Broadening Exposure to Socio-Political Opinions via a Pushy Smart Home Device

Motivated by the effects of the filter bubble and echo chamber phenomena on social media, we developed a smart home device, Spkr, that unpredictably "pushes" socio-political discussion topics into the home. The device utilised trending Twitter discussions, categorised by their socio-political alignment, to present people with a purposefully assorted range of viewpoints. We deployed Spkr in 10 homes for 28 days with a diverse range of participants and interviewed them about their experiences. Our results show that Spkr presents a novel means of combating selective exposure to socio-political issues, providing participants with identifiably diverse viewpoints. Moreover, Spkr acted as a conversational prompt for discussion within the home, initiating collective processes and engaging those who would not often be involved in political discussions. We demonstrate how smart home assistants can be used as a catalyst for provocation by altering and pluralising political discussions within households.

[1]  Tobie Kerridge,et al.  Energy Babble: Mixing Environmentally-Oriented Internet Content to Engage Community Groups , 2015, CHI.

[2]  Eli Pariser.  FILTER BUBBLE: Wie wir im Internet entmündigt werden , 2012 .

[3]  R. Kelly Garrett,et al.  Echo chambers online?: Politically motivated selective exposure among Internet news users , 2009, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[4]  S. Livingstone,et al.  Bedroom culture and the privatization of media use , 2001 .

[5]  J. Habermas,et al.  The structural transformation of the public sphere : an inquiryinto a category of bourgeois society , 1991 .

[6]  L. Ross,et al.  Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence , 1979 .

[7]  B. Nyhan,et al.  When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions , 2010 .

[8]  W. Ong.  Orality and literacy , 1982 .

[9]  M. McCombs.  Agenda setting function of mass media , 1977 .

[10]  Shaun W. Lawson,et al.  Voice as a Design Material: Sociophonetic Inspired Design Strategies in Human-Computer Interaction , 2019, CHI.

[11]  Tom Feltwell,et al.  Debating Poverty Porn on Twitter: Social Media as a Place for Everyday Socio-Political Talk , 2015, CHI.

[12]  Brian E. Weeks,et al.  Effects of the News-Finds-Me Perception in Communication: Social Media Use Implications for News Seeking and Learning About Politics , 2017, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[13]  Nick Taylor,et al.  Social Printers: A Physical Social Network for Political Debates , 2017, CHI.

[14]  Tom Feltwell,et al.  Designing Second-Screening Experiences for Social Co-Selection and Critical Co-Viewing of Reality TV , 2019, CHI.

[15]  Diana C. Mutz.  Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy , 2006 .

[16]  Dominic Spohr.  Fake news and ideological polarization , 2017 .

[17]  D. Fitch,et al.  Review of "Algorithms of oppression: how search engines reinforce racism," by Noble, S. U. (2018). New York, New York: NYU Press. , 2018, CDQR.

[18]  Charles S. Taber,et al.  Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs , 2006 .

[19]  R. Garrett.  Politically Motivated Reinforcement Seeking: Reframing the Selective Exposure Debate , 2009 .

[20]  C. Sunstein.  Republic.com 2.0 , 2007 .

[21]  Sarah Sharples,et al.  Voice Interfaces in Everyday Life , 2018, CHI.

[22]  Sean A. Munson,et al.  Encouraging Reading of Diverse Political Viewpoints with a Browser Widget , 2013, ICWSM.

[23]  Frank Bentley,et al.  Understanding Online News Behaviors , 2019, CHI.

[24]  Jeffrey P. Bigham,et al.  It's Time to Do Something: Mitigating the Negative Impacts of Computing Through a Change to the Peer Review Process , 2021, ArXiv.

[25]  Eric Baumer,et al.  Reflective Informatics: Conceptual Dimensions for Designing Technologies of Reflection , 2015, CHI.

[26]  Sean A. Munson,et al.  The Prevalence of Political Discourse in Non-Political Blogs , 2011, ICWSM.

[27]  Aristides Gionis,et al.  Balancing Opposing Views to Reduce Controversy , 2016, ArXiv.

[28]  Jeroen van den Hoven,et al.  Breaking the filter bubble: democracy and design , 2015, Ethics and Information Technology.

[29]  J. Lull.  THE SOCIAL USES OF TELEVISION , 1980 .

[30]  T. Bell.  The Constitution as if Consent Mattered , 2013 .

[31]  Diana C. Mutz,et al.  Online Groups and Political Discourse: Do Online Discussion Spaces Facilitate Exposure to Political Disagreement? , 2009 .

[32]  C. DiSalvo,et al.  Design and the Construction of Publics , 2009, Design Issues.

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

[34]  Kate Starbird,et al.  Disinformation as Collaborative Work , 2019, Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact..

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

[36]  Ben Kirman.  "get lost, GetLostBot!": annoying people by offering recommendations when they are not wanted , 2012, LocalPeMA '12.

[37]  R. Garrett,et al.  A Turn Toward Avoidance? Selective Exposure to Online Political Information, 2004–2008 , 2013 .

[38]  Jonathan Mellon,et al.  Twitter and Facebook are not representative of the general population: Political attitudes and demographics of British social media users , 2017 .

[39]  Casey Fiesler,et al.  CHI4EVIL: Creative Speculation on the Negative Impacts of HCI Research , 2019, CHI Extended Abstracts.

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

[41]  Jesse M. Shapiro,et al.  Ideological Segregation Online and Offline , 2010 .

[42]  E. Hargittai,et al.  Cross-ideological discussions among conservative and liberal bloggers , 2007 .

[43]  Carl DiSalvo,et al.  Adversarial Design as Inquiry and Practice , 2012 .

[44]  Virginia Braun,et al.  Successful Qualitative Research: A practical guide for beginners , 2013, QMiP Bulletin.

[45]  A. Arvidsson,et al.  Echo Chamber or Public Sphere? Predicting Political Orientation and Measuring Political Homophily in Twitter Using Big Data , 2014 .

[46]  Anne Murcott,et al.  Breakfast, Time, and “Breakfast Time” , 2001 .

[47]  Duncan Rowland,et al.  Disinhibited abuse of othered communities by second-screening audiences , 2014, TVX.

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

[49]  Ben Kirman,et al.  There's a monster in my kitchen: using aversive feedback to motivate behaviour change , 2010, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[50]  M. McPherson,et al.  Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks , 2001 .

[51]  Lynne Baillie,et al.  Place and Technology in the Home , 2008, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[52]  Holly Hearon,et al.  Orality and Literacy , 2016 .

[53]  Eli Pariser,et al.  The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You , 2011 .

[54]  Alan Borning,et al.  Supporting reflective public thought with considerit , 2012, CSCW.

[55]  Giuseppe Riccardi,et al.  Inquisitive mind: a conversational news companion , 2019, CUI.

[56]  Aristides Gionis,et al.  Political Discourse on Social Media: Echo Chambers, Gatekeepers, and the Price of Bipartisanship , 2018, WWW.

[57]  Taylor W. Brown,et al.  Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[58]  Bin Xu,et al.  Automatic Archiving versus Default Deletion: What Snapchat Tells Us About Ephemerality in Design , 2016, CSCW.

[59]  Tom Feltwell,et al.  Rethinking Engagement with Online News through Social and Visual Co-Annotation , 2018, CHI.

[60]  C. Mouffe.  Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically , 2013 .

[61]  Ethan Porter,et al.  The Elusive Backfire Effect: Mass Attitudes’ Steadfast Factual Adherence , 2019 .