Цифровые эхо-камеры как феномен политического пространства

Обложка

Цитировать

Полный текст

Аннотация

В исследовании приводится всесторонний обзор академической литературы по теме эхо-камер в цифровом пространстве как политического феномена, рассмотрены различные подходы, их сходства и общие различия, преимущества и недостатки, а также раскрывается консолидированная и критическая перспектива, которая, как мы надеемся, будет полезна для будущих исследований в данной области. Представлены результаты систематического обзора западных академических исследований о существовании эхо-камер в социальных медиа, первоначальная классификация литературы и выявление моделей исследований. Авторы показывают, как концептуальный и методологический выбор влияет на результаты исследований по данной теме. Будущие исследования должны учитывать потенциальные недостатки различных подходов и значительный потенциал связывания данных.

Об авторах

Михаил Анатольевич Безносов

Университет Западной Джорджии

Автор, ответственный за переписку.
Email: mbeznosov@westga.edu
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6146-1802

доктор философии в области политологии, кандидат социологических наук, кафедра гражданской активности и государственной службы

Карроллтон, Соединенные Штаты Америки

Александр Сергеевич Голиков

Харьковский национальный университет имени В.Н. Каразина

Email: a.s.golikov@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6786-0393

доктор социологических наук, доцент кафедры социологии

Харьков, Украина

Список литературы

  1. Allcott, H., Braghieri, L., Eichmeyer, S., & Gentzkow, M. (2020). The welfare effects of social media. American Economic Review, 110(3): 629-76. Retrieved June, 7, 2022, from https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257%2Faer.20190658&utm_campaign=Johannes.
  2. Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 211-236. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.2.211
  3. Arendt, H. (1972). Crises of the Republic: Lying in Politics; Civil Disobedience; On Violence; Thoughts on Politics and Revolution. Harcourt, Brace & Co.
  4. Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L.A. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook6. Science, 348(6239), 1130-1132.
  5. Barberá, P. (2015). How social media reduces mass political polarization. Evidence from Germany, Spain, and the U.S. Paper presented at the 2015 APSA conference. Retrieved June, 7, 2022, from: http://pablobarbera.com/static/barbera_polarization_APSA.pdf.
  6. Barberá, P., Jost, J.T., Nagler, J., Tucker, J.A., & Bonneau, R. (2015). Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber? Psychological Science, 26(10), 1531-1542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615594620
  7. Barsukov, N. (2018). “Echo Chamber” Effect in the Internet: An Exploration of Brexit Case. The state and citizens in the electronic environment, 2, 3-86. (In Russian)
  8. Bartlett, B. (2015). How Fox News changed American media and political dynamics. SSRN. Retrieved June, 3, 2022, from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2604679.
  9. Beam, M.A., & Kosicki, G.M. (2014). Personalized news portals: Filtering systems and increased news exposure. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 91(1), 59-77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699013514411
  10. Beam, M.A., Hutchens, M.J., & Hmielowski, J.D. (2018). Facebook7 news and (de)polarization: Reinforcing spirals in the 2016 US election. Information, Communication & Society, 21(7), 940-958. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1444783
  11. Benkler, Y., Faris, R.M., Hal, R., Etling, B., Bourassa, N., & Zuckerman, E. (2017). Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society Research Paper. Retrieved June, 7, 2022, from https://ssrn.com/abstract=3019414
  12. Benton, M.C., & Radziwill, N.M. (2016). “Bot or Not? Deciphering Time Maps for Tweet Interarrivals.” ArXiv:1605.06555 [Cs], May. Retrieved June, 7, 2022, from http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.06555
  13. Berentson-Shaw, J. (2018). A matter of fact: Talking truth in a post-truth world. Wellington, New Zealand: Bridget Williams Books.
  14. Bode, L. (2012). Facebooking8 It to the Polls: A Study in Online Social Networking and Political Behavior. Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 9(4), 352-369. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2012.709045
  15. Bos, L., Kruikemeier, S., & de Vreese, C. (2016). Nation binding: How public service broadcasting mitigates political selective exposure. PLoS ONE, 11(5). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155112
  16. Bruns, A. (2019). Filter bubble. Internet Policy Review, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.4.1426
  17. Centola, D., & Macy, M. (2007). Complex contagions and the weakness of long ties. American Journal of Sociology, 113(3), 702-34.
  18. Ceron, A., & Memoli, V. (2016). Flames and debates: Do social media affect satisfaction with democracy? Social Indicators Research, 126(1), 225-240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-0893-x
  19. Dahlgren, P.M. (2019). Selective exposure to public service news over thirty years: The role of ideological leaning, party support, and political interest. International Journal of Press/ Politics, 24(3), 293-314.
  20. Dimitrova, D.V., Shehata, A., Strömbäck, J., & Nord, L.W. (2014). The effects of digital media on political knowledge and participation in election campaigns: Evidence from panel data. Communication Research, 41(1), 95-118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211426004
  21. Dizney, H.F., Roskens, R.W. (1962) An Investigation of the ‘Bandwagon Effect’ in a College Straw Election. The Journal of Educational Sociology, 36(3), 108-114
  22. Dubois, E. (2015). The strategic opinion leader: Personal influence and political networks in a hybrid media system (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved June, 7, 2022, from https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:35b1e408-a70a-4ea0-9c41-10d7df024ee9
  23. Dubois, E., & Grant Blank, G. (2018). The echo chamber is overstated: The moderating effect of political interest and diverse media. Information, Communication & Society, 21(5), 729-745. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1428656
  24. Dvir-Gvirsman, S., Tsfati, Y., & Menchen-Trevino, E. (2016). The extent and nature of ideological selective exposure online: Combining survey responses with actual web log data from the 2013 Israeli elections. New Media & Society, 18(5), 857-877.
  25. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. New York, NY: Row, Peterson
  26. Fletcher, R., Cornia, А., & Nielsen, R.K. (2018). Measuring the Reach of „Fake News” and Online Disinformation in Europe. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Retrieved June, 7, 2022 from https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/our-research/measuring-reach-fake-news-and-online-disinformation-europe
  27. Fletcher, R., Cornia, А., & Nielsen, R.K. (2020). “How Polarized Are Online and Offline News Audiences? A Comparative Analysis of Twelve Countries.” The International Journal of Press/Politics, 25(2), 169-195.
  28. Fletcher, R., Robertson, C.T., & Nielsen, R.K. (2021). How Many People Live in Politically Partisan Online News Echo Chambers in Different Countries? Journal of Quantitative Description: Digital Media, 1. https://doi.org/10.51685/jqd.2021.020
  29. Garrett, R.K. (2013). Selective exposure: New methods and new directions. Communication Methods and Measures, 7(3-4), 247-256.
  30. Garrett, R.K., & Stroud, N.J. (2014). Partisan paths to exposure diversity: Differences in pro- and counterattitudinal news consumption. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 680-701.
  31. Garrett, R.K., Carnahan, D., & Lynch, E.K. (2013). A turn toward avoidance? Selective exposure to online political information, 2004-2008. Political Behavior, 35(1), 113-134.
  32. Gentzkow, M., Shapiro, J.M. & Sinkinson, M. (2011). The effect of newspaper entry and exit on electoral politics. American Economic Review, 101(7), 2980-3018.
  33. Groshek, J., & Koc-Michalska K. (2017). Helping populism win? Social media use, filter bubbles, and support for populist presidential candidates in the 2016 US election campaign. Information, Communication & Society, 20(9), 1389-1407.
  34. Guess, A.M. (2021). (Almost) everything in moderation: New evidence on Americans’ online media diets. American Journal of Political Science, 65(4), 1007-1022. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12589
  35. Guess, A.M., Nyhan, B., Lyons, B., & Reifler, J. (2018). Avoiding the echo chamber about echo chambers: Why selective exposure to like-minded political news is less prevalent than you think. Miami, FL: Knight Foundation.
  36. Guo, L., Rohde, J.A. & Wu, H.D. (2020). Who is responsible for Twitter’s echo chamber problem? Evidence from 2016 U.S. election networks, Information, Communication & Society, 23(2), 234-251. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1499793
  37. Habermas, J. (1991). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  38. Henshel, R.L., & Johnston, W. (1987). The Emergence of Bandwagon Effects: A Theory. The Sociological Quarterly, 28(4), 493-511.
  39. Himelboim, I., McCreery, S., & Smith, M. (2013). Birds of a feather tweet together: Integrating network and content analyses to examine cross-ideology exposure on Twitter. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(2), 40-60. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12001
  40. Jamieson, K.H., & Cappella, J.N. (2008). Balkanization of Knowledge and Interpretation (рр. 191-213). New York: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/609
  41. Janis, I.L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascos. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  42. Justwan, F., Baumgaertner, B., Carlisle, J.E., Clark, A.K., & Clark, M.M. (2018). Social media echo chambers and satisfaction with democracy among Democrats and Republicans in the aftermath of the 2016 US elections. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 28(4), 424-442. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2018.1434784
  43. Kaiser, B. (2019). Targeted: The Cambridge Analytica Whistleblower’s Inside Story of How Big Data, Trump, and Facebook9 Broke Democracy and How It Can Happen Again. Harper Collins.
  44. Kaiser, J., & Rauchfleisch, A. (2020). The German Far-Right on YouTube: An analysis of user overlap and user comments. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 64(3), 373-396. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2020.1799690
  45. Keen, Suzanne (2007). Empathy and the Novel. Oxford: Oxford UP.
  46. Kim, Y., Hsu, S.-H., & de Zuniga, H.G. (2013). Influence of social media use on discussion network heterogeneity and civic engagement: The moderating role of personality traits. Journal of Communication, 63(3), 498-516.
  47. Klapper, J.T. (1960). The effects of mass communication. New York: Free Press.
  48. Lu, J., & Yu, X. (2020). Does the Internet make us more intolerant? A contextual analysis in 33 countries. Information, Communication & Society, 23(2), 252-266. https://doi.org/10.1080/1 369118X.2018.1499794
  49. Martyanov, D.S., & Martyanova, N.A. (2019). Manageability of Virtual Communities: A Comparative Analysis of Politicized Groups in Vkontakte. Journal of Political Research, 3(3), 79-93. (In Russian)
  50. Martyanov, D., & Bykov I. (2017). Ideological segregation in the Russian cyberspace: Evidences from St. Petersburg. In Digital Transformation and Global Society Second International Conference (pp. 259-270). DTGS 2017 St. Petersburg, Russia, June 21-23. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69784-0_22
  51. Masip, P., Suau, J., & Ruiz-Caballero, C. (2020). Incidental exposure to non-like-minded news through social media: Opposing voices in echo-chambers’ news feeds. Media and Communication, 8(4), 53-62
  52. Massanari, A. (2015). Participatory culture, community, and play: Learning from reddit. PeterLang Inc., International Academic Publishers
  53. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J.M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415-444
  54. Messing, S., & Westwood, S.J. (2014). Selective exposure in the age of social media: Endorsements Trump partisan source affiliation when selecting news online. Communication Research, 41(8), 1042-1063
  55. Moeller, J., Trilling, D., Helberger, N., Irion, K., & De Vreese, C. (2016). Shrinking core? Exploring the differential agenda setting power of traditional and personalized news media. Info, 18(6), 26-41. https://doi.org/10.1108/info-05-2016-0020
  56. Nickerson, R. (1998). Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175-220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
  57. Nelson, J.L., & Webster, J.G. (2017). The myth of partisan selective exposure: A portrait of the online political news audience. Social Media + Society, 3(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117729314
  58. Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Schulz, A., Andı, S., Robertson, C.T., & Nielsen, R.K. (2021). Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2021. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism
  59. Nguyen, A., & Vu, H.T. (2019). Testing popular news discourse on the “echo chamber” effect: Does political polarisation occur among those relying on social media as their primary politics news source? First Monday, 24(5). Retrieved June, 7, 2022, from: https://firstmonday.org/ article/view/9632/7807
  60. Nickerson, R.S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
  61. Noelle-Neumann, E. (1974). The spiral of silence: a theory of public opinion. Journal of Communication, 24(2): 43-51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1974.tb00367.x
  62. Papacharissi, Z., & de Fatima Oliveira, M. (2012). Affective news and networked publics: The rhythms of news storytelling on #Egypt. Journal of Communication, 62(2), 266-282. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01630.x
  63. Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the internet is hiding from you. London: Viking
  64. Preston, P. (2016). Trust in the media is the first casualty of the post-factual world. Guardian (24 September). Retrieved June, 7. 2022 from https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/sep/24/trust-in-media-first-casualty-post-factual-war-corbyn-trump
  65. Salari, Sonia & Sillito, Carrie. (2015). Intimate partner homicide suicide: Perpetrator primary intent across young, middle, and elder adult age categories. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.11.004
  66. Sears, D.O., & Freedman, J.L. (1967). Selective exposure to information: A critical review. Public Opinion Quarterly, 31(2), 194-213
  67. Spohr, D. (2017). Fake news and ideological polarization: Filter bubbles and selective exposure on social media. Business Information Review, 34(3), 150-160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266382117722446
  68. Sunstein, C. (2002). The Law of group polarization. Journal of Political Philosophy, 10(2), 175-195
  69. Sunstein, C. (2009). Republic. Com 2.0. New York, NY: Princeton UP
  70. Tait, A. (2016). Control, alt-right, retweet: How social media paved the way for President Trump. New Statesman (10 November). Retrieved June,7, 2022, from https://www.newstatesman.com/world/north-america/2016/11/control-alt-right-retweet-how-social-media-paved-way-president-trump.
  71. Turcotte, J., York, C., Irving, J., Scholl, R.M., & Pingree, R.J. (2015). News Recommendations from Social Media Opinion Leaders: Effects on Media Trust and Information Seeking, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(5), 520-535. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12127
  72. Vaccari, C., Valeriani, A., Barberá, P., Bonneau, R., Jost, J.T., Nagler, J., & Tucker, J.A. (2015). Political expression and action on social media: Exploring the relationship between lower- and higher-threshold political activities among Twitter users in Italy. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 20(2), 221-239
  73. Vaccari, C., Valeriani, A., Barberá, P., Jost, J.T., Nagler, J., & Tucker, J.A. (2016). Of echo chambers and contrarian clubs: Exposure to political disagreement among German and Italian users of Twitter. Social Media + Society, 2(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116664221
  74. Volodenkov, S.V., & Fedorchenko, S.N. (2021) Digital Infrastructures of Civic and Political Activism: Current Challenges, Risks and Constraints. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes, 6, 97-118. https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2021.6.2014 (In Russian)
  75. Webster, J.G., & Ksiazek, T. (2012). The Dynamics of Audience Fragmentation: Public Attention in an Age of Digital Media. Journal of Communication. 62. 39-56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01616.x
  76. Xenos, M., Vromen, A., & Brian, D. Loader (2014) The great equalizer? Patterns of social media use and youth political engagement in three advanced democracies, Information, Communication & Society, 17(2), 151-167, https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2013.871318
  77. Yang, T., Majó-Vázquez, S., Nielsen, R.K., & González-Bailón, S. (2020). Exposure to news grows less fragmented with an increase in mobile access. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(46), 28678-28683
  78. Zamkov, A.V. (2019). The Echo Chamber Effect as a Manifestation of the Principle of SelfSimilarity on Social Networks. Mediaskop, 2. (In Russian). Retrieved April, 15, 2022 from http://www.mediascope.ru/2548 https://doi.org/10.30547/mediascope.2.2019.7 (In Russian)
  79. Zimmer, K. Scheibe, M. Stock, & Stock, W.G. (2019). Echo chambers and filter bubbles of fake news in social media. Man-made or produced by algorithms? In 8th Annual Arts, Humanities, Social Sciences & Education Conference (pp. 1-22). Prince Waikiki, Honolulu, Hawaii. January 3, 4, & 5, 2019, Hawaii University
  80. Zúñiga, H.G. de, Nakwon Jung & Valenzuela, S. (2012). Social media use for news and individuals’ social capital, civic engagement and political participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(3), 319-336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01574.x

© Безносов М.А., Голиков А.С., 2022

Creative Commons License
Эта статья доступна по лицензии Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Данный сайт использует cookie-файлы

Продолжая использовать наш сайт, вы даете согласие на обработку файлов cookie, которые обеспечивают правильную работу сайта.

О куки-файлах