Social networks and radicalization of political discourse
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.57108/iesj.2026.6-2.12Keywords:
social networks, political homophilia, political polarization, discursive radicalization, brazilian electionsAbstract
This article analyzes the relationship between political homosexuality, polarization and discursive radicalization in social media during the 2022 Brazilian presidential elections. The survey uses the dataset Tweets 2022 Brazilian Presidential Elections, consisting of 7,015,186 tweets produced by 951,602 users, in order to understand how the organization of political interactions contributes to the formation of communities and the circulation of antagonistic speeches. Methodologically, a qualitative and quantitative approach is employed, combining social network analysis and content analysis of publications. The results indicate the formation of politically identifiable communities and the concentration of interactions among users with similar positions, evidencing patterns of homophilia. The analysis also points to the presence of speeches characterized by hostility, delegitimization of the adversary and intensification of political conflict. It is concluded that discourse radicalization must be understood in a relational way, considering both the content of messages and the interaction structures in which they circulate.
Downloads
References
BAKSHY, Eytan; MESSING, Solomon; ADAMIC, Lada A. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, Washington, v. 348, n. 6239, p. 1130-1132, 2015.
BARBERÁ, Pablo. Birds of the same feather tweet together: Bayesian ideal point estimation using Twitter data. Political Analysis, Cambridge, v. 23, n. 1, p. 76-91, 2015.
BARBERÁ, Pablo. Social media, echo chambers, and political polarization. In: PERSILY, Nathan; TUCKER, Joshua A. (org.). Social media and democracy: the state of the field, prospects for reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020. p. 34-55.
BARBERÁ, Pablo; JOST, John T.; NAGLER, Jonathan; TUCKER, Joshua A.; BONNEAU, Richard. Tweeting from left to right: is online political communication more than an echo chamber? Psychological Science, Washington, v. 26, n. 10, p. 1531-1542, 2015.
CASTELLS, Manuel. Communication power. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
CHADWICK, Andrew. The hybrid media system*: politics and power*. 2. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.
CINELLI, Matteo; DE FRANCISCI MORALES, Gianmarco; GALEAZZI, Alessandro; QUATTROCIOCCHI, Walter; STARNINI, Michele. The echo chamber effect on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, v. 118, n. 9, 2021.
CONSELHO NACIONAL DE SAÚDE (Brasil). Resolução n.º 510, de 7 de abril de 2016. Dispõe sobre as normas aplicáveis a pesquisas em Ciências Humanas e Sociais. Brasília, DF: Conselho Nacional de Saúde, 2016.
DE CHOUDHURY, Munmun; SUNDARAM, Hari; JOHN, Ajita; SELIGMANN, Doree Duncan; KELLIHER, Aisling. Birds of a feather: does user homophily impact information diffusion in social media? In: INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WEB INTELLIGENCE AND INTELLIGENT AGENT TECHNOLOGY, 2010, Toronto. Proceedings [...]. Toronto: IEEE, 2010. p. 33-40.
DRUCKMAN, James N.; LEVENDUSKY, Matthew S. What do we measure when we measure affective polarization? Public Opinion Quarterly**,** Oxford, v. 83, n. 1, p. 114-122, 2019.
HUDDY, Leonie. From social to political identity: a critical examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology, Hoboken, v. 22, n. 1, p. 127-156, 2001.
INTERIAN, Ruben; RODRIGUES, Francisco A. Group polarization, influence, and domination in online interaction networks: a case study of the 2022 Brazilian elections. arXiv, Ithaca, 2023.
IYENGAR, Shanto; LEVENDUSKY, Matthew S.; MALHOTRA, Neil; WESTWOOD, Sean J. The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, Palo Alto, v. 22, p. 129-146, 2019.
IYENGAR, Shanto; SOOD, Gaurav; LELKES, Yphtach. Affect, not ideology: a social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, Oxford, v. 76, n. 3, p. 405-431, 2012.
MASON, Lilliana. Uncivil agreement*: how politics became our identity*. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2018.
MCPHERSON, Miller; SMITH-LOVIN, Lynn; COOK, James M. Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, Palo Alto, v. 27, p. 415-444, 2001.
PARISER, Eli. The filter bubble*: what the Internet is hiding from you*. New York: Penguin Press, 2011.
SANTOS, Rodrigo et al. Tweets 2022 Brazilian Presidential Elections. Zenodo, 2025.
SUNSTEIN, Cass R. #Republic*: divided democracy in the age of social media*. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2018.
THEOCHARIS, Yannis; BARBERÁ, Pablo; FAZEKAS, Zoltán; POE, Alex. The dynamics of political incivility on Twitter. Political Communication, Abingdon, v. 37, n. 6, p. 814-835, 2020.
TUCKER, Joshua A.; GUESS, Andrew; BARBERÁ, Pablo; VACCARI, Cristian; SIEGEL, Alexandra; SANOVICH, Sergey; STUKAL, Denis; NYHAN, Brendan. Social media, political polarization, and political disinformation: a review of the scientific literature. Menlo Park: Hewlett Foundation, 2018.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Edvaldo Barbosa Brito
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The copyrights of articles, reviews, essays, academic papers, and other content published in the Ivy Enber Scientific Journal belong entirely to their respective authors, who grant the journal the right of first publication and scientific dissemination of the submitted material.
The Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license permits the copying, reproduction, distribution, sharing, adaptation, and use of the published content in any medium or format, including for commercial purposes, provided that the original source is properly cited, authorship is acknowledged, and publication in the Ivy Enber Scientific Journal is mentioned.
All content published in the journal is the sole responsibility of its authors, including opinions, data, interpretations, references, and positions presented in the works. The Ivy Enber Scientific Journal acts exclusively as a scientific dissemination vehicle, observing national and international standards of ethics, integrity, and editorial quality in academic publishing.
