Mapping opinion landscapes: analyzing network structures in climate change debates on Twitter

Abstract

Society is a complex system, and studying it is challenging. We need to develop mechanisms to obtain data for statistical analysis. Our goal is to collect a substantial amount of data on a subject while also understanding how human opinion is structured and how it evolves over time, providing us with additional insights. With the advent of online social platforms, we have the opportunity to study how users generate content (data) and how others interact with this content. This presents us with a perfect tool and opens up an entire universe of possibilities. In this project, we aim to characterize opinions on the issue of climate change using Twitter data [1]. The focus of this research lies in developing a method to study the structure of human opinions. To achieve this, we will analyze three Twitter discussions where users are expected to take positions on climate change-related policies, express their opinion about COP Meetings, and discuss the creation of the 2030 Agenda among Catalan and Spanish speakers. By capturing these data based on user opinions, we will conduct a study by analyzing the networks that shape these opinions and interactions. Through this analysis, we hope to uncover the underlying structure of a Twitter discussion within the framework of complex networks. Additionally, we will attempt to identify if distinct communities are formed and who the most influential accounts are in each case. We aim to assess the polarization of the network to determine if there are two clear sides [2]. On one hand, we anticipate users who support or oppose the climate change issue, and on the other hand, we aim to identify a ”denialist” side that opposes the concept of climate change. Expanding our study, we can also track the evolution of public opinion. Nevertheless, we must acknowledge certain limitations. Not everyone uses Twitter, resulting in incomplete representation of all communities. Furthermore, such platforms do not necessarily mirror real-world interactions, yet they do offer a robust reflection of public opinion beyond the screens. The results have been less encouraging in terms of polarization. For most of the cases studied, we observed a dominant structure that does not exhibit clear polarization for or against the idea of climate change. However, we did identify another noteworthy type of structure worth discussing. In conclusion, the hypothesis that the ”denialist” side possesses significant enough support to disrupt other types of structures has not proven accurate. Nonetheless, we discovered that these debates are often steered by highly influential hubs. Analyzing these hubs can provide us with a solid understanding of the current opinion landscape.