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

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

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

The Effect of Collective Attention on Controversial Debates on Social Media

We study the evolution of long-lived controversial debates as manifested on Twitter from 2011 to 2016. Specifically, we explore how the structure of interactions and content of discussion varies with the level of collective attention, as evidenced by the number of users discussing a topic. Spikes in the volume of users typically correspond to external events that increase the public attention on the topic -- as, for instance, discussions about `gun control' often erupt after a mass shooting. This work is the first to study the dynamic evolution of polarized online debates at such scale. By employing a wide array of network and content analysis measures, we find consistent evidence that increased collective attention is associated with increased network polarization and network concentration within each side of the debate; and overall more uniform lexicon usage across all users.Comment: accepted at ACM WebScience 201