Quantifying Biases in Online Information Exposure

Our consumption of online information is mediated by filtering, ranking, and recommendation algorithms that introduce unintentional biases as they attempt to deliver relevant and engaging content. It has been suggested that our reliance on online technologies such as search engines and social media may limit exposure to diverse points of view and make us vulnerable to manipulation by disinformation. In this article, we mine a massive data set of web traffic to quantify two kinds of bias: (i) homogeneity bias, which is the tendency to consume content from a narrow set of information sources, and (ii) popularity bias, which is the selective exposure to content from top sites. Our analysis reveals different bias levels across several widely used web platforms. Search exposes users to a diverse set of sources, while social media traffic tends to exhibit high popularity and homogeneity bias. When we focus our analysis on traffic to news sites, we find higher levels of popularity bias, with smaller differences across applications. Overall, our results quantify the extent to which our choices of online systems confine us inside “social bubbles.”

[1]  Mounia Lalmas,et al.  Social media news communities: gatekeeping, coverage, and statement bias , 2013, CIKM.

[2]  Abbe Mowshowitz,et al.  Bias on the web , 2002, CACM.

[3]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  The political blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. election: divided they blog , 2005, LinkKDD '05.

[4]  C. Sunstein The Law of Group Polarization , 1999, How Change Happens.

[5]  Kostas Tsioutsiouliklis,et al.  \Googlearchy": How a Few Heavily-Linked Sites Dominate Politics on the Web , 2003 .

[6]  Daniele Quercia,et al.  Fragmented social media: a look into selective exposure to political news , 2013, WWW.

[7]  Filippo Menczer,et al.  Measuring Online Social Bubbles , 2015, 1502.07162.

[8]  Andreas Buja,et al.  Recommender systems and their effects on consumers: the fragmentation debate , 2010, EC '10.

[9]  G. Johar,et al.  Perceived social presence reduces fact-checking , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[10]  Jacob Ratkiewicz,et al.  Political Polarization on Twitter , 2011, ICWSM.

[11]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook , 2015, Science.

[12]  Filippo Menczer,et al.  Hoaxy: A Platform for Tracking Online Misinformation , 2016, WWW.

[13]  K. Stanovich,et al.  Myside Bias, Rational Thinking, and Intelligence , 2013 .

[14]  Sergey Brin,et al.  The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine , 1998, Comput. Networks.

[15]  Abhinandan Das,et al.  Google news personalization: scalable online collaborative filtering , 2007, WWW '07.

[16]  Sharad Goel,et al.  Filter Bubbles, Echo Chambers, and Online News Consumption , 2016 .

[17]  Miriam J. Metzger,et al.  The science of fake news , 2018, Science.

[18]  Matthew J. Salganik,et al.  Experimental Study of Inequality and Unpredictability in an Artificial Cultural Market , 2006, Science.

[19]  Junghoo Cho,et al.  Impact of search engines on page popularity , 2004, WWW '04.

[20]  M. O. Lorenz,et al.  Methods of Measuring the Concentration of Wealth , 1905, Publications of the American Statistical Association.

[21]  Sean A. Munson,et al.  Presenting diverse political opinions: how and how much , 2010, CHI.

[22]  Eric Gilbert,et al.  Political blend: an application designed to bring people together based on political differences , 2013, C&T '13.

[23]  David F. Gleich,et al.  Algorithms and Models for the Web Graph , 2014, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[24]  Eli Pariser,et al.  The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think , 2012 .

[25]  A Vespignani,et al.  Topical interests and the mitigation of search engine bias , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[26]  Craig R. M. McKenzie Hypothesis Testing and Evaluation , 2008 .

[27]  Daniele Quercia,et al.  Data Portraits: Connecting People of Opposing Views , 2013, ArXiv.

[28]  Ricardo Baeza-Yates,et al.  Story‐focused reading in online news and its potential for user engagement , 2017, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[29]  Krishna P. Gummadi,et al.  Traditional media seen from social media , 2013, WebSci.

[30]  Tim Weninger,et al.  Rating Effects on Social News Posts and Comments , 2016, ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol..

[31]  Alvin Zhou #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media , 2017 .

[32]  Robert West,et al.  Drawing a data-driven portrait of Wikipedia editors , 2012, WikiSym '12.

[33]  Marián Boguñá,et al.  On Local Estimations of PageRank: A Mean Field Approach , 2007, Internet Math..

[34]  Greg Linden,et al.  Amazon . com Recommendations Item-to-Item Collaborative Filtering , 2001 .

[35]  Ricardo Baeza-Yates,et al.  Finding Intermediary Topics Between People of Opposing Views: A Case Study , 2015, SPS@SIGIR.

[36]  Daniele Quercia,et al.  Why individuals seek diverse opinions (or why they don't) , 2013, WebSci.

[37]  Jacob Ratkiewicz,et al.  Detecting and Tracking Political Abuse in Social Media , 2011, ICWSM.

[38]  Justin M. Rao,et al.  Filter Bubbles, Echo Chambers, and Online News Consumption , 2016 .

[39]  Filippo Menczer,et al.  The rise of social bots , 2014, Commun. ACM.

[40]  Filippo Menczer,et al.  Modeling Traffic on the Web Graph , 2010, WAW.

[41]  Eric Gilbert,et al.  Blogs are Echo Chambers: Blogs are Echo Chambers , 2009, 2009 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[42]  Helen Nissenbaum,et al.  Defining the Web: The Politics of Search Engines , 2000, Computer.

[43]  Andrei Z. Broder,et al.  Graph structure in the Web , 2000, Comput. Networks.

[44]  Eric Gilbert,et al.  Managing political differences in social media , 2014, CSCW.