More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/

research-article

Do Politicians Talk about Politics? Assessing Online Communication Patterns of Brazilian Politicians

Authors:

Lucas Santos De Oliveira,

Pedro O. S. Vaz-de-Melo,

Marcelo S. Amaral,

José Antônio G. PinhoAuthors Info & Claims

ACM Transactions on Social Computing, Volume 3, Issue 4

Article No.: 19, Pages 1 - 28

https://doi.org/10.1145/3412326

Published: 28 September 2020 Publication History

Abstract

Politicians need to decide how to communicate with their voters to build their reputations. This problem is especially complicated during important political events such as the elections when politicians must decide whether to confront and share their thoughts about controversial topics or to simply communicate non-political messages. Aware of these communication behaviors, our goal is to analyze how politicians present themselves in the digital environment and how the public reacts to them. We also investigate whether they change their communication and if there is a typical pattern that is chosen by the majority of politicians over time. To address these problems, we collected 751,117 public tweets of 692 Brazilian deputies from October 2013 to October 2015. Furthermore, we propose a methodology for identifying Twitter messages about political issues at a large scale. We use this methodology to characterize the communication behavior of Brazilian congresspeople in a 2-year span. We found that Brazilian congresspeople changed their communication behavior as the election approached and as they were elected or not. Moreover, we showed that although most of the politicians increased the number of non-political messages during elections, the audience tends to favorite and retweet political messages more.

References

[1]

Marcelo Santos Amaral and José Antônio Gomes de Pinho. 2016. Tuitando por votos: Congressistas brasileiros e o uso do Twitter nas eleies de 2014. In Proceedings of the XL Encontro da Anpad. 1--19.

[2]

Pablo Barberá and Thomas Zeitzoff. 2018. The new public address system: Why do world leaders adopt social media?International Studies Quarterly 62, 1 (2018), 121--130.

[3]

Yoshua Bengio, Réjean Ducharme, Pascal Vincent, and Christian Janvin. 2003. A neural probabilistic language model. Journal of Machine Learning Research 3 (2003), 1137--1155.

Digital Library

[4]

Alexandre Bovet, Flaviano Morone, and Hernán A. Makse. 2018. Validation of Twitter opinion trends with national polling aggregates: Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump. Scientific Reports 8, 1 (2018), 1--16.

[5]

Roberta Bracciale and Antonio Martella. 2017. Define the populist political communication style: the case of Italian political leaders on Twitter. Information, Communication 8 Society 20, 9 (2017), 1310--1329.

[6]

Joseph N. Cappella. 2017. Vectors into the future of mass and interpersonal communication research: Big data, social media, and computational social science. Human Communication Research 43, 4 (2017), 545--558.

[7]

John M. Carey. 2007. Competing principals, political institutions, and party unity in legislative voting. American Journal of Political Science 51, 1 (Jan. 2007), 92--107.

[8]

Meeyoung Cha, Hamed Haddadi, Fabricio Benevenuto, and P. Krishna Gummadi. 2010. Measuring user influence in Twitter: The million follower fallacy. In Proceedings of the 4th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM’10), 10–17.

[9]

Eric C. C. Chang and Miriam A. Golden. 2007. Electoral systems, district magnitude and corruption. British Journal of Political Science 37, 1 (Jan. 2007), 115--137.

[10]

M. Conover, J. Ratkiewicz, and M. Francisco. 2011. Political polarization on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 5th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM’11), Vol. 133. 89–96.

[11]

Jan Deriu, Valeria De Luca, Simon Müller, Thomas Hofmann, and Martin Jaggi. 2017. Leveraging large amounts of weakly supervised data for multi-language sentiment classification. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW’17). 1045–1052. http://papers.www2017.com.au.s3-website-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/proceedings/p1045.pdf.

Digital Library

[12]

Joseph DiGrazia, Karissa McKelvey, Johan Bollen, and Fabio Rojas. 2013. More tweets, more votes: Social media as a quantitative indicator of political behavior. PLoS One 8, 11 (2013), 1--5.

[13]

Elizabeth Dubois and Grant Blank. 2018. The echo chamber is overstated: The moderating effect of political interest and diverse media. Information Communication and Society 21, 5 (2018), 729--745.

[14]

John Duchi, Elad Hazan, and Yoram Singer. 2011. Adaptive subgradient methods for online learning and stochastic optimization. Journal of Machine Learning Research 12 (2011), 2121--2159.

Digital Library

[15]

Eleições Sem Fake 2018. Eleições Sem Fake. Retrieved December 19, 2019 from http://www.eleicoessemfake.dcc.ufmg.br.

[16]

Sven Engesser, Nicole Ernst, Frank Esser, and Florin Büchel. 2017. Populism and social media: How politicians spread a fragmented ideology. Information Communication and Society 20, 8 (2017), 1109--1126.

[17]

Gunn Enli. 2017. Twitter as arena for the authentic outsider: Exploring the social media campaigns of Trump and Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election. European Journal of Communication 32, 1 (2017), 50--61.

[18]

Lauren Feiner. 2019. Twitter Bans Political Ads after Facebook Refused to Do so. Retrieved August 15, 2020 from https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/30/twitter-bans-political-ads-after-facebook-refused-to-do-so.html.

[19]

Michelle C. Forelle, Philip N. Howard, Andres Monroy-Hernandez, and Saiph Savage. 2015. Political bots and the manipulation of public opinion in Venezuela. SSRN Electronic Journal. Retrieved August 15, 2020 from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2635800.

[20]

Jason Gainous and Kevin M. Wagner. 2014. Tweeting to Power: The Social Media Revolution in American Politics. Oxford University Press.

[21]

Lei Gao, Alexis Kuppersmith, and Ruihong Huang. 2017. Recognizing explicit and implicit hate speech using a weakly supervised two-path bootstrapping approach. arxiv:1710.07394.

[22]

Kiran Garimella, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales, Aristides Gionis, and Michael Mathioudakis. 2018. Political discourse on social media: Echo chambers, gatekeepers, and the price of bipartisanship. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on World Wide Web (WWW’18). 913–922. arxiv:1801.01665

Digital Library

[23]

Nabeel Gillani, Ann Yuan, Martin Saveski, Soroush Vosoughi, and Deb Roy. 2018. Me, my echo chamber, and I. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on World Wide Web (WWW’18). ACM, New York, NY, 823--831. arxiv:1803.01731

Digital Library

[24]

Matthew Eric Glassman, Jacob R. Straus, and Colleen J. Shogan. 2010. Social Networking and Constituent Communications: Member Use of Twitter during a Two-Month Period in the 111th Congress. Congressional Research Service. Available at https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41066.pdf.

[25]

Jennifer Golbeck, Justin M. Grimes, and Anthony Rogers. 2010. Twitter use by the US Congress. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 61, 8 (2010), 1612--1621.

Digital Library

[26]

Yoav Goldberg. 2016. A primer on neural network models for natural language processing. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 57, 1 (2016), 345--420.

Digital Library

[27]

Yoav Goldberg. 2017. Neural Network Methods for Natural Language Processing. Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies. Morgan 8 Claypool.

[28]

A’ndre Gonawela, Joyojeet Pal, Udit Thawani, Elmer van der Vlugt, Wim Out, and Priyank Chandra. 2018. Speaking their mind: Populist style and antagonistic messaging in the tweets of Donald Trump, Narendra Modi, Nigel Farage, and Geert Wilders. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 27 (2018), 293–326.

Digital Library

[29]

Todd Graham, Marcel Broersma, and Karin Hazelhoff. 2013. Closing the gap? Twitter as an instrument for connected representation. In The Media, Political Participation and Empowerment, R. Scullion, D. Gerodimos, D. Jackson, and D. Lilleker (Eds.). Routledge Research in Political Communication. Routledge, 71–88.

[30]

Will J. Grant, Brenda Moon, and Janie Busby Grant. 2010. Digital dialogue? Australian politicians’ use of the social network tool Twitter. Australian Journal of Political Science 45, 4 (2010), 579--604.

[31]

Didier Grimaldi. 2019. Can we analyse political discourse using Twitter? Evidence from Spanish 2019 presidential election. Social Network Analysis and Mining 9, 1 (2019), 49.

[32]

Keith N. Hampton, Inyoung Shin, and Weixu Lu. 2017. Social media and political discussion: When online presence silences offline conversation. Information Communication and Society 20, 7 (2017), 1090--1107.

[33]

Zellig S. Harris. 1954. Distributional structure. Word 10 (1954), 146--162.

[34]

Nathan Hartmann, Erick Fonseca, Christopher Shulby, Marcos Treviso, Jessica Rodrigues, and Sandra Aluisio. 2017. Portuguese word embeddings: Evaluating on word analogies and natural language tasks. arxiv:1708.06025.

[35]

William B. Heller and Carol Mershon. 2005. Party switching in the Italian chamber of deputies, 1996–2001. Journal of Politics 67, 2 (May 2005), 536--559.

[36]

Libby Hemphill, Jahna Otterbacher, and Matthew Shapiro. 2013. What’s Congress doing on Twitter? In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’13). ACM, New York, NY, 877--886.

[37]

Allen Hicken and Joel W. Simmons. 2008. The personal vote and the efficacy of education spending. American Journal of Political Science 52, 1 (Jan. 2008), 109--124.

[38]

Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 1997. Long short-term memory. Neural Computation 9, 8, 1735--1780.

Digital Library

[39]

Philip N. Howard, Saiph Savage, Claudia Flores Saviaga, Carlos Toxtli, and Andrés Monroy-Hemández. 2016. Social media, civic engagement, and the slacktivism hypothesis: Lessons from Mexico’s “El Bronco.” Journal of International Affairs 70, 1 (2016), 55--73.

[40]

Sungwook Hwang. 2013. The effect of Twitter use on politicians’ credibility and attitudes toward politicians. Journal of Public Relations Research 25, 3 (2013), 246--258.

[41]

Nigel Jackson and Darren Lilleker. 2011. Microblogging, constituency service and impression management: UK MPs and the use of Twitter. Journal of Legislative Studies 17, 1 (2011), 86--105.

[42]

Ian T. Jolliffe. 1986. Principal component analysis and factor analysis. In Principal Component Analysis. Springer, 115--128.

[43]

Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, Piotr Bojanowski, and Tomas Mikolov. 2016. Bag of tricks for efficient text classification. arxiv:1607.01759.

[44]

Andreas Jungherr. 2016. Twitter use in election campaigns: A systematic literature review. Journal of Information Technology 8 Politics 13, 1 (Jan. 2016), 72--91.

[45]

Rune Karlsen and Bernard Enjolras. 2016. Styles of social media campaigning and influence in a hybrid political communication system: Linking candidate survey data with Twitter data. International Journal of Press/Politics 21, 3 (2016), 338--357.

[46]

Yoon Kim. 2014. Convolutional neural networks for sentence classification. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP’14). 1746--1751.

[47]

Ulrike Klinger. 2013. Mastering the art of social media: Swiss parties, the 2011 national election and digital challenges. Information Communication and Society 16, 5 (2013), 717--736.

[48]

J. Richard Landis and Gary G. Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33, 1 (1977), 159.

[49]

Eun Ju Lee and Soo Yun Shin. 2014. When the medium is the message: How transportability moderates the effects of politicians’ Twitter communication. Communication Research 41, 8 (2014), 1088--1110.

[50]

CNN Library. 2019. Jair Bolsonaro Fast Facts. Retrieved August 15, 2020 from https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/29/americas/jair-bolsonaro-fast-facts/index.html.

[51]

Haiko Lietz, Claudia Wagner, Arnim Bleier, and Markus Strohmaier. 2014. When politicians talk: Assessing online conversational practices of political parties on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 8th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM’14). 285--294.

[52]

Cheng Ying Liu, Ming Syan Chen, and Chi Yao Tseng. 2015. IncreSTS: Towards real-time incremental short text summarization on comment streams from social network services. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 27, 11 (2015), 2986--3000.

Digital Library

[53]

Caio Machado, Beatriz Kira, Gustavo Hirsch, Nahema Marchal, Bence Kollanyi, Philip N. Howard, Thomas Lederer, and Vlad Barash. 2018. News and political information consumption in Brazil: Mapping the first round of the 2018 Brazilian presidential election on Twitter. Computational Propaganda Project. Retrieved August 15, 2020 from http://blogs.oii.ox.ac.uk/comprop/wp-content/uploads/sites/93/2018/10/brazil_supplement.pdf.

[54]

Scott Mainwaring. 2001. Sistemas partidários em novas democracias: o caso do Brasil. Mercado Aberto.

[55]

Francisco Paulo Jamil Marques and Camila MontÁlverne. 2016. How important is Twitter to local elections in Brazil? A case study of Fortaleza City Council. Brazilian Political Science Review. Epub ahead of print. December 12, 2016. http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext8pid=S1981-382120160003002058nrm=iso.

[56]

Christopher M. Mascaro and Sean P. Goggins. 2011. Brewing up citizen engagement: The coffee party on Facebook. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Communities and Technologies (C8T’11). 11.

[57]

Tomas Mikolov, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado, and Jeffrey Dean. 2013. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv:1301.3781v3.

[58]

Tomas Mikolov, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado, and Jeffrey Dean. 2013. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS’13). 3111--3119.

Digital Library

[59]

José Álvaro Moisés. 2011. O desempenho do congresso nacional no presidencialismo de coalizão (1995-2006). In O papel do Congresso Nacional no presidencialismo de coalizão.

[60]

Lucas S. Oliveira, Pedro Vaz de Melo, Marcelo Amaral, and José Antônio Pinho. 2018. When politicians talk about politics: Identifying political tweets of Brazilian congressmen. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM’18).

[61]

Michael A. Oren and Stephen B. Gilbert. 2011. Framework for measuring social affinity for CSCW software. In CHI EA’11: CHI’11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1387--1392.

[62]

Paromita Pain and Gina Masullo Chen. 2019. The president is in: Public opinion and the presidential use of Twitter. Social Media + Society 5, 2 (2019), 205630511985514.

[63]

Joyojeet Pal. 2015. Banalities turned viral: Narendra modi and the political tweet. Television and New Media 16, 4 (2015), 378--387.

[64]

Debjyoti Paul, Feifei Li, Murali Krishna Teja, Xin Yu, and Richie Frost. 2017. Compass: Spatio temporal sentiment analysis of US election. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD’17). ACM, New York, NY, 1585--1594.

Digital Library

[65]

Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher Manning. 2014. Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP’14). 1532--1543.

[66]

Torsten Persson, Guido Tabellini, and Francesco Trebbi. 2001. Electoral Rules and Corruption. Technical Report. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.

[67]

Philip Pond and Jeff Lewis. 2019. Riots and Twitter: Connective politics, social media and framing discourses in the digital public sphere. Information Communication and Society 22, 2 (2019), 213--231.

[68]

Raquel Recuero, Felipe Bonow Soares, and Anatoliy Gruzd. 2020. Hyperpartisanship, disinformation and political conversations on Twitter: The Brazilian presidential election of 2018. Ted Rogers School of Management, 3 Social Media Lab 1, 2 (2020), 569--578.

[69]

Gustavo Resende, Johnnatan Messias, Philipe Melo, Marisa Vasconcelos, Fabrício Benevenuto, Hugo Sousa, and Jussara M. Almeida. 2019. (Mis)information dissemination in WhatsApp: Gathering, analyzing and countermeasures. In Proceedings of the World Wide Web Conference (WWW’19), Vol. 2. 818--828.

[70]

Lamprini Rori and Barry Richards. 2017. Understanding online political networks: The case of the far right and far left in Greece Pantelis. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 10540. Springer, 162–177.

[71]

Alfredo Saad-Filho. 2013. Mass protests under ‘left neoliberalism’: Brazil, June-July 2013. Critical Sociology 39, 5 (2013), 657--669.

[72]

Jorge Saldivar, Florian Daniel, Luca Cernuzzi, and Fabio Casati. 2019. Online idea management for civic engagement: A study on the benefits of integration with social networking. ACM Transactions on Social Computing 2, 1 (2019), 1--29.

Digital Library

[73]

David J. Samuels. 1999. Incentives to cultivate a party vote in candidate-centric electoral systems: Evidence from Brazil. Comparative Political Studies 32, 4 (1999), 487--518.

[74]

David J. Samuels and Cesar Zucco. 2014. Lulismo, petismo, and the future of Brazilian politics. Journal of Politics in Latin America 6, 3 (2014), 129–158.

[75]

S. Savage and A. Monroy-Hernandez. 2015. Participatory militias: An analysis of an armed movement’s online audience. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW’15). 724--733.

[76]

Dhavan V. Shah, Joseph N. Cappella Ramesh, and W. Russell Neuman. 2015. Big data, digital media, and computational social science: Possibilities and perils. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 659, 1 (2015), 6--13.

[77]

Matthew A. Shapiro and Libby Hemphill. 2017. Politicians and the policy agenda: Does use of Twitter by the U.S. Congress direct New York Times content? Policy 8 Internet 9, 1 (2017), 109--132.

[78]

Tian Shi, Kyeongpil Kang, Jaegul Choo, and Chandan K. Reddy. 2018. Short-text topic modeling via non-negative matrix factorization enriched with local word-context correlations. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on World Wide Web (WWW’18). ACM, New York, NY, 1105--1114.

[79]

Jae Hyeok Shin. 2017. The choice of candidate-centered electoral systems in new democracies. Party Politics 23, 2 (March 2017), 160--171.

[80]

Márcio Silva, Lucas Santos de Oliveira, Athanasios Andreou, Pedro Olmo Vaz de Melo, Oana Goga, and Fabricio Benevenuto. 2020. Facebook Ads Monitor: An independent auditing system for political ads on Facebook. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW’20). ACM, New York, NY, 224--234.

Digital Library

[81]

Bernard W. Silverman. 2018. Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis. Routledge.

[82]

Tamara A. Small. 2010. Canadian politics in 140 characters: Party politics in the Twitterverse. Canadian Parliamentary Review 33, 3 (2010), 39--45.

[83]

Mehmet Zahid Sobaci and Naci Karkin. 2013. The use of Twitter by mayors in Turkey: Tweets for better public services? Government Information Quarterly 30, 4 (2013), 417--425.

[84]

Joseph Turian, Lev Ratinov, and Yoshua Bengio. 2010. Word representations: A simple and general method for semi-supervised learning. In Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL’10).

Digital Library

[85]

Voz Ativa. n.d. Home Page. Retrieved December 19, 2019 from http://www.vozativa.org.

[86]

Jonathan Watts. 2016. Dilma Rousseff Impeachment: What You Need to Know—The Guardian briefing. Retrieved August 15, 2020 from https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/aug/31/dilma-rousseff-impeachment-brazil-what-you-need-to-know.

[87]

Felix Ming Fai Wong, Chee Wei Tan, Soumya Sen, and Mung Chiang. 2013. Quantifying political leaning from tweets and retweets. In Proceedings of the 7th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM’13).

[88]

Wenpeng Yin, Katharina Kann, Mo Yu, and Hinrich Schütze. 2017. Comparative study of CNN and RNN for natural language processing. arxiv:1702.01923.

[89]

Ho Young Yoon and Han Woo Park. 2014. Strategies affecting Twitter-based networking pattern of South Korean politicians: Social network analysis and exponential random graph model. Quality and Quantity 48, 1 (2014), 409--423.

[90]

Qingyuan Zhao, Murat A. Erdogdu, Hera Y. He, Anand Rajaraman, and Jure Leskovec. 2015. SEISMIC: A self-exciting point process model for predicting tweet popularity. arxiv:1506.02594.

Cited By

Lioy AContreras Medrano D(2024)Platform politics in Latin AmericaInformation Polity10.3233/IP-22007329:3(331-350)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.3233/IP-220073
Yuan SChen YVojta SChen Y(2022)More aggressive, more retweets? Exploring the effects of aggressive climate change messages on TwitterNew Media & Society10.1177/1461444822112220226:8(4409-4428)Online publication date: 9-Sep-2022
https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221122202
Oliveira LCosta WVaz De Melo PBenevenuto F(2022)How Politicians Communicate in Social Media: A Cross-Platform StudyProceedings of the Brazilian Symposium on Multimedia and the Web10.1145/3539637.3558232(75-83)Online publication date: 7-Nov-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3539637.3558232
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Do Politicians Talk about Politics? Assessing Online Communication Patterns of Brazilian Politicians

Recommendations

Twitter use by politicians during social uprisings: an analysis of Gezi park protests in Turkey
dg.o '15: Proceedings of the 16th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research

Social uprisings clearly show that social media tools, especially Twitter, help news spread more than the press does recently. In some cases Twitter substitutes traditional media if censorship is enlarged to such a level that the mainstream media ...
The Appeal of Influencers to the Social Media Outreach of Indian Politicians
CSCW '19 Companion: Companion Publication of the 2019 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing

Democracies around the world have different levels of dependence on influencers outside of mainstream politics in their outreach efforts. In this study, we examine the case of India, specifically the relationship between politicians in power and "...
Who Tweets About Politics?: Political Participation of Twitter Users During the 2011Gubernatorial Elections

Twitter has been lauded for its potential political value by academics, journalists, and politicians; yet, we know little about the citizenry's use of Twitter to engage in politics. Under the backdrop of the 2011 gubernatorial elections, we observed ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Social Computing

ACM Transactions on Social Computing Volume 3, Issue 4

December 2020

144 pages

EISSN:2469-7826

DOI:10.1145/3426976

Editor:
Kevin Crowston
Syracuse University, USA

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2020 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 28 September 2020

Accepted: 01 July 2020

Revised: 01 June 2020

Received: 01 June 2019

Published in TSC Volume 3, Issue 4

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

5
Total Citations
View Citations
219
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)21
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2

Reflects downloads up to 01 Mar 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Lioy AContreras Medrano D(2024)Platform politics in Latin AmericaInformation Polity10.3233/IP-22007329:3(331-350)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.3233/IP-220073
Yuan SChen YVojta SChen Y(2022)More aggressive, more retweets? Exploring the effects of aggressive climate change messages on TwitterNew Media & Society10.1177/1461444822112220226:8(4409-4428)Online publication date: 9-Sep-2022
https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221122202
Oliveira LCosta WVaz De Melo PBenevenuto F(2022)How Politicians Communicate in Social Media: A Cross-Platform StudyProceedings of the Brazilian Symposium on Multimedia and the Web10.1145/3539637.3558232(75-83)Online publication date: 7-Nov-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3539637.3558232
Caetano JGuimarães SAraújo MSilva MReis JSilva ABenevenuto FAlmeida J(2022)Characterizing Early Electoral Advertisements on Twitter: A Brazilian Case StudySocial Informatics10.1007/978-3-031-19097-1_16(257-272)Online publication date: 12-Oct-2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19097-1_16
Oliveira LAmaral MVaz-de-Melo P(2021)Long-term Characterization of Political Communications on Social MediaIEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology10.1145/3486622.3493934(95-102)Online publication date: 14-Dec-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3486622.3493934

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Article

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Figures

Tables

Media

View Issue’s Table of Contents