Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 52 references

Platform Sorting Drives Ideological Fragmentation in the Social Media Ecosystem

T0 review · 3 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-06-27 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Users sort into ideologically aligned social media platforms, producing persistent fragmentation at the ecosystem level.

desk verdict The paper claims platform-level ideological sorting is a persistent structural feature across six sites and two elections, but the evidence risks being driven by how ideology gets measured from platform signals. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.10575 v1 pith:NDALLO32 submitted 2026-06-09 cs.SI cs.CYphysics.soc-ph

Edoardo Di Martino , Alessandro Galeazzi , Matteo Cinelli , Michele Starnini , Walter Quattrociocchi This is my paper
classification cs.SIcs.CYphysics.soc-ph
keywords platformsortingideologicalfragmentationsocialmediaecosystempoliticalinformationdynamicsusercohortselectioncyclescontentsharingengagementallocation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper shows that ideological fragmentation in online political communication operates at the level of entire platforms through a process of platform sorting. Users increasingly align with ideologically congruent environments, so platforms maintain distinct profiles from strongly left-leaning to strongly right-leaning. Data on content sharing, engagement allocation, and user ideological orientation across Bluesky, Facebook, Reddit, Truth Social, Twitter/X, and YouTube during the 2020 and 2024 elections reveal that these profiles stay stable over time. Limited ideological change among users who stay on one platform indicates that observed shifts reflect movement between platforms rather than internal convergence. If correct, this means fragmentation is a structural feature of the social media ecosystem, not a temporary response to events or interventions.

What carries the argument

Platform sorting, the process in which users increasingly align with ideologically congruent environments, producing stable platform-level ideological profiles.

What would settle it

Observation of large ideological shifts toward the center among users who remain on the same platform between the 2020 and 2024 elections would contradict the claim of limited variability within cohorts.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Ideological fragmentation emerges consistently across platforms and persists over time. Platforms exhibit distinct ideological profiles that range from strongly left-leaning to strongly right-leaning and remain stable across the two election cycles. Longitudinal analyses reveal limited ideological variability among persistent user cohorts, showing that apparent changes within single platforms reflect ecosystem-level sorting rather than convergence toward neutrality. The dynamics of platform sorting is not a transient reaction to political events or moderation interventions, but a persistent structural feature of the social media ecosystem.

Load-bearing premise

Measures of content sharing, engagement allocation, and user-level ideological orientation accurately capture platform-level sorting without confounding from platform algorithms, data sampling biases, or self-selection in user cohorts.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that ideological fragmentation in social media is a platform-level phenomenon driven by persistent user sorting into ideologically congruent environments, rather than localized or transient effects. This is evidenced by consistent ideological profiles across six platforms (Bluesky, Facebook, Reddit, Truth Social, Twitter/X, YouTube) over the 2020 and 2024 US elections, derived from combined measures of content sharing, engagement allocation, and user ideological orientation, with longitudinal data showing limited within-cohort ideological change.

Significance. If the central inference holds after addressing measurement issues, the result would meaningfully advance computational social science by reframing polarization as an ecosystem-level structural feature rather than platform-specific or event-driven, with implications for theories of user migration and platform design.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods] Methods section: Ideological orientation is inferred from platform-specific signals (follows, likes, retweets, posted content) that are themselves outputs of each platform's recommendation algorithms; no validation or robustness checks against algorithmic confounding are described, directly threatening the claim that observed profiles reflect user sorting rather than echo effects.
  2. [Longitudinal analyses] Longitudinal analyses (likely §5): The 'persistent user cohorts' used to demonstrate limited ideological variability are subject to survivorship bias, as the paper does not report how cross-platform movers or dropouts are handled or whether cohort stability is tested against selection effects.
  3. [Data and sampling] Data and sampling (likely §3): Platform-dependent sampling (API, scraping, third-party panels) introduces non-comparable user cohorts across platforms (e.g., Bluesky vs. Truth Social); no adjustment for self-selection or representativeness is reported, weakening the ecosystem-level fragmentation claim.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The phrase 'combining measures of content sharing, engagement allocation, and user-level ideological orientation' lacks any indication of how these are operationalized or weighted.
  2. [Results figures] Figure clarity: Platform profile plots would benefit from explicit error bars or confidence intervals to support the 'persist across two election cycles' claim.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which highlight important methodological considerations. We address each major point below and indicate where revisions will strengthen the manuscript. Our core claim—that platform-level sorting produces persistent ideological profiles—rests on the consistency of patterns across platforms and time; we believe the evidence supports this while acknowledging measurement limitations.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] Methods section: Ideological orientation is inferred from platform-specific signals (follows, likes, retweets, posted content) that are themselves outputs of each platform's recommendation algorithms; no validation or robustness checks against algorithmic confounding are described, directly threatening the claim that observed profiles reflect user sorting rather than echo effects.

    Authors: We agree that platform signals can be shaped by recommendation algorithms and that this introduces potential confounding. Our multi-measure approach (content sharing, engagement allocation, and user orientation) and the replication of distinct platform profiles across six platforms with heterogeneous algorithms provide some triangulation, but we did not include explicit robustness checks against algorithmic effects. In the revision we will add a dedicated robustness subsection that (a) reports sensitivity to alternative signal weightings and (b) compares results against any available external ideological benchmarks for overlapping users. This addresses the concern directly without altering the main findings. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Longitudinal analyses] Longitudinal analyses (likely §5): The 'persistent user cohorts' used to demonstrate limited ideological variability are subject to survivorship bias, as the paper does not report how cross-platform movers or dropouts are handled or whether cohort stability is tested against selection effects.

    Authors: The referee correctly notes that the manuscript does not detail the treatment of cross-platform movers or dropouts. Persistent cohorts were defined as users observed on the same platform in both election periods; movers were excluded from within-platform longitudinal comparisons but retained in the cross-platform ecosystem analysis. We will revise §5 to (i) explicitly describe cohort construction rules, (ii) report the share of users who migrated or dropped out, and (iii) add a supplementary test comparing ideological stability in the full observed sample versus the persistent subset. These additions will clarify the scope of the survivorship concern. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Data and sampling] Data and sampling (likely §3): Platform-dependent sampling (API, scraping, third-party panels) introduces non-comparable user cohorts across platforms (e.g., Bluesky vs. Truth Social); no adjustment for self-selection or representativeness is reported, weakening the ecosystem-level fragmentation claim.

    Authors: We acknowledge that sampling frames differ by platform because of API access and data availability, and that this limits direct comparability. The manuscript already notes these platform-specific constraints in §3, but does not provide quantitative adjustments for self-selection or demographic weighting. Because re-collecting harmonized probability samples across all six platforms is not feasible with existing data, we will instead expand the limitations discussion to quantify known biases (e.g., activity thresholds) and test whether the observed ideological ordering is robust to subsampling by activity level. This is a partial revision that clarifies rather than fully resolves the sampling issue. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: empirical analysis of platform data is self-contained against external benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper presents an empirical study combining content sharing, engagement allocation, and user-level ideological orientation measures across six platforms over two election cycles. No derivation chain, equations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or self-citation load-bearing steps are present in the abstract or description. The central claim rests on observed persistence of platform ideological profiles and limited within-cohort change, which are directly measured quantities rather than constructed from the target result by definition. External data sources and longitudinal cohorts provide independent falsifiability. This matches the default case of a non-circular empirical paper.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 0 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Abstract only; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated. Ledger remains empty pending full text.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Platform Sorting Drives Ideological Fragmentation in the Social Media Ecosystem." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NDALLO32

@misc{pith2026260610575,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Platform Sorting Drives Ideological Fragmentation in the Social Media Ecosystem},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NDALLO32}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.10575}
}
read the original abstract

Ideological asymmetries in online political communication are often studied as localized phenomena emerging within communities. Here, we show that fragmentation instead operates at the level of entire platforms, consistent with a process of platform sorting in which users increasingly align with ideologically congruent environments. We analyze political information dynamics across Bluesky, Facebook, Reddit, Truth Social, Twitter/X, and YouTube during the 2020 and 2024 US presidential elections, combining measures of content sharing, engagement allocation, and user-level ideological orientation. Across platforms, ideological fragmentation emerges consistently and persists over time. Platforms exhibit distinct ideological profiles that persist across the two election cycles, ranging from strongly left-leaning to strongly right-leaning environments. Longitudinal analyses further reveal limited ideological variability among persistent user cohorts, indicating that apparent changes within single platforms reflect ecosystem-level sorting rather than convergence toward neutrality. Taken together, our results show that the dynamics of platform sorting is not a transient reaction to political events or moderation interventions, but a persistent structural feature of the social media ecosystem.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Nature620(7972), 137–144 (2023)

    Nyhan, B., Settle, J., Thorson, E., Wojcieszak, M., Barber´ a, P., Chen, A.Y., Allcott, H., Brown, T., Crespo-Tenorio, A., Dimmery, D.,et al.: Like-minded 16 sources on facebook are prevalent but not polarizing. Nature620(7972), 137–144 (2023)

    2023

  2. [2]

    Guess, A.M., Malhotra, N., Pan, J., Barber´ a, P., Allcott, H., Brown, T., Crespo- Tenorio, A., Dimmery, D., Freelon, D., Gentzkow, M.,et al.: How do social media feed algorithms affect attitudes and behavior in an election campaign? Science 381(6656), 398–404 (2023)

    2023

  3. [3]

    Science381(6656), 404–408 (2023)

    Guess, A.M., Malhotra, N., Pan, J., Barber´ a, P., Allcott, H., Brown, T., Crespo- Tenorio, A., Dimmery, D., Freelon, D., Gentzkow, M.,et al.: Reshares on social media amplify political news but do not detectably affect beliefs or opinions. Science381(6656), 404–408 (2023)

    2023

  4. [4]

    Science 381(6656), 392–398 (2023)

    Gonz´ alez-Bail´ on, S., Lazer, D., Barber´ a, P., Zhang, M., Allcott, H., Brown, T., Crespo-Tenorio, A., Freelon, D., Gentzkow, M., Guess, A.M.,et al.: Asymmet- ric ideological segregation in exposure to political news on facebook. Science 381(6656), 392–398 (2023)

    2023

  5. [5]

    Science348(6239), 1130–1132 (2015)

    Bakshy, E., Messing, S., Adamic, L.A.: Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on facebook. Science348(6239), 1130–1132 (2015)

    2015

  6. [6]

    Communications of the ACM47(12), 57–59 (2004)

    Sunstein, C.R.: Democracy and filtering. Communications of the ACM47(12), 57–59 (2004)

    2004

  7. [7]

    Journal of advertising47(1), 38–54 (2018)

    Voorveld, H.A., Van Noort, G., Muntinga, D.G., Bronner, F.: Engagement with social media and social media advertising: The differentiating role of platform type. Journal of advertising47(1), 38–54 (2018)

    2018

  8. [8]

    PNAS nexus3(7), 257 (2024)

    Sangiorgio, E., Cinelli, M., Cerqueti, R., Quattrociocchi, W.: Followers do not dictate the virality of news outlets on social media. PNAS nexus3(7), 257 (2024)

    2024

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Plos one18(6), 0286150 (2023)

    Etta, G., Sangiorgio, E., Di Marco, N., Avalle, M., Scala, A., Cinelli, M., Quat- trociocchi, W.: Characterizing engagement dynamics across topics on facebook. Plos one18(6), 0286150 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    Technological Forecasting and Social Change228, 124668 (2026)

    Zollo, S., Sangiorgio, E., Etta, G., Di Marco, N., Cinelli, M., Cerqueti, R., Quattrociocchi, W.: Examining the relationship between content length and engagement with news outlets on multiple social media platforms. Technological Forecasting and Social Change228, 124668 (2026)

    2026

  3. [11]

    Gallup, K.: Indicators of news media trust. John S. and James L. Knight Foundation Miami (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism 39(2018) 17

    Nic, N., Fletcher, R., Kalogeropoulos, A., Levy, D.A., Nielsen, R.K.: Reuters institute digital news report 2018. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism 39(2018) 17

    2018

  5. [13]

    PloS one10(2), 0118093 (2015)

    Bessi, A., Coletto, M., Davidescu, G.A., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., Quattrociocchi, W.: Science vs conspiracy: Collective narratives in the age of misinformation. PloS one10(2), 0118093 (2015)

    2015

  6. [14]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118(9), 2023301118 (2021)

    Cinelli, M., De Francisci Morales, G., Galeazzi, A., Quattrociocchi, W., Starnini, M.: The echo chamber effect on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118(9), 2023301118 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Review of Communication Research9(2021)

    Terren, L.T.L., Borge-Bravo, R.B.-B.R.: Echo chambers on social media: A systematic review of the literature. Review of Communication Research9(2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    Political polarization, and political disinformation: a review of the scientific literature (March 19, 2018) (2018)

    Tucker, J.A., Guess, A., Barber´ a, P., Vaccari, C., Siegel, A., Sanovich, S., Stukal, D., Nyhan, B.: Social media, political polarization, and political disinforma- tion: A review of the scientific literature. Political polarization, and political disinformation: a review of ...

    2018

  9. [17]

    Journal of Computational Social Science8(2), 52 (2025)

    Hartmann, D., Wang, S.M., Pohlmann, L., Berendt, B.: A systematic review of echo chamber research: comparative analysis of conceptualizations, operational- izations, and varying outcomes. Journal of Computational Social Science8(2), 52 (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    Social media and democracy: The state of the field, prospects for reform34, 34–55 (2020)

    Barber´ a, P.: Social media, echo chambers, and political polarization. Social media and democracy: The state of the field, prospects for reform34, 34–55 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Journal of public policy & marketing42(1), 18–35 (2023)

    Diaz Ruiz, C., Nilsson, T.: Disinformation and echo chambers: how disinformation circulates on social media through identity-driven controversies. Journal of public policy & marketing42(1), 18–35 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences115(37), 9216–9221 (2018)

    Bail, C.A., Argyle, L.P., Brown, T.W., Bumpus, J.P., Chen, H., Hunzaker, M.F., Lee, J., Mann, M., Merhout, F., Volfovsky, A.: Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences115(37), 9216–9221 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    Annals of the International Communication Association45(3), 188–206 (2021)

    Kubin, E., Von Sikorski, C.: The role of (social) media in political polarization: a systematic review. Annals of the International Communication Association45(3), 188–206 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    Nature628(8008), 582–589 (2024)

    Avalle, M., Di Marco, N., Etta, G., Sangiorgio, E., Alipour, S., Bonetti, A., Alvisi, L., Scala, A., Baronchelli, A., Cinelli, M.,et al.: Persistent interaction patterns across social media platforms and over time. Nature628(8008), 582–589 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    go eat a bat, chang!

    Tahmasbi, F., Schild, L., Ling, C., Blackburn, J., Stringhini, G., Zhang, Y., Zan- nettou, S.: “go eat a bat, chang!”: On the emergence of sinophobic behavior on web communities in the face of covid-19. In: Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021, pp. 1122–1133 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    18 Retrieved September25, 2021 (2020)

    League, A.-D.: Online hate and harassment report: the american experience 2020. 18 Retrieved September25, 2021 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    In: Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, vol

    Newell, E., Jurgens, D., Saleem, H., Vala, H., Sassine, J., Armstrong, C., Ruths, D.: User migration in online social networks: A case study on reddit dur- ing a period of community unrest. In: Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, vol. 10, ...

    2016

  18. [26]

    Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction5(CSCW2), 1–24 (2021)

    Horta Ribeiro, M., Jhaver, S., Zannettou, S., Blackburn, J., Stringhini, G., De Cristofaro, E., West, R.: Do platform migrations compromise content mod- eration? evidence from r/the donald and r/incels. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction5(CSCW2), 1–24 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    In: Proceedings of the 13th ACM Web Science Conference 2021, pp

    Ali, S., Saeed, M.H., Aldreabi, E., Blackburn, J., De Cristofaro, E., Zannettou, S., Stringhini, G.: Understanding the effect of deplatforming on social networks. In: Proceedings of the 13th ACM Web Science Conference 2021, pp. 187–195 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    PNAS nexus2(10), 324 (2023)

    Monti, C., Cinelli, M., Valensise, C., Quattrociocchi, W., Starnini, M.: Online conspiracy communities are more resilient to deplatforming. PNAS nexus2(10), 324 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Social Media+ Society11(1), 20563051241309497 (2025)

    Schmitz, A., Samory, M.: From volunteerism to corporatization: Analyzing par- ticipation in the 2015 and 2023 reddit blackouts. Social Media+ Society11(1), 20563051241309497 (2025)

    2015

  22. [30]

    Scientific Reports13(1), 21626 (2023)

    Cava, L.L., Aiello, L.M., Tagarelli, A.: Drivers of social influence in the twitter migration to mastodon. Scientific Reports13(1), 21626 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    i’m in the bluesky tonight

    Failla, A., Rossetti, G.: “i’m in the bluesky tonight”: Insights from a year worth of social data. PloS one19(11), 0310330 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    PloS one20(2), 0318034 (2025)

    Quelle, D., Bovet, A.: Bluesky: Network topology, polarization, and algorithmic curation. PloS one20(2), 0318034 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    Fiorina, M.P., Abrams, S.J., Pope, J.: Culture war? the myth of a polarized america (2004)

    2004

  26. [34]

    Levendusky, M.: The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans, (2009)

    2009

  27. [35]

    PNAS Nexus4(9), 262 (2025)

    Di Martino, E., Galeazzi, A., Starnini, M., Quattrociocchi, W., Cinelli, M.: Ideo- logical fragmentation of the social media ecosystem: From echo chambers to echo platforms. PNAS Nexus4(9), 262 (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    Science386, 950–6 (2024)

    Kupferschmidt, K.: Like ‘old twitter’: the scientific community finds a new home on bluesky. Science386, 950–6 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    M. Otala, J., Kurtic, G., Grasso, I., Liu, Y., Matthews, J., Madraki, G.: Political polarization and platform migration: A study of parler and twitter usage by 19 united states of america congress members. In: Companion Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021, pp. 224–231 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Communications of the ACM66(10), 37–40 (2023)

    B¨ ar, D., Pr¨ ollochs, N., Feuerriegel, S.: New threats to society from free-speech social media platforms. Communications of the ACM66(10), 37–40 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    Journal of communi- cation60(3), 556–576 (2010)

    Stroud, N.J.: Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of communi- cation60(3), 556–576 (2010)

    2010

  32. [40]

    Business information review34(3), 150–160 (2017)

    Spohr, D.: Fake news and ideological polarization: Filter bubbles and selective exposure on social media. Business information review34(3), 150–160 (2017)

    2017

  33. [41]

    Scientific reports9(1), 20118 (2019)

    Brugnoli, E., Cinelli, M., Quattrociocchi, W., Scala, A.: Recursive patterns in online echo chambers. Scientific reports9(1), 20118 (2019)

    2019

  34. [42]

    The international journal of press/politics24(4), 465–486 (2019)

    Cardenal, A.S., Aguilar-Paredes, C., Galais, C., P´ erez-Montoro, M.: Digital tech- nologies and selective exposure: How choice and filter bubbles shape news media exposure. The international journal of press/politics24(4), 465–486 (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    PloS one20(2), 0316271 (2025)

    Pecile, G., Di Marco, N., Cinelli, M., Quattrociocchi, W.: Mapping the global election landscape on social media in 2024. PloS one20(2), 0316271 (2025)

    2024

  36. [44]

    In: Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp

    Stefanov, P., Darwish, K., Atanasov, A., Nakov, P.: Predicting the topical stance and political leaning of media using tweets. In: Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 527–537 (2020)

    2020

  37. [45]

    Nature Human Behaviour7(6), 904–916 (2023)

    Flamino, J., Galeazzi, A., Feldman, S., Macy, M.W., Cross, B., Zhou, Z., Serafino, M., Bovet, A., Makse, H.A., Szymanski, B.K.: Political polarization of news media and influencers on twitter in the 2016 and 2020 us presidential elections. Nature Human Behaviour7(6), 904–916 (2023)

    2016

  38. [46]

    IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems11(5), 5871–5879 (2024)

    Di Marco, N., Cinelli, M., Alipour, S., Quattrociocchi, W.: Users volatility on reddit and voat. IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems11(5), 5871–5879 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    Social Media+ Society8(3), 20563051221113075 (2022)

    Dehghan, E., Nagappa, A.: Politicization and radicalization of discourses in the alt-tech ecosystem: A case study on gab social. Social Media+ Society8(3), 20563051221113075 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

    Nature Machine Intelligence5(11), 1214–1224 (2023)

    Piao, J., Liu, J., Zhang, F., Su, J., Li, Y.: Human–ai adaptive dynamics drives the emergence of information cocoons. Nature Machine Intelligence5(11), 1214–1224 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    Science391(6783), 354–357 (2026)

    Schroeder, D.T., Cha, M., Baronchelli, A., Bostrom, N., Christakis, N.A., Garcia, D., Goldenberg, A., Kyrychenko, Y., Leyton-Brown, K., Lutz, N.,et al.: How malicious ai swarms can threaten democracy. Science391(6783), 354–357 (2026)

    2026

  42. [50]

    In: Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, vol

    Baumgartner, J., Zannettou, S., Keegan, B., Squire, M., Blackburn, J.: The 20 pushshift reddit dataset. In: Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, vol. 14, pp. 830–839 (2020)

    2020

  43. [51]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.00376 (2024)

    Balasubramanian, A., Zou, V., Narayana, H., You, C., Luceri, L., Ferrara, E.: A public dataset tracking social media discourse about the 2024 us presidential election on twitter/x. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.00376 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    score” was grouped under the category of “likes

    Shah, K., Gerard, P., Luceri, L., Ferrara, E.: Unfiltered conversations: A dataset of 2024 us presidential election discourse on truth social. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.01330 (2024) 21 Supplementary Information Power-law distribution of engagement metrics Engagement is measure...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed June 27, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.