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.
Making recommendations to decrease polarization. The web offers the opportunity to easily access any kind of information. Nevertheless, several studies have observed that, when offered choice, users prefer to be exposed to agreeable and like-minded content. For instance, @cite_31 report that even when opposing views were presented side-to-side, people would still preferentially select information that reinforced their existing attitudes. '' This selective-exposure phenomenon (also called filter bubble'' or echo chamber'') has led to increased fragmentation and polarization online. A wide body of recent studies have studied @cite_23 @cite_27 @cite_15 and quantified @cite_5 @cite_24 @cite_14 @cite_29 this divide.
@cite_14 @cite_15 @cite_29 @cite_24 @cite_27 @cite_23 @cite_5 @cite_31
2077724862 2182265315 2119758323 2232384272
We investigated participants' preferential selection of information and their attitude moderation in an online environment. Results showed that even when opposing views were presented side-to-side, people would still preferentially select information that reinforced their existing attitudes. Preferential selection of information was, however, influenced by both situational (e.g., perceived threat) and personal (e.g., topic involvement) factors. Specifically, perceived threat induced selective exposure to attitude consistent information for topics that participants had low involvement. Participants had a higher tendency to select peer user opinions in topics that they had low than high involvement, but only when there was no perception of threat. Overall, participants' attitudes were moderated after being exposed to diverse views, although high topic involvement led to higher resistance to such moderation. Perceived threat also weakened attitude moderation, especially for low involvement topics. Results have important implication to the potential effects of "information bubble" - selective exposure can be induced by situational and personal factors even when competing views are presented side-by-side. The Internet gives individuals more choice in political news and information sources and more tools to filter out disagreeable information. Citing the preference described by selective exposure theory — people prefer information that supports their beliefs and avoid counter-attitudinal information — observers warn that people may use these tools to access only agreeable information and thus live in ideological echo chambers. We report on a field deployment of a browser extension that showed users feedback about the political lean of their weekly and all time reading behaviors. Compared to a control group, showing feedback led to a modest move toward balanced exposure, corresponding to 1-2 visits per week to ideologically opposing sites or 5-10 additional visits per week to centrist sites. Is a polarized society inevitable, where people choose to be exposed to only political news and commentary that reinforces their existing viewpoints? We examine the relationship between the numbers of supporting and challenging items in a collection of political opinion items and readers' satisfaction, and then evaluate whether simple presentation techniques such as highlighting agreeable items or showing them first can increase satisfaction when fewer agreeable items are present. We find individual differences: some people are diversity-seeking while others are challenge-averse. For challenge-averse readers, highlighting appears to make satisfaction with sets of mostly agreeable items more extreme, but does not increase satisfaction overall, and sorting agreeable content first appears to decrease satisfaction rather than increasing it. These findings have important implications for builders of websites that aggregate content reflecting different positions. The wide availability of user-provided content in online social media facilitates the aggregation of people around common interests, worldviews, and narratives. However, the World Wide Web (WWW) also allows for the rapid dissemination of unsubstantiated rumors and conspiracy theories that often elicit rapid, large, but naive social responses such as the recent case of Jade Helm 15––where a simple military exercise turned out to be perceived as the beginning of a new civil war in the United States. In this work, we address the determinants governing misinformation spreading through a thorough quantitative analysis. In particular, we focus on how Facebook users consume information related to two distinct narratives: scientific and conspiracy news. We find that, although consumers of scientific and conspiracy stories present similar consumption patterns with respect to content, cascade dynamics differ. Selective exposure to content is the primary driver of content diffusion and generates the formation of homogeneous clusters, i.e., “echo chambers.” Indeed, homogeneity appears to be the primary driver for the diffusion of contents and each echo chamber has its own cascade dynamics. Finally, we introduce a data-driven percolation model mimicking rumor spreading and we show that homogeneity and polarization are the main determinants for predicting cascades’ size.