Identifying Communication Topologies on Twitter

Social networks are known for their decentralization and democracy. Each individual has a chance to participate and influence any discussion. Even with all the freedom, people’s behavior falls under patterns that are observed in numerous situations. In this paper, we propose a methodology that defines and searches for common communication patterns in topical networks on Twitter. We analyze clusters according to four traits: number of nodes the cluster has, their degree and betweenness centrality values, number of node types, and whether the cluster is open or closed. We find that cluster structures can be defined as (a) fixed, meaning that they are repeated across datasets/topics following uniform rules, or (b) variable if they follow an underlying rule regardless of their size. This approach allows us to classify 90% of all conversation clusters, with the number varying by topic. An increase in cluster size often results in difficulties finding topological shape rules; however, these types of clusters tend to exhibit rules regarding their node relationships in the form of centralization. Most individuals do not enter large-scale discussions on Twitter, meaning that the simplicity of communication clusters implies repetition. In general, power laws apply for the influencer connection distribution (degree centrality) even in topical networks.

[1]  Jacob L. Moreno,et al.  Statistics of Social Configurations , 1938 .

[2]  Itai Himelboim,et al.  A Social Networks Approach to Online Social Movement: Social Mediators and Mediated Content in #FreeAJStaff Twitter Network , 2018 .

[3]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  Classifying Twitter Topic-Networks Using Social Network Analysis , 2017 .

[4]  Zhuo Chen,et al.  An Agent-Based Model for Information Diffusion over Online Social Networks , 2019, Papers in Applied Geography.

[5]  Kathleen M Griffiths,et al.  Describing the distribution of engagement in an Internet support group by post frequency: A comparison of the 90-9-1 Principle and Zipf's Law , 2014 .

[6]  H. Leavitt.  Some effects of certain communication patterns on group performance. , 1951, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[7]  L. Freeman.  Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification , 1978 .

[8]  Mitsuru Ebihara,et al.  Solar-system abundances of the elements , 1982 .

[9]  Itai Himelboim,et al.  A Social Networks Approach to Viral Advertising: The Role of Primary, Contextual, and Low Influencers , 2019, Social Media + Society.

[10]  F. Heider,et al.  Principles of topological psychology , 1936 .

[11]  Alex Bavelas.  A Mathematical Model for Group Structures , 1948 .

[12]  P. Pattison,et al.  New Specifications for Exponential Random Graph Models , 2006 .

[13]  Albert,et al.  Emergence of scaling in random networks , 1999, Science.

[14]  Katelyn Y. A. McKenna,et al.  Plan 9 From Cyberspace: The Implications of the Internet for Personality and Social Psychology , 2000 .

[15]  M. E. Shaw,et al.  Some effects of unequal distribution of information in a wheel group structure. , 1954, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[16]  Lee S. Christie,et al.  Organization and Information Handling in Task Groups , 1954, Oper. Res..

[17]  Garry Robins,et al.  An introduction to exponential random graph (p*) models for social networks , 2007, Soc. Networks.

[18]  Derek L. Hansen,et al.  Analyzing Social Media Networks with NodeXL: Insights from a Connected World , 2010 .

[19]  Madjid Tavana,et al.  The effect of preference similarity on the formation of clusters and the connectivity of social networks , 2017, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[20]  Itai Himelboim,et al.  Birds of a Feather Tweet Together: Integrating Network and Content Analyses to Examine Cross-Ideology Exposure on Twitter , 2013, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[21]  Alice Audrezet,et al.  Authenticity under threat: When social media influencers need to go beyond self-presentation , 2020 .

[22]  M. Perc,et al.  Optimization of identifiability for efficient community detection , 2020, New Journal of Physics.

[23]  Sotiris Ioannidis,et al.  A survey of Twitter research: Data model, graph structure, sentiment analysis and attacks , 2021, Expert Syst. Appl..

[24]  Yao Lu,et al.  On the Frequency Distribution of Retweets , 2014, ITQM.

[25]  Tammo H. A. Bijmolt,et al.  The Effect of Electronic Word of Mouth on Sales: A Meta-Analytic Review of Platform, Product, and Metric Factors , 2016 .

[26]  Sule Gündüz Ögüdücü,et al.  Identifying topical influencers on twitter based on user behavior and network topology , 2018, Knowl. Based Syst..

[27]  Ove Frank,et al.  http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained , 2007 .

[28]  Bryan S. Graham,et al.  Homophily and Transitivity in Dynamic Network Formation , 2016 .

[29]  Marc Smith,et al.  Mapping a Twitter scholarly communication network: a case of the association of internet researchers’ conference , 2017, Scientometrics.

[30]  Sanda Martinčić-Ipšić,et al.  Link prediction on Twitter , 2017, PloS one.

[31]  M. McPherson,et al.  Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks , 2001 .

[32]  D. Watts,et al.  Influentials, Networks, and Public Opinion Formation , 2007 .

[33]  Noella Edelmann,et al.  Reviewing the Definitions of "Lurkers" and Some Implications for Online Research , 2013, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[34]  C. Abidin.  “Aren’t These Just Young, Rich Women Doing Vain Things Online?”: Influencer Selfies as Subversive Frivolity , 2016 .

[35]  M. Newman,et al.  Finding community structure in very large networks. , 2004, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[36]  Adrián A. Díaz-Faes,et al.  Towards a second generation of ‘social media metrics’: Characterizing Twitter communities of attention around science , 2019, PloS one.