skip to main content
research-article

Fostering Civil Discourse Online: Linguistic Behavior in Comments of #MeToo Articles across Political Perspectives

Published:01 November 2018Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Linguistic style and affect shape how users perceive and assess political content on social media. Using linguistic methods to compare political discourse on far-left, mainstream and alt-right news articles covering the #MeToo movement, we reveal rhetorical similarities and differences in commenting behavior across the political spectrum. We employed natural language processing techniques and qualitative methods on a corpus of approximately 30,000 Facebook comments from three politically distinct news publishers. Our findings show that commenting behavior reflects how social movements are framed and understood within a particular political orientation. Surprisingly, these data reveal that the structural patterns of discourse among commenters from the two alternative news sites are similar in terms of their relationship to those from the mainstream - exhibiting polarization, generalization, and othering of perspectives in political conversation. These data have implications for understanding the possibility for civil discourse in online venues and the role of commenting behavior in polarizing media sources in undermining such discourse.

References

  1. Albright, J. 2016. The #Election2016 Micro-Propaganda Machine. Jonathan Albright.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrew Perrin 2015. Social Media Usage: 2005--2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Appiah, K.A. 2018. Do I Have to Tell My Father About My #MeToo Experience? The New York Times.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Bakshy, E., Messing, S. and Adamic, L.A. 2015. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science. 348, 6239 (Jun. 2015), 1130--1132.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Barthel, M. and Mitchell, A. 2017. Americans' Attitudes About the News Media Deeply Divided Along Partisan Lines.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Baumeister, R.F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C. and Vohs, K.D. 2001. Bad is stronger than good. Review of general psychology. 5, 4 (2001), 323.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Beasley, A. and Mason, W. 2015. Emotional States vs. Emotional Words in Social Media. Proceedings of the ACM Web Science Conference (New York, NY, USA, 2015), 31:1--31:10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Benford, R.D. 1997. An insider's critique of the social movement framing perspective. Sociological inquiry. 67, 4 (1997), 409--430.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Benford, R.D. and Snow, D.A. 2000. Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual review of sociology. 26, 1 (2000), 611--639.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Bennett, J. 2018. The #MeToo Moment: Navigating Sex in the 'Gray Zone.' The New York Times.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Bennett, J. 2018. The #MeToo Moment: Parsing the Generational Divide. The New York Times.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Berger, E. 2014. The Rhetoric of Constitutional Absolutism. William & Mary Law Review. 56, (2015 2014), 667.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Bonilla, Y. and Rosa, J. 2015. # Ferguson: Digital protest, hashtag ethnography, and the racial politics of social media in the United States. American Ethnologist. 42, 1 (2015), 4--17.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Bonos, L. 2017. Analysis | Not everyone with a #MeToo is posting their story. Here's why some are refraining. Washington Post.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Booten, K. 2016. Hashtag Drift: Tracing the Evolving Uses of Political Hashtags Over Time. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York, NY, USA, 2016), 2401--2405. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Boulis, C. and Ostendorf, M. 2005. A Quantitative Analysis of Lexical Differences Between Genders in Telephone Conversations. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics (Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 2005), 435--442. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Boutyline, A. and Willer, R. 2017. The social structure of political echo chambers: Variation in ideological homophily in online networks. Political Psychology. 38, 3 (2017), 551--569.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Branscombe, N.R. and Wann, D.L. 1994. Collective self-esteem consequences of outgroup derogation when a valued social identity is on trial. European Journal of Social Psychology. 24, 6 (1994), 641--657.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Breitbart.com Traffic, Demographics and Competitors - Alexa: https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/breitbart.com. Accessed: 2018-04--19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Brubaker, J.R., Kivran-Swaine, F., Taber, L. and Hayes, G.R. 2012. Grief-Stricken in a Crowd: The Language of Bereavement and Distress in Social Media. ICWSM (2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Bruns, A. and Burgess, J.E. 2011. The use of Twitter hashtags in the formation of ad hoc publics. Proceedings of the 6th European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) General Conference 2011 (University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Aug. 2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Bucholtz, M. and Hall, K. 2005. Identity and interaction: a sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies. 7, 4--5 (Oct. 2005), 585--614.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Cacciatore, M.A., Scheufele, D.A. and Iyengar, S. 2016. The End of Framing as we Know it - and the Future of Media Effects. Mass Communication and Society. 19, 1 (Jan. 2016), 7--23.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Carney, N. 2016. All Lives Matter, but so Does Race: Black Lives Matter and the Evolving Role of Social Media. Humanity & Society. 40, 2 (May 2016), 180--199.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Cavazza, N. and Guidetti, M. 2014. Swearing in Political Discourse: Why Vulgarity Works. Journal of Language and Social Psychology. 33, 5 (Oct. 2014), 537--547.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Chancellor, S., Hu, A. and De Choudhury, M. 2018. Norms Matter: Contrasting Social Support Around Behavior Change in Online Weight Loss Communities. Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York, NY, USA, 2018), 666:1--666:14. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Chen, Y.-Y., Chen, T., Hsu, W.H., Liao, H.-Y.M. and Chang, S.-F. 2014. Predicting Viewer Affective Comments Based on Image Content in Social Media. Proceedings of International Conference on Multimedia Retrieval (New York, NY, USA, 2014), 233:233--233:240. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Cheng, J., Bernstein, M., Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C. and Leskovec, J. 2017. Anyone Can Become a Troll: Causes of Trolling Behavior in Online Discussions. (Feb. 2017). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Chira, S. 2018. Numbers Hint at Why #MeToo Took Off: The Sheer Number Who Can Say Me Too. The New York Times.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Chira, S. and Einhorn, C. 2017. The #MeToo Moment: Blue-Collar Women Ask, 'What About Us?' The New York Times.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Chokshi, N. 2016. How #BlackLivesMatter Came to Define a Movement. The New York Times.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Codrea-Rado, A. 2018. Catherine Deneuve Apologizes to Victims after Denouncing #MeToo. The New York Times.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Codrea-Rado, A. 2017. #MeToo Floods Social Media With Stories of Harassment and Assault. The New York Times.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Colleoni, E., Rozza, A. and Arvidsson, A. 2014. Echo chamber or public sphere? Predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in Twitter using big data. Journal of Communication. 64, 2 (2014), 317--332.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Conroy, N.J., Rubin, V.L. and Chen, Y. 2015. Automatic deception detection: Methods for finding fake news. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 52, 1 (2015), 1--4. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Cooney, S. 2018. "They Don't Want to Include Women Like Me." Sex Workers Say They're Being Left Out of the #MeToo Movement. Time.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Dahlberg, L. 2001. The Internet and democratic discourse: Exploring the prospects of online deliberative forums extending the public sphere. Information, Communication & Society. 4, 4 (2001), 615--633.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C., Cheng, J., Kleinberg, J. and Lee, L. 2012. You Had Me at Hello: How Phrasing Affects Memorability. Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Long Papers - Volume 1 (Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 2012), 892--901. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C., Gamon, M. and Dumais, S. 2011. Mark My Words!: Linguistic Style Accommodation in Social Media. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on World Wide Web (New York, NY, USA, 2011), 745--754. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. De Choudhury, M., Counts, S. and Horvitz, E. 2013. Predicting postpartum changes in emotion and behavior via social media. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2013), 3267--3276. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Democracynow.org Traffic, Demographics and Competitors - Alexa: https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/democracynow.org. Accessed: 2018-04--19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Druckman, J.N. 2001. Evaluating framing effects. Journal of Economic Psychology. 22, 1 (Feb. 2001), 91--101.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Druckman, J.N. 2001. Using Credible Advice to Overcome Framing Effects. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization. 17, 1 (Apr. 2001), 62--82.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Duggan, M. and Smith, A. 2016. The Political Environment on Social Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Entman, R.M. and Usher, N. 2018. Framing in a Fractured Democracy: Impacts of Digital Technology on Ideology, Power and Cascading Network Activation. Journal of Communication. 68, 2 (2018), 298--308.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Firth, J.R. 1957. A synopsis of linguistic theory, 1930--1955. Studies in Linguistic Analysis. (1957).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Garber, M. 2014. The Difference Between Ferguson and #Ferguson. The Atlantic.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Garcia, S. 2017. The Woman Who Created #MeToo Long Before Hashtags. The New York Times.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Garrett R. Kelly 2009. Politically Motivated Reinforcement Seeking: Reframing the Selective Exposure Debate. Journal of Communication. 59, 4 (Dec. 2009), 676--699.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Garrett, R.K. 2009. Echo chambers online?: Politically motivated selective exposure among Internet news users. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 14, 2 (Jan. 2009), 265--285.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. Gee, J.P. 2014. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Gill, A.J., French, R.M., Gergle, D. and Oberlander, J. 2008. The Language of Emotion in Short Blog Texts. Proceedings of the 2008 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (New York, NY, USA, 2008), 299--302. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Golbeck, J., Ash, S. and Cabrera, N. 2017. Hashtags as online communities with social support: A study of anti-sexism-in-science hashtag movements. First Monday. 22, 9 (Sep. 2017).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. Gottweis, H. and Prainsack, B. 2006. Emotion in political discourse: contrasting approaches to stem cell governance in the USA, UK, Israel and Germany. Regenerative Medicine. 1, 6 (Nov. 2006), 823--829.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. Grieco, E. 2017. More Americans are turning to multiple social media sites for news.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Gumperz John J. 2011. Linguistic and Social Interaction in Two Communities1. American Anthropologist. 66, 6_PART2 (Feb. 2011), 137--153.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Hadgu, A.T., Garimella, K. and Weber, I. 2013. Political Hashtag Hijacking in the U.S. Proceedings of the 22Nd International Conference on World Wide Web (New York, NY, USA, 2013), 55--56. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Halberstam, Y. and Knight, B. 2016. Homophily, group size, and the diffusion of political information in social networks: Evidence from Twitter. Journal of Public Economics. 143, (Nov. 2016), 73--88.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  59. Harlow, S. 2012. Social media and social movements: Facebook and an online Guatemalan justice movement that moved offline. New Media & Society. 14, 2 (Mar. 2012), 225--243.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  60. Hartocollis, A. 2018. The #MeToo Moment: When Mothers and Daughters Talk #MeToo. The New York Times.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Herrman, J. 2016. Inside Facebook's (Totally Insane, Unintentionally Gigantic, Hyperpartisan) Political-Media Machine. The New York Times.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Iyengar, S. and Hahn, K.S. 2009. Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication. 59, 1 (2009), 19--39.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  63. Jackson, S.J., Bailey, M. and Foucault Welles, B. 2017. # GirlsLikeUs: Trans advocacy and community building online. New Media & Society. (2017), 1461444817709276.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Jackson, S.J. and Foucault Welles, B. 2016. # Ferguson is everywhere: initiators in emerging counterpublic networks. Information, Communication & Society. 19, 3 (2016), 397--418.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  65. Jackson, S.J. and Foucault Welles, B. 2015. Hijacking# myNYPD: Social media dissent and networked counterpublics. Journal of Communication. 65, 6 (2015), 932--952.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  66. Janna, erson and Rainie, L. 2017. The Future of Truth and Misinformation Online.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Kahn, C. 2018. Mexico's #MeToo Faces Backlash After Celebrities Air Accusations Of Rape And Assault.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Kalmoe, N.P. 2014. Fueling the Fire: Violent Metaphors, Trait Aggression, and Support for Political Violence. Political Communication. 31, 4 (Oct. 2014), 545--563.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  69. Kitzie, V. and Ghosh, D. 2015. #Criming and #Alive: Network and Content Analysis of Two Sides of a Story on Twitter. Proceedings of the 78th ASIS&T Annual Meeting: Information Science with Impact: Research in and for the Community (Silver Springs, MD, USA, 2015), 41:1--41:10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  70. Koh, Y.J. and Sundar, S.S. 2010. Heuristic versus systematic processing of specialist versus generalist sources in online media. Human Communication Research. 36, 2 (2010), 103--124.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  71. Kou, Y., Kow, Y.M., Gui, X. and Cheng, W. 2017. One Social Movement, Two Social Media Sites: A Comparative Study of Public Discourses. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). 26, 4--6 (2017), 807--836. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  72. Landler, M. 2018. Trump, Saying 'Mere Allegation' Ruins Lives, Appears to Doubt #MeToo Movement. The New York Times.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  73. Lawrence, E., Sides, J. and Farrell, H. 2010. Self-segregation or deliberation? Blog readership, participation, and polarization in American politics. Perspectives on Politics. 8, 1 (2010), 141--157.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  74. Lee, J. and Pingree, R.J. 2016. Cues about Cues in Political Comments on Social Media: Effects of Commenters' Attractiveness and Claims of Cognitive Effort. The Journal of Social Media in Society. 5, 3 (Dec. 2016), 92--120.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. Levin, I.P., Schneider, S.L. and Gaeth, G.J. 1998. All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 76, 2 (Nov. 1998), 149--188.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  76. Levin, S. and Sidanius, J. 1999. Social dominance and social identity in the United States and Israel: Ingroup favoritism or outgroup derogation? Political Psychology. 20, 1 (1999), 99--126.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  77. Lin, Y.-R., Margolin, D., Keegan, B., Baronchelli, A. and Lazer, D. 2013. #Bigbirds Never Die: Understanding Social Dynamics of Emergent Hashtag. arXiv:1303.7144 {physics}. (Mar. 2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  78. Loza, S. Hashtag Feminism, #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen, and the Other #FemFuture. Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology. 5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  79. March, D.S. and Graham, R. 2015. Exploring implicit ingroup and outgroup bias toward Hispanics. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 18, 1 (Jan. 2015), 89--103.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  80. Marietta, M. 2012. The politics of sacred rhetoric: Absolutist appeals and political persuasion. Baylor University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  81. Marietta, M., Farley, T., Cote, T. and Murphy, P. 2017. The Rhetorical Psychology of Trumpism: Threat, Absolutism, and the Absolutist Threat. The Forum (2017), 313--332.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  82. Martin, L., Sintsova, V. and Pu, P. 2014. Are Influential Writers More Objective?: An Analysis of Emotionality in Review Comments. Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web (New York, NY, USA, 2014), 799--804. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  83. McGee, M.C. 1980. The 'ideograph": A link between rhetoric and ideology. Quarterly journal of speech. 66, 1 (1980), 1--16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  84. McLeod, D.M. and Detenber, B.H. 1999. Framing effects of television news coverage of social protest. Journal of communication. 49, 3 (1999), 3--23.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  85. McMillan, J.R., Clifton, A.K., McGrath, D. and Gale, W.S. 1977. Women's language: Uncertainty or interpersonal sensitivity and emotionality? Sex Roles. 3, 6 (Dec. 1977), 545--559.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  86. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L. and Cook, J.M. 2001. Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks. Annual Review of Sociology. 27, 1 (2001), 415--444.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  87. Media Bias / Fact Check: Breitbart: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/breitbart/. Accessed: 2018-04--17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  88. Media Bias / Fact Check: Democracy Now: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/democracy-now/. Accessed: 2018-04--17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  89. Media Bias / Fact Check: New York Times: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/. Accessed: 2018-04--17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  90. Meraz, S. and Papacharissi, Z. 2013. Networked gatekeeping and networked framing on# Egypt. The international journal of press/politics. 18, 2 (2013), 138--166.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  91. Messing, S. and 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 (2014), 1042--1063.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  92. Metzger, M.J., Flanagin, A.J. and Medders, R.B. 2010. Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of communication. 60, 3 (2010), 413--439.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  93. Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G. and Dean, J. 2013. Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space. arXiv:1301.3781 {cs}. (Jan. 2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  94. Mikolov, T., Sutskever, I., Chen, K., Corrado, G.S. and Dean, J. 2013. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. Advances in neural information processing systems (2013), 3111--3119. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  95. Miller, B. The Effects of Scandalous Information on Recall of Policy-Related Information. Political Psychology. 31, 6, 887--914.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  96. Mitchell, A., Gottfried, J., Kiley, J. and Matsa, K.E. 2014. Political Polarization & Media Habits.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  97. Monk-Payton, B. 2017. # LaughingWhileBlack: Gender and the Comedy of Social Media Blackness. Feminist Media Histories. 3, 2 (2017), 15--35.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  98. Mullen, B., Brown, R. and Smith, C. 1992. Ingroup bias as a function of salience, relevance, and status: An integration. European Journal of Social Psychology. 22, 2 (1992), 103--122.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  99. Munson, S.A. and Resnick, P. 2010. Presenting Diverse Political Opinions: How and How Much. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York, NY, USA, 2010), 1457--1466. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  100. Mutz, D.C. 2001. Facilitating communication across lines of political difference: The role of mass media. American Political Science Review. 95, 1 (2001), 97--114.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  101. Mutz, D.C. 2006. Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  102. Nelson, T.E. and Oxley, Z.M. 1999. Issue framing effects on belief importance and opinion. The journal of politics. 61, 4 (1999), 1040--1067.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  103. Niederhoffer, K.G. and Pennebaker, J.W. 2002. Linguistic Style Matching in Social Interaction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology. 21, 4 (Dec. 2002), 337--360.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  104. Nytimes.com Traffic, Demographics and Competitors - Alexa: https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/nytimes.com. Accessed: 2018-04--19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  105. Oh, C., Lee, T., Kim, Y., Park, S. and Suh, B. 2016. Understanding Participatory Hashtag Practices on Instagram: A Case Study of Weekend Hashtag Project. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York, NY, USA, 2016), 1280--1287. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  106. Papacharissi, Z. and de Fatima Oliveira, M. 2012. Affective news and networked publics: The rhythms of news storytelling on# Egypt. Journal of Communication. 62, 2 (2012), 266--282.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  107. Park, A. 2017. #MeToo reaches 85 countries with 1.7M tweets.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  108. Park, S., Ko, M., Kim, J., Liu, Y. and Song, J. 2011. The Politics of Comments: Predicting Political Orientation of News Stories with Commenters' Sentiment Patterns. Proceedings of the ACM 2011 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (New York, NY, USA, 2011), 113--122. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  109. Pennebaker, J.W., Boyd, R.L., Jordan, K. and Blackburn, K. 2015. The Development and Psychometric Properties of LIWC2015. (Sep. 2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  110. Pennebaker, J.W., Mehl, M.R. and Niederhoffer, K.G. 2003. Psychological Aspects of Natural Language Use: Our Words, Our Selves. Annual Review of Psychology. 54, 1 (2003), 547--577.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  111. Pennington, J., Socher, R. and Manning, C. 2014. Glove: Global vectors for word representation. Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP) (2014), 1532--1543.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  112. Phelan, H. 2018. How Does Submissive Sex Work in the Age of #MeToo? The New York Times.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  113. Redlawsk, D.P., Civettini, A.J. and Emmerson, K.M. 2010. The affective tipping point: Do motivated reasoners ever 'get it"? Political Psychology. 31, 4 (2010), 563--593.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  114. Rho, E.H.R., Haimson, O.L., Andalibi, N., Mazmanian, M. and Hayes, G.R. 2017. Class Confessions: Restorative Properties in Online Experiences of Socioeconomic Stigma. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York, NY, USA, 2017), 3377--3389. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  115. Robertson, S.P., Douglas, S., Maruyama, M. and Semaan, B. 2013. Political discourse on social networking sites: Sentiment, in-group/out-group orientation and rationality. Information Polity. 18, 2 (Jan. 2013), 107--126.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  116. Robertson, S.P., Vatrapu, R.K. and Medina, R. 2010. Off the wall political discourse: Facebook use in the 2008 U.S. presidential election. Information Polity. 15, 1,2 (Jan. 2010), 11--31. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  117. Rodino-Colocino, M. 2014. #YesAllWomen: Intersectional Mobilization Against Sexual Assault is Radical (Again). Feminist Media Studies. 14, 6 (Nov. 2014), 1113--1115.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  118. Romero, D.M., Meeder, B. and Kleinberg, J. 2011. Differences in the Mechanics of Information Diffusion Across Topics: Idioms, Political Hashtags, and Complex Contagion on Twitter. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on World Wide Web (New York, NY, USA, 2011), 695--704. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  119. Rubin, V., Conroy, N., Chen, Y. and Cornwell, S. 2016. Fake news or truth? using satirical cues to detect potentially misleading news. Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Computational Approaches to Deception Detection (2016), 7--17.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  120. Ryall, J. 2018. South Korean actor's suicide triggers backlash against #MeToo.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  121. Safronova, V. 2018. Catherine Deneuve and Others Denounce the #MeToo Movement. The New York Times.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  122. Sang-Hun, C. 2018. A Director's Apology Adds Momentum to South Korea's #MeToo Movement. The New York Times.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  123. Santiago, C. and Criss, D. 2017. An activist, a little girl and the heartbreaking origin of 'Me too." CNN.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  124. Scheufele, D.A. 1999. Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of communication. 49, 1 (1999), 103--122.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  125. Schuck, A.R. and De Vreese, C.H. 2006. Between risk and opportunity: News framing and its effects on public support for EU enlargement. European Journal of Communication. 21, 1 (2006), 5--32.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  126. Schwartz, H.A., Eichstaedt, J.C., Kern, M.L., Dziurzynski, L., Ramones, S.M., Agrawal, M., Shah, A., Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D., Seligman, M.E.P. and Ungar, L.H. 2013. Personality, Gender, and Age in the Language of Social Media: The Open-Vocabulary Approach. PLOS ONE. 8, 9 (Sep. 2013), e73791.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  127. Schwarz, N. and Clore, G.L. 1991. How Do I Feel About It? The Informative Function of Affective States in K. Fiedler and JP Forgas, eds, Affect, Cognition, and Social Behavior 44. Hogrefe & Huber.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  128. Sears, D.O. and Freedman, J.L. 1967. Selective Exposure to Information: A Critical Review. Public Opinion Quarterly. 31, 2 (Jan. 1967), 194--213.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  129. Semetko, H.A. and Valkenburg, P.M. 2000. Framing European politics: A content analysis of press and television news. Journal of communication. 50, 2 (2000), 93--109.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  130. Shrum, L.J. 2009. Media consumption and perceptions of social reality: Effects and underlying processes. Media effects. Routledge. 66--89.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  131. Silverman, C. 2017. This Is How Your Hyperpartisan Political News Gets Made. BuzzFeed.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  132. Silverman, C., Strapagiel, L., Shaban, H., Hall, E. and Singer-Vine, J. 2016. Hyperpartisan Facebook Pages Are Publishing False And Misleading Information At An Alarming Rate. BuzzFeed.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  133. Small, T.A. 2011. What the Hashtag? Information, Communication & Society. 14, 6 (Sep. 2011), 872--895.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  134. Sparck Jones, K. 1972. A statistical interpretation of term specificity and its application in retrieval. Journal of Documentation. 28, 1 (Jan. 1972), 11--21.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  135. Stevens, M. 2018. Chelsea Handler: The #MeToo Movement Is a 'Complete Referendum' on Trump. The New York Times.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  136. Stewart, L.G., Arif, A., Nied, A.C., Spiro, E.S. and Starbird, K. 2017. Drawing the Lines of Contention: Networked Frame Contests Within #BlackLivesMatter Discourse. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 1, CSCW (Dec. 2017), 96:1--96:23. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  137. Stieglitz, S. and Dang-Xuan, L. 2013. Emotions and Information Diffusion in Social Media-Sentiment of Microblogs and Sharing Behavior. Journal of Management Information Systems. 29, 4 (Apr. 2013), 217--248.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  138. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J.M. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  139. Sunstein, C.R. 2018. # Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  140. Tajfel, H. 1981. Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. CUP Archive.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  141. Tajfel, H. 1974. Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Information (International Social Science Council). 13, 2 (1974), 65--93.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  142. Tarbox, K. 2018. Is #MeToo Backlash Hurting Women's Opportunities in Finance?Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  143. Tolentino, J. 2018. The Rising Pressure of the #MeToo Backlash. The New Yorker.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  144. Triandafyllidou, A. 2000. The political discourse on immigration in southern Europe: a critical analysis. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology. 10, 5 (Oct. 2000), 373--389.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  145. Tsfati, Y. and Cappella, J.N. 2003. Do people watch what they do not trust? Exploring the association between news media skepticism and exposure. Communication Research. 30, 5 (2003), 504--529.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  146. Utych, S.M. 2017. How Dehumanization Influences Attitudes toward Immigrants. Political Research Quarterly. (Dec. 2017), 1065912917744897.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  147. Utych, S.M. 2018. Negative Affective Language in Politics. American Politics Research. 46, 1 (Jan. 2018), 77--102.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  148. Wang, X., Wei, F., Liu, X., Zhou, M. and Zhang, M. 2011. Topic Sentiment Analysis in Twitter: A Graph-based Hashtag Sentiment Classification Approach. Proceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (New York, NY, USA, 2011), 1031--1040. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  149. Wang, Y. and Mark, G. 2017. Engaging with Political and Social Issues on Facebook in College Life. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (New York, NY, USA, 2017), 433--445. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  150. Wang, Y.-C., Joshi, M. and Rosé, C.P. 2008. Investigating the Effect of Discussion Forum Interface Affordances on Patterns of Conversational Interactions. Proceedings of the 2008 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (New York, NY, USA, 2008), 555--558. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  151. Warmke, B. and Tosi, J. 2017. Why there are costs to moral outrage. The Conversation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  152. Wojcieszak, M.E. and Mutz, D.C. 2009. Online groups and political discourse: Do online discussion spaces facilitate exposure to political disagreement? Journal of communication. 59, 1 (2009), 40--56.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  153. Wu, H.C., Luk, R.W.P., Wong, K.F. and Kwok, K.L. 2008. Interpreting TF-IDF term weights as making relevance decisions. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS). 26, 3 (Jun. 2008), 13. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  154. Yang, L., Sun, T., Zhang, M. and Mei, Q. 2012. We Know What @You #Tag: Does the Dual Role Affect Hashtag Adoption? Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on World Wide Web (New York, NY, USA, 2012), 261--270. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  155. 2017. #MeToo: Sexual harassment stories sweep social media after... Reuters.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  156. 2017. Opinion | How #MeToo Threatens Equality. The New York Times.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  157. 2018. Opinion | #MeToo Has Done What the Law Could Not. The New York Times.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  158. 2018. Opinion | Publicly, We Say #MeToo. Privately, We Have Misgivings. The New York Times.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  159. 2017. Opinion | When #MeToo Goes Too Far. The New York Times.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Fostering Civil Discourse Online: Linguistic Behavior in Comments of #MeToo Articles across Political Perspectives

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

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

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
      Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction  Volume 2, Issue CSCW
      November 2018
      4104 pages
      EISSN:2573-0142
      DOI:10.1145/3290265
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2018 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: 1 November 2018
      Published in pacmhci Volume 2, Issue CSCW

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader