Cascades: A View from Audience

Cascades on social and information networks have been a tremendously popular subject of study in the past decade, and there is a considerable literature on phenomena such as diffusion mechanisms, virality, cascade prediction, and peer network effects. Against the backdrop of this research, a basic question has received comparatively little attention: how desirable are cascades on a social media platform from the point of view of users' While versions of this question have been considered from the perspective of the producers of cascades, any answer to this question must also take into account the effect of cascades on their audience --- the viewers of the cascade who do not directly participate in generating the content that launched it. In this work, we seek to fill this gap by providing a consumer perspective of information cascades. Users on social and information networks play the dual role of producers and consumers, and our work focuses on how users perceive cascades as consumers. Starting from this perspective, we perform an empirical study of the interaction of Twitter users with retweet cascades. We measure how often users observe retweets in their home timeline, and observe a phenomenon that we term the Impressions Paradox: the share of impressions for cascades of size k decays much more slowly than frequency of cascades of size k. Thus, the audience for cascades can be quite large even for rare large cascades. We also measure audience engagement with retweet cascades in comparison to non-retweeted or organic content. Our results show that cascades often rival or exceed organic content in engagement received per impression. This result is perhaps surprising in that consumers didn't opt in to see tweets from these authors. Furthermore, although cascading content is widely popular, one would expect it to eventually reach parts of the audience that may not be interested in the content. Motivated by the tension in these empirical findings, we posit a simple theoretical model that focuses on the effect of cascades on the audience (rather than the cascade producers). Our results on this model highlight the balance between retweeting as a high-quality content selection mechanism and the role of network users in filtering irrelevant content. In particular, the results suggest that together these two effects enable the audience to consume a high quality stream of content in the presence of cascades.

[1]  Jon Kleinberg,et al.  Differences in the mechanics of information diffusion across topics: idioms, political hashtags, and complex contagion on twitter , 2011, WWW.

[2]  Larry Goldstein,et al.  Size bias, sampling, the waiting time paradox, and infinite divisibility: when is the increment independent? , 2010, 1007.3910.

[3]  Kamesh Munagala,et al.  On the precision of social and information networks , 2013, COSN '13.

[4]  Kamesh Munagala,et al.  A Note on Modeling Retweet Cascades on Twitter , 2015, WAW.

[5]  Chenhao Tan,et al.  On the Interplay between Social and Topical Structure , 2011, ICWSM.

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

[7]  David Lazer,et al.  #Bigbirds Never Die: Understanding Social Dynamics of Emergent Hashtags , 2013, ICWSM.

[8]  Katherine L. Milkman,et al.  What Makes Online Content Viral? , 2012 .

[9]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Who says what to whom on twitter , 2011, WWW.

[10]  Animesh Mukherjee,et al.  #Bieber + #Blast = #BieberBlast: Early Prediction of Popular Hashtag Compounds , 2015, CSCW.

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

[12]  Rediet Abebe Can Cascades be Predicted? , 2014 .

[13]  Jimmy J. Lin,et al.  Information network or social network?: the structure of the twitter follow graph , 2014, WWW.

[14]  Sheldon M. Ross,et al.  Introduction to Probability Models, Eighth Edition , 1972 .

[15]  Ari Rappoport,et al.  What's in a hashtag?: content based prediction of the spread of ideas in microblogging communities , 2012, WSDM '12.

[16]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  The Anatomy of Large Facebook Cascades , 2013, ICWSM.

[17]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  The Structural Virality of Online Diffusion , 2015, Manag. Sci..

[18]  References , 1971 .

[19]  Jon M. Kleinberg,et al.  You Had Me at Hello: How Phrasing Affects Memorability , 2012, ACL.

[20]  Jure Leskovec,et al.  The dynamics of viral marketing , 2005, EC '06.