På senare år har filterbubblor blivit ett välkänt begrepp som syftar på de bubblor av innehåll som användare slängs in i på sociala medier. I dessa bubblor finns en oro för att inlägg är ensidiga och kan stänga in oss i bland annat politiska åsikter. Filterbubblor anses därför av många bidra till en ökad polarisering, inte bara på grund av de inlägg som faktiskt visas för oss, utan även de inlägg som algoritmen väljer att inte visa på vårt nyhetsflöde. Trots att medvetenheten kring filterbubblor ökat, finns inte många studier på hur vägen mot en filterbubbla ser ut. För det första förser vi i denna rapport genom ett kvantitativt experiment, användare av sociala plattformar med en tydligare bild av hur filterbubblans livscykel ser ut, det vill säga hur lång tid det tar att hamna i en filterbubbla, och hur användare kan ta sig ur den. För det andra testar vi de teorier och de metodologiska svårigheterna i tidigare forskning kring hur användare potentiellt kan ta sig ur, eller byta filterbubbla. Vårt resultat visar att det går snabbt att komma in i en filterbubbla, medans att ta sig ur filterbubblan eller byta filterbubbla visa sig vara svårare än vad vi trodde och därför kräver mer tid. Eftersom det inte finns tidigare forskning på hur en filterbubbla ser ut eller när man kan räkna det som en filterbubbla så har vi  utifrån vårt egna experiments resultat, skapat ett mått för just detta. / In recent years, filter bubbles have become a well-known concept that refers to the bubbles of content that users throw in on social media. In these bubbles there is a concern that posting is one-sided and can shut us down in, among other things, political opinions. Filter bubbles are therefore considered by many to contribute to increased polarization, not only because of the posts that are actually displayed to us, but also the posts that the algorithm chooses not to display on our news feed. Although awareness of filter bubbles has increased, there are not many studies on what the path to a filter bubble looks like. Firstly, in a quantitative experiment, we provide users of social platforms with a clearer picture of what the filter bubble's life cycle looks like, i.e. how long it takes to end up in a filter bubble, and how users can get out of it. Secondly, we test the theories and methodological difficulties in previous research on how users can potentially get out, or change the filter bubble. Our results show that it is easy to get into a filter bubble, but getting out of the filter bubble or changing the filter bubble turns out to be more difficult than we thought and requires more time. Since there is no previous research on what a filter bubble looks like or when you can count it as a filter bubble we have based on the results of our own experiment created a measure for just this.

The political polarization is considered to have increased in recent decades, which is considered a threat to democracy. Polarization is the process by which the normal diversity of differences in a society conforms more closely to a single dimension, where people perceive and describe politics and society in terms of "us" and "them". There are two distinct forms of political polarization, which are affective and ideological polarization. Ideological polarization is the difference between political beliefs, attitudes and positions of political opponents and affective polarization asses the extent to which people like their political allies and dislike their political opponents. A higher level of polarization can be beneficial to society, as it can contribute to higher levels of political participation and a perception that there are choices. However, this process can also entail disadvantages for democracy, by increasing the centralization of power and making citizens more dissatisfied. In addition, there are also described interpersonal implications of polarization, which include a reluctance to interact with and dehumanization of poltical opponents. Previous research that investigated the political polarization on social media has mainly focused on Twitter and Facebook, thus it was considered relevant to what the polarization looks like on Reddit instead. This platform has a different structure and also describes itself as being at the forefront of the internet. It was focused on two communities, where on community was skeptic and the other convinced of the climate issue. It could be seen here that there were primarly traces of affective polarization, as there was a certain reluctance to interact with one's political opponents. The mechanism of polarization that could mainly be deciphered was confirmation bias, as a preference for interaction with those with like-minded views could be made clear. Traces of echo chambers and filter bubbles could also be discerned, which are alos mechanisms that can also lead to further polarization.

Submitted by Cristiane Chim (cristiane.chim@ucpel.edu.br) on 2018-06-14T12:40:00Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Aline R. da Silveira.pdf: 3230152 bytes, checksum: d6a475a47a49747c52af95d8b5076e61 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-06-14T12:40:00Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Aline R. da Silveira.pdf: 3230152 bytes, checksum: d6a475a47a49747c52af95d8b5076e61 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018-02-28 / This dissertation deals with the governmental divulgation discourse of the secondary educational system reform in Brazil. To do so, it is affiliated with Pêcheux’s Discourse Analysis Theory (AD). Both Archive and corpus were compiled over the “News” section from the Ministry for Education website. The period comprehended by the analysis spans from May 12th, 2016, date of Michel Temer’s taken of government, to the publication of the decree that establishes the reform, in September of the same year. This dissertation is organized in four chapters. The first presents essential notions to an AD analyses, such as subject, meaning and interpretation. The second discusses our analyzed discourse’s production conditions. The third chapter approaches the governmental divulgation discourse, as well as the analytical dispositive construction. The fourth chapter is dedicated to the analysis, by developing a theoretical-analytical gesture. This latter chapter is composed by five analytical gestures, methodologically defined to reckon its specific objectives. This chapter departs from an approximation between journalism and Discourse Analyses. The functioning of: (i) the repeatability, (ii) the exteriority, (iii) the silencing are examined. From this analysis, it was possible to formulate the notion of an echo chamber, as well to comprehend this discourse functioning while propaganda and, therefore, to be constituted as a ‘langue du vent’. Such metaphor, translated as language of wind, describes, in AD, a language use specific to propaganda messages circulation, messages constituted by an emotional appeal and characterized by the ephemerality of the information it publicize. / Com filiação na Análise de Discurso pecheuxtiana, a dissertação trata do funcionamento do discurso de divulgação governamental sobre a reforma do Ensino Médio. O arquivo e também o corpus foram constituídos a partir da seção “Notícias” do portal do Ministério da Educação (MEC). O período compreendido pela análise tem início em 12 de maio de 2016, quando da tomada do poder pelo governo de Michel Temer, e vai até o contexto de promulgação da Medida Provisória que instituiu a referida reforma, em setembro do mesmo ano. A dissertação está organizada em quatro capítulos. No primeiro, são apresentadas noções essenciais para uma análise em AD, tais como sujeito, sentido e interpretação. No segundo, são abordadas as condições de produção do discurso em análise. O terceiro capítulo trata do discurso de divulgação governamental (DDG), bem como da construção do dispositivo analítico. O quarto capítulo ocupa-se com a análise, empreendendo um movimento teórico-analítico. Esse capítulo está formado por cinco gestos de análise, metodologicamente definidos de forma a contemplar os objetivos específicos. Nesse capítulo, parte-se de uma aproximação do jornalismo com a análise do discurso; examina-se o funcionamento: (i) da repetibilidade; (ii) da exterioridade; (iii) do silenciamento. A partir dessas análises, foi possível chegar a formular a noção de câmara de eco, bem como entender o funcionamento desse discurso enquanto propaganda e, por conseguinte, constituir-se como uma língua de vento. Tal metáfora, em AD, descreve o uso da linguagem para a circulação de mensagens que sirvam à propaganda de Estado, constituídas pelo apelo emocional e caracterizadas pela efemeridade das informações que veiculam – quando assim o fazem.

In many instances, television news is the primary outlet through which people gain knowledge on climate change. Both the perceived threat of climate change and American news media have grown politically divided since the 1980s. I make the argument that American news media influences the partisan divide over climate change. In addition to the political landscape of news media, focus on political events and figures in climate coverage further contributes to a partisan divide. Supporting these claims are research displaying how climate change news is processed in a partisan manner and a selection of three case study periods in which climate change coverage spiked among MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News in the last twenty years (2000-2019). I collected news footage from all three case studies using the online database archive.org. Using this footage, an accompanying documentary short was produced that focused on the Paris Climate Accord Withdrawal in 2017. Presented in the documentary and the three case study periods, Fox News held a consistently hands-off and dismissive tone towards climate change, while MSNBC and CNN implemented climate science into coverage while advocating for collective climate action. I report that media is selected and processed via partisanship among viewers; these case studies illustrate the ways in which news media drives the political divide on climate change. I conclude by offering some future ways climate coverage can be more unifying, such as more emphasis on the economic benefits of “a green economy” in news coverage.

Dans le contexte actuel de la polarisation sur les réseaux sociaux, ce mémoire de maîtrise porte sur la négociation à plusieurs niveaux des normes sociales relatives au discours haineux, sur le forum de Reddit. La recherche s'articule autour de la régulation du contenu par les modérateurs et les utilisateurs. Le mémoire commence par présenter le forum Reddit, son histoire et son fonctionnement avant de développer une revue de littérature sur le discours de haine et le misogynie, notamment l'absence de consensus sur sa définition ainsi que les défis juridiques et opérationnels de sa régulation. Ensuite, pour comprendre comment les utilisateurs et les modérateurs de Reddit régulent les discours de haine misogyne, le cadre conceptuel développe le concept de normes sociales, en particulier les normes sociales en ligne. Parmi les autres concepts mobilisés figurent les chambres d'écho et la théorie de l'étiquetage. Une approche qualitative a été adoptée pour faire une analyse schématique d’un corpus de données empiriques publiquement disponibles sur Reddit qui a été sélectionné pour son lien avec le discours haineux misogyne. Cinq communautés (« subreddits ») ont été sélectionnées pour explorer la manière dont les discours misogynes sont régulés. Les résultats présentent une typologie des actions disponibles pour les utilisateurs et les modérateurs, ainsi que les règles de Reddit et de chaque communauté sur lesquelles ils et elles s'appuient pour réguler le discours haineux misogyne. La typologie d'actions est représentée au sein de schémas répétitifs qui mettent en valeur la façon dont la régulation se produit sur les communautés. Plusieurs exemples illustratifs sont offerts de ces négociations réglementaires. La recherche conclue que l'étiquetage par les actions répétitives pourrait potentiellement contribuer à la négociation des normes sociales entre les utilisateurs et les modérateurs et ainsi avoir des effets sur la façon dont les échanges se produisent sur les fils de discussions, au sein du forum. Cette négociation des normes ferait donc un lien direct quant à la fine ligne qui subsiste entre la liberté d'expression et le discours haineux, et recadrer ce qui en constitue ou non, pour comprendre les types de discours acceptables sur cette plateforme. / In the current context of polarization on social networks, this Master's thesis examines the multi-level negotiation of social norms around hate speech on the Reddit forum. The research focuses on the regulation of content by moderators and users. The thesis begins by introducing the Reddit forum, its history and operations before developing a literature review on hate speech and misogyny, including a lack of consensus on its definition and the legal and operational challenges of regulating it. Then, to better understand how Reddit users and moderators regulate misogynous hate speech, the conceptual framework develops the concept of social norms, specifically online social norms. Other concept of echo chambers and labeling theory are also mobilized. The research adopts a qualitative approach to conduct schematic analysis of a body of publicly available empirical data on Reddit that was selected for its connection to misogynistic hate speech. Five communities (“subreddits”) were selected to explore how misogynistic speech is regulated. In the findings, I present a typology of actions available to users and moderators, as well as the rules of Reddit and each community that they rely on to regulate misogynistic hate speech. The typology of actions is represented within repetitive patterns that highlight how regulation occurs on communities. Several illustrative examples are offered of these regulatory negotiations. The research concludes that labeling through repetitive actions could potentially contribute to the negotiation of social norms between users and moderators and thus have effects on the way exchanges occur on threads within the forum. This negotiation of norms would thus directly relate to the fine line that remains between free speech and hate speech, thus reframing what does and does not constitute hate speech, in order to understand the types of speech that are acceptable on this platform.

No description available.