research-article

Open access

Competing Imaginaries and Partisan Divides in the Data Rhetoric of Advocacy Organizations

Authors:

Amy VoidaAuthors Info & Claims

Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Volume 7, Issue CSCW2

Article No.: 259, Pages 1 - 29

https://doi.org/10.1145/3610050

Published: 04 October 2023 Publication History

Abstract

Data are wielded to shape public opinion, particularly in electoral contexts where the role and veracity of information is questioned. This post-truth era is characterized by world events in which facts too often are obfuscated and evidential standards are abandoned. To study how data are used to influence pressing and divisive contemporary issues, this paper explores the rhetorical work that quantitative data are doing through the blogging practices of advocacy organizations during the highly-polarized month preceding the 2016 United States elections. We present results of a qualitative content analysis of the quantitative data used in 337 blog posts published by five pairs of conservative and liberal advocacy organizations over the course of the month leading up to the 2016 US elections. We identify key data rhetoric practices along partisan lines and contribute an analytic framework-evaluating ethos, pathos, and logos- that can be used to analyze the rhetorical use of data in other contexts. We then characterize two different imaginaries that come into conflict in this research: 1) the political imaginaries being promoted through organizational blogging and 2) the sociotechnical imaginary of the data economy, foregrounding differences in the epistemic value of data in each. We conclude by outlining research challenges and trajectories for future research within each of the two imaginaries of data.

References

[1]

[n. d.]. About fact-checking on Facebook and Instagram. https://www.facebook.com/business/help/2593586717571940

[2]

[n. d.]. Election results, 2016. https://ballotpedia.org/Election_results,_2016#State_executive_offices

[3]

[n. d.]. Reporting and viewing sensitive media | twitter help. https://help.twitter.com/en/safety-and-security/sensitive-media

[4]

2016. Election 2016 - ballot measures. CNN (Nov 2016). https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/ballot-measures

[5]

2016. Federally Focused 527s by Sector. https://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527cmtes.php?level=S&cycle=2016

[6]

2016. Gubernatorial elections, 2016. https://ballotpedia.org/Gubernatorial_elections,_2016

[7]

2016. Ideology; Single Issue Sector Background. https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=Q

[8]

2016. Ideology; Single Issue Sector Summary. https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=Q

[9]

2016. Top voting issues in 2016 election. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/07/07/4-top-voting-issues-in-2016-election/

[10]

Alan I. Abramowitz and Steven Webster. 2016. The rise of negative partisanship and the nationalization of U.S. elections in the 21st century. Electoral Studies 41 (2016), 12--22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2015.11.001

[11]

Lada A Adamic and Natalie Glance. 2005. The political blogosphere and the 2004 US election: divided they blog. In Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on Link discovery. 36--43.

Digital Library

[12]

Saud Alashri, Srinivasa Srivatsav Kandala, Vikash Bajaj, Roopek Ravi, Kendra L Smith, and Kevin C Desouza. 2016. An analysis of sentiments on Facebook during the 2016 US presidential election. In 2016 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM). IEEE, 795--802.

Digital Library

[13]

Adriana Alvarado Garcia and Christopher A Le Dantec. 2018. Quotidian Report: Grassroots Data Practices to Address Public Safety. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2, CSCW (2018), 1--18.

[14]

Adriana Alvarado Garcia, Alyson L Young, and Lynn Dombrowski. 2017. On making data actionable: How activists use imperfect data to foster social change for human rights violations in Mexico. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 1, CSCW (2017), 1--19.

[15]

PEN America. 2017. Faking news: Fraudulent news and the fight for truth. New York, NY: Author (2017).

[16]

Claudia Aradau and Tobias Blanke. 2017. Politics of prediction: Security and the time/space of governmentality in the age of big data. European Journal of Social Theory 20, 3 (2017), 373--391.

[17]

Bruno Araújo and Hélder Prior. 2020. Framing Political Populism: The Role of Media in Framing the Election of Jair Bolsonaro. Journalism Practice (2020), 1--17.

[18]

Matt Bai. 2005. The framing wars. The New York Times Magazine 17 (2005), 38--45.

[19]

Vian Bakir and Andrew McStay. 2018. Fake news and the economy of emotions: Problems, causes, solutions. Digital journalism 6, 2 (2018), 154--175.

[20]

Vian Bakir and Andrew McStay. 2020. Empathic Media, Emotional AI, and the Optimization of Disinformation. In Affective Politics of Digital Media. Routledge, 263--279.

[21]

Pablo Barbera. 2018. Explaining the spread of misinformation on social media: Evidence from the 2016 US presidential election. In Symposium: Fake News and the PoliticsofMisinformation. APSA.

[22]

Eric PS Baumer, Francesca Polletta, Nicole Pierski, and Geri K Gay. 2017. A simple intervention to reduce framing effects in perceptions of global climate change. Environmental Communication 11, 3 (2017), 289--310.

[23]

Eric PS Baumer, Jordan Sinclair, and Bill Tomlinson. 2010. America is like Metamucil: fostering critical and creative thinking about metaphor in political blogs. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1437--1446.

Digital Library

[24]

Megan Boler and Elizabeth Davis. 2020. Affective politics of digital media. Routledge.

[25]

Chris Bopp, Ellie Harmon, and Amy Voida. 2017. Disempowered by data: Nonprofits, social enterprises, and the consequences of data-driven work. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 3608--3619.

Digital Library

[26]

Geoffrey C Bowker. 2000. Biodiversity datadiversity. Social studies of science 30, 5 (2000), 643--683.

[27]

Danah Boyd and Jayshree Sarathy. 2022. Differential Perspectives: Epistemic Disconnects Surrounding the US Census Bureau's Use of Differential Privacy. Harvard Data Science Review (Forthcoming) (2022).

[28]

Petter Bae Brandtzaeg, Asbjørn Følstad, and Maria Ángeles Chaparro Domínguez. 2018. How journalists and social media users perceive online fact-checking and verification services. Journalism practice 12, 9 (2018), 1109--1129.

[29]

Nadia M Brashier and Daniel L Schacter. 2020. Aging in an era of fake news. Current directions in psychological science 29, 3 (2020), 316--323.

[30]

Craig Browne. 2019. The modern political imaginary and the problem of hierarchy. Social Epistemology 33, 5 (2019), 398--409.

[31]

Craig Browne and Paula Diehl. 2019. Conceptualising the political imaginary: an introduction to the special issue., 393--397 pages.

[32]

Katie Byrd and Richard S John. 2021. Lies, damned lies, and social media following extreme events. Risk analysis (2021).

[33]

Carole Cadwalladr and Emma Graham-Harrison. 2018. Revealed: 50 million Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach. The guardian 17 (2018), 22.

[34]

Ryan Calo, Chris Coward, Emma S Spiro, Kate Starbird, and Jevin D West. 2021. How do you solve a problem like misinformation? Science advances 7, 50 (2021), eabn0481.

[35]

Andrew Chadwick. 2007. Digital network repertoires and organizational hybridity. Political Communication 24, 3 (2007), 283--301.

[36]

Pamela Johnston Conover, Virginia Gray, and Steven Coombs. 1982. Single-issue voting: Elite-mass linkages. Political Behavior 4, 4 (1982), 309--331.

[37]

Martin De Saulles. 2015. Information 2.0: New models of information production, distribution and consumption. facet publishing.

[38]

Jeffrey Dowd. 2017. Racial Discourse and Partisan Blogs: How Online Commenters Manage the Partisan Divide. Sociological Perspectives 60, 1 (2017), 33--51.

[39]

Robert Draper. 2013. Inside the Power of the NRA. New York Times 15 (2013).

[40]

Y Roselyn Du, Lingzi Zhu, and Benjamin KL Cheng. 2019. Are numbers not trusted in a ?post-truth" era? An Experiment on the Impact of Data on News Credibility. Electronic News 13, 4 (2019), 179--195.

[41]

Paul Egan. 2021. GOP lawmakers file bills that would require 'Fact checkers' to register with the State. https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2021/05/11/michigan-gop-lawmakers-want-fact-checkers-register-face-fines/5045565001/

[42]

Kyle Endres and Kristin J Kelly. 2018. Does microtargeting matter? Campaign contact strategies and young voters. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 28, 1 (2018), 1--18.

[43]

Robert M Entman. 1993. Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of communication 43, 4 (1993), 51--58.

[44]

Sheena Erete, Emily Ryou, Geoff Smith, Khristina Marie Fassett, and Sarah Duda. 2016. Storytelling with data: Examining the use of data by non-profit organizations. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM conference on Computer-Supported cooperative work & social computing. 1273--1283.

Digital Library

[45]

Robert Faris, Hal Roberts, Bruce Etling, Nikki Bourassa, Ethan Zuckerman, and Yochai Benkler. 2017. Partisanship, propaganda, and disinformation: Online media and the 2016 US presidential election. Berkman Klein Center Research Publication 6 (2017).

[46]

Henry Farrell and Daniel W Drezner. 2008. The power and politics of blogs. Public choice 134, 1 (2008), 15--30.

[47]

Elisabetta Ferrari. 2020. Technocracy meets populism: The dominant technological imaginary of Silicon Valley. Communication, Culture & Critique 13, 1 (2020), 121--124.

[48]

Michael Gamon, Sumit Basu, Dmitriy Belenko, Danyel Fisher, Matthew Hurst, and Arnd Christian König. 2008. BLEWS: Using blogs to provide context for news articles. In ICWSM. 60--67.

[49]

Lisa Gitelman, Virginia Jackson, Daniel Rosenberg, Travis D Williams, Kevin R Brine, Mary Poovey, Matthew Stanley, Ellen Gruber Garvey, Markus Krajewski, Rita Raley, et al. 2013. Data flakes: An afterword to ?raw data" is an oxymoron. (2013).

[50]

Erving Goffman. 1959. The moral career of the mental patient. Psychiatry 22, 2 (1959), 123--142.

[51]

David J Grüning and Thomas W Schubert. 2022. Emotional Campaigning in Politics: Being Moved and Anger in Political Ads Motivate to Support Candidate and Party. Frontiers in Psychology 12 (2022).

[52]

Lauren Guggenheim, S Mo Jang, Soo Young Bae, and W Russell Neuman. 2015. The dynamics of issue frame competition in traditional and social media. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 659, 1 (2015), 207--224.

[53]

Ian Hacking, Tim Hacking, et al. 1990. The taming of chance. Number 17. Cambridge University Press.

[54]

Eszter Hargittai and Aaron Shaw. 2013. Digitally savvy citizenship: The role of internet skills and engagement in young adults' political participation around the 2008 presidential election. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 57, 2 (2013), 115--134.

[55]

Timandra Harkness. 2021. The history of the data economy: Part I: The birth of customer insight. Significance 18, 6 (2021), 12--15.

[56]

Sun-ha Hong. 2020. Fuck Your Feelings: The Affective Weaponisation of Facts and Reason. In Affective Politics of Digital Media: Propaganda by Other Means, Megan Boler and Elizabeth Davis (Eds.). Routledge, New York, NY, USA, 86--100. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003052272

[57]

Mike Howell. 2022. Fact check: Fact-checkers falsely claim they are fact-checkers. https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/fact-check-fact-checkers-falsely-claim-they-are-fact-checkers

[58]

Elle Hunt. 2016. What is fake news? How to spot it and what you can do to stop it. The Guardian 17 (2016), 15--16.

[59]

S Mo Jang and P Sol Hart. 2015. Polarized frames on "climate change" and "global warming" across countries and states: Evidence from Twitter big data. Global Environmental Change 32 (2015), 11--17.

[60]

Sheila Jasanoff and Sang-Hyun Kim. 2015. Dreamscapes of modernity: Sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power. University of Chicago Press.

[61]

Vera Khovanskaya and Phoebe Sengers. 2019. Data Rhetoric and Uneasy Alliances: Data Advocacy in US Labor History. In Proceedings of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 1391--1403.

Digital Library

[62]

Andrei P Kirilenko and Svetlana O Stepchenkova. 2014. Public microblogging on climate change: One year of Twitter worldwide. Global environmental change 26 (2014), 171--182.

[63]

Klaus Krippendorff. 2018. Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage publications.

[64]

Udo Kuckartz and Stefan Rädiker. 2019. Analyzing intercoder agreement. In Analyzing Qualitative Data with MAXQDA. Springer, 267--282.

[65]

Adi Kuntsman. 2020. Reverberation, Affect, and Digital Politics of Responsibility. In Affective Politics of Digital Media. Routledge, 69--85.

[66]

Matthew J Lacombe. 2019. The political weaponization of gun owners: The national rifle association's cultivation, dissemination, and use of a group social identity. The Journal of Politics 81, 4 (2019), 1342--1356.

[67]

George Lakoff. 2006. Thinking points: Communicating our American values and vision. Macmillan.

[68]

George Lakoff. 2010. Moral politics: How liberals and conservatives think. University of Chicago Press.

[69]

Martha Lampland. 2010. False numbers as formalizing practices. Social Studies of Science 40, 3 (2010), 377--404.

[70]

Richard R Lau and Gerald M Pomper. 2001. Negative campaigning by US Senate candidates. Party Politics 7, 1 (2001), 69--87.

[71]

Richard R Lau, Lee Sigelman, Caroline Heldman, and Paul Babbitt. 1999. The effects of negative political advertisements: A meta-analytic assessment. American Political Science Review (1999), 851--875.

[72]

Eric Lawrence, John Sides, and Henry Farrell. 2010. Self-segregation or deliberation? Blog readership, participation, and polarization in American politics. Perspectives on Politics 8, 1 (2010), 141--157.

[73]

Dave Levitan. 2015. Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video. https://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/unspinning-the-planned-parenthood-video/

[74]

Georg Löfflmann. 2022. ?Enemies of the people': Donald Trump and the security imaginary of America First. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 24, 3 (2022), 543--560.

[75]

David Lyon. 2019. Surveillance capitalism, surveillance culture and data politics. Data Politics: Worlds, Subjects, Rights. Abingdon: Routledge (2019), 64--77.

[76]

Catherine MacPhail, Nomhle Khoza, Laurie Abler, and Meghna Ranganathan. 2016. Process guidelines for establishing intercoder reliability in qualitative studies. Qualitative research 16, 2 (2016), 198--212.

[77]

David Malakoff. 2017. A matter of fact.

[78]

Lev Manovich. 2011. Trending: The promises and the challenges of big social data. Debates in the digital humanities 2, 1 (2011), 460--475.

[79]

Carol Mason. 2018. Killing for Life. Cornell University Press.

[80]

Amaryllis Mavragani and Konstantinos P Tsagarakis. 2019. Predicting referendum results in the Big Data Era. Journal of Big Data 6, 1 (2019), 1--20.

[81]

Megan McArdle. 2016. Fact-checking's infinite-regress problem. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2016--12--23/fact-checking-s-infinite-regress-problem?leadSource=uverifywall

[82]

Nolan McCarty and Eric Schickler. 2018. On the theory of parties. Annual Review of Political Science 21 (2018), 175--193.

[83]

Nora McDonald, Sarita Schoenebeck, and Andrea Forte. 2019. Reliability and inter-rater reliability in qualitative research: Norms and guidelines for CSCW and HCI practice. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1--23.

Digital Library

[84]

Lee McIntyre. 2018. Post-truth. MIt Press.

[85]

Laura McKenna and Antoinette Pole. 2004. Do blogs matter? Weblogs in American politics. American Political Science Association.

[86]

Yelena Mejova, Venkata Rama Kiran Garimella, Ingmar Weber, and Michael C Dougal. 2014. Giving is caring: understanding donation behavior through email. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing. 1297--1307.

Digital Library

[87]

Isaac Nahon-Serfaty. 2018. Strategic communication and deformative transparency: Persuasion in politics, propaganda, and public health. Routledge.

[88]

Alessandro Nai. 2020. Going negative, worldwide: Towards a general understanding of determinants and targets of negative campaigning. Government and Opposition 55, 3 (2020), 430--455.

[89]

C Thi Nguyen. 2020. Echo chambers and epistemic bubbles. (2020).

[90]

Jonathan A Obar, Paul Zube, and Clifford Lampe. 2012. Advocacy 2.0: An analysis of how advocacy groups in the United States perceive and use social media as tools for facilitating civic engagement and collective action. Journal of information policy 2 (2012), 1--25.

[91]

Vitaliia-Anna Oliinyk, Victoria Vysotska, Yevhen Burov, Khrystyna Mykich, and Vítor Basto Fernandes. 2020. Propaganda Detection in Text Data Based on NLP and Machine Learning. In MoMLeT DS. 132--144.

[92]

Brian L Ott. 2017. The age of Twitter: Donald J. Trump and the politics of debasement. Critical studies in media communication 34, 1 (2017), 59--68.

[93]

Gordon Pennycook and David G Rand. 2020. Who falls for fake news? The roles of bullshit receptivity, overclaiming, familiarity, and analytic thinking. Journal of personality 88, 2 (2020), 185--200.

[94]

Andrea Pereira, Elizabeth Ann Harris, and Jay J Van Bavel. 2018. Identity concerns drive belief: The impact of partisan identity on the belief and dissemination of true and false news. (2018).

[95]

Kathleen H Pine and Max Liboiron. 2015. The politics of measurement and action. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 3147--3156.

Digital Library

[96]

Peter Pomerantsev and Michael Weiss. 2014. The menace of unreality: How the Kremlin weaponizes information, culture and money. Vol. 14. Institute of Modern Russia New York.

[97]

Vincent Raynauld and André Turcotte. 2018. ?Different strokes for different folks": Implications of voter micro-targeting and appeal in the age of Donald Trump. In Political marketing in the 2016 US presidential election. Springer, 11--28.

[98]

Tyler T Reny, Loren Collingwood, and Ali A Valenzuela. 2019. Vote switching in the 2016 election: How racial and immigration attitudes, not economics, explain shifts in white voting. Public Opinion Quarterly 83, 1 (2019), 91--113.

[99]

Evelyn Ruppert. 2018. Sociotechnical imaginaries of different data futures.

[100]

Lydia Saad. 2016. Party groups agree on importance of big election issues. https://news.gallup.com/poll/192353/party-groups-agree-import-big-election-issues.aspx

[101]

Jathan Sadowski. 2019. When data is capital: Datafication, accumulation, and extraction. Big data & society 6, 1 (2019), 2053951718820549.

[102]

Dietram A Scheufele. 1999. Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of communication 49, 1 (1999), 103--122.

[103]

Jonathon P Schuldt, Sara H Konrath, and Norbert Schwarz. 2011. ?Global warming" or ?climate change"? Whether the planet is warming depends on question wording. Public opinion quarterly 75, 1 (2011), 115--124.

[104]

Edward Segel and Jeffrey Heer. 2010. Narrative visualization: Telling stories with data. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 16, 6 (2010), 1139--1148.

Digital Library

[105]

Subir Sinha. 2017. Fragile hegemony: Modi, social media and competitive electoral populism in India. International Journal of Communication 11, 2017 (2017), 4158--4180.

[106]

Alina Sîrbu, Dino Pedreschi, Fosca Giannotti, and János Kertész. 2019. Algorithmic bias amplifies opinion fragmentation and polarization: A bounded confidence model. PloS one 14, 3 (2019), e0213246.

[107]

Cigdem V Sirin and José D Villalobos. 2019. The study of discrete emotions in politics. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics.

[108]

Theda Skocpol and Alexander Hertel-Fernandez. 2016. The Koch network and republican party extremism. Perspectives on Politics 14, 3 (2016), 681--699.

[109]

Dominic Spohr. 2017. Fake news and ideological polarization: Filter bubbles and selective exposure on social media. Business Information Review 34, 3 (2017), 150--160.

[110]

Kate Starbird. 2017. Examining the alternative media ecosystem through the production of alternative narratives of mass shooting events on Twitter. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Vol. 11.

[111]

Kate Starbird, Ahmer Arif, and Tom Wilson. 2019. Disinformation as collaborative work: Surfacing the participatory nature of strategic information operations. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1--26.

Digital Library

[112]

Kate Starbird, Jim Maddock, Mania Orand, Peg Achterman, and Robert M Mason. 2014. Rumors, false flags, and digital vigilantes: Misinformation on twitter after the 2013 boston marathon bombing. IConference 2014 Proceedings (2014).

[113]

Luke Stark. 2020. Empires of feeling: social media and emotive politics. In Affective politics of digital media. Routledge, 298--313.

[114]

Charles D Stolper, Bongshin Lee, Nathalie Henry Riche, and John Stasko. 2016. Emerging and recurring data-driven storytelling techniques: Analysis of a curated collection of recent stories. (2016).

[115]

Karolina Sylwester and Matthew Purver. 2015. Twitter language use reflects psychological differences between democrats and republicans. PloS one 10, 9 (2015), e0137422.

[116]

Zeynep Tufekci. 2018. How social media took us from Tahrir Square to Donald Trump. MIT Technology Review 14 (2018), 18.

[117]

Daphne Van der Pas. 2014. Making hay while the sun shines: Do parties only respond to media attention when the framing is right? The International Journal of Press/Politics 19, 1 (2014), 42--65.

[118]

Chris J Vargo, Lei Guo, and Michelle A Amazeen. 2018. The agenda-setting power of fake news: A big data analysis of the online media landscape from 2014 to 2016. New media & society 20, 5 (2018), 2028--2049.

[119]

Maya Vassileva. 2019. Fake News as a ?Rhetorical Device". Rhetoric and Communications Journal (2019).

[120]

Amy Voida, Ellie Harmon, Willa Weller, Aubrey Thornsbury, Ariana Casale, Samuel Vance, Forrest Adams, Zach Hoffman, Alex Schmidt, Kevin Grimley, et al . 2017. Competing currencies: Designing for politics in units of measurement. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. 847--860.

Digital Library

[121]

Soroush Vosoughi, Deb Roy, and Sinan Aral. 2018. The spread of true and false news online. Science 359, 6380 (2018), 1146--1151.

[122]

Howard Wainer. 2013. Visual revelations: Graphical tales of fate and deception from Napoleon Bonaparte to Ross Perot. Psychology Press.

[123]

Silvio Waisbord. 2018. Truth is what happens to news: On journalism, fake news, and post-truth. Journalism studies 19, 13 (2018), 1866--1878.

[124]

Sean P Wojcik, Arpine Hovasapian, Jesse Graham, Matt Motyl, and Peter H Ditto. 2015. Conservatives report, but liberals display, greater happiness. Science 347, 6227 (2015), 1243--1246.

[125]

Thomas Wood and Ethan Porter. 2019. The elusive backfire effect: Mass attitudes' steadfast factual adherence. Political Behavior 41, 1 (2019), 135--163.

[126]

Julia K Woolley, Anthony M Limperos, and Mary Beth Oliver. 2013. The 2008 presidential election, 2.0: A content analysis of user-generated political Facebook groups. In New Media, Campaigning and the 2008 Facebook Election. Routledge, 87--108.

Cited By

Flawn LSoden R(2024)Autonomy, Affect, and Reframing: Unpacking the Data Practices of Grassroots Climate Justice ActivistsProceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference10.1145/3643834.3661585(3016-3028)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3643834.3661585

Index Terms

Competing Imaginaries and Partisan Divides in the Data Rhetoric of Advocacy Organizations
1. Human-centered computing
  1. Human computer interaction (HCI)
    1. Empirical studies in HCI

Recommendations

Science Disinformation: On the Problem of Fake News
Abstract
This article is devoted to an important socio-cultural phenomenon that undermines public confidence in science, that is, fake science news. The term fake news is analyzed and data on the dissemination of fake news on social networks is provided. ...
Triadic Advocacy Work
Scholars of street-level bureaucracy and institutional research focus primarily on the relationships between advocates and their larger bureaucratic and social systems, assuming that advocates have little need to satisfy their beneficiaries. We find ...
Interactions with Potential Mis/Disinformation URLs Among U.S. Users on Facebook, 2017-2019
FOCI '21: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM 2021 Workshop on Free and Open Communications on the Internet

Misinformation and disinformation online---and on social media in particular--- have become a topic of widespread concern. Recently, Facebook and Social Science One released a large, unique, privacy-preserving dataset to researchers that contains data on ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction

Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction Volume 7, Issue CSCW2

CSCW

October 2023

4055 pages

EISSN:2573-0142

DOI:10.1145/3626953

Editor:
Jeff Nichols
Apple Inc., United States

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2023 Owner/Author.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial International 4.0 License.

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 04 October 2023

Published in PACMHCI Volume 7, Issue CSCW2

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

1
Total Citations
View Citations
649
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)649
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)51

Reflects downloads up to 04 Sep 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Flawn LSoden R(2024)Autonomy, Affect, and Reframing: Unpacking the Data Practices of Grassroots Climate Justice ActivistsProceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference10.1145/3643834.3661585(3016-3028)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3643834.3661585

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Get Access

Login options

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

Full Access

Get this Article

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents