Influential Factors on Collective Anxiety of Online Topic-Based Communities

Background: Under the uncertainty led by the decentralized information on social media, people seek homogeneity in either opinions or affection to establish group identity to better understand the information. This also means they are easily polarized, not only ideologically but also in their actions. Affective polarization is the emotional tendency for people to show animosity toward opposing partisans while seeking homogeneity from fellow partisans. Much research into online affective polarization has focused on quantifying anxiety at an individual level while neglecting that on a collective basis. Therefore, this paper examined the polarization of collective anxiety in topic-based communities on Weibo.Methods: We aim to interpret correlations between collective anxiety online and topic characteristics, user competence, as well as the proportion of influencers of Weibo topic-based communities. Our neural networks model and statistical analysis were based on 200 communities with 403,380 personal accounts and 1,012,830 messages.Results: Collective anxiety levels are correlated to (1) the extent to which a topic captures public interest, (2) how community members articulate topics on social network platforms, and (3) the ratio of influencers in the community. Specifically, people’s conflicting perceptions and articulations of topics might increase collective anxiety, while the extent to which a topic is of the public interest and the number of influencers engaged in a topic account for any decline in its ranking. Furthermore, familiarity with a topic does not help predict collective anxiety levels. There are no significant links between community size or interactivity dynamics and the level of collective anxiety in the topic-based community. Our computational model has 85.00% precision and 87.00% recall.Conclusion: This study found the collective anxiety augment due to topic proximities to public interest and members’ lack of declarative knowledge on topics, while to decline with an increasing portion of online influencers. These findings indicate that collective anxiety is induced due to a lack of credibility. Also, the amount of conflicting information shared by different people places them in a state of flux. Therefore, a community with more influencers may be more likely to experience anxiety polarization, bringing forth the issue of layered information and inequality.

Download Full-text

Measuring affective polarization of online topic-based communities: a computational study on collective anxiety of Weibo (Preprint)

10.2196/preprints.25702 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Yi Yang ◽

Na Ta ◽

Kaiyu Li ◽

Fang Jiao

Keyword(s):

Social Media ◽

Computational Model ◽

Public Interest ◽

Computational Study ◽

Community Members ◽

Individual Level ◽

Personal Influence ◽

Conflicting Information ◽

Nature Of Information ◽

Personal Accounts

BACKGROUND The emergence of social media highlights the decentralized nature of information, which means people can be prone to uncertainty and be affectively polarized. A wealth of research around online affective polarization has focused on quantifying anxiety at an individual level, while neglecting that on a collective basis. To address this gap, the manner in which the anxiety of topic-based communities on social media polarizes warrants further examination. OBJECTIVE This study aims to gauge the origin and fluctuation in the collective anxiety of topic-based communities on Weibo, and also investigates its correlations with topic characteristics and users’ personal influence. METHODS In this paper, researchers proposed a computational model based on neural networks to assess the collective anxiety score of Weibo topic-based communities. The empirical study was based on 200 communities with 403,380 personal accounts and 358,260 messages. RESULTS With demonstrated effectiveness of our computational model (85.00% precision and 87.00% recall), we found correlations between the collective anxiety level and the extent to which a certain topic involves public interest, as well as how community members interpret and elaborate the topics on social network platforms. Furthermore, the ratio of influencers might impact anxiety polarization of topic-based communities by setting tones and leading the trends within their groups. More specifically, how close a certain topic is to public interest and people’s conflicting perceptions are responsible for increases of this collective anxiety, while the number of influencers engaged accounts for the decline of its increment. CONCLUSIONS This paper examines the manner in which the anxiety of topic-based communities on Weibo platform polarizes. We found the collective anxiety to augment due to topic proximities to public interest and members’ lack of declarative knowledge on topics, while to decline with an increasing portion of online influencers. These findings indicate that anxiety is induced due to a lack of credibility. Also, the amount of conflicting information shared by different people places them in a state of flux. Therefore, a community with more influencers may be more likely to experience anxiety polarization, bringing forth the issue of layered information and inequality.

Download Full-text

Legal Standing Yayasan sebagai Badan Hukum

Talenta Conference Series Local Wisdom Social and Arts (LWSA) ◽

10.32734/lwsa.v1i1.174 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 1 (1) ◽

pp. 264-269

Author(s):

Sunarmi Sunarmi

Keyword(s):

Public Interest ◽

Limited Liability ◽

Third Party ◽

Community Members ◽

Legal Entity ◽

The Public ◽

Legal Standing ◽

The Social ◽

Illegal Acts

Dalam Pasal 1 angka 1 UU No. 16 Tahun 2001 tentang Yayasan disebutkan bahwa yayasan adalah badan hukum (rechtspersoon, legal entity) yang terdiri atas kekayaan yang dipisahkan dan diperuntukkan untuk mencapai tujuan tertentu di bidang sosial, keagamaan, dan kemanusiaan, yang tidak mempunyai anggota. Sebagai badan hukum maka yayasan memiliki harta kekayaan tersendiri yang terpisah dari harta kekayaan organ yayasan yaitu pembina, pengurus dan pengawas. Apabila korporasi dalam bentuk Perseroan Terbatas, pemiliknya adalah para pemegang saham, maka pemiliki yayasan itu bukanlah pendiri yayasan. Pemilik yayasan adalah tujuan yayasan itu sendiri, sehingga apabila terjadi dugaan penyimpangan terhadap aset yayasan, permasalahannya adalah apakah masyarakat memiliki kedudukan hukum (legal standing) untuk meyampaikan laporan kepada kepolisian terhadap organ yayasan yang diindikasikan melakukan perbuatan melawan hukum yang merugikan yayasan, siapakah yang memiliki kewenangan untuk melakukan pemeriksaan yayasan apabila terdapat dugaan penyimpangan terhadap aset yayasan dan siapakah yang bertanggung jawab terhadap terjadinya penyimpangan aset yayasan. Permasalahan di atas penting untuk dikemukakan melihat banyaknya laporan dari masyarakat anggota suatu perkumpulan yayasan yang melaporkan terjadinya perbuatan melawan hukum yang dilakukan oleh organ yayasan, sementara masyarakat dan penegak hukum masih memiliki tafsir yang berbeda terhadap pemahaman bahwa yayasan adalah milik masyarakat. Ada yang berpendapat bahwa yayasan adalah badan hukum publik dengan mengingat tujuan yayasan adalah sosial, keagamaan dan kemanusiaan sehingga yayasan bertujuan untuk melayani kepentingan umum, dengan demikian konsekwensinya adalah masyakat memiliki kewenangan untuk menyampaikan laporan terjadinya dugaan penyelewengan terhadap aset yayasan. Di pihak lain ada yang berpendapat bahwa yayasan adalah badan hukum privat karena didirikan oleh orang perorangan sebagaimana ditentukan dalam Pasal 9 Undang –Undang No. 16 Tahun 2001. Tulisan ini bertujuan untuk mengkaji secara normatif siapakah yang memiliki legal standing untuk menyampaikan laporan terjadinya perbuatan melawan hukum dalam suatu yayasan dengan menggunakan pendekatan normatif Dari hasil penelitian diketahui bahwa ditinjau dari segi Undang-Undang No. 16 Tahun 2001 tentang Yayasan, pengurus yayasan memiliki legal standing untuk mewakili kepentingan yayasan baik di dalam maupun di luar pengadilan (Pasal 35 ayat (1). Apabila pengurus terindikasi melakukan perbuatan melawan hukum yang mengakibatkan kerugian terhadap yayasan maka pengurus tersebut tidak berwenang mewakili kepentingan yayasan, yang berwenang mewakili kepentingan yayasan adalah pihak sebagaimana diatur dalam Anggaran Dasar (Pasal 36). Apabila terdapat dugaan terjadinya penyimpangan terhadap harta kekayaan yayasan maka Bab VIII tentang Pemeriksaan Terhadap Yayasan menentukan bahwa pihak ketiga yang berkepentingan dapat mengajukan permohonan tertulis disertai alasannya agar pengadilan mengeluarkan penetapan untuk melakukan pemeriksaan terhadap yayasan. Hal ini dilakukan sebagai bentuk pengawasan publik terhadap yayasan yang diduga melakukan perbuatan yang bertentangan dengan Undang-undang, Anggaran Dasar, atau merugikan kepentingan umum. Apabila penyimpangan terhadap aset yayasan tersebut dilakukan oleh organ yayasan maka yang bertanggung jawab adalah organ yayasan itu sendiri. In Article 1 No. 1 Act No. 16 of 2001 concerning the Foundation stated that the foundation is a legal entity (rechtspersoon, legal entity) which consists of separated wealth and intended to achieve certain goals in the social, religious, and humanitarian fields, which do not have members. As a legal entity, the foundation has its own assets which are separate from the assets of the foundation's organ, who are the supervisor, managers, and supervisor. If the corporation is in the form of a Limited Liability Company, and the owner is the shareholders, then the owner of the foundation is not the founder of the foundation. The owner of the foundation is the purpose of the foundation itself, so that if there is an alleged deviation from the assets of the foundation, the problem is whether the community has a legal standing to submit a report to the police towards the organ of the foundation which is indicated to violate the foundation, then who has the authority to conduct a foundation monitoring if there is an alleged deviation from the assets of the foundation and who is responsible for the deviation of the assets of the foundation. The above problem is important to be noted when there are many reports from the community members of a foundation association that report the occurrence of illegal acts carried out by the organ of the foundation, while the community and law enforcement still have different interpretations of the understanding that the foundation belongs to the community. Some argue that the foundation is a public legal entity considering the foundation's purpose is social, religious, and humanitarian, so that the foundation aims to serve the public interest, thus the consequence is that the community has the authority to submit reports of alleged fraud towards the assets of the foundation. On the other hand, there are those who argue that foundations are private legal entities because they are established by individuals as specified in Article 9 of Act No. 16 of 2001. This paper aimed to normatively examine who has the legal standing to submit a report on the occurrence of unlawful acts in a foundation using a normative approach. From the results of the study, it is known that in terms of Act No. 16 of 2001 concerning the Foundation, the management of the foundation has a legal standing to represent the interests of the foundation both inside and outside the court (Article 35 paragraph (1). If the management is indicated to have committed an unlawful act that resulted in a loss to the foundation, the management is not authorized to represent the interests of the foundation, which is authorized to represent the interests of the foundation as the party stipulated in the Articles of Association (Article 36). If there is an alleged deviation from the foundation's assets, Chapter VIII of the Investigation of the Foundation determines that the interested third party can submit a written application along with the reason that the court issues a determination to conduct an examination of the foundation. This is done as a form of public supervision of foundations that are suspected of committing acts that are contrary to the Law, Articles of Association, or harming the public interest. If the deviation from the foundation's assets is carried out by the organ of the foundation, then the responsible organ is the foundation itself.

Download Full-text