Reducing Controversy by Connecting Opposing Views

Peer reviewe

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

Minimizing Polarization and Disagreement in Social Networks

The rise of social media and online social networks has been a disruptive force in society. Opinions are increasingly shaped by interactions on online social media, and social phenomena including disagreement and polarization are now tightly woven into everyday life. In this work we initiate the study of the following question: given $n$ agents, each with its own initial opinion that reflects its core value on a topic, and an opinion dynamics model, what is the structure of a social network that minimizes {\em polarization} and {\em disagreement} simultaneously? This question is central to recommender systems: should a recommender system prefer a link suggestion between two online users with similar mindsets in order to keep disagreement low, or between two users with different opinions in order to expose each to the other's viewpoint of the world, and decrease overall levels of polarization? Our contributions include a mathematical formalization of this question as an optimization problem and an exact, time-efficient algorithm. We also prove that there always exists a network with $O(n/\epsilon^2)$ edges that is a $(1+\epsilon)$ approximation to the optimum. For a fixed graph, we additionally show how to optimize our objective function over the agents' innate opinions in polynomial time. We perform an empirical study of our proposed methods on synthetic and real-world data that verify their value as mining tools to better understand the trade-off between of disagreement and polarization. We find that there is a lot of space to reduce both polarization and disagreement in real-world networks; for instance, on a Reddit network where users exchange comments on politics, our methods achieve a $\sim 60\,000$-fold reduction in polarization and disagreement.Comment: 19 pages (accepted, WWW 2018

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

Illuminating an Ecosystem of Partisan Websites

This paper aims to shed light on alternative news media ecosystems that are believed to have influenced opinions and beliefs by false and/or biased news reporting during the 2016 US Presidential Elections. We examine a large, professionally curated list of 668 hyper-partisan websites and their corresponding Facebook pages, and identify key characteristics that mediate the traffic flow within this ecosystem. We uncover a pattern of new websites being established in the run up to the elections, and abandoned after. Such websites form an ecosystem, creating links from one website to another, and by `liking' each others' Facebook pages. These practices are highly effective in directing user traffic internally within the ecosystem in a highly partisan manner, with right-leaning sites linking to and liking other right-leaning sites and similarly left-leaning sites linking to other sites on the left, thus forming a filter bubble amongst news producers similar to the filter bubble which has been widely observed among consumers of partisan news. Whereas there is activity along both left- and right-leaning sites, right-leaning sites are more evolved, accounting for a disproportionate number of abandoned websites and partisan internal links. We also examine demographic characteristics of consumers of hyper-partisan news and find that some of the more populous demographic groups in the US tend to be consumers of more right-leaning sites.Comment: Published at The Web Conference 2018 (WWW 2018). Please cite the WWW 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

Characterizing Controversiality of Topics Utilizing Eccentricity of Opinions

Access to abundant biased information in echo chambers and social bubbles often intensifies opinions to the extremes. The extremization of opinions results in several topics becoming controversial. However, it is very difficult to measure the degree of controversiality of a topic objectively since the controversiality of any topic is subjective and perceived differently from different communities. The absence of an objective measure of controversiality has been a major hindrance in understanding the causes and effects of it. In this work we propose a method to quantify controversiality of a topic by utilizing eccentricity of opinions on that topic. The eccentricity of an opinion is the amount of strangeness of the opinion relative to other opinions in the social neighborhood. The collective eccentricity of all opinions for a topic works as an indicator of the controversiality of that topic and can be represented by any measure of central tendency. With the help of social network data, we also demonstrate that opinions on several issues related to our routine life show similar trends for diversity though they differ in their controversiality