So-called fake news and problematic information on social media assume an increasingly important roles in political debate. Focusing on the (early) run-up to and aftermath of the 2020 U.S. presidential elections, this study examines the extent of the problematic information in the most engaged-with content and most active users in ‘political Twitter’. We demarcated three time spans, the first surrounding Super Tuesday (March 2-22, 2020), the second providing a snapshot of the aftermath of the elections and the run-up to both the Senate run-off elections in Georgia (December 24, 2020 – January 4, 2021) and the (unforeseen) Capitol Hill riots on January 6, 2021. In the third time span (March 10-21, 2021), when election activities had ceased, we examine the effects of Twitter’s deplatforming (or so-called purge) of accounts after the Capitol riots in January, 2021. In order to shed light on the magnitude of problematic information, we mapped shared sources, labelled them and assessed the actors engaged in their dissemination. It was found that overall, mainstream sources are shared more often than problematic ones, but the percentage of problematic sources was much higher in December compared to both the March, 2020 and 2021 periods. Significantly, (hyper)partisan sources are close to half of all sources shared in the first two periods, implying a robust presence of them on social media. By March 2021, both the share of problematic and of (hyper)partisan sources had decreased significantly, suggesting an impact from Twitter’s deplatforming actions. Additionally, highly active, problematic users (fake profiles, bots, or locked/suspended accounts) were found on both sides of the political spectrum, albeit more abundantly from conservative users.
DOCUMENT
Can you remember the last time the ground gave way beneath you? When you thought the ground was stable, but for some reason it wasn’t? Perhaps you encountered a pothole on the streets of Amsterdam, or you were renovating your house and broke through the floor. Perhaps there was a molehill in a park or garden. You probably had to hold on to something to steady yourself. Perhaps you even slipped or fell. While I sincerely hope that nobody here was hurt in the process, I would like you to keep that feeling in your mind when reading what follows. It is the central theme of the words that will follow. The ground beneath our feet today is not as stable as the streets of Amsterdam, your park around the corner or even a poorly renovated upstairs bedroom. This is because whatever devices we use and whatever pathways we choose, we all live in hybrid physical and digital social spaces (Kitchin and Dodge 2011). Digital social spaces can be social media platforms like Twitter or Facebook, but also chat apps like WhatsApp or Signal. Crucially, social spaces are increasingly hybrid, in which conversations take place across digital spaces (WhatsApp chat group) and physical spaces (meeting friends in a cafe) simultaneously. The ground beneath our feet is not made of concrete or stone or wood but of bits and bytes.
DOCUMENT
The literature on how organizations respond to institutional pressure has shown that the individual decision-makers’ interpretation of institutional pressure played an important role in developing organizational responses. However, it has paid less attention to how this interpretation ultimately contributes to their range of organizational decisions when responding to the same institutional pressure. We address this gap by interviewing board members of U.S. and Dutch hospitals involved in adopting best practices regarding board evaluation. We found four qualitatively different cognitive frames that board members relied on to interpret institutional pressure, and which shaped their organizational response. We contribute to the literature on organizational response to institutional pressure by empirically investigating how decision-makers interpret institutional pressure, by suggesting prior experience and role definition as moderating factors of multidimensional cognitive frames, and by showing how these cognitive frames influence board members’ response to the same institutional pressure.
DOCUMENT
