When debates break apart: discursive polarization as a multi-dimensional divergence emerging in and through communication

May combine two claims.

Very active partisan users are responsible for perceived dominance of misinformation and incivility and the polarization of social media networks.

“It is precisely these very active partisan users that are found to be responsible for the perceived dominance of misinformation and incivility (Dourado & Salgado, 2021) and the polarization of social media networks (Kaiser et al., 2022).”

• cites Dourado & Salgado, 2021 sourcePartly supported

  The Spread section says influential users confer visibility on fake content and that public figures helped disseminate several fake-news items. The Discussion also links more engaged conservative networks to the fake-news stories that thrive. Neither section establishes that very active partisan users are responsible for the perceived dominance of misinformation or for incivility. The separate polarization claim is attributed to Kaiser et al., not to this source. (LLM, conf=0.86)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Kaiser et al., 2022 sourcePartly supported

  The Abstract says partisan blocking of people who share misinformation is likely to contribute to polarization of social media networks. It does not identify very active partisan users as responsible, and presents network polarization as a likely consequence rather than an established outcome. The incivility claim is attributed to a different citation in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.86)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

On platforms like Twitter, Reddit, or YouTube, polarization dynamics are not primarily ideological disagreements about issues, but dismissive interactions with out-groups.

“Scholars such as Barbera ´(2020) made a strong case that especially on platforms like Twitter, Reddit, or YouTube (An et al., 2019;Wu & Resnick, 2021), polarization dynamics are not primarily ideological disagreements about issues, but dismissive interactions with out-groups.”

• cites Barbera ´(2020) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites An et al., 2019Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Wu & Resnick, 2021 sourcePartly supported

  Section 7, “Toxicity as a Measure of Quality” (page not provided), reports that YouTube replies to people of opposing ideologies were much more frequently toxic, supporting the point about dismissive out-group interactions on YouTube. The paper does not establish that such interactions are the primary driver of polarization rather than disagreements about issues. (LLM, conf=0.87)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

May combine two claims.

Mainstream climate change discourses on Twitter call for action, criticize governments, and are discussed within relatively homogenous communities, while climate change denialists interact disproportionately with the mainstream and potentially aim to hijack these debates.

“Meyer et al. (2023) show that, while mainstream discourses about climate change on Twitter call for action, criticize governments, and are discussed within relatively homogenous communities, climate change denialists are trying to interact to a disproportionately high degree with the mainstream and potentially aim to highjack these debates.”

• cites Meyer et al., 2023 sourceSupported

May combine two claims.

Both ideological and affective polarization dimensions are reflected in discourse as people formulate statements about issues or groups and interact with other participants in a debate.

“Both dimensions are also reflected in discourse as people formulate statements about issues or groups, and interact with other participants in a debate.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

Whether these dynamics occur depends on the type of media content that is circulating in journalistic and social media.

“However, whether these dynamics occur depends on the type of media content that is circulating in journalistic and social media.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Mere exposure to EU news does not polarize everyone, but amplifies extreme views among those media users who already held somewhat extreme views prior to exposure.

“They find that it does not polarize everyone, but that it amplifies extreme views among those media users who already held somewhat extreme views prior to exposure.”

• cites Wojcieszak et al. (2018) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Discursive polarization is rooted in social processes beyond mediated communication and affects society beyond mediated communication.

“Just as this process of discursive polarization is rooted in social processes and contexts beyond mediated communication, it also affects society beyond mediated communication.”

May combine two claims.

Other countries feature more forum media than the US: outlets consumed by audiences from diverse political backgrounds, preserving relatively neutral arenas of exchange in the public sphere.

“As Fletcher et al. (2020) show, other countries feature more forum media than the US: outlets that are consumed by audiences from diverse political backgrounds, thus preserving relatively neutral arenas of exchange in the public sphere.”

• cites Fletcher et al. (2020) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

Whether polarization harms society and democracy depends on its degree.

“Whether polarization harms society and democracy depends on its degree: if limited in time and social reach, and to certain topics, divergence and contention may just be part of the democratic process.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

If within a debate the elements of problem definitions, epistemic assumptions, and evaluations diverge starkly between different groups, we would find polarized frames.

“If, within a debate, these elements diverge starkly between different groups, we would find polarized frames.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

Adding affective polarization to Hallin's model results in groups that no longer regard each other as adversaries but as lunatics or enemies.

“Going beyond the model of Dan Hallin and adding the dimension of affective polarization to the picture, this would result in different groups that no longer regard each other as adversaries in a common debate but as lunatics that are not worth talking to or enemies that need to be defeated.”

May combine two claims.

Journalism may provide extra visibility to extreme voices and crowd out the moderates.

“Mirroring the social media prism mentioned above, journalism may thus provide extra visibility to extreme voices and crowd out the moderates.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Different problem definitions are the core element that distinguishes different frames in a debate.

“These different problem definitions are the core element that distinguishes different frames in a debate.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Frequent use of the right-wing Fox News channel predicted stronger opposition to the Green New Deal among the Republican audience.

“Frequent use of the right-wing Fox News channel predicted stronger opposition to the Green New Deal among the Republican audience.”

• cites Gustafson et al. (2019) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

Offline news media content does not allow for much interaction, so the interactive side of the framework applies to digital media content.

“Offline news media content (e.g., printed newspapers) does not allow for much interaction, so the interactive (right column) side of the framework applies to digital media content.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

If left untamed, polarization may ultimately break the democratic public sphere apart.

“If left untamed, however, polarization may ultimately break the democratic public sphere apart.”

May combine two claims.

Politicians focus on positive Tweets about their ingroup, while Twitter users tend to retweet negative statements about the outgroup.

“They find that politicians actually focus on positive Tweets about their ingroup, but Twitter users instead tend to retweet negative statements about the outgroup.”

• cites Yu et al., 2021Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

If large groups in society cannot agree on at least some basic facts concerning a contested question, this would be one indicator of polarization.

“If large groups in society cannot agree on at least some basic facts concerning a contested question, this would be one indicator of polarization.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

At the endpoint of discursive polarization, society would be split into separated communities of communication that regard radically different ideas as consensus, legitimate debate, and beyond legitimate discussion.

“At the endpoint of such a process of discursive polarization, society would be split up into different and largely separated communities of communication that regard radically different ideas as consensus, as part of legitimate debate, and as being beyond legitimate discussion”

May combine two claims.

Unlike echo chambers, counter-publics observe and refer to mainstream publics, but these connections are not dialogue.

“Unlike echo chambers, counter-publics observe and refer to mainstream publics, but these connections should not be understood as dialogue taking place.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

Discursive polarization is a meta-process that combines concepts of divergence on different dimensions of the framework.

“We conceptualize this process as a meta-process that combines concepts of divergence on different -though not necessarily on all -dimensions of our framework.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The Wall Street Journal, compared to other U.S. newspapers, was least likely to discuss the threats and most likely to include negative efficacy information concerning climate change.

“e.g., the Wall Street Journal, compared to other U.S. newspapers, was least likely to discuss the threats and most likely to include negative efficacy information concerning climate change.”

• cites Feldman et al. (2015) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Counterpublics have few in-links from the mainstream public sphere and few out-links to the mainstream.

“They label this type of network counterpublics, having "few in-links from the mainstream public sphere, while also showing only few out-links to the mainstream."(Kaiser & Puschmann 2017, p. 373).”

• cites Kaiser & Puschmann 2017 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

Constructive perspectives on social problems may remain invisible if any debate is reduced to two opposing poles.

“Yet, constructive perspectives on social problems may remain invisible if any debate is reduced to two opposing poles.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Tyagi et al. (2020) developed a template to measure affective polarization on Twitter by automatically identifying users' stance on climate change and comparing sentiments in cross-group communications to in-group communication.

“In another paper, Tyagi et al. (2020) develop a useful template on how to measure this type of affective polarization on Twitter.”

• cites Tyagi et al., 2020Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

Neither Habermas nor Mouffe have provided a clear answer to the question of the tipping point between a healthy degree of contestation and destructive conflict.

“It seems fair to say that, so far, neither Habermas nor Mouffe (to just mention the most prominent voices) have provided a clear answer to this question.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Echo chambers, to the extent that they exist, may not echo so much as silence.

“"This suggests that 'echo chambers'-to the extent that they exist-may not echo so much as silence" (Tokita et al. 2021, p. 1).”

• cites Tokita et al. 2021 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

Naïve calls for depolarization may actually be harmful to democracy.

“In this case, naı ¨ve calls for depolarization may actually be harmful to democracy (Kreiss & McGregor, 2023).”

• cites Kreiss & McGregor, 2023Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

Productive debates may not be about a compromise between two extreme positions.

“Productive debates may not be about a compromise between two extreme positions.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

Measuring polarization on different dimensions is necessary to explore the relationship between the ideological and affective dimensions and between polarizing statements and interactions.

“Yet, this is necessary in order to explore the relationship between the ideological and affective dimensions and between polarizing statements and interactions.”

May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

Twitter networks are sorted ideologically, but this is not necessarily due to individuals deliberately following others with similar ideologies; instead, networks become sorted as users gradually unfollow ties that distribute dissonant information.

“Studying Twitter networks, Tokita et al. (2021) observed that networks are sorted ideologically, but this is not necessarily due to individuals deliberately following others with similar ideologies.”

• cites Tokita et al., 2021 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

Encouraging more interactions across diverging ideological groups will not necessarily reduce polarization; it depends on how these interactions occur.

“Encouraging more interactions across diverging ideological groups will not necessarily reduce polarization.It all depends on how these interactions occur.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

Past research shows that both digital networks and journalism foster rather than contain discursive polarization.

“Past research shows how both digital networks and (based on very few studies) journalism foster rather than contain discursive polarization.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The findings from the specific platforms and cases reviewed (Twitter, Facebook, blogs, climate change debates) can be generalized to discursive polarization in public spheres more broadly.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

The echo chamber has windows, but they mostly provide distorted views of an unpleasant neighbor.

“Thus, the echo chamber has windows, but they mostly provide distorted views of an unpleasant neighbor.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The findings from the specific platforms and cases reviewed (Twitter, Facebook, blogs, climate change debates) can be generalized to discursive polarization in public spheres more broadly.

May combine two claims.

Climate-change-related blogs show strong homophily, including the absence of certain frames.

“Kaiser and Puschmann combined hyperlink network analyses of climate-change-related blogs with analyses of the web pages' content and found strong homophily, including the absence of certain frames”

• cites Kaiser, 2017Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Kaiser & Puschmann, 2017 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Partisan networks were exponentially growing and becoming more politically homogenous during U.S. elections.

“Kearney (2019) showed that partisan networks were exponentially growing and becoming more politically homogenous during U.S. elections.”

• cites Kearney (2019) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The followership perspective focuses on a structural, and thus more enduring, feature of a network, in contrast to the study of statements amplified by users.

“In contrast to the study of statements amplified (forwarded) by users, the followership perspective focuses on a structural, and thus more enduring, feature of a network.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Hostility can be investigated in big data corpora by training a machine learning classifier to identify uncivil communication styles.

“Theocharis et al. (2016) have shown how hostility can be investigated in big data corpora by training a machine learning classifier to identify uncivil communication styles.”

• cites Theocharis et al., 2016 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

Few studies measure polarization on different dimensions.

“Few studies measure polarization on different dimensions.”

May combine two claims.

Cross-camp hostilities might mostly originate from one camp, but this might still result in increasing levels of affective polarization among both groups.

“While cross-camp hostilities might mostly originate from one camp, this might still result in increasing levels of affective polarization among both groups.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

Different models agree that there is a degree of polarization, even in an agonist-pluralist model, which is normatively undesirable.

“Yet, different models agree that there is a degree of polarization, even in an agonist-pluralist model, which is normatively undesirable.”

May combine two claims.

Even rational criticism is perceived as an attack on one's own and responded to with attacks on the other's group identity.

“Even rational criticism is being perceived as an attack on one's own and responded to with attacks on the other's group identity.”