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.
(c) The studies discussed above suggest that ( @math ) it is possible to nudge people by recommending content from an opposing side @cite_9 , ( @math ) extreme recommendations might not work @cite_6 , ( @math ) people in the middle'' are easier to convince @cite_22 , ( @math ) expert users and hubs are often less biased and can play a role in convincing others @cite_13 @cite_18
@cite_18 @cite_22 @cite_9 @cite_6 @cite_13
2085731449 1959339536 2182265315 2294090774 2137809006
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 The wide availability of user-provided content in online social media facilitates the aggregation of people around common interests, worldviews, and narratives. Despite the enthusiastic rhetoric on the part of some that this process generates "collective intelligence", the WWW also allows the rapid dissemination of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories that often elicite 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 the civil war in the US. We study how Facebook users consume information related to two different kinds of narrative: scientific and conspiracy news. We find that although consumers of scientific and conspiracy stories present similar consumption patterns with respect to content, the sizes of the spreading cascades differ. Homogeneity appears to be the primary driver for the diffusion of contents, but each echo chamber has its own cascade dynamics. To mimic these dynamics, we introduce a data-driven percolation model on signed networks. 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. In online social networks, people tend to connect with like-minded people and read agreeable information. Direct recommendation of challenging content has not worked well because users do not value diversity and avoid challenging content. In this poster, we investigate the possibility of an indirect approach by introducing intermediary topics, which are topics that are common to people having opposing views on sensitive issues, i.e., those issues that tend to divide people. Through a case study about a sensitive issue discussed in Twitter, we show that such intermediary topics exist, opening a path for future work in recommendation promoting diversity of content to be shared. A review of research suggests that the desire for opinion reinforcement may play a more important role in shaping individuals’ exposure to online political information than an aversion to opinion challenge. The article tests this idea using data collected via a webadministered behavior-tracking study with subjects recruited from the readership of 2 partisan online news sites (N = 727). The results demonstrate that opinion-reinforcing information promotes news story exposure while opinion-challenging information makes exposure only marginally less likely. The influence of both factors is modest, but opinionreinforcing information is a more important predictor. Having decided to view a news story, evidence of an aversion to opinion challenges disappears: There is no evidence that individuals abandon news stories that contain information with which they disagree. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.