Society is often polarized by controversial issues, that split the population into groups of opposing views. When such issues emerge on social media, we often observe the creation of 'echo chambers', i.e., situations where like-minded people reinforce each other's opinion, but do not get exposed to the views of the opposing side. In this paper we study algorithmic techniques for bridging these chambers, and thus, reducing controversy. Specifically, we represent the discussion on a controversial issue with an endorsement graph, and cast our problem as an edge-recommendation problem on this graph. The goal of the recommendation is to reduce the controversy score of the graph, which is measured by a recently-developed metric based on random walks. At the same time, we take into account the acceptance probability of the recommended edge, which represents how likely the edge is to materialize in the endorsement graph. We propose a simple model based on a recently-developed user-level controversy score, that is competitive with state-of- the-art link-prediction algorithms. We thus aim at finding the edges that produce the largest reduction in the controversy score, in expectation. To solve this problem, we propose an efficient algorithm, which considers only a fraction of all the combinations of possible edges. Experimental results show that our algorithm is more efficient than a simple greedy heuristic, while producing comparable score reduction. Finally, a comparison with other state-of-the-art edge-addition algorithms shows that this problem is fundamentally different from what has been studied in the literature.
@cite_18 perform a user study aimed to understand ways to best present information about controversial issues to users so as to persuade them. Their main relevant findings reveal that factors such as showing the credibility of a source, or the expertise of a user, increases the chances of other users believing in the content. In a similar spirit, @cite_9 create a browser widget that measures and displays the bias of users based on the news articles they read. Their study concludes that displaying to users their bias helps them read articles of opposing views.
@cite_9 @cite_18
2085731449 2166650854 2548105042 103153718
Deciding whether a claim is true or false often requires a deeper understanding of the evidence supporting and contradicting the claim. However, when presented with many evidence documents, users do not necessarily read and trust them uniformly. Psychologists and other researchers have shown that users tend to follow and agree with articles and sources that hold viewpoints similar to their own, a phenomenon known as confirmation bias. This suggests that when learning about a controversial topic, human biases and viewpoints about the topic may affect what is considered "trustworthy" or credible. It is an interesting challenge to build systems that can help users overcome this bias and help them decide the truthfulness of claims. In this article, we study various factors that enable humans to acquire additional information about controversial claims in an unbiased fashion. Specifically, we designed a user study to understand how presenting evidence with contrasting viewpoints and source expertise ratings affect how users learn from the evidence documents. We find that users do not seek contrasting viewpoints by themselves, but explicitly presenting contrasting evidence helps them get a well-rounded understanding of the topic. Furthermore, explicit knowledge of the credibility of the sources and the context in which the source provides the evidence document not only affects what users read but also whether they perceive the document to be credible. Language: en Deciding whether a claim is true or false often requires understanding the evidence supporting and contradicting the claim. However, when learning about a controversial claim, human biases and viewpoints may affect which evidence documents are considered "trustworthy" or credible. It is important to overcome this bias and know both viewpoints to get a balanced perspective. In this paper, we study various factors that affect learning about the truthfulness of controversial claims. We designed a user study to understand the impact of these factors. Specifically, we studied the impact of presenting evidence with contrasting viewpoints and source expertise rating on how users accessed the evidence documents. This would help us optimize how to teach users about controversial topics in the most effective way, and to design better claim verification systems. We find that users do not seek contrasting viewpoints by themselves, but explicitly presenting contrasting evidence helps them get a well-rounded understanding of the topic. Furthermore, explicit knowledge of the source credibility and the context not only affects what users read, but also how credible they perceive the document to be. A task of primary importance for social network users is to decide whose updates to subscribe to in order to maximize the relevance, credibility, and quality of the information received. To address this problem, we conducted an experiment designed to measure the extent to which different factors in online social networks affect both explicit and implicit judgments of credibility. The results of the study indicate that both the topical content of information sources and social network structure affect source credibility. Based on these results, we designed a novel method of automatically identifying and ranking social network users according to their relevance and expertise for a given topic. We performed empirical studies to compare a variety of alternative ranking algorithms and a proprietary service provided by a commercial website specifically designed for the same purpose. Our findings show a great potential for automatically identifying and ranking credible users for any given topic. In this paper, we focus on the challenge that users face in processing messages on the web posted in participatory media settings, such as blogs. It is desirable to recommend to users a restricted set of messages that may be most valuable to them. Credibility of a message is an important criteria to judge its value. In our approach, theories developed in sociology, political science and information science are used to design a model for evaluating the credibility of messages that is userspecific and that is sensitive to the social network in which the user resides. To recommend new messages to users, we employ Bayesian learning, built on past user behaviour, integrating new concepts of context and completeness of messages inspired from the strength of weak ties hypothesis, from social network theory. We are able to demonstrate that our method is effective in providing the most credible messages to users, through a user study on the digg.com dataset.