Endogenetic structure of filter bubble in social networks

The boom of online social media and microblogging platforms has rapidly alter the way we consume news and exchange opinions. Even though considerable efforts try to recommend various contents to users, loss of information diversity and the polarization of interest groups are still an enormous challenge for industry and academia. Here, we take advantage of benign social bots to design a controlled experiment on Weibo (the largest microblogging platform in China). These software bots can exhibit human-like behavior (e.g., preferring particular content) and simulate the formation of personal social networks and news consumption under two well-accepted sociological hypotheses (i.e., homophily and triadic closure). We deployed 68 bots to Weibo, and each bot ran for at least 2 months and followed 100 to 120 accounts. In total, we observed 5,318 users and recorded about 630,000 messages exposed to these bots. Our results show, even with the same selection behaviors, bots preferring entertainment content are more likely to form polarized communities with their peers, in which about 80\% of the information they consume is of the same type, which is a significant difference for bots preferring sci-tech content. The result suggests that users preference played a more crucial role in limiting themselves access to diverse content by compared with the two well-known drivers (self-selection and pre-selection). Furthermore, our results reveal an ingenious connection between specific content and its propagating sub-structures in the same social network. In the Weibo network, entertainment news favors a unidirectional star-like sub-structure, while sci-tech news spreads on a bidirectional clustering sub-structure. This connection can amplify the diversity effect of user preference. The discovery may have important implications for diffusion dynamics study and recommendation system design.

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

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

[3]  G. Fagiolo Clustering in complex directed networks. , 2006, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[4]  M. Prior,et al.  Media and Political Polarization , 2013 .

[5]  Jie Chang,et al.  The Role of Community Mixing Styles in Shaping Epidemic Behaviors in Weighted Networks , 2013, PloS one.

[6]  Cameron Marlow,et al.  A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization , 2012, Nature.

[7]  Debraj Ray,et al.  On the Measurement of Polarization , 1994 .

[8]  N. Stroud Polarization and Partisan Selective Exposure , 2010 .

[9]  Razvan Pascanu,et al.  Vector-based navigation using grid-like representations in artificial agents , 2018, Nature.

[10]  E. Airoldi,et al.  A natural experiment of social network formation and dynamics , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[11]  Dong Han,et al.  Search boundaries: human flesh search, privacy law, and internet regulation in China , 2018 .

[12]  David G. Rand,et al.  The evolution of antisocial punishment in optional public goods games. , 2011, Nature communications.

[13]  S. Shen-Orr,et al.  Network motifs: simple building blocks of complex networks. , 2002, Science.

[14]  Ichiro Fukuda,et al.  Influence of Selective Exposure to Viewing Contents Diversity , 2018, ArXiv.

[15]  Xiaogang Jin,et al.  Modeling dual-scale epidemic dynamics on complex networks with reaction diffusion processes , 2014, Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE C.

[16]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations , 2001, cond-mat/0104162.

[17]  Winter A. Mason,et al.  Collaborative learning in networks , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[18]  Yi-Cheng Zhang,et al.  Solving the apparent diversity-accuracy dilemma of recommender systems , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[19]  John Kelly,et al.  Polarization, Partisanship and Junk News Consumption over Social Media in the US , 2018, ArXiv.

[20]  James G. Webster,et al.  The impact of a multichannel environment on television news viewing: A longitudinal study of news audience polarization in South Korea , 2012 .

[21]  Xiaogang Jin,et al.  Coupling effect of nodes popularity and similarity on social network persistence , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[22]  Dylan Walker,et al.  Tie Strength, Embeddedness, and Social Influence: A Large-Scale Networked Experiment , 2014, Manag. Sci..

[23]  Michel Loreau,et al.  Partitioning selection and complementarity in biodiversity experiments , 2001, Nature.

[24]  Damon Centola,et al.  The Spread of Behavior in an Online Social Network Experiment , 2010, Science.

[25]  Jure Leskovec,et al.  Higher-order organization of complex networks , 2016, Science.

[26]  Jon M. Kleinberg,et al.  The Directed Closure Process in Hybrid Social-Information Networks, with an Analysis of Link Formation on Twitter , 2010, ICWSM.

[27]  Ulf-Dietrich Reips Standards for Internet-based experimenting. , 2002, Experimental psychology.

[28]  Sean J. Taylor,et al.  Social Influence Bias: A Randomized Experiment , 2013, Science.

[29]  James A. Evans,et al.  Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology , 2019, Nature.

[30]  J. G. Webster Beneath the Veneer of Fragmentation: Television Audience Polarization in a Multichannel World , 2005 .

[31]  Sinan Aral,et al.  The spread of true and false news online , 2018, Science.

[32]  Marshall McLuhan,et al.  The medium is the message , 2005 .

[33]  David W. McDonald,et al.  Dissecting a Social Botnet: Growth, Content and Influence in Twitter , 2015, CSCW.

[34]  Aristides Gionis,et al.  Automatic controversy detection in social media: A content-independent motif-based approach , 2017, Online Soc. Networks Media.

[35]  Damon Centola An Experimental Study of Homophily in the Adoption of Health Behavior , 2011, Science.

[36]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  Coevolution of network structure and content , 2011, WebSci '12.

[37]  Rami Puzis,et al.  Anti-Reconnaissance Tools: Detecting Targeted Socialbots , 2014, IEEE Internet Computing.

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

[39]  Tomas Mikolov,et al.  Bag of Tricks for Efficient Text Classification , 2016, EACL.

[40]  Lucy Bennett,et al.  Researching Online Fandom , 2013 .

[41]  Carlos Alberto Scolari,et al.  Media Ecology: Exploring the Metaphor to Expand the Theory , 2012 .

[42]  N. Postman,et al.  "Mix a Little Folly with Your Wisdom"--Horace@@@Children and Television.@@@Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. , 1987 .

[43]  Damian Trilling,et al.  Should We Worry About Filter Bubbles? , 2016 .

[44]  V. Latora,et al.  Complex networks: Structure and dynamics , 2006 .

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

[46]  M. Newman Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[47]  Jinhong Xie,et al.  Online Social Interactions: A Natural Experiment on Word of Mouth versus Observational Learning , 2010 .

[48]  Jeffrey T. Hancock,et al.  Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[49]  Damon Centola Damon Centola Behavior An Experimental Study of Homophily in the Adoption of Health , 2011 .

[50]  Shilpa Chakravartula,et al.  Complex Networks: Structure and Dynamics , 2014 .

[51]  A. L. Schmidt,et al.  Anatomy of news consumption on Facebook , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[52]  B. Lee Cooper,et al.  Understanding Fandom: An Introduction to the Study of Media Fan Culture , 2015 .

[53]  Jaron Shalom Rottman-Yang Related Work 2 . 1 The Spread of Behavior in an Online Social Network Experiment , 2017 .

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

[55]  N. Newman,et al.  Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2019 , 2019 .

[56]  David Lee,et al.  Biased assimilation, homophily, and the dynamics of polarization , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[57]  Sinan Aral,et al.  Identifying Influential and Susceptible Members of Social Networks , 2012, Science.

[58]  Chunxiao Jiang,et al.  Information Security in Big Data: Privacy and Data Mining , 2014, IEEE Access.

[59]  David G. Rand,et al.  Dynamic social networks promote cooperation in experiments with humans , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.