Stranger Danger! Cross-Community Interactions with Fringe Users Increase the Growth of Fringe Communities on Reddit

Fringe communities promoting conspiracy theories and extremist ideologies have thrived on mainstream platforms, raising questions about the mechanisms driving their growth. Here, we hypothesize and study a possible mechanism: new members may be recruited through fringe-interactions: the exchange of comments between members and non-members of fringe communities. We apply text-based causal inference techniques to study the impact of fringe-interactions on the growth of three prominent fringe communities on Reddit: r/Incel, r/GenderCritical, and r/The_Donald. Our results indicate that fringe-interactions attract new members to fringe communities. Users who receive these interactions are up to 4.2 percentage points (pp) more likely to join fringe communities than similar, matched users who do not. This effect is influenced by 1) the characteristics of communities where the interaction happens (e.g., left vs. right-leaning communities) and 2) the language used in the interactions. Interactions using toxic language have a 5pp higher chance of attracting newcomers to fringe communities than non-toxic interactions. We find no effect when repeating this analysis by replacing fringe (r/Incel, r/GenderCritical, and r/The_Donald) with non-fringe communities (r/climatechange, r/NBA, r/leagueoflegends), suggesting this growth mechanism is specific to fringe communities. Overall, our findings suggest that curtailing fringe-interactions may reduce the growth of fringe communities on mainstream platforms.Comment: 11 Pages, 7 Figures, 3 Table

The Amplification Paradox in Recommender Systems

Automated audits of recommender systems found that blindly following recommendations leads users to increasingly partisan, conspiratorial, or false content. At the same time, studies using real user traces suggest that recommender systems are not the primary driver of attention toward extreme content; on the contrary, such content is mostly reached through other means, e.g., other websites. In this paper, we explain the following apparent paradox: if the recommendation algorithm favors extreme content, why is it not driving its consumption? With a simple agent-based model where users attribute different utilities to items in the recommender system, we show through simulations that the collaborative-filtering nature of recommender systems and the nicheness of extreme content can resolve the apparent paradox: although blindly following recommendations would indeed lead users to niche content, users rarely consume niche content when given the option because it is of low utility to them, which can lead the recommender system to deamplify such content. Our results call for a nuanced interpretation of ``algorithmic amplification'' and highlight the importance of modeling the utility of content to users when auditing recommender systems. Code available: https://github.com/epfl-dlab/amplification_paradox.Comment: Accepted at ICWSM'23 please cite accordingl

Automated Content Moderation Increases Adherence to Community Guidelines

Online social media platforms use automated moderation systems to remove or reduce the visibility of rule-breaking content. While previous work has documented the importance of manual content moderation, the effects of automated content moderation remain largely unknown. Here, in a large study of Facebook comments (n=412M), we used a fuzzy regression discontinuity design to measure the impact of automated content moderation on subsequent rule-breaking behavior (number of comments hidden/deleted) and engagement (number of additional comments posted). We found that comment deletion decreased subsequent rule-breaking behavior in shorter threads (20 or fewer comments), even among other participants, suggesting that the intervention prevented conversations from derailing. Further, the effect of deletion on the affected user's subsequent rule-breaking behavior was longer-lived than its effect on reducing commenting in general, suggesting that users were deterred from rule-breaking but not from commenting. In contrast, hiding (rather than deleting) content had small and statistically insignificant effects. Our results suggest that automated content moderation increases adherence to community guidelines.Comment: Accepted at TheWebConf 2023, please cite accordingl

Complexity-Aware Assignment of Latent Values in Discriminative Models for Accurate Gesture Recognition

Many of the state-of-the-art algorithms for gesture recognition are based on Conditional Random Fields (CRFs). Successful approaches, such as the Latent-Dynamic CRFs, extend the CRF by incorporating latent variables, whose values are mapped to the values of the labels. In this paper we propose a novel methodology to set the latent values according to the gesture complexity. We use an heuristic that iterates through the samples associated with each label value, stimating their complexity. We then use it to assign the latent values to the label values. We evaluate our method on the task of recognizing human gestures from video streams. The experiments were performed in binary datasets, generated by grouping different labels. Our results demonstrate that our approach outperforms the arbitrary one in many cases, increasing the accuracy by up to 10%.Comment: Conference paper published at 2016 29th SIBGRAPI, Conference on Graphics, Patterns and Images (SIBGRAPI). 8 pages, 7 figure

Quotatives Indicate Decline in Objectivity in U.S. Political News

According to journalistic standards, direct quotes should be attributed to sources with objective quotatives such as "said" and "told", as nonobjective quotatives, like "argued" and "insisted" would influence the readers' perception of the quote and the quoted person. In this paper, we analyze the adherence to this journalistic norm to study trends in objectivity in political news across U.S. outlets of different ideological leanings. We ask: 1) How has the usage of nonobjective quotatives evolved? and 2) How do news outlets use nonobjective quotatives when covering politicians of different parties? To answer these questions, we developed a dependency-parsing-based method to extract quotatives and applied it to Quotebank, a web-scale corpus of attributed quotes, obtaining nearly 7 million quotes, each enriched with the quoted speaker's political party and the ideological leaning of the outlet that published the quote. We find that while partisan outlets are the ones that most often use nonobjective quotatives, between 2013 and 2020, the outlets that increased their usage of nonobjective quotatives the most were "moderate" centrist news outlets (around 0.6 percentage points, or 20% in relative percentage over 7 years). Further, we find that outlets use nonobjective quotatives more often when quoting politicians of the opposing ideology (e.g., left-leaning outlets quoting Republicans), and that this "quotative bias" is rising at a swift pace, increasing up to 0.5 percentage points, or 25% in relative percentage, per year. These findings suggest an overall decline in journalistic objectivity in U.S. political news.Comment: Repo: https://github.com/epfl-dlab/quotative_bia

Understanding Online Migration Decisions Following the Banning of Radical Communities

The proliferation of radical online communities and their violent offshoots has sparked great societal concern. However, the current practice of banning such communities from mainstream platforms has unintended consequences: (I) the further radicalization of their members in fringe platforms where they migrate; and (ii) the spillover of harmful content from fringe back onto mainstream platforms. Here, in a large observational study on two banned subreddits, r/The\_Donald and r/fatpeoplehate, we examine how factors associated with the RECRO radicalization framework relate to users' migration decisions. Specifically, we quantify how these factors affect users' decisions to post on fringe platforms and, for those who do, whether they continue posting on the mainstream platform. Our results show that individual-level factors, those relating to the behavior of users, are associated with the decision to post on the fringe platform. Whereas social-level factors, users' connection with the radical community, only affect the propensity to be coactive on both platforms. Overall, our findings pave the way for evidence-based moderation policies, as the decisions to migrate and remain coactive amplify unintended consequences of community bans.Comment: 19 pages, 3 figures, 3 table

Spillover of Antisocial Behavior from Fringe Platforms: The Unintended Consequences of Community Banning

Online platforms face pressure to keep their communities civil and respectful. Thus, the bannings of problematic online communities from mainstream platforms like Reddit and Facebook are often met with enthusiastic public reactions. However, this policy can lead users to migrate to alternative fringe platforms with lower moderation standards and where antisocial behaviors like trolling and harassment are widely accepted. As users of these communities often remain \ca across mainstream and fringe platforms, antisocial behaviors may spill over onto the mainstream platform. We study this possible spillover by analyzing around $70,000$ users from three banned communities that migrated to fringe platforms: r/The\_Donald, r/GenderCritical, and r/Incels. Using a difference-in-differences design, we contrast \ca users with matched counterparts to estimate the causal effect of fringe platform participation on users' antisocial behavior on Reddit. Our results show that participating in the fringe communities increases users' toxicity on Reddit (as measured by Perspective API) and involvement with subreddits similar to the banned community -- which often also breach platform norms. The effect intensifies with time and exposure to the fringe platform. In short, we find evidence for a spillover of antisocial behavior from fringe platforms onto Reddit via co-participation.Comment: 18 pages, 4 figures, 2 tables, submitte

Protection from Evil and Good: The Differential Effects of Page Protection on Wikipedia Article Quality

Wikipedia, the Web's largest encyclopedia, frequently faces content disputes or malicious users seeking to subvert its integrity. Administrators can mitigate such disruptions by enforcing "page protection" that selectively limits contributions to specific articles to help prevent the degradation of content. However, this practice contradicts one of Wikipedia's fundamental principles$-$that it is open to all contributors$-$and may hinder further improvement of the encyclopedia. In this paper, we examine the effect of page protection on article quality to better understand whether and when page protections are warranted. Using decade-long data on page protections from the English Wikipedia, we conduct a quasi-experimental study analyzing pages that received "requests for page protection"$-$written appeals submitted by Wikipedia editors to administrators to impose page protections. We match pages that indeed received page protection with similar pages that did not and quantify the causal effect of the interventions on a well-established measure of article quality. Our findings indicate that the effect of page protection on article quality depends on the characteristics of the page prior to the intervention: high-quality articles are affected positively as opposed to low-quality articles that are impacted negatively. Subsequent analysis suggests that high-quality articles degrade when left unprotected, whereas low-quality articles improve. Overall, with our study, we outline page protections on Wikipedia and inform best practices on whether and when to protect an article.Comment: Under Review, 11 page