Desk 5 shows obvious distinctions having Russian-code interface pages being the least gonna permit venue options (twenty-two

Program Vocabulary

The language of the Twitter user interface is the language that the user chooses to interact with and not necessarily the language that they choose to tweet in. When comparing user interface language with whether location service are enabled or not we find 123 different languages, many of which are in single of double figures, therefore we present only the 20 most frequently occurring user interface choices in Table 5 below. There is a statistically significant association between user interface language and whether location services are enabled both when taking only the top 20 (x 2 = 83, 122df, p<0.001) and all languages (x 2 = 82, 19df, p<0.001) although the latter is undermined by 48.8% of cells having an expected count of less than 5, hence the need to be selective.

8%), closely followed closely by individuals who collaborate inside the Chinese (twenty four.8%), Korean (twenty-six.8%) and you may Italian language (27.5%). The individuals most likely allow the new setup use the Portuguese software (57.0%) with Indonesian (55.6%), Language (51.2%) and you can Turkish (47.9%). One may speculate as to why these types of differences occur in loved ones so you can social and you can governmental contexts, nevertheless the differences in preference are obvious and apparent.

The same analysis of the top 20 countries for users who do and do not geotag shows the same top 20 countries (Table 6) and, as above, there is a significant association between the behaviour and language of interface (x 2 = 23, 19df, p<0.001). However, although Russian-language user interface users were the least likely to enable location settings they by no means have the lowest geotagging rate (2.5%). It is Korean interface users that are the least likely to actually geotag their content (0.3%) followed closely by Japanese (0.8%), Arabic (0.9%) and German (1.3%). Those who use the Turkish interface are the most likely to use geotagging (8.8%) then Indonesian (6.3%), Portuguese (5.7%) and Thai (5.2%).

As well as speculation over these particular differences exists, Dining tables 5 and you may six reveal that there is a user screen language effect within the gamble you to molds actions in if or not area attributes are allowed and you can if or not a user uses geotagging. Screen words is not a great proxy getting location so such cannot be called due to the fact country height consequences, but perhaps you’ll find social differences in attitudes toward Fb have fun with and you can privacy for which program words acts as a great proxy.

User Tweet Words

The language of individual tweets can be derived using the Language Detection Library for Java . 66 languages were identified in the dataset and the language of the last tweet of 1,681,075 users could not be identified (5.6%). There is a statistically significant association between these 67 languages and whether location services are enabled (x 2 = 1050644.2, 65df, p<0.001) but, as with user interface language, we present the 20 most frequently occurring languages below in Table 7 (x 2 = 1041865.3, 19df, p<0.001).

Since when looking at software vocabulary, users which tweeted inside Russian was at least likely to provides place features enabled (18.2%) with Ukrainian (twenty-two.4%), Korean (twenty-eight.9%) and Arabic (30.5%) tweeters. Profiles creating from inside the Portuguese was indeed the most appropriate to possess venue functions allowed (58.5%) directly trailed by Indonesian (55.8%), brand new Austronesian words off Tagalog (the state label getting Filipino-54.2%) and you may Thai (51.8%).

We present a similar analysis of the top 20 languages for in Table 8 (using ‘Dataset2′) for users who did and did not use geotagging. Note that the 19 of the top 20 most frequent languages are the same as in Table 7 with Ukrainian being replaced at 20 th position by Slovenian. The tweet language could not be identified for 1,503,269 users (6.3%) and the association is significant when only including the top 20 most frequent languages (x 2 = 26, 19df, p<0.001). As with user interface language in Table 6, the least likely groups to use geotagging are those who tweet in Korean (0.4%), followed by Japanese (0.8%), Arabic (0.9%), Russian and German (both 2.0%). Again, mirroring the results in Table 6, Turkish tweeters are the most likely to geotag (8.3%), then Indonesian (7.0%), Portuguese (5.9%) and Thai (5.6%).