Social media algorithms, designed to boost user engagement for advertising revenue, amplify the biases inherent in human social learning processes, leading to misinformation and polarization.
Value misalignment in X’s feed algorithm is a reflection of value tensions in engagement
Social media feed algorithms rank content that is purported to be preferred by users, but the engagement behaviors that drive these algorithms are (at best) indirect proxies for users’ explicitly self-stated values. Are the resulting feeds value aligned, and if not, why? We investigate this question by annotating the basic human values expressed in participants’ X (Twitter) feeds (N = 715 US users), analyzing the relationship between the posts’ value expressions and the posts’ amplification in the ranked “For You” Page feed, and then comparing the amplified values to users’ own values. We observe that the inventory of posts from followed accounts reflects users’ self-stated values—but that there is an overall negative correlation (misalignment) between users’ explicit values and the value expressions the algorithm is more likely to amplify. We turn to engagement behavior to understand this misalignment and observe that users’ engagement behaviors can be misaligned with their stated values—likely causing the algorithm to learn and reflect these misaligned values. We also detect partisan differences consistent with this theory: While the algorithm amplifies values negatively correlated with both Democrats’ and Republicans’ self-stated values, they are more misaligned for Democrats. And in fact replying, a heavily weighted form of engagement, is associated with values that are less aligned for both Democrats’ and Republicans’ self-stated values, and is even more misaligned for Democrats. Taken together, these findings offer a glimpse into the tensions between the values that people hold and those that provoke reactions, and how these value tensions can produce misaligned outcomes.
Value misalignment in X’s feed algorithm is a reflection of value tensions in engagement
Social media feed algorithms rank content that is purported to be preferred by users, but the engagement behaviors that drive these algorithms are (at best) indirect proxies for users’ explicitly self-stated values. Are the resulting feeds value aligned, and if not, why? We investigate this question by annotating the basic human values expressed in participants’ X (Twitter) feeds (N = 715 US users), analyzing the relationship between the posts’ value expressions and the posts’ amplification in the ranked “For You” Page feed, and then comparing the amplified values to users’ own values. We observe that the inventory of posts from followed accounts reflects users’ self-stated values—but that there is an overall negative correlation (misalignment) between users’ explicit values and the value expressions the algorithm is more likely to amplify. We turn to engagement behavior to understand this misalignment and observe that users’ engagement behaviors can be misaligned with their stated values—likely causing the algorithm to learn and reflect these misaligned values. We also detect partisan differences consistent with this theory: While the algorithm amplifies values negatively correlated with both Democrats’ and Republicans’ self-stated values, they are more misaligned for Democrats. And in fact replying, a heavily weighted form of engagement, is associated with values that are less aligned for both Democrats’ and Republicans’ self-stated values, and is even more misaligned for Democrats. Taken together, these findings offer a glimpse into the tensions between the values that people hold and those that provoke reactions, and how these value tensions can produce misaligned outcomes.
How Social Media Tricks our Brains — and Destroys our Politics - Aaron Ross Powell's Blog
Algorithms may be making political polarization worse than we think
Marc Torrens and Carlos Carrasco-Farré analyze how algorithms influence opinions and heighten our emotional responses.
New study shows just how Facebook's algorithm shapes conservative and liberal bubbles
Research conducted at the height of the 2020 election reveals new details about how Facebook's algorithms handle political content. But it suggests there are no easy fixes to political polarization.
Social media is populist and polarising; AI may be the opposite
Large language models elevate expert consensus and moderate views, in sharp contrast to social platforms
How do social media feed algorithms affect attitudes and behavior in an election campaign?
We investigated the effects of Facebook’s and Instagram’s feed algorithms during the 2020 US election. We assigned a sample of consenting users to reverse-chronologically-ordered feeds instead of the default algorithms. Moving users out of algorithmic feeds substantially decreased the time they spent on the platforms and their activity. The chronological feed also affected exposure to content: The amount of political and untrustworthy content they saw increased on both platforms, the amount of content classified as uncivil or containing slur words they saw decreased on Facebook, and the amount of content from moderate friends and sources with ideologically mixed audiences they saw increased on Facebook. Despite these substantial changes in users’ on-platform experience, the chronological feed did not significantly alter levels of issue polarization, affective polarization, political knowledge, or other key attitudes during the 3-month study period.
Bias, Skew, and Search Engines Are Sufficient to Explain Online Toxicity
U.S. political discourse seems to have fissioned into discrete bubbles, each reflecting its own distorted image of the world. Many blame machine-learning algorithms that purportedly maximize “engagement”—serving up content that keeps YouTube or Facebook users watching videos or scrolling through their feeds—for radicalizing users or strengthening their partisanship. Sociologist Shoshana Zuboff15 even argues that “surveillance capitalism” uses optimized algorithmic feedback for “automated behavioral modification” at scale, writing the “music” that users then “dance” to.
Bias, Skew, and Search Engines Are Sufficient to Explain Online Toxicity
U.S. political discourse seems to have fissioned into discrete bubbles, each reflecting its own distorted image of the world. Many blame machine-learning algorithms that purportedly maximize “engagement”—serving up content that keeps YouTube or Facebook users watching videos or scrolling through their feeds—for radicalizing users or strengthening their partisanship. Sociologist Shoshana Zuboff15 even argues that “surveillance capitalism” uses optimized algorithmic feedback for “automated behavioral modification” at scale, writing the “music” that users then “dance” to.
Reranking partisan animosity in algorithmic social media feeds alters affective polarization
Today, social media platforms hold the sole power to study the effects of feed-ranking algorithms. We developed a platform-independent method that reranks participants’ feeds in real time and used this method to conduct a preregistered 10-day field ...
How Social Media Rewards Misinformation
A majority of false stories are spread by a small number of frequent users, suggests a new study co-authored by Yale SOM’s Gizem Ceylan. But they can be taught to change their ways.
Why are we incentivized to make social media worse? What makes KPIs so meaningless? Perverse incentives! #incentives #socialmediastrategist #tokenmaxxing #tokenburn #algorithms
Welcome to the GreenEarth Feeds
Social media algorithms built for people who hate social media algorithms
✨New paper out @nature.com ✨ For 8 weeks around the 2024 US election, we randomly assigned 2,000 people to use social media algos we built ourselves. Do engagement-based algorithms amplify intergroup, moral & emotional (IME) content—and does that distort how we see political norms? 🧵🔗 👇
Do our social media algorithms correctly reflect our values? Our new article published today in @pnas.org shows that the answer is often not, and that the content that gets promoted into their ranked feeds is often actively counter to our values.
Do our social media algorithms correctly reflect our values? Our new article published today in @pnas.org shows that the answer is often not, and that the content that gets promoted into their ranked feeds is often actively counter to our values.
