Discussion of Climate Change on Reddit: Polarized Discourse or Deliberative Debate?

IF 3 3区 社会学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Environmental Communication-A Journal of Nature and Culture Pub Date : 2022-04-10 DOI:10.1080/17524032.2022.2050776
K. Treen, Hywel T. P. Williams, S. O'Neill, Travis G. Coan
{"title":"Discussion of Climate Change on Reddit: Polarized Discourse or Deliberative Debate?","authors":"K. Treen, Hywel T. P. Williams, S. O'Neill, Travis G. Coan","doi":"10.1080/17524032.2022.2050776","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Studies of climate discourse on social media platforms often find evidence of polarization, echo chambers, and misinformation. However, the literature’s overwhelming reliance on Twitter makes it difficult to understand whether these phenomena generalize across other social media platforms. Here we present the first study to examine climate change discourse on Reddit, a popular – yet understudied – locus for climate debate. This contributes to the literature through expansion of the empirical base for the study of online communication about climate change beyond Twitter. Additionally, platform architecture of Reddit differs from many social media platforms in several ways which might impact the quality of the climate debate. We investigate this through topic modeling, community detection, and analysis of sources of information on a large corpus of Reddit data from 2017. Evidence of polarization is found through the topics discussed and sources of information shared. Yet, while some communities are dominated by particular ideological viewpoints, others are more suggestive of deliberative debate. We find little evidence for the presence of polarized echo chambers in the network structure on Reddit. These findings challenge our understanding of social media discourse around climate change and suggest that platform architecture plays a key role in shaping climate debate online.","PeriodicalId":54205,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Communication-A Journal of Nature and Culture","volume":"1 1","pages":"680 - 698"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Communication-A Journal of Nature and Culture","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2022.2050776","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

ABSTRACT Studies of climate discourse on social media platforms often find evidence of polarization, echo chambers, and misinformation. However, the literature’s overwhelming reliance on Twitter makes it difficult to understand whether these phenomena generalize across other social media platforms. Here we present the first study to examine climate change discourse on Reddit, a popular – yet understudied – locus for climate debate. This contributes to the literature through expansion of the empirical base for the study of online communication about climate change beyond Twitter. Additionally, platform architecture of Reddit differs from many social media platforms in several ways which might impact the quality of the climate debate. We investigate this through topic modeling, community detection, and analysis of sources of information on a large corpus of Reddit data from 2017. Evidence of polarization is found through the topics discussed and sources of information shared. Yet, while some communities are dominated by particular ideological viewpoints, others are more suggestive of deliberative debate. We find little evidence for the presence of polarized echo chambers in the network structure on Reddit. These findings challenge our understanding of social media discourse around climate change and suggest that platform architecture plays a key role in shaping climate debate online.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Reddit上关于气候变化的讨论:两极分化的话语还是深思熟虑的辩论?
对社交媒体平台上气候话语的研究经常发现两极分化、回声室和错误信息的证据。然而,文献对Twitter的过度依赖使得很难理解这些现象是否适用于其他社交媒体平台。在这里,我们提出了第一项研究,以检查Reddit上的气候变化话语,这是一个受欢迎但研究不足的气候辩论场所。这有助于通过扩展经验基础的研究关于气候变化的在线传播超越Twitter的文献。此外,Reddit的平台架构在几个方面与许多社交媒体平台不同,这可能会影响气候辩论的质量。我们通过主题建模、社区检测和对2017年大量Reddit数据的信息源分析来研究这一点。通过讨论的话题和共享的信息来源,可以发现两极分化的证据。然而,虽然一些社区被特定的意识形态观点所主导,但其他社区更倾向于审慎辩论。我们在Reddit的网络结构中几乎没有发现极化回声室存在的证据。这些发现挑战了我们对围绕气候变化的社交媒体话语的理解,并表明平台架构在塑造在线气候辩论中起着关键作用。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
7.40%
发文量
53
期刊介绍: Environmental Communication is an international, peer-reviewed forum for multidisciplinary research and analysis assessing the many intersections among communication, media, society, and environmental issues. These include but are not limited to debates over climate change, natural resources, sustainability, conservation, wildlife, ecosystems, water, environmental health, food and agriculture, energy, and emerging technologies. Submissions should contribute to our understanding of scientific controversies, political developments, policy solutions, institutional change, cultural trends, media portrayals, public opinion and participation, and/or professional decisions. Articles often seek to bridge gaps between theory and practice, and are written in a style that is broadly accessible and engaging.
期刊最新文献
Biochar in the UK Print News Media: Issue Frames and Their Implications for Opening up Debate About Land-based Greenhouse Gas Removal. The Effect of Trust in Science and Media Use on Public Belief in Anthropogenic Climate Change: A Meta-analysis United Nations Environment Programme Initiatives for Communicating Environmental Big Data: Considering DEAL and WESR Growing Natural Connectiresons: The Effects of Modality and Type of Nature on Connectedness to Nature Cross-Country Analysis of the Association between Media Coverage and Exposure to Climate News with Awareness, Risk Perceptions, and Protest Participation Intention in 110 Countries
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1