (2010). Self segregation or deliberation? Blog relationships, participation and polarization in American politics. Perspectives in Politics, 8, 141-157.
Levendusky, Matthew y Malhotra, Neil (2016). Misperceptions of parti-san polarization in the American public. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80, 378-391.
Mercier, Hugo y Sperber, Dan (2011). Why do humans reason? Argu-ments for an argumentative theory of reasoning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 57-111.
Molino, Fernando del y Muñoz, Adolfo (2019). Polarization mapping. Computers & Graphics, 83, 42-50.
Noelle-Neumann, Elisabeth (1995). La espiral del silencio. Opinión pública: nuestra piel social. Barcelona: Paidós.
Pariser, Eli (2017). El filtro burbuja. Barcelona: Taurus.
Pérez Zafrilla, Pedro Jesús (2020). Polarización política: Estado de la cuestión y orientaciones para el análisis. En Cristián Santibáñez (Ed.). Emociones, argumentación y argumentos (97-124). Lima: Palestra.
Shalabi, Ahmad S., Abdel Aal, Safaa, Abdel Halim, Wael S. y Ammar, H.Y. (2007). Artificial polarization effects on FA1:Sr2+ lasers and NO interactions at NaCl (001) surface: First principles calculations. Journal of Molecular Sctructure: THEOCHEM, 823, 47-58.
Schkade, David, Sunstein, Cass y Hastie, Reid (2010). When delibera-tion produces extremism. Critical Review, 22, 227-252.
Sunstein, Cass (2002). The law of group polarization. The Journal of Po-litical Philosophy, 10, 175-195.
Sunstein, Cass (2003). República.com. Internet, democracia y libertad. Bar-celona: Paidós.
Sunstein, Cass (2008). Neither Hayek nor Habermas. Public Choice, 134, 87-95.
Sunstein, Cass (2017). #Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Tosi, Justin y Warmke, Brandon. (2018). Moral grandstanding. Philoso-phy and Public Affairs, 44, 197-217.
Yang, Jung Hwan, Hernando, Rojas, Wojcieskzak, Magdalena, Aalberg, Toril, Coen, Sharon, Curran, James, Hawasi, Kaori, Iyengar, Shan-to, Jones, Paul, Mazzoleni, Gianpietro, Papathanassopoulos, Styl-ianos, Rhee, June W., Rowe, David, Soroka, Stuart y Tiffen, Rod-ney (2016). Why are «others» so polarized? Perceived political po-larization and media use in ten countries. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 21, 349-367.
Zuiderveen Borgesius, Frederik, Trilling, Damian, Möller, Judith, Bodó, Balázs, Vreese, Claes H. de y Helberg, Natali (2016). Should we worry about filter bubbles? Internet Policy Review, Journal of in-ternet regulation, 5, 1-16.