Polarization as The Impact of Strengthening of Anti-Vaccine Groups in Social Media (Echo Chamber Perspective)

Shiddiq Sugiono

Abstract

Abstrak

Pada masa pandemi Covid-19, kelompok anti-vaksin telah menggunakan media sosial untuk menyebarkan ketidakpercayaan terhadap dampak vaksin Covid-19 secara homogen dengan sesama anggotanya sehingga fenomena echo chamber tersebut dinilai mampu menciptakan polarisasi. Kajian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis fenomena polarisasi dari aspek penguatan opini, perdebatan yang memicu amarah dan upaya mempertahankan ideologi sebagai dampak kelompok anti-vaksin yang masuk dalam echo chamber. Metode yang digunakan adalah tinjauan literatur naratif dengan pendekatan kualitatif. Hasil kajian ini menyampaikan bahwa secara konseptual echo chamber memperkuat eksistensi kelompok anti-vaksin Covid-19 di media sosial dan mampu menciptakan polarisasi. Sifat media sosial yang mampu menyebarkan konten lintas negara dinilai memicu penguatan opini anti-vaksin. Dukungan tokoh publik di media sosial menjadi salah satu penyebab meluasnya kampanye tersebut karena pendukungnya turut menyuarakan hal yang sama. Adapun kelompok anti-vaksin kerap membalas pesan dengan bahasa yang memicu emosi. Pesan emosional menjadi salah satu karakteristik polarisasi karena merupakan mekanisme dalam mempertahankan ideologi. Selain itu, informasi perdebatan anti-vaksin cenderung memiliki kualitas informasi yang rendah karena banyak terjadi bias konfirmasi dimana kelompok anti-vaksin hanya percaya konten dengan pandangan yang sama. Sistem yang tertutup dari echo chamber menjadi pemicu bagaimana seseorang hanya akan mempercayai informasi yang disampaikan oleh kelompoknya.

Kata kunci: echo chamber, anti-vaksin, misinformasi, Covid-19, polarisasi

 

Abstract

During the Covid-19 pandemic, anti-vaccine groups have used social media to spread distrust the impact of Covid-19 vaccine homogeneously with their members so the echo chamber phenomenon is considered capable of creating polarization. This study aims to analyze the polarization phenomenon from the aspect of strengthening opinions, debates that trigger anger and efforts to maintain ideology. The method used is a narrative literature review with a qualitative approach. The results convey that conceptually the echo chamber strengthens the existence of the anti-vaccine group on social media and able to create polarization. The nature of social media that is able to spread content across countries is considered to trigger the strengthening of anti-vaccine opinion. The support of public figures on social media was one of the causes of the spread of the campaign because their supporters also voiced the same thing. The anti-vaccine groups often reply a messages that triggers emotions. Emotional messages become one of the polarization characteristics because it is a mechanism in defending ideology. Information on anti-vaccine debates have low quality because there is a lot of confirmation bias. The closed system of the echo chamber triggers how someone will only believe the information conveyed by his group.

     Keywords: echo chamber, anti-vaccination, misinformation, Covid-19, polarization


Keywords


echo chamber, anti-vaccination, misinformation, Covid-19, polarization.


References

Annas, Faris Budiman, Hasya Nailan Petranto, and Asep Aji Pramayoga. 2019. “Opini Publik Dalam Polarisasi Politik Di Media Sosial.” Jurnal PIKOM (Penelitian Komunikasi Dan Pembangunan) 20 (2): 111. https://doi.org/10.31346/jpikom.v20i2.2006.

Baines, Annalise, Muhammad Ittefaq, and Mauryne Abwao. 2021. “#Scamdemic, #plandemic, or #scaredemic: What Parler Social Media Platform Tells Us about Covid‐19 Vaccine.” Vaccines 9 (5). https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9050421.

Boodoosingh, Ramona, Lawal Olatunde Olayemi, and Filipina Amosa Lei Sam. 2020. “COVID-19 Vaccines: Getting Anti-Vaxxers Involved in the Discussion.” World Development 136 (August): 105177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105177.

CCDH. 2021a. “Pandemic Profiteers: The Business of Anti-Vaxx.”

———. 2021b. “The Disinformation Dozen,” 1–40. https://252f2edd-1c8b-49f5-9bb2-cb57bb47e4ba.filesusr.com/ugd/f4d9b9_b7cedc0553604720b7137f8663366ee5.pdf.

Cinelli, Matteo, Gianmarco de Francisci Morales, Alessandro Galeazzi, Walter Quattrociocchi, and Michele Starnini. 2021. “The Echo

Chamber Effect on Social Media.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 118 (9). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023301118.

Curiel, Rafael Prieto, and Humberto González Ramírez. 2021. “Vaccination Strategies against COVID-19 and the Diffusion of Anti-Vaccination Views.” Scientific Reports 11 (1): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-85555-1.

Destiny, Oberiri, and Bahiyah Omar. 2021. “Fake News and COVID-19 : Modelling the Predictors of Fake News Sharing Among Social Media Users Telematics and Informatics Fake News and COVID-19 : Modelling the Predictors of Fake News Sharing among Social Media Users.” Telematics and Informatics 56 (March): 101475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101475.

Dubé, Eve, Maryline Vivion, and Noni E. MacDonald. 2014. “Vaccine Hesitancy, Vaccine Refusal and the Anti-Vaccine Movement: Influence, Impact and Implications.” Expert Review of Vaccines 14 (1): 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1586/14760584.2015.964212.

Ferreira, Fernanda. 2020. “Antivaccine Videos Slip through YouTube’s Advertising Policies, New Study Finds.” 2020. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/11/antivaccine-videos-slip-through-youtube-s-advertising-policies-new-study-finds.

Gangarosa, E. J., A. M. Galazka, C. R. Wolfe, L. M. Phillips, R. E. Gangarosa, E. Miller, and R. T. Chen. 1998. “Impact of Anti-Vaccine Movements on Pertussis Control: The Untold Story.” Lancet 351 (9099): 356–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(97)04334-1.

Germani, Federico, and Nikola Biller-Andorno. 2021. “The Anti-Vaccination Infodemic on Social Media: A Behavioral Analysis.” PLoS ONE 16 (3 March): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247642.

Getman, Rebekah, Mohammad Helmi, Hal Roberts, Alfa Yansane, David Cutler, and Brittany Seymour. 2018. “Vaccine Hesitancy and Online Information: The Influence of Digital Networks.” Health Education and Behavior 45 (4): 599–606. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198117739673.

Haim, Mario, Andreas Graefe, and Hans Bernd Brosius. 2018. “Burst of the Filter Bubble?: Effects of Personalization on the Diversity of Google News.” Digital Journalism 6 (3): 330–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2017.1338145.

Herrera-Peco, Ivan, Beatriz Jiménez-Gómez, Carlos Santiago Romero Magdalena, Juan José Deudero, María García-Puente, Elvira Benítez De Gracia, and Carlos Ruiz Núñez. 2021. “Antivaccine Movement and COVID-19 Negationism: A Content Analysis of Spanish-Written Messages on Twitter.” Vaccines 9 (6): 656. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9060656.

Jennings, Will, Gerry Stoker, Hannah Willis, Viktor Valgardsson, Jen Gaskell, Daniel Devine, Lawrence Mckay, and Melinda C Mills. 2021. “Lack of Trust and Social Media Echo Chambers Predict COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy.” MedRxiv, 2021.01.26.21250246.

Johnson, Neil F, Nicolas Velásquez, Nicholas Johnson Restrepo, Rhys Leahy, Nicholas Gabriel, Sara El Oud, Minzhang Zheng, Pedro Manrique, and Stefan Wuchty. 2020. “The Online Competition between Pro- and Anti-Vaccination Views.” Nature 582 (June). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2281-1.

Juditha, Christiany. 2021. “ISU PORNOGRAFI DAN PENYEBARANNYA DI TWITTER (KASUS VIDEO ASUSILA MIRIP ARTIS).” Jurnal Penelitian Komunikasi Dan Opini Publik 25 (1): 15–30.

Lang, Jun, Wesley W. Erickson, and Zhuo Jing-Schmidt. 2021. “#MaskOn! #MaskOff! Digital Polarization of Mask-Wearing in the United States during COVID-19.” PLoS ONE 16 (4 April): 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250817.

Lee, Francis L.F. 2016. “Impact of Social Media on Opinion Polarization in Varying Times.” Communication and the Public 1 (1): 56–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/2057047315617763.

Megget, Katrina. 2020. “Even Covid-19 Can’t Kill the Anti-Vaccination Movement.” The BMJ 369 (June): 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m2184.

Meilani, Dwi, Evi Martha, Hadi Pratomo, Indah Jamiatun Hasanah, Yoslien Sopamena, and Somporn Rungreangkulkij. 2021. “Analysis of Measles Vaccination Refusal on Social Media (Facebook) among Anti-Vaccine Communities in Indonesia.” Kesmas 16 (1): 21–27. https://doi.org/10.21109/KESMAS.V16I1.3478.

Miyazaki, Kunihiro, Takayuki Uchiba, Kenji Tanaka, and Kazutoshi Sasahara. 2020. “The Strategy Behind Anti-Vaxxers ’ Reply Behavior on Social Media.”

Morini, Virginia, and Laura Pollacci. 2021. “Toward a Standard Approach for Echo Chamber Detection : Reddit Case Study.” Applied Science 11 (5390). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/ 10.3390/app11125390.

Nguyen, Tien T., Pik Mai Hui, F. Maxwell Harper, Loren Terveen, and Joseph A. Konstan. 2014. “Exploring the Filter Bubble: The Effect of Using Recommender Systems on Content Diversity.” WWW 2014 - Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web, 677–86. https://doi.org/10.1145/2566486.2568012.

Nuzhath, Tasmiah, Samia Tasnim, Rahul Kumar Sanjwal, Nusrat Fahmida Trisha, Mariya Rahman, S M Farabi Mahmud, Arif Arman,

Susmita Chakraborty, and Md Mahbub Hossain. 2021. “COVID-19 Vaccination Hesitancy, Misinformation and Conspiracy Theories on Social Media: A Content Analysis of Twitter Data.” School of Public Health, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA., no. December. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/vc9jb.

Ortiz-Sánchez, Elvira, Almudena Velando-Soriano, Laura Pradas-Hernández, Keyla Vargas-Román, Jose L. Gómez-Urquiza, Guillermo A. Cañadas-de la Fuente, and Luis Albendín-García. 2020. “Analysis of the Anti-Vaccine Movement in Social Networks: A Systematic Review.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17 (15): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17155394.

Prajarto, Nunung. 2021. “PRAKTEK FACT-CHECKING INFORMASI PANDEMI COVID-19 PADA TEMPO.CO, TIRTO.ID DAN KOMPAS.COM.” Jurnal Penelitian Komunikasi Dan Opini Publik 25 (1): 1–14.

Raj, Adharsh, Postgraduate Scholar, and Manash Pratim Goswami. 2020. “IS FAKE NEWS SPREADING MORE RAPIDLY THAN COVID-19 IN INDIA ?” 11. https://doi.org/10.31620/JCCC.06.20/15.

Roozenbeek, Jon, Claudia R Schneider, Sarah Dryhurst, John Kerr, Alexandra L J Freeman, Gabriel Recchia, Anne Marthe Van Der Bles, and Sander Van Der Linden. 2020. “Susceptibility to Misinformation about COVID-19 around the World.” R. Soc. Open 7. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c. 5170488.

Rozas, Lisa Werkmeister, and Waldo C. Klein. 2010. “The Value and Purpose of the Traditional Qualitative Literature Review.” Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work 7 (5): 387–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/15433710903344116.

Vicario, Michela Del, Gianna Vivaldo, Alessandro Bessi, Fabiana Zollo, Antonio Scala, Guido Caldarelli, and Walter Quattrociocchi. 2016. “Echo Chambers: Emotional Contagion and Group Polarization on Facebook.” Scientific Reports 6: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep37825.

Wollebæk, Dag, Rune Karlsen, Kari Steen-Johnsen, and Bernard Enjolras. 2019. “Anger, Fear, and Echo Chambers: The Emotional Basis for Online Behavior.” Social Media + Society 5 (2): 205630511982985. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119829859.

Youse, Samira, Rozita Dara, Samira Mubareka, and Andrew Papadopoulos. 2021. “International Journal of Infectious Diseases An Analysis of COVID-19 Vaccine Sentiments and Opinions on Twitter” 108: 256–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2021.05.059.

Yudhaswara, Rico Kurnia, and Dasrun Hidayat. 2021. “Deskripsi Pengalaman Perilaku Selektif Memilih Informasi Di Masa Pandemi Covid-19 Pada Media Massa Televisi.” Jurnal Penelitian Komunikasi Dan Opini Publik 25 (1): 61–73.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.33299/jpkop.25.2.4194

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.