A mixed-methods approach to understand victimization discourses by opposing feminist sub-groups on social media.

Opposing social movements are groups that have conflicting objectives on a shared social justice issue. To maximize the probability of their movement's success, groups can strategically portray their group in a favourable manner while discrediting their opposition. One such approach involves the construction of victimization discourses. In this research, we combined topic modelling and critical discursive psychology to explore how opposing groups within the feminist movement used victimization as a lens to understand their movements in relation to transgender women. We compiled a dataset of over 40,000 tweets from 14 UK-based feminist accounts that included transgender women as women (the pro-inclusion group) and 13 accounts, that excluded transgender women (the anti-inclusion group). Our results revealed differences in how victimization was employed by the opposing movements: pro-inclusion groups drew on repertoires that created a sense of shared victimhood between cisgender women and transgender women, while anti-inclusion groups invoked a competitive victimhood repertoire. Both groups also challenged and delegitimised their oppositions' constructions of feminism and victimhood. These findings add to our understanding of the communication strategies used by opposing movements to achieve their mobilization goals.

What is the hype on #MedicinalCannabis in the United States? A content analysis of medicinal cannabis tweets.

INTRODUCTION: Medicinal cannabis is now legal in 44 US jurisdictions. Between 2020 and 2021 alone, four US jurisdictions legalised medicinal cannabis. The aim of this study is to identify themes in medicinal cannabis tweets from US jurisdictions with different legal statuses of cannabis from January to June 2021. METHODS: A total of 25,099 historical tweets from 51 US jurisdictions were collected using Python. Content analysis was performed on a random sample of tweets accounting for the population size of each US jurisdictions (n = 750). Results were presented separately by tweets posted from jurisdictions where all cannabis use (non-medicinal and medicinal) is 'fully legalised', 'illegal' and legal for 'medical-only' use. RESULTS: Four themes were identified: 'Policy', 'Therapeutic value', 'Sales and industry opportunities' and 'Adverse effects'. Most of the tweets were posted by the public. The most common theme was related to 'Policy' (32.5%-61.5% of the tweets). Tweets on 'Therapeutic value' were prevalent in all jurisdictions and accounted for 23.8%-32.1% of the tweets. Sales and promotional activities were prominent even in illegal jurisdictions (12.1%-26.5% of the tweets). Fewer than 10% of tweets were about intoxication and withdrawal symptoms. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: This study has explored if content themes of medicinal cannabis tweets differed by cannabis legal status. Most tweets were pro-cannabis and they were related to policy, therapeutic value, and sales and industry opportunities. Tweets on unsubstantiated health claims, adverse effects and crime warrants continued surveillance as these conversations could allow us to estimate cannabis-related harms to inform health surveillance.