Rapid rise and decay in petition signing

Springer Science and Business Media LLC - 2017
Taha Yasseri1, Scott A Hale1, Helen Z Margetts1
1Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Tóm tắt

Contemporary collective action, much of which involves social media and other Internet-based platforms, leaves a digital imprint which may be harvested to better understand the dynamics of mobilization. Petition signing is an example of collective action which has gained in popularity with rising use of social media and provides such data for the whole population of petition signatories for a given platform. This paper tracks the growth curves of all 20,000 petitions to the UK government petitions website ( http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk ) and 1,800 petitions to the US White House site ( https://petitions.whitehouse.gov ), analyzing the rate of growth and outreach mechanism. Previous research has suggested the importance of the first day to the ultimate success of a petition, but has not examined early growth within that day, made possible here through hourly resolution in the data. The analysis shows that the vast majority of petitions do not achieve any measure of success; over 99 percent fail to get the 10,000 signatures required for an official response and only 0.1 percent attain the 100,000 required for a parliamentary debate (0.7 percent in the US). We analyze the data through a multiplicative process model framework to explain the heterogeneous growth of signatures at the population level. We define and measure an average outreach factor for petitions and show that it decays very fast (reducing to 0.1% after 10 hours in the UK and 30 hours in the US). After a day or two, a petition’s fate is virtually set. The findings challenge conventional analyses of collective action from economics and political science, where the production function has been assumed to follow an S-shaped curve.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Margetts H, John P, Hale S, Yasseri T (2015) Political turbulence: how social media shape collective action. Princeton University Press, Princeton

Harlow S, Harp D (2012) Collective action on the web. Inf Commun Soc 15(2):196-216

Borge-Holthoefer J, Moreno Y, Yasseri T (2016) Editorial: at the crossroads: lessons and challenges in computational social science. Front Phys 4:37

González-Bailón S, Borge-Holthoefer J, Rivero A, Moreno Y (2011) The dynamics of protest recruitment through an online network. Sci Rep 1:197

Borge-Holthoefer J, Rivero A, García I, Cauhé E, Ferrer A, Ferrer D, Francos D, Iniguez D, Pérez MP, Ruiz G, Sanz F, Serrano F, Vinas C, Tarancón A, Moreno Y (2011) Structural and dynamical patterns on online social networks: the Spanish May 15th movement as a case study. PLoS ONE 6:e23883

Ghonim W (2012) Revolution 2.0: the power of the people is greater than the people in power: a memoir. Houghton Mifflin, New York

Yasseri T, Sumi R, Rung A, Kornai A, Kertész J (2012) Dynamics of conflicts in Wikipedia. PLoS ONE 7(6):e38869

Iñiguez G, Török J, Yasseri T, Kaski K, Kertész J (2014) Modeling social dynamics in a collaborative environment. EPJ Data Sci 3:1

Conover MD, Gonçalves B, Flammini A, Menczer F (2012) Partisan asymmetries in online political activity. EPJ Data Sci 1:6

Chmiel A, Sienkiewicz J, Paltoglou G, Buckley K, Skowron M, Thelwall M, Kappas A, Hołyst J (2014) Collective emotions online. In: Agarwal N, Lim M, Wigand RT (eds) Online collective action. Lecture notes in social networks. Springer, Berlin, pp 59-74

Hale SA, John P, Margetts H, Yasseri T (2014) Investigating political participation and social information using big data and a natural experiment. In: 2014 annual meeting and exhibition of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC. https://arxiv.org/abs/1408.3562

Wright S (2012) Assessing (e-)democratic innovations: “democratic goods” and Downing Street e-petitions. J Inf Technol Polit 9(4):453-470. doi:10.1080/19331681.2012.712820. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19331681.2012.712820

Hale SA, Margetts H, Yasseri T (2013) Petition growth and success rates on the UK No. 10 Downing Street website. In: Proceedings of the 5th annual ACM web science conference. WebSci ’13. ACM, New York, pp 132-138. doi:10.1145/2464464.2464518.

Parry G, Moyser G, Day N (1992) Political participation and democracy in Britain. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Whyte A, Renton A, Macintosh A (2005) e-petitioning in Kingston and Bristol: evaluation of e-petitioning in the local e-democracy national project. International Teledemocracy Centre, Napier University, Edinburgh

Smith G (2009) Democratic innovations: designing institutions for citizen participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Escher T (2011) Writetothem.com: analysis of users and usage for UK citizens online democracy. UK Citizens Online Democracy

Chadwick A (2008) Web 2.0: new challenges for the study of e-democracy in an era of informational exuberance. J Law Policy Inf Soc 5(1):9-41

Fox R, Gibbons V, Korris M (2012) What next for e-petitions. Technical report, Hansard Society

Lindner R, Riehm U (2011) Broadening participation through e-petitions? An empirical study of petitions to the German Parliament. Policy Internet 3(1):63-85

Jungherr A, Jürgens P (2010) The political click: political participation through e-petitions in Germany. Policy Internet 2(4):131-165. doi:10.2202/1944-2866.1084

Schmidt J-H, Johnsen K (2014) On the use of the e-petition platform of the German Bundestag. Preprint. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2444672

Bennett WL, Iyengar S (2008) A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. J Commun 58(4):707-731

Farrell H (2012) The consequences of the Internet for politics. Annu Rev Pol Sci 15(1):35-52

Margetts HZ, Hale SA, Yasseri T (2016) Petitions: gov.uk petitioning website. UK Data Archive, Colchester, Essex. doi:10.5255/UKDA-SN-851614

Margetts HZ, Hale SA, Yasseri T (2015) We the people: the US petitioning website. UK Data Archive, Colchester, Essex. doi:10.5255/UKDA-SN-851616

Granovetter M (1978) Threshold models of collective behavior. Am J Sociol 83(6):1420-1443

Schelling T (1978) Micromotives and macrobehavior. Norton, New York

Centola DM (2013) Homophily, networks, and critical mass: solving the start-up problem in large group collective action. Ration Soc 25(1):3-40. doi:10.1177/1043463112473734. http://rss.sagepub.com/content/25/1/3.abstract

Marwell G, Oliver P (1993) The critical mass in collective action: a micro-social theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Wu F, Huberman BA (2007) Novelty and collective attention. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(45):17599-17601. doi:10.1073/pnas.0704916104. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/45/17599.abstract

Margetts H, John P, Escher T, Reissfelder S (2011) Social information and political participation on the Internet: an experiment. Eur Polit Sci Rev 3(3):321-344. doi:10.1017/S1755773911000129

Margetts HZ, John P, Hale SA, Reissfelder S (2013) Leadership without leaders? Starters and followers in online collective action. Polit Stud 63(2):278-299

Bright J (2014) Does the news media set the social agenda? Working paper

Lin Y-R, Margolin D, Keegan B, Baronchelli A, Lazer D (2013) #bigbirds never die: understanding social dynamics of emergent hashtags

Gleeson JP, Cellai D, Onnela J-P, Porter MA, Reed-Tsochas F (2013) A simple generative model of collective online behaviour. Preprint. arXiv:1305.7440

Granovetter M (1978) Threshold models of collective behavior. Am J Sociol 83(6):1420-1443

Centola D, Macy M (2007) Complex Contagions and the Weakness of Long Ties. Am J Sociol 113(3):702-734

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Thông tin tác giả