Factors in Recommending Contrarian Content on Social Media

Polarization is a troubling phenomenon that can lead to societal divisions and hurt the democratic process. It is therefore important to develop methods to reduce it. We propose an algorithmic solution to the problem of reducing polarization. The core idea is to expose users to content that challenges their point of view, with the hope broadening their perspective, and thus reduce their polarity. Our method takes into account several aspects of the problem, such as the estimated polarity of the user, the probability of accepting the recommendation, the polarity of the content, and popularity of the content being recommended. We evaluate our recommendations via a large-scale user study on Twitter users that were actively involved in the discussion of the US elections results. Results shows that, in most cases, the factors taken into account in the recommendation affect the users as expected, and thus capture the essential features of the problem.Comment: accepted as a short paper at ACM WebScience 2017. arXiv admin note: substantial text overlap with arXiv:1703.1093

Impact Of Content Features For Automatic Online Abuse Detection

Online communities have gained considerable importance in recent years due to the increasing number of people connected to the Internet. Moderating user content in online communities is mainly performed manually, and reducing the workload through automatic methods is of great financial interest for community maintainers. Often, the industry uses basic approaches such as bad words filtering and regular expression matching to assist the moderators. In this article, we consider the task of automatically determining if a message is abusive. This task is complex since messages are written in a non-standardized way, including spelling errors, abbreviations, community-specific codes... First, we evaluate the system that we propose using standard features of online messages. Then, we evaluate the impact of the addition of pre-processing strategies, as well as original specific features developed for the community of an online in-browser strategy game. We finally propose to analyze the usefulness of this wide range of features using feature selection. This work can lead to two possible applications: 1) automatically flag potentially abusive messages to draw the moderator's attention on a narrow subset of messages ; and 2) fully automate the moderation process by deciding whether a message is abusive without any human intervention

A Motif-based Approach for Identifying Controversy

Among the topics discussed in Social Media, some lead to controversy. A number of recent studies have focused on the problem of identifying controversy in social media mostly based on the analysis of textual content or rely on global network structure. Such approaches have strong limitations due to the difficulty of understanding natural language, and of investigating the global network structure. In this work we show that it is possible to detect controversy in social media by exploiting network motifs, i.e., local patterns of user interaction. The proposed approach allows for a language-independent and fine- grained and efficient-to-compute analysis of user discussions and their evolution over time. The supervised model exploiting motif patterns can achieve 85% accuracy, with an improvement of 7% compared to baseline structural, propagation-based and temporal network features

The Ebb and Flow of Controversial Debates on Social Media

We explore how the polarization around controversial topics evolves on Twitter - over a long period of time (2011 to 2016), and also as a response to major external events that lead to increased related activity. We find that increased activity is typically associated with increased polarization; however, we find no consistent long-term trend in polarization over time among the topics we study.Comment: Accepted as a short paper at ICWSM 2017. Please cite the ICWSM version and not the ArXiv versio

Viewpoint Discovery and Understanding in Social Networks

The Web has evolved to a dominant platform where everyone has the opportunity to express their opinions, to interact with other users, and to debate on emerging events happening around the world. On the one hand, this has enabled the presence of different viewpoints and opinions about a - usually controversial - topic (like Brexit), but at the same time, it has led to phenomena like media bias, echo chambers and filter bubbles, where users are exposed to only one point of view on the same topic. Therefore, there is the need for methods that are able to detect and explain the different viewpoints. In this paper, we propose a graph partitioning method that exploits social interactions to enable the discovery of different communities (representing different viewpoints) discussing about a controversial topic in a social network like Twitter. To explain the discovered viewpoints, we describe a method, called Iterative Rank Difference (IRD), which allows detecting descriptive terms that characterize the different viewpoints as well as understanding how a specific term is related to a viewpoint (by detecting other related descriptive terms). The results of an experimental evaluation showed that our approach outperforms state-of-the-art methods on viewpoint discovery, while a qualitative analysis of the proposed IRD method on three different controversial topics showed that IRD provides comprehensive and deep representations of the different viewpoints

Quantifying and minimizing risk of conflict in social networks

Controversy, disagreement, conflict, polarization and opinion divergence in social networks have been the subject of much recent research. In particular, researchers have addressed the question of how such concepts can be quantified given people’s prior opinions, and how they can be optimized by influencing the opinion of a small number of people or by editing the network’s connectivity. Here, rather than optimizing such concepts given a specific set of prior opinions, we study whether they can be optimized in the average case and in the worst case over all sets of prior opinions. In particular, we derive the worst-case and average-case conflict risk of networks, and we propose algorithms for optimizing these. For some measures of conflict, these are non-convex optimization problems with many local minima. We provide a theoretical and empirical analysis of the nature of some of these local minima, and show how they are related to existing organizational structures. Empirical results show how a small number of edits quickly decreases its conflict risk, both average-case and worst-case. Furthermore, it shows that minimizing average-case conflict risk often does not reduce worst-case conflict risk. Minimizing worst-case conflict risk on the other hand, while computationally more challenging, is generally effective at minimizing both worst-case as well as average-case conflict risk