Exposure to Ideologically Diverse Information on Facebook

https://research.facebook.com/publications/1629735407303857/exposure-to-ideologically-diverse-information-on-facebook/

by fgeorgy • 11 years ago

34 24 11 years ago

research.facebook.com

mklappstuhl2• 11 years ago

Is the actual paper hidden behind a login? o.O

rdwallis• 11 years ago

Maybe you have to login so they can adapt the paper's conclusions to match your social graph.

mklappstuhl2• 11 years ago

Here's a PDF version http://cn.cnstudiodev.com/uploads/document_attachment/attach...

jaawn• 11 years ago

Thank you! Facebook is blocked where I work, so this gives me a chance to read this when I have some time.

bpodgursky• 11 years ago

Most interesting quote to me:

"Individual choice has a larger role in limiting exposure to ideologically cross cutting content: after adjusting for the effect of position (the click rate on a link is negatively correlated with its position in the News Feed; see fig. S5), we estimate the factor decrease in the likelihood that an individual clicks on a cross-cutting article relative to the proportion available in News Feed to be 17% for conservatives and 6% for liberals, a pattern consistent with prior research (4, 17). "

mfoy_2• 11 years ago

(Disclaimer: I didn't read the paper. I'm not sure if someone knows a link is cross-cutting before clicking it.)

So if I'm reading that correctly, liberals are more likely to click on a cross-cutting article. That alone doesn't really tell me much. So without trying to inject too much personal bias...

Does that mean:

1) Liberals are more likely to click on something they disagree with.

   a) Because they are more open minded, they click on articles from contrarian points of view?

   b) Because the article just looks interesting, but it turns out they disagree with it because they are more closed minded?

2) Conservatives are less likely to click on something they disagree with.

   a) Because they are more open minded, they agree with more of the things they read than liberals?

   b) Because they are more close minded, they don't even bother opening articles they think they will disagree with?

gph• 11 years ago

This is pure conjecture but...

Liberals in general could be considered the progressives while conservatives are traditionalists. So conservatives are trying to hold onto the old ways (or at least a perversion of them), whereas liberals are looking for reasons why the old ways are wrong and we need to progress.

So conservatives love reading articles that glorify old traditions/ideals, while liberals read the same article in order to confirm all that's wrong with the old ways therefore giving support to their belief that we need a new way to progress forward.

Just my initial speculation, take with a large grain of salt.

bertil• 11 years ago

The classification is binary, so there are no more or less open minded liberals or conservatives. “Neutral” sources are excluded (and rare). You could have an effect of what either side choses to share, say, blue links are outrageous; red one are more mature – but measuring that objectively would be difficult.

Also, Liberals are the one who click less (i.e. “are open minded”) than Conservatives, not the other way around.

That result is a classic: I remember (but can't find the reference) more liberals say they could not marry (or let their child marry) a conservative than the other way around, for instance.

nmrm23• 11 years ago

The vast majority of political content on Facebook is the variety of bullshit that shows up on conservative/liberal "news" sites. Most of those sites make the editorial pages of places like Fox and HuffPost look positively civil and well-informed.

Does it really matter whether people read bullshit that they disagree with? Reading bullshit from either side of the political spectrum isn't really teaching anyone anything (and, moreover, isn't designed to), so why the premium on consuming all varieties of bullshit? The most likely reaction to reading bullshit you disagree with is "This Is Bullshit". Which isn't so surprising when the content really is bullshit.

For me, the more interesting question is whether people are exposed to high-quality justifications for a range of opinions. And I can't remember the last time a research paper showed up on my facebook feed.

_lce0• 11 years ago

The most likely reaction to reading bullshit you disagree with is "This Is Bullshit"

I wonder what do people do when they read bullshit that they agree with.

Is Facebook trying to find ways to maximize how much bullshit will you agree with?

nmrm23• 11 years ago

I wonder what do people do when they read bullshit that they agree with.

They agree with it (maybe while realizing it's bullshit).

I think among people calling for content diversity, there's a mostly explicit assumption that encountering more opinions you disagree with will cause you to either treat those opinions with more respect, or else smell bullshit on your own side of the fence more often.

IME it doesn't work that way, regardless of what happens in the lab. If anything, reading bullshit you disagree with has the opposite effect -- "wow, that's a really shitty reason to believe X. People who believe X must be stupid to believe that reason."

Seeing high quality justifications for opinions you disagree with or meeting people you respect who disagree with you can both lead to attitude changes and even changes of opinion.

But reading punditry on the Internet? Nope.

Is Facebook trying to find ways to maximize how much bullshit will you agree with?

Well definitely, because most marketing is bullshit. But I don't think that's what this paper is about.

V-22• 11 years ago

It's called "cognitive bubble"

return02• 11 years ago

I would take this with a grain of salt, facebook has an interest to present itself as being unable to effect it's users' opinions.

lectrick2• 11 years ago

I am convinced (although I do not yet have enough data to prove it) that continuous exposure to a lack of ideologically-diverse information is actually very long-term-bad, leading to unnecessary deaths (i.e., war, people killing each other over mere worldview differences, media taking advantage of polarizing forces to whip people up and generate ad views, etc.).

I base this only on my Psych-major training and just in thinking about things and observing.

If anyone had any actual evidence that might support this conclusion, I would be grateful.

If Facebook actually understands that it is kind of their responsibility at this point to ensure people's feeds are more diverse than they might otherwise prefer (i.e., gently introducing discomfort), this might mark the first time I'm actually in favor of them keeping their feed ranking algorithm secret (so as to quiet the masses, most of whom seem content to never experience ideological discomfort). But this, of course, depends on trusting Facebook...

inverba• 11 years ago

I am convinced (although I do not yet have enough data to prove it) ... If anyone had any actual evidence that might support this conclusion, I would be grateful.

This is the opposite of how useful research and/or data science works. Data should be taken as is and then learned from. It certainly should not be gathered in an effort to directly prove a conclusion that you are already "convinced" of.

It's very disheartening to see this as a comment on a data science article on hacker news... unless you're being sarcastic/ironic? This has to be sarcastic/ironic, right? Right? :(

return02• 11 years ago

Evidence doesn't fall from the sky. People create a hypothesis and they seek evidence to test it. Also, your snark is useless.

wfo• 11 years ago

On the other hand, here we get special insight into the attitude/understanding of statistics common in university psychology programs, and hence a particularly damning look into the field itself. This is how the research works; you come up with a 'just so' gut feeling, and you look and look and look until invariably you come up with /some/ evidence for it and then publish.

lectrick2• 11 years ago

This is the opposite of how useful research and/or data science works. Data should be taken as is and then learned from. It certainly should not be gathered in an effort to directly prove a conclusion that you are already "convinced" of.

Get down off the pulpit. If the data said the opposite, I would instantly change my worldview.

But you are correct, in that my wording or attitude was incorrect. I should have said "I suspect" instead of "I am convinced" and instead of "might support this conclusion" I should have said "might support or refute this hypothesis".

Which is to say, don't scientists at least have a hypothesis in mind before they collect data related to it? Otherwise, why would you be testing at all, and for what exactly? You can't just take millions of data points, put them into a blender and get proven theories out of it!

Anyway, that's what I'd have at this point, a hypothesis. I should have used that wording, my bad.

Exposure to Ideologically Diverse Information on Facebook

Related Stories