skip to main content
research-article

Using Agent-Based Modelling to Evaluate the Impact of Algorithmic Curation on Social Media

Published:28 December 2022Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Social media networks have drastically changed how people communicate and seek information. Due to the scale of information on these platforms, newsfeed curation algorithms have been developed to sort through this information and curate what users see. However, these algorithms are opaque and it is difficult to understand their impact on human communication flows. Some papers have criticised newsfeed curation algorithms that, while promoting user engagement, heighten online polarisation, misinformation, and the formation of echo chambers. Agent-based modelling offers the opportunity to simulate the complex interactions between these algorithms, what users see, and the propagation of information on social media. This article uses agent-based modelling to compare the impact of four different newsfeed curation algorithms on the spread of misinformation and polarisation. This research has the following contributions: (1) implementing newsfeed curation algorithm logic on an agent-based model; (2) comparing the impact of different curation algorithm objectives on misinformation and polarisation; and (3) calibration and empirical validation using real Twitter data. This research provides useful insights into the impact of curation algorithms on how information propagates and on content diversity on social media. Moreover, we show how agent-based modelling can reveal specific properties of curation algorithms, which can be used in improving such algorithms.

REFERENCES

  1. [1] Acemoglu Daron and Ozdaglar Asuman. 2011. Opinion dynamics and learning in social networks. Dynamic Games and Applications 1, 1 (32011), 349. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. [2] Atiqi Muhammad Al, Chang Shuang, and Deguchi Hiroshi. 2020. Agent-based approach to resolve the conflicting observations of online echo chamber. In Proceedings of the 2020 Joint 11th International Conference on Soft Computing and Intelligent Systems and 21st International Symposium on Advanced Intelligent Systems. IEEE.DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. [3] Alvarez-Galvez Javier. 2016. Network models of minority opinion spreading: Using agent-based modeling to study possible scenarios of social contagion. Social Science Computer Review 34, 5 (2016), 567581. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. [4] Bandy Jack and Diakopoulos Nicholas. 2021. Curating quality? How Twitter’s timeline algorithm treats different types of news. Social Media and Society 7, 3 (2021), 1–17. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. [5] Bandy Jack and Diakopoulos Nicholas. 2021. More accounts, fewer links. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW1 (42021), 128. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. [6] Bartley Nathan, Abeliuk Andres, Ferrara Emilio, and Lerman Kristina. 2021. Auditing algorithmic bias on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Web Science Conference. ACM, 6573. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. [7] Bozdag Engin and Hoven Jeroen van den. 2015. Breaking the filter bubble: Democracy and design. Ethics and Information Technology 17, 4 (122015), 249265. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. [8] Brown Shea, Davidovic Jovana, and Hasan Ali. 2021. The algorithm audit: Scoring the algorithms that score us. Big Data & Society 8, 1 (2021), 1–8. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. [9] Valdez André Calero and Ziefle Martina. 2018. Human factors in the age of algorithms. Understanding the human-in-the-loop using agent-based modeling. In Social Computing and Social Media. Technologies and Analytics. G. Meiselwitz (Ed.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), Vol. 10914 LNCS, Springer Verlag, 357371. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. [10] Cinelli Matteo, Brugnoli Emanuele, Schmidt Ana Lucia, Zollo Fabiana, Quattrociocchi Walter, and Scala Antonio. 2020. Selective exposure shapes the Facebook news diet. PLoS ONE 15, 3 (2020). DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Cinelli Matteo, De GianmarcoMorales Francisci, Galeazzi Alessandro, Quattrociocchi Walter, and Starnini Michele. 2021. The echo chamber effect on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, 9 (2021), e2023301118. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. [12] Currin Christopher, Vera Sebastian Vallejo, and Khaledi-Nasab Ali. 2021. Depolarization of echo chambers by random dynamical nudge. Scientific Reports 12, 1 (2022), 1–13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. [13] Dutton William H., Reisdorf Bianca C., Dubois Elizabeth, and Blank Grant. 2017. Social shaping of the politics of internet search and networking: Moving beyond filter bubbles, echo chambers, and fake news. (2017), 1–26. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. [14] Dylko Ivan, Dolgov Igor, Hoffman William, Eckhart Nicholas, Molina Maria, and Aaziz Omar. 2018. Impact of customizability technology on political polarization. Journal of Information Technology and Politics 15, 1 (12018), 1933. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. [15] Fan Rui, Xu Ke, and Zhao Jichang. 2018. An agent-based model for emotion contagion and competition in online social media. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications 495, C (2018), 245259. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. [16] Toby Pilditch et al. 2021. Cascades Across Networks Are Sufficient for the Formation of Echo Chambers: An Agent-Based Model. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 24, 3 (2021), 1–15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. [17] Gausen Anna, Luk Wayne, and Guo Ce. 2021. Can we stop fake news? Using agent-based modelling to evaluate countermeasures for misinformation on social media. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. [18] Helberger Natali, Karppinen Kari, and D’Acunto Lucia. 2018. Exposure diversity as a design principle for recommender systems. Information Communication and Society 21, 2 (22018), 191207. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. [19] Howard Philip. 2016. Is social media killing democracy? Retrieved 7 Nov., 2021 from https://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/blog/is-social-media-killing-democracy/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. [20] Philip N. Howard, Samantha Bradshaw, Bence Kollanyi, and Gillian Bolsolver. 2017. Junk News and Bots during the French Presidential Election: What Are French Voters Sharing Over Twitter In Round Two? ComProp Data Memo 21, 1 (2017), 8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. [21] Jin Fang, Dougherty Edward, Saraf Parang, Mi Peng, Cao Yang, and Ramakrishnan Naren. 2013. Epidemiological modeling of news and rumors on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Social Network Mining and Analysis. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. [22] Kaligotla Chaitanya, Yucesan Enver, and Chick Stephen E.. 2016. An agent based model of spread of competing rumors through online interactions on social media. In Proceedings of the 2015 Winter Simulation Conference. Vol. 2016-February, 30883089. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. [23] Koumchatzky Nicolas and Andryeyev Anton. 2017. Using deep learning at scale in Twitter’s timelines. Twitter. Retrieved 7 Nov., 2021 from https://blog.twitter.com/engineering/en_us/topics/insights/2017/using-deep-learning-at-scale-in-twitters-timelines.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. [24] Kozitsin Ivan V. and Chkhartishvili Alexander G.. 2020. Users’ activity in online social networks and the formation of echo chambers. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference Management of Large-Scale System Development. IEEE.DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. [25] Kyamakya Kyandoghere. 2006. Artificial intelligence in transportation telematics. OGAI Journal (Oesterreichische Gesellschaft fuer Artificial Intelligence) 25, 3 (2006), 24. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. [26] Lamperti Francesco, Roventini Andrea, and Sani Amir. 2018. Agent-based model calibration using machine learning surrogates. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 90 (52018), 366389. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. [27] Lazer David M. J., Baum Matthew A., Benkler Yochai, Berinsky Adam J., Greenhill Kelly M., Menczer Filippo, Metzger Miriam J., Nyhan Brendan, Pennycook Gordon, Rothschild David, Schudson Michael, Sloman Steven A., Sunstein Cass R., Thorson Emily A., Watts Duncan J., and Zittrain Jonathan L.. 2018. The science of fake news. Science 359, 6380 (2018), 10941096. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. [28] Ma Jing, Gao Wei, and Wong Kam-Fai. 2017. Detect rumors in microblog posts using propagation structure via kernel learning. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics, 708717. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. [29] Madsen Jens Koed, Bailey Richard M., and Pilditch Toby D.. 2018. Large networks of rational agents form persistent echo chambers. Scientific Reports 8, 1 (122018), 12391. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. [30] Mozilla. 2021. YouTube Regrets A Crowdsourced Investigation Into YouTube’s Recommendation Algorithm. Technical Report.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. [31] Naeem Salman Bin, Bhatti Rubina, and Khan Aqsa. 2020. An exploration of how fake news is taking over social media and putting public health at risk. Health Information and Libraries Journal 38, 2 (2020), 143–149. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. [32] Nika Marily, Ivanova Gergana, and Knottenbelt William J.. 2013. On celebrity, epidemiology and the internet. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Performance Evaluation Methodologies and Tools. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. [33] Onuchowska Agnieszka and Berndt Donald J.. 2020. Using agent-based modelling to address malicious behavior on social media. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. [34] Vīķe-Freiberga Professor Vaira, Däubler-Gmelin Professor Herta, Hammersley Ben, and Maduro Professor Luís Miguel Poiares Pessoa. 2013. Final Report of the High Level Group on Media Freedom and Pluralism. Technical Report. High Level Group on Media Freedom and Pluralism. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/information_society/media_taskforce/doc/pluralism/hlg/hlg_final_report.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. [35] Roozenbeek Jon and Linden Sander Van Der. 2021. Inoculation Theory and Misinformation. Technical Report. NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence. Retrieved from www.stratcomcoe.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. [36] Sathanur Arun V., Sui Miao, and Jandhyala Vikram. 2015. Assessing strategies for controlling viral rumor propagation on social media - A simulation approach. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Symposium on Technologies for Homeland Security. 16. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. [37] Serrano Emilio and Iglesias Carlos A.. 2016. Validating viral marketing strategies in Twitter via agent-based social simulation. Expert Systems with Applications 50, C (2016), 140150. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. [38] Shu Kai, Mahudeswaran Deepak, Wang Suhang, Lee Dongwon, and Liu Huan. 2018. FakeNewsNet: A data repository with news content, social context and dynamic information for studying fake news on social media. Big Data 8, 3 (2020), 171–188.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. [39] Shu Kai, Sliva Amy, Wang Suhang, Tang Jiliang, and Liu Huan. 2017. Fake news detection on social media: A data mining perspective. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter 19, 1 (2017), 2236.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. [40] Shu Kai, Wang Suhang, and Liu Huan. 2017. Exploiting tri-relationship for fake news detection. arXiv:1712.07709. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.07709.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. [41] Department Statista Research. 2021. Number of daily active Facebook users worldwide as of 3rd quarter 2021. Retrieved 7 Nov., 2021 from https://www.statista.com/statistics/346167/facebook-global-dau/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. [42] Mans Stefani. 2016. In the filter bubble: How algorithms customize our access to information. Masters of Media. Retrieved 7 Nov., 2021 from http://mastersofmedia.hum.uva.nl/blog/2016/11/13/in-the-filter-bubble/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. [43] Tang Mingsheng, Mao Xinjun, Yang Shuqiang, and Zhu Haibin. 2014. Policy evaluation and analysis of choosing whom to tweet information on social media. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. Vol. 2014-January, 4550. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. [44] Twitter. 2021. Twitter Moments guidelines and principles. Retrieved 5 Nov., 2021 from https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-moments-guidelines-and-principles.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. [45] Linden Sander van der. 2022. Misinformation: Susceptibility, spread, and interventions to immunize the public. Nature Medicine 28, 3 (32022), 460–467. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. [46] Vosoughi Soroush, Roy Deb, and Aral Sinan. 2018. The spread of true and false news online. Science 359, 6380 (2018), 11461151. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. [47] Yook Soon-Hyung, Jeong Hawoong, and Barabási Albert-László. 2002. Modeling the internet’s large-scale topology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99, 21 (2002), 1338213386. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Using Agent-Based Modelling to Evaluate the Impact of Algorithmic Curation on Social Media

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image Journal of Data and Information Quality
          Journal of Data and Information Quality  Volume 15, Issue 1
          March 2023
          197 pages
          ISSN:1936-1955
          EISSN:1936-1963
          DOI:10.1145/3578367
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 28 December 2022
          • Online AM: 8 July 2022
          • Accepted: 25 May 2022
          • Revised: 19 April 2022
          • Received: 13 November 2021
          Published in jdiq Volume 15, Issue 1

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Refereed

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        Full Text

        View this article in Full Text.

        View Full Text

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format .

        View HTML Format