• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

在替代社交平台与传统社交平台之间:以Gab为例探讨关于疫情和疫苗的叙事

Between alternative and traditional social platforms: the case of gab in exploring the narratives on the pandemic and vaccines.

作者信息

Acampa Suania, Crescentini Noemi, Padricelli Giuseppe Michele

机构信息

Department of Social Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.

出版信息

Front Sociol. 2023 Jul 17;8:1143263. doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2023.1143263. eCollection 2023.

DOI:10.3389/fsoc.2023.1143263
PMID:37534329
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10390321/
Abstract

The phenomenon of deplatforming intended as the removal of social media accounts because of breaking rules on mainstream platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram recently increased due to new terms and conditions of use of digital media, and new alternative social media platforms emerged and presented themselves as protectors of freedom expression. In this way, it becomes interesting to understand better the context of these platforms' so-called that consist in those digital places that ≪host what we can generally call "subcultures," including fandoms, religious sects, political extremists, and subcultures≫. Since April 2020, Gab can be considered the most widespread alternative platform in Western countries, with twenty million users daily, born as Twitter and Facebook alternative social media. The alternative social media platforms are intended as other connection services between users, which is halfway between a social media and a discussion forum born to boycott the censorship actions of the main social media platforms (Meta Group, Twitter, etc.) and celebrate free speech even on controversial positions. How are sensitive topics, such as the one that concerns the skepticism related to the approvals of vaccines during the pandemic, addressed on the alternative social media platform compared to how they are dealt with on the mainstream social media platforms? This explorative work wonders about the users' points of view on vaccine concerns and the relevant differences between Gab and Facebook in addressing this topic. The empirical part of this work has been set starting from the dataset composed of Gab and Facebook content posted between March 2020 and July 2021. The posts were extracted with web scraping techniques (for Gab) and proprietary data tools (for Facebook), querying the keywords: . The collection procedure considered the different platforms' structure and their different organization of the interaction spaces. The population consisted of 8000 English writers' posts, from which 2000 posts with the highest interaction value were extracted. The dataset was analyzed using Topic Modeling, Factor, and Classification Analysis techniques. Our work's methodological output deals with comparing these social media platforms, bearing in mind their ontological objects and their algorithms' role. From the analysis emerged the differences and similarities of the social media platforms in terms of the type of content published, rates of involvement, sources of information, and directions of the considered speech. These differences have been duly highlighted by three clusters related to discourse orientation and communication approach: Conflict of views, Emotional externalization, Recommendation and practices. In addition to the type of communication and information circulating on a powerful platform such as Gab, the results help us understand the different narratives promoted on the two social media platforms and their role in the possible promotion of the same sentiment, opinions, and ideological polarization.

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3351/10390321/47ff2bc5c7c1/fsoc-08-1143263-g0002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3351/10390321/c4c9f5bfcb39/fsoc-08-1143263-g0001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3351/10390321/47ff2bc5c7c1/fsoc-08-1143263-g0002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3351/10390321/c4c9f5bfcb39/fsoc-08-1143263-g0001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3351/10390321/47ff2bc5c7c1/fsoc-08-1143263-g0002.jpg
摘要

去平台化现象,即因违反脸书、推特、优兔和照片墙等主流平台的规则而移除社交媒体账号,由于数字媒体新的使用条款和条件,近来有所增加,并且新的替代性社交媒体平台出现并自诩为言论自由的保护者。这样一来,更好地理解这些平台所谓的背景就变得有趣了,这些背景存在于那些≪容纳我们通常可以称之为“亚文化”的数字场所,包括粉丝群体、宗教教派、政治极端分子和亚文化≫。自2020年4月以来,Gab可被视为西方国家最广泛使用的替代性平台,每日有2000万用户,它诞生之初是作为推特和脸书的替代性社交媒体。替代性社交媒体平台旨在成为用户之间的其他连接服务,它介于社交媒体和讨论论坛之间,其诞生是为了抵制主要社交媒体平台(元集团、推特等)的审查行动,甚至为有争议的立场颂扬言论自由。与主流社交媒体平台处理敏感话题的方式相比,替代性社交媒体平台是如何处理诸如大流行期间与疫苗批准相关的怀疑论这样的敏感话题的呢?这项探索性工作探究了用户对疫苗问题的看法以及Gab和脸书在处理该话题上的相关差异。这项工作的实证部分是从2020年3月至2021年7月期间发布的Gab和脸书内容组成的数据集开始的。这些帖子是用网络爬虫技术(用于Gab)和专有数据工具(用于脸书)提取的,查询的关键词为: 。收集过程考虑了不同平台的结构及其互动空间的不同组织方式。总体包括8000名英语作者的帖子,从中提取了互动价值最高的2000个帖子。使用主题建模、因子分析和分类分析技术对数据集进行了分析。我们工作的方法学成果涉及比较这些社交媒体平台,同时牢记它们的本体对象及其算法的作用。从分析中可以看出,社交媒体平台在发布内容的类型、参与率、信息来源以及所考虑言论的方向方面存在差异和相似之处。这些差异已通过与话语取向和沟通方式相关的三个集群得到了恰当的突出:观点冲突、情感外化、推荐与实践。除了在像Gab这样强大的平台上传播的沟通和信息类型之外,这些结果还帮助我们理解了这两个社交媒体平台所宣扬的不同叙事及其在可能促进相同情绪、观点和意识形态两极分化方面的作用。

相似文献

1
Between alternative and traditional social platforms: the case of gab in exploring the narratives on the pandemic and vaccines.在替代社交平台与传统社交平台之间:以Gab为例探讨关于疫情和疫苗的叙事
Front Sociol. 2023 Jul 17;8:1143263. doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2023.1143263. eCollection 2023.
2
Concerns Expressed by Chinese Social Media Users During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Content Analysis of Sina Weibo Microblogging Data.新冠疫情期间中国社交媒体用户表达的担忧:对新浪微博数据的内容分析
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Nov 26;22(11):e22152. doi: 10.2196/22152.
3
Platform Effects on Public Health Communication: A Comparative and National Study of Message Design and Audience Engagement Across Twitter and Facebook.平台对公共卫生传播的影响:一项关于推特和脸书上信息设计与受众参与度的比较性全国研究。
JMIR Infodemiology. 2022 Dec 20;2(2):e40198. doi: 10.2196/40198. eCollection 2022 Jul-Dec.
4
Public Figure Vaccination Rhetoric and Vaccine Hesitancy: Retrospective Twitter Analysis.公众人物的疫苗接种言论与疫苗犹豫:推特回顾性分析
JMIR Infodemiology. 2023 Mar 10;3:e40575. doi: 10.2196/40575. eCollection 2023.
5
COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy on Social Media: Building a Public Twitter Data Set of Antivaccine Content, Vaccine Misinformation, and Conspiracies.社交媒体上对 COVID-19 疫苗的犹豫:构建一个关于反疫苗内容、疫苗错误信息和阴谋论的公共 Twitter 数据集。
JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2021 Nov 17;7(11):e30642. doi: 10.2196/30642.
6
Medical and Health-Related Misinformation on Social Media: Bibliometric Study of the Scientific Literature.社交媒体上的医疗健康相关错误信息:科学文献的文献计量研究。
J Med Internet Res. 2022 Jan 25;24(1):e28152. doi: 10.2196/28152.
7
Assessment of the Medical Reliability of Videos on Social Media: Detailed Analysis of the Quality and Usability of Four Social Media Platforms (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube).社交媒体上视频的医学可靠性评估:对四个社交媒体平台(Facebook、Instagram、Twitter和YouTube)的质量与可用性的详细分析。
Healthcare (Basel). 2022 Sep 22;10(10):1836. doi: 10.3390/healthcare10101836.
8
Attitudes toward COVID-19 Vaccination on Social Media: A Cross-Platform Analysis.社交媒体上对新冠疫苗接种的态度:跨平台分析
Vaccines (Basel). 2022 Jul 27;10(8):1190. doi: 10.3390/vaccines10081190.
9
Public Discourse, User Reactions, and Conspiracy Theories on the X Platform About HIV Vaccines: Data Mining and Content Analysis.X 平台上关于 HIV 疫苗的公共话语、用户反应和阴谋论:数据挖掘和内容分析。
J Med Internet Res. 2024 Apr 3;26:e53375. doi: 10.2196/53375.
10
Deplatforming did not decrease Parler users' activity on fringe social media.平台下架并未减少Parler用户在边缘社交媒体上的活动。
PNAS Nexus. 2023 Mar 21;2(3):pgad035. doi: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgad035. eCollection 2023 Mar.

本文引用的文献

1
From Facebook to YouTube: The Potential Exposure to COVID-19 Anti-Vaccine Videos on Social Media.从脸书到YouTube:社交媒体上接触新冠反疫苗视频的潜在风险
Soc Media Soc. 2023 Feb 1;9(1):20563051221150403. doi: 10.1177/20563051221150403. eCollection 2023 Jan-Mar.
2
A Health Crisis in the Age of Misinformation: How Social Media and Mass Media Influenced Misperceptions about COVID-19 and Compliance Behavior.信息时代的健康危机:社交媒体和大众媒体如何影响对 COVID-19 的误解和合规行为。
J Health Commun. 2022 Oct 3;27(10):764-775. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2022.2153288. Epub 2022 Dec 28.
3
The COVID-19 pandemic and the search for structure: Social media and conspiracy theories.
新冠疫情与对结构的探寻:社交媒体与阴谋论
Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2021 Sep;15(9):e12636. doi: 10.1111/spc3.12636. Epub 2021 Aug 4.
4
The use of social media and online communications in times of pandemic COVID-19.在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间社交媒体和在线通信的使用情况。
J Intensive Care Soc. 2021 Aug;22(3):255-260. doi: 10.1177/1751143720966280. Epub 2020 Oct 22.
5
"First Do No Harm": Effective Communication About COVID-19 Vaccines.“首先,勿伤患者”:关于新冠疫苗的有效沟通
Am J Public Health. 2021 Jun;111(6):1055-1057. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2021.306288.
6
Using Narrative Evidence to Convey Health Information on Social Media: The Case of COVID-19.利用叙事证据在社交媒体上传播健康信息:以新冠疫情为例
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Mar 15;23(3):e24948. doi: 10.2196/24948.
7
The echo chamber effect on social media.社交媒体的回音室效应。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Mar 2;118(9). doi: 10.1073/pnas.2023301118.
8
The COVID-19 social media infodemic.新冠病毒肺炎疫情相关社交媒体信息疫情。
Sci Rep. 2020 Oct 6;10(1):16598. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-73510-5.
9
The online anti-vaccine movement in the age of COVID-19.新冠疫情时代的线上反疫苗运动。
Lancet Digit Health. 2020 Oct;2(10):e504-e505. doi: 10.1016/S2589-7500(20)30227-2. Epub 2020 Sep 22.
10
How to Fight an Infodemic: The Four Pillars of Infodemic Management.如何应对信息疫情:信息疫情管理的四大支柱
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Jun 29;22(6):e21820. doi: 10.2196/21820.