Congrats! Looking forward to seeing the results.

8/8 Our analysis points to politicians offering a partisan lense through which to look at policy-relevant events. Users who join the debate after politicians intervene are then induced to look at these events though the partisan polarized lenses offered by politicians.

7/8 Crucially, the effect is
- unique to politicians, who uniquely use partisan language
- stronger when politicians themselves supply partisan rhetoric in their own posts
- not about attracting more (or more politicized) or more posts
- coupled wirth more "tribal" language

6/8
2. We show that when politicians intervene, public debates become more partisan and polarized. More intervetnions? More polarization!

5/8 Our contributions is two-fold:

1. We describe when and how politicians intervene in public debates: they do not respond to timeline of event or debate, timing of posts by media, other influencers or politicians. This lends credence to a causal interpretation of our results.

4/8 We show that when politicians intervene in public debates surrounding policy relevant events (mass shootings), other users engage in more partisan (more politicians-like) and more polarised (more non-elite polarized-like) posts.

3/8 A growing literature has focused on “demand”-side stories: echo chambers, anonymity, etc.

But what about top-down polarization? What are politicians doing?

2/8 American public debate, like in this very platform, is increasingly partisan and polarised.

Every news event is soon viewed through partiasn polarised lenses.

For more information about our department, check out this thread by one of our many wonderful professors, @grattonecon.bsky.social

bsky.app/profile/grat...