Tag Archive for: Facebook

Concluyen que Cambridge Analytica no influenció campaña del Brexit en 2016

/in /by

Luego de una investigación de más de tres años, el Comisionado de Información británico concluyó que la consultora Cambridge Analytica no influenció la campaña y votación del Brexit en 2016.

La ya desaparecida compañía se valió de una fuga de datos de 50 millones de usuarios de Facebook para impactar en distintas elecciones políticas, entre las que destaca la subida de Donald Trump a la presidencia de Estados Unidos ese mismo año. Pero, al contrario de lo que se afirmaba, y según publica la BBC, su actividad durante el Brexit no pasó “más allá de unas consultas realizadas en las primeras etapas”.

Desde el Comisionado aseguran que, en este caso, no se ha encontrado ninguna “infracción significativa” de las leyes de privacidad y protección de datos. Además, afirman que tampoco se han visto evidencias adicionales sobre la supuesta participación de Rusia en dicha campaña.

Tras el escándalo, la Comisión Federal de Comercio estadounidense (FTC) impuso una multa a Facebook por valor de 5,000 millones de dólares por no haber obtenido consentimiento expreso de sus usuarios para compartir sus datos. Asimismo, varios grupos a favor y en contra de la salida del Reino Unido también fueron sancionados por utilizar técnicas ilegales de marketing.

Una de las principales autoras de la investigación, Elizabeth Denham, compartió en una carta abierta la conclusión de que “existen vulnerabilidades en nuestros sistemas democráticos” y que necesitamos “una nueva comprensión sobre el uso de datos personales en el contexto político moderno”.

 

Artículo Tomado De: https://cio.com.mx/concluyen-que-cambridge-analytica-no-influencio-campana-del-brexit-en-2016/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Sentiment Analysis of Facebook Users Reacting to Political Campaign Posts

/in /by

Abstract

A recent trend in political campaign studies is the use of sentiment analysis to understand users’ decisions. The scandal of Facebook and Cambridge Analytics is an example of efforts to use social media platforms to impact citizens’ will. This research aims to answer the question: Did the Facebook reactions of users in Mexico reflect the outcomes of the elections and possibly also the users’ emotions toward the political candidates of the State of Mexico in 2017? To answer the research question, we analyzed data collected from 4,128 Facebook posts and their reactions. The available reactions for Facebook users are: like, love, haha, wow, sad, and angry. Doing so revealed some kind of mood from the users in the Facebook comments section and opinions of the local government campaign in the central State of Mexico. The elections studied took place in June 2017. Our findings show that the winning political party had more negative sentiment and fewer posts and users’ discussions of the candidates in Facebook comments sections than the political party with the largest positive sentiment. This party was unsuccessful in winning the elections.

 

References

  1. Kim Normann Andersen and Rony Medaglia. 2009. The use of Facebook in national election campaigns: Politics as usual? In Proceedings of the International Conference on Electronic Participation. Springer, Berlin, 101–111.Google Scholar
  2. Cenay Babaoglu and Elvettin Akman. 2018. Participation with social media: The case of Turkish metropolitan municipalities in Facebook. In Optimizing E-Participation Initiatives through Social Media. IGI Global, Hershey, PA, 77–102.Google Scholar
  3. Lázaro M Bacallao-Pino. 2016. Redes sociales, acción colectiva y elecciones: Los usos de Facebook por el movimiento estudiantil chileno durante la campaña electoral de 2013. Palab. Clave 19, 3 (2016), 810–837.Google Scholar
  4. Francis P. Barclay, Pichandy Chinnasamy, and Priyadarshni Pichandy. 2014. Political opinion expressed in social media and election outcomes—US presidential elections 2012. J. Media Commun. 1, 2 (2014), 15–22.Google Scholar
  5. Márton Bene. 2017. Go viral on the Facebook! Interactions between candidates and followers on Facebook during the Hungarian general election campaign of 2014. Inf. Commun. Soc. 20, 4 (2017), 513–529.Google Scholar
  6. Bruce Bimber. 1998. The internet and political transformation: Populism, community, and accelerated pluralism. Polity 31, 1 (1998), 133–160.Google ScholarCross Ref
  7. Bruce Bimber and Lauren Copeland. 2013. Digital media and traditional political participation over time in the US. J. Inf. Technol. Polit. 10, 2 (2013), 125–137.Google ScholarCross Ref
  8. Leticia Bode. 2012. Facebooking it to the polls: A study in online social networking and political behavior. J. Inf. Techno. Polit. 9, 4 (2012), 352–369.Google ScholarCross Ref
  9. Porismita Borah. 2016. Political Facebook use: Campaign strategies used in 2008 and 2012 presidential elections. J. Inf. Technol. Polit. 13, 4 (2016), 326–338.Google ScholarCross Ref
  10. Michael Bossetta, Anamaria Dutceac Segesten, and Hans-Jörg Trenz. 2018. Political participation on Facebook during Brexit. J. Lang. Polit. 17, 2 (2018), 173–194.Google Scholar
  11. Eva Campos-Domínguez and Política Neamp. 2017. Twitter and political communication. Prof. Inf. 26, 5 (2017), 785–794. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2017.sep.01Google Scholar
  12. Juliet E. Carlisle and Robert C. Patton. 2013. Is social media changing how we understand political engagement? An analysis of Facebook and the 2008 presidential election. Polit. Res. Q. 66, 4 (2013), 883–895. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912913482758Google ScholarCross Ref
  13. Andrea Ceron, Luigi Curini, Stefano M. Iacus, and Giuseppe Porro. 2014. Every tweet counts? How sentiment analysis of social media can improve our knowledge of citizens’ political preferences with an application to Italy and France. New Media Soc. 16, 2 (2014), 340–358.Google ScholarCross Ref
  14. Amanda Chen Yuet Wei. 2012. Emoticons and the Non-verbal Communication: With Reference to Facebook. Ph.D. Dissertation. Christ University.Google Scholar
  15. Meredith Conroy, Jessica T. Feezell, and Mario Guerrero. 2012. Facebook and political engagement: A study of online political group membership and offline political engagement. Comput. Hum. Behav. 28, 5 (2012), 1535–1546.Google ScholarDigital Library
  16. Catherine Corrigall-Brown and Rima Wilkes. 2014. Media exposure and the engaged citizen: How the media shape political participation. Soc. Sci. J. 51, 3 (2014), 408–421. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2014.03.009Google ScholarCross Ref
  17. Daniela V. Dimitrova and Dianne Bystrom. 2013. The effects of social media on political participation and candidate image evaluations in the 2012 Iowa Caucuses. Amer. Behav. Sci. 57, 11 (2013), 1568–1583.Google ScholarCross Ref
  18. Daniela V. Dimitrova, Adam Shehata, Jesper Strömbäck, and Lars W. Nord. 2014. The effects of digital media on political knowledge and participation in election campaigns: Evidence from panel data. Commun. Res. 41, 1 (2014), 95–118.Google ScholarCross Ref
  19. Robin Effing, Jos van Hillegersberg, and Theo Huibers. 2016. Social media indicator and local elections in the Netherlands: Towards a framework for evaluating the influence of Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook. In Social Media and Local Governments. Springer, Cham, 281–298.Google Scholar
  20. Paul Ekman. 1993. Facial expression and emotion. Amer. Psychol. 48, 4 (1993), 384.Google ScholarCross Ref
  21. Sandra González-Bailón, Rafael E. Banchs, and Andreas Kaltenbrunner. 2011. Emotions, public opinion and U.S. presidential approval rates: A 5 year analysis of online political discussions. Hum. Commun. Res. 38, 2 (2011), 121–143. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1964623 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract{_}id=1964623.Google Scholar
  22. Sandra González-Bailón, Javier Borge-Holthoefer, Alejandro Rivero, and Yamir Moreno. 2011. The dynamics of protest recruitment through an online network. Sci. Rep. 1 (2011), 197.Google Scholar
  23. Jacob Groshek and Karolina Koc-Michalska. 2017. Helping populism win? Social media use, filter bubbles, and support for populist presidential candidates in the 2016 US election campaign. Inf. Commun. Soc. 20, 9 (2017), 1389–1407.Google ScholarCross Ref
  24. Stevan Harnad. 2011. Politician 2.0 on Facebook: Information behavior and dissemination on social networking sites—Gaps and best-practice. Evaluation results of a novel eParticipation toolbox to let politicians engage with citizens online. JeDEM eJourn. eDemoc. Open Gov. 3 (2011), 33–41. Retrieved from http://www.jedem.org/article/view/78.Google ScholarCross Ref
  25. Raffael Heiss, Desiree Schmuck, and Jörg Matthes. 2019. What drives interaction in political actors’ Facebook posts? Profile and content predictors of user engagement and political actors’ reactions. Inf. Commun. Soc. 22, 10 (2019), 1497–1513.Google Scholar
  26. Carolyn M. Hendriks, Sonya Duus, and Selen A. Ercan. 2016. Performing politics on social media: The dramaturgy of an environmental controversy on Facebook. Envir. Polit. 25, 6 (2016), 1102–1125.Google Scholar
  27. Sounman Hong and Daniel Nadler. 2012. Which candidates do the public discuss online in an election campaign?: The use of social media by 2012 presidential candidates and its impact on candidate salience. Gov. Inf. Q. 29, 4 (2012), 455–461. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740624X12000895.Google ScholarCross Ref
  28. Michael B. Hudson, Sylis C. Nicolas, Molly E. Howser, Kristen E. Lipsett, Ian W. Robinson, Laura J. Pope, Abigail F. Hobby, and Denise R. Friedman. 2015. Examining how gender and emoticons influence Facebook jealousy. Cyberpsych. Behav. Soc. Netw. 18, 2 (2015), 87–92.Google ScholarCross Ref
  29. José María Infante. 2005. Elecciones en México: Restricciones, fraudes y conflictos. Confin. Relac. Int. y Cienc. Polít. 1, 2 (2005), 65–78. Retrieved from http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=63310205.Google Scholar
  30. Benjamin Krämer. 2017. Populist online practices: The function of the Internet in right-wing populism. Inf. Commun. Soc. 20, 9 (2017), 1293–1309.Google ScholarCross Ref
  31. Nina Lakhani. 2017. Mexico State Election Heads to Court amid Alleged Intimidation and Vote-buying. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/05/mexico-state-election-court-alfredo-del-mazo-maza-delfina-gomez.Google Scholar
  32. Shao-Kang Lo. 2008. The nonverbal communication functions of emoticons in computer-mediated communication. CyberPsych. Behav. 11, 5 (2008), 595–597.Google ScholarCross Ref
  33. Chong Oh and Savan Kumar. 2017. How Trump won: The role of social media sentiment in political elections. In Proceedings of the Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS’17). 48.Google Scholar
  34. Robert Plutchik. 1965. What is an emotion? J. Psych. 61, 2 (1965), 295–303.Google Scholar
  35. Iván Puentes-Rivera, José Rúas-Araújo, and Borja Dapena-González. 2017. Candidatos en Facebook: Del texto a la imagen. Anál. Activ. Aten. Vis. Rev. Díg. 1, 3 (2017), 51–94.Google Scholar
  36. Scott P. Robertson, Ravi K. Vatrapu, and Richard Medina. 2009. The social life of social networks: Facebook linkage patterns in the 2008 U.S. presidential election. On 10th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Social Networks: Making Connections between Citizens, Data 8 Government. Digital Government Society of North America, 6–15.Google Scholar
  37. Agnese Sampietro and Lidia Valera Ordaz. 2015. Emotional politics on Facebook. An exploratory study of Podemos’ discourse during the European election campaign 2014. RECERCA. Rev. Pensa. Anàl. 17 (2015), 61–83.Google Scholar
  38. Tal Samuel-Azran, Moran Yarchi, and Gadi Wolfsfeld. 2017. Engagement and likeability of negative messages on Facebook during Israel’s 2013 elections. J. Soc. Media Soc. 6, 1 (2017), 42–68. Retrieved from http://thejsms.org/index.php/TSMRI/article/view/231.Google Scholar
  39. Barbara Schroter. 2010. Clientelismo politico: Existe el fantasma y como se viste? Rev. Mex. Sociol. 72, 1 (2010), 141–175.Google Scholar
  40. Michele Settanni and Davide Marengo. 2015. Sharing feelings online: Studying emotional well-being via automated text analysis of Facebook posts. Front. Psych. 6 (2015), 1045.Google Scholar
  41. Sebastian Stier, Lisa Posch, Arnim Bleier, and Markus Strohmaier. 2017. When populists become popular: Comparing Facebook use by the right-wing movement Pegida and German political parties. Inf. Commun. Soc. 20, 9 (2017), 1365–1388.Google Scholar
  42. Gary Tang and Francis L. F. Lee. 2013. Facebook use and political participation: The impact of exposure to shared political information, connections with public political actors, and network structural heterogeneity. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 31, 6 (2013), 763–773.Google ScholarDigital Library
  43. Ye Tian, Thiago Galery, Giulio Dulcinati, Emilia Molimpakis, and Chao Sun. 2017. Facebook sentiment: Reactions and emojis. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Natural Language Processing for Social Media. Association for Computational Linguistics, 11–16.Google Scholar
  44. Terri L. Towner. 2012. Campaigns and elections in a web 2.0 world: Uses, effects, and implications for democracy. In Web 2.0 Technologies and Democratic Governance. Springer, New York, NY, 185–199.Google Scholar
  45. Andranik Tumasjan, To Sprenger, Pg Sandner, and Im Welpe. 2010. Predicting elections with Twitter: What 140 characters reveal about political sentiment. In Proceedings of the 4th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs Social Media. Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, Washington, DC, 178–185. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M501708200Google Scholar
  46. Andranik Tumasjan, Timm Oliver Sprenger, Philipp G. Sandner, and Isabell M. Welpe. 2010. Predicting elections with Twitter: What 140 characters reveal about political sentiment. In Proceedings of the 4th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media 10, 1 (2010), 178–185.Google Scholar
  47. Geetika Vashisht and Sangharsh Thakur. 2014. Facebook as a corpus for emoticons-based sentiment analysis. Int. J. Emerg. Tech. Adv. Eng. 4 (2014), 904–908.Google Scholar
  48. Tapio Vepsäläinen, Hongxiu Li, and Reima Suomi. 2017. Facebook likes and public opinion: Predicting the 2015 Finnish parliamentary elections. Gov. Inf. Quart. 34, 3 (2017), 524–532.Google ScholarCross Ref
  49. Jessica Vitak, Paul Zube, Andrew Smock, Caleb T. Carr, Nicole Ellison, and Cliff Lampe. 2011. It’s complicated: Facebook users’ political participation in the 2008 election. CyberPsych. Behav. Soc. Netw. 14, 3 (2011), 107–114.

 

Artículo Tomado De: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3382735

Citizen Engagement and Social Media: The Case of Mexican Presidential Candidacies

/in /by

Abstract

Social media has transformed election campaigns around the world. While it is difficult to determine to what extent social media influence voters’ decisions, there is no doubt that social media platforms impact on candidate advertising and public debate during elections. This research, the methodological formulation of which is based on a case study, seeks to investigate the use of social media during political campaigns to collect signatures of support. In the elections of 2018, aspiring candidates for presidential election required a certain number of signatures of support in order to register as official candidates. We collected social media data on a weekly basis from the Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube accounts of seven candidates and contrasted this data with the number of signatures validated by the electoral authority. We found no relationship between the level of support received and the use of social media in the case of any of the candidates. However, we observed candidates who did achieve the required number of signatures and who did receive official presidential candidate status as a result of their high level of visibility. This research contributes methodologically to the current literature and provides empirical evidence regarding independent candidates in Mexico.

 

Introduction

Social media have been used as low-cost communication channels by various social, public and private organizations to communicate with citizens, customers and/or voters. In this regard, there is diverse scientific evidence that describes the processes and results obtained through the use of social media. This evidence spans a period which begins with the first social mobilizations and ends with their impact on electoral campaigns and the measurement of the level of commitment shown by politicians and institutions.

In Web 2.0, political parties have found a wide range of communicative possibilities via Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram. Additionally, other social media have been increasingly used as platforms for the engagement of citizen support in election campaigns (Babaoglu, & Akman, 2018).

There are many examples of the use of social media as a powerful tool for politics, social movements and elections. This happens when technology is combined with the physical coexistence between communities and individuals. This generates digital and social capital through the cooperation or complementation of meanings which the different actors develop (Ruelas, 2016).

Independent candidates in Mexico have a long history of consolidation (Olivos, 2018). Until 2015, citizens could not stand as independent candidates for election at the local level of government without the backing of a political party (Cárdenas, 2015). At this level of government, only six independent candidates were elected and, at the state level, one of them was elected governor of the state of Nuevo León. However, the conditions for competition are extremely unequal. In the words of Lagunes and Arellanes (2016):

The electoral reforms of 2012 (article 35), 2013 (article 116) and 2014 (article 41) prevent independent candidates from competing on an equal footing with political parties. The legal locks strategically placed by the Federal and State Legislatures violate the principle of equity that should normally be applied to electoral processes. The independents have less financing than the traditional parties, scarce access to radio and television time, and in order to stand for election they, require a large number of signatures from voters. (p. 71)

This was the prevailing status quo for independent candidates in Mexico during the 2018 presidential elections. In the scarce research on this subject in Mexico, researchers point out that this new political position has not increased citizen participation (Lagunes and Arellanes, 2016). Nor has the use of new technologies such as the Internet served to promote critical thinking in terms of elections (Cárdenas, 2015). However, it is certainly indicative of progress in Mexico as it opens the door to a greater level of equality between citizens and their authorities (Olivos, 2018).

Independent candidates for national presidential election were a novelty in the 2018 election campaign. Never before had a citizen been able to run for President of the Republic without the backing of a political party. However, the gradual loss of legitimacy of previous Mexican presidents, as well as the decomposition of the Mexican political system have resulted in the overarching protagonism of the political parties (partidocracy). This generated enough discomfort to promote the legal changes that would allow for independent presidential candidates in Mexico.

 

Artículo Tomado De: https://www.igi-global.com/gateway/article/251891

Tag Archive for: Facebook