# Multifaceted polarization and information reliability in climate change discussions on social media platforms

## TL;DR

This study explores how climate change discussions on social media platforms like Twitter and YouTube are polarized and influenced by the reliability of information shared.

## Contribution

The study reveals how ideological divides and emotional responses contribute to polarization in climate change discussions across social media platforms.

## Key findings

- Retweets reinforce echo chambers, while mentions increase inter-group exposure and polarization.
- Right-leaning communities show steeper negative sentiments and share low-reliability information.
- Ideological communities are thematically and topologically aligned across social media platforms.

## Abstract

Social media platforms like YouTube and Twitter play a key role in disseminating both reliable and unreliable information about climate change. This study analyses the topology of interactions in Twitter and their relation to cross-platform sharing, content discussions and emotional responses. We examined climate change discussions across four topics: the 27th United Nations Climate Change Conference, the Sixth Assessment Report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Refugees and Doñana Natural Park. While retweets reinforce in-group cohesion in the form of echo chambers, inter-group exposure is significant through mentions, suggesting that exposure to opposing views intensifies polarization, rather than mitigates it. Ideological divides feature content differences accompanied by steeper negative sentiments, especially from right-leaning communities prone to share low-reliability information. We identified a topological and thematic alignment between platforms, indicating that ideological communities are interconnected across them. Our findings show that climate change polarization is multifaceted, involving ideological divides, structural isolation and emotional engagement. These results suggest that effective climate policy discussions must address the emotional and identity-driven nature of public discourse and seek strategies to bridge ideological divides.