Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1807.06655

Devam vs. Tamam: 2018 Turkish Elections

Mucahid Kutlu·Kareem Darwish·Tamer Elsayed
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

On June 24, 2018, Turkey held a historical election, transforming its parliamentary system to a presidential one. One of the main questions for Turkish voters was whether to start this new political era with reelecting its long-time political leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan or not. In this paper, we analyzed 108M tweets posted in the two months leading to the election to understand the groups that supported or opposed Erdogan's reelection. We examined the most distinguishing hashtags and retweeted accounts for both groups. Our findings indicate strong polarization between both groups as they differ in terms of ideology, news sources they follow, and preferred TV entertainment.

Explore related subjects

cs.SI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Mucahid Kutlu, Kareem Darwish, Tamer Elsayed. 2018-07-17. Devam vs. Tamam: 2018 Turkish Elections. https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.06655

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Network Analysis in Communication Research: Research Topics, Knowledge Organization, and Research Practices

Communication network research explains access to information, patterns of participation, and the organization of public meaning through different relationships and observations. This integrative review connects research topics, knowledge organization, and research practices, using bibliographic analysis of a Web of Science candidate pool to guide selective reading. Three judgments emerge from the comparisons. First, the relevance of a connection depends on the task and the criterion of value: team members anticipate consulting colleagues whose expertise they recognize, while journalists distinguish monitoring sources, using their information, and citing them. Second, commonality at one level can coexist with differentiation at another: audiences share outlets while selecting different articles, and shared issue agendas accommodate different evaluations. Third, some differences remain unresolved: contrasting media-use influence findings cannot be explained simply by whether models include selection and content co-nomination. Reading the uses of homophily, transactive memory, sourcing, agenda-setting, and framing resources clarifies which expectations and observations support these judgments. Selected citation contexts also show how conceptual and measurement resources enter the same argument. The resulting agenda calls for comparisons of relationship types across group stages, source use across reporting tasks, and encountered content with recipients' interpretations. These purposive comparisons establish specific connections among literatures without estimating their prevalence or demonstrating a common causal mechanism.

cs.SI↗
arXiv2026

Why Does Misinformation Propagate Faster? An Algorithmic Perspective on X

Misinformation is widely reported to propagate faster on engagement-based platforms, yet prior work largely focused on empirical analysis, without identifying a specific algorithmic mechanism that results in this phenomenon. Thanks to the open-sourcing of X's recommendation algorithms, we conduct what is, to our knowledge, the first component-level study of the recommendation algorithm deployed by a social media platform, which examines how each of its components affects misinformation propagation. Specifically, we identify the engagement fungibility mechanism in the algorithm, where the final recommendation score is constructed as a weighted sum of all predicted user activities. As a result, a tweet can be repeatedly recommended simply because it is predicted to draw many instant reactions (e.g., likes and retweets), even when it is not expected to draw thoughtful responses (e.g., replies and quotes). Since misinformation typically draws a larger share of its engagement from instant reactions, this mechanism enables it to receive more recommendation exposure and to propagate faster. To empirically validate this mechanism, we re-implement X's recommendation algorithm on the USC X 2024 election corpus, and build a calibrated simulation study to analyze the impact of different scoring rules. We find that re-tuning the metric weights has little or even a negative impact on reducing the credibility exposure gap, while those scoring rules that set a precondition of thoughtful engagement for amplification would be able to alleviate the gap significantly, across 46 robustness checks. Our diagnosis, therefore, yields a simple and deployable fix, a reflective-threshold gate that withholds amplification until a tweet is predicted to draw thoughtful engagement, which we find to reallocate exposure away from low-credibility content at no cost to mainstream exposure and with no loss of engagement.

cs.SI↗
arXiv2026

The Conversation Turns First: Crowd Discussion and Price Reversals in Prediction Markets

Prediction markets combine trading with public discussion of the same events. We examine whether comment-derived signals predict subsequent activity, buying direction, and changes in the leading outcome. A correlation sweep across 79 non-political Polymarket markets guides six classification experiments comparing comment features, trading features, and their combinations. On live blocks containing comments, attention nearly matches trading history in predicting heavy trading within 18 hours (PR-AUC 0.786 versus 0.790, against prevalence 0.606), with its relative advantage concentrated in short markets. Comment content carries directional information: toxicity ranks future buying direction above chance in 43 of 53 scored markets, while adding attention, sentiment, and stance to flow history increases ROC-AUC from 0.780 to 0.788. Leadership changes are predicted primarily by market state. Stance shifts against the leader before reversals in 23 of 27 evaluable markets, but adds no clear improvement in individual-block forecasting. These results distinguish attention from directional support and price uncertainty. They establish predictive associations consistent with discussion and trading responding to shared information, without identifying a causal effect of comments on markets.

cs.SI↗