Engagement, user satisfaction, and the amplification of divisive content on social media.

IF 2.2 Q2 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
PNAS nexus Pub Date : 2025-03-05 eCollection Date: 2025-03-01 DOI:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf062
Smitha Milli, Micah Carroll, Yike Wang, Sashrika Pandey, Sebastian Zhao, Anca D Dragan
{"title":"Engagement, user satisfaction, and the amplification of divisive content on social media.","authors":"Smitha Milli, Micah Carroll, Yike Wang, Sashrika Pandey, Sebastian Zhao, Anca D Dragan","doi":"10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf062","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Social media ranking algorithms typically optimize for users' revealed preferences, i.e. user engagement such as clicks, shares, and likes. Many have hypothesized that by focusing on users' revealed preferences, these algorithms may exacerbate human behavioral biases. In a preregistered algorithmic audit, we found that, relative to a reverse-chronological baseline, Twitter's engagement-based ranking algorithm amplifies emotionally charged, out-group hostile content that users say makes them feel worse about their political out-group. Furthermore, we find that users do <i>not</i> prefer the political tweets selected by the algorithm, suggesting that the engagement-based algorithm underperforms in satisfying users' stated preferences. Finally, we explore the implications of an alternative approach that ranks content based on users' stated preferences and find a reduction in angry, partisan, and out-group hostile content, but also a potential reinforcement of proattitudinal content. Overall, our findings suggest that greater integration of stated preferences into social media ranking algorithms could promote better online discourse, though potential trade-offs also warrant further investigation.</p>","PeriodicalId":74468,"journal":{"name":"PNAS nexus","volume":"4 3","pages":"pgaf062"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11894805/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PNAS nexus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf062","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Social media ranking algorithms typically optimize for users' revealed preferences, i.e. user engagement such as clicks, shares, and likes. Many have hypothesized that by focusing on users' revealed preferences, these algorithms may exacerbate human behavioral biases. In a preregistered algorithmic audit, we found that, relative to a reverse-chronological baseline, Twitter's engagement-based ranking algorithm amplifies emotionally charged, out-group hostile content that users say makes them feel worse about their political out-group. Furthermore, we find that users do not prefer the political tweets selected by the algorithm, suggesting that the engagement-based algorithm underperforms in satisfying users' stated preferences. Finally, we explore the implications of an alternative approach that ranks content based on users' stated preferences and find a reduction in angry, partisan, and out-group hostile content, but also a potential reinforcement of proattitudinal content. Overall, our findings suggest that greater integration of stated preferences into social media ranking algorithms could promote better online discourse, though potential trade-offs also warrant further investigation.

参与度,用户满意度,以及社交媒体上分裂内容的放大。
社交媒体排名算法通常根据用户的偏好进行优化,即用户参与度,如点击、分享和点赞。许多人假设,通过关注用户的偏好,这些算法可能会加剧人类的行为偏见。在一项预先注册的算法审计中,我们发现,相对于时间倒序的基线,Twitter基于参与度的排名算法放大了充满情绪的、对外群体充满敌意的内容,用户说这些内容让他们对自己的政治外群体感觉更糟。此外,我们发现用户并不喜欢算法选择的政治推文,这表明基于参与度的算法在满足用户声明的偏好方面表现不佳。最后,我们探讨了另一种方法的含义,该方法根据用户声明的偏好对内容进行排名,并发现愤怒、党派和外群体敌对内容的减少,但也有可能加强偏袒内容。总的来说,我们的研究结果表明,将陈述偏好更大程度地整合到社交媒体排名算法中可以促进更好的在线话语,尽管潜在的权衡也值得进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信