Opinion Market Model: Stemming Far-Right Opinion Spread using Positive Interventions

Online extremism has severe societal consequences, including normalizing hate speech, user radicalization, and increased social divisions. Various mitigation strategies have been explored to address these consequences. One such strategy uses positive interventions: controlled signals that add attention to the opinion ecosystem to boost certain opinions. To evaluate the effectiveness of positive interventions, we introduce the Opinion Market Model (OMM), a two-tier online opinion ecosystem model that considers both inter-opinion interactions and the role of positive interventions. The size of the opinion attention market is modeled in the first tier using the multivariate discrete-time Hawkes process; in the second tier, opinions cooperate and compete for market share, given limited attention using the market share attraction model. We demonstrate the convergence of our proposed estimation scheme on a synthetic dataset. Next, we test OMM on two learning tasks, applying to two real-world datasets to predict attention market shares and uncover latent relationships between online items. The first dataset comprises Facebook and Twitter discussions containing moderate and far-right opinions about bushfires and climate change. The second dataset captures popular VEVO artists' YouTube and Twitter attention volumes. OMM outperforms the state-of-the-art predictive models on both datasets and captures latent cooperation-competition relations. We uncover (1) self- and cross-reinforcement between far-right and moderate opinions on the bushfires and (2) pairwise artist relations that correlate with real-world interactions such as collaborations and long-lasting feuds. Lastly, we use OMM as a testbed for positive interventions and show how media coverage modulates the spread of far-right opinions.

[1]  M. Peucker,et al.  Mainstream media use in far-right online ecosystems , 2022 .

[2]  Marian-Andrei Rizoiu,et al.  Detecting Extreme Ideologies in Shifting Landscapes: an Automatic&Context-Agnostic Approach , 2022, 2208.04097.

[3]  A. Tiwari,et al.  Polarised social media discourse during COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from YouTube , 2022, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[4]  Xiaofei Xu,et al.  Identifying Cost-effective Debunkers for Multi-stage Fake News Mitigation Campaigns , 2022, WSDM.

[5]  M. Agovino,et al.  Correction to: Effect of Media News on Radicalization of Attitudes to Immigration , 2021, Journal of Economics, Race, and Policy.

[6]  M. Pantti,et al.  A Framework for Assessing the Role of Public Service Media Organizations in Countering Disinformation , 2021, Digital Journalism.

[7]  Francesco Bailo,et al.  Slipping to the Extreme: A Mixed Method to Explain How Extreme Opinions Infiltrate Online Discussions , 2021, ICWSM.

[8]  D. Weisburd,et al.  Examining the interactive effects of the filter bubble and the echo chamber on radicalization , 2021, Journal of Experimental Criminology.

[9]  S. Malinen,et al.  Undercurrents of echo chambers and flame wars: party political correlates of social media behavior , 2021, Journal of Information Technology & Politics.

[10]  Sabine Loudcher,et al.  Information Interaction Profile of Choice Adoption , 2021, ECML/PKDD.

[11]  A. Menon,et al.  Interval-censored Hawkes processes , 2021, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[12]  Kerrie Mengersen,et al.  Simple discrete-time self-exciting models can describe complex dynamic processes: A case study of COVID-19 , 2020, PloS one.

[13]  A. Guess,et al.  The consequences of online partisan media , 2021, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[14]  Adam Henschke,et al.  Toward an Ethical Framework for Countering Extremist Propaganda Online , 2021, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism.

[15]  Matteo Cinelli,et al.  The echo chamber effect on social media , 2021, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[16]  Benjamin D. Horne,et al.  NELA-GT-2020: A Large Multi-Labelled News Dataset for The Study of Misinformation in News Articles , 2021, ArXiv.

[17]  Greyson K. Young How much is too much: the difficulties of social media content moderation , 2021, Information & Communications Technology Law.

[18]  Matteo Riondato,et al.  RePBubLik: Reducing Polarized Bubble Radius with Link Insertions , 2021, WSDM.

[19]  G. Torrisi,et al.  A time-modulated Hawkes process to model the spread of COVID-19 and the impact of countermeasures , 2021, Annual Reviews in Control.

[20]  Brent Kitchens,et al.  Understanding Echo Chambers and Filter Bubbles: The Impact of Social Media on Diversification and Partisan Shifts in News Consumption , 2020, MIS Q..

[21]  Jonathan A. Busam,et al.  Real Solutions for Fake News? Measuring the Effectiveness of General Warnings and Fact-Check Tags in Reducing Belief in False Stories on Social Media , 2020, Political Behavior.

[22]  Marian-Andrei Rizoiu,et al.  Describing and Predicting Online Items with Reshare Cascades via Dual Mixture Self-exciting Processes , 2020, CIKM.

[23]  Gerrit van Bruggen,et al.  Competition for Attention in Online Social Networks: Implications for Seeding Strategies Forthcoming in Management Science , 2019 .

[24]  Tanushree Mitra,et al.  Many Faced Hate: A Cross Platform Study of Content Framing and Information Sharing by Online Hate Groups , 2020, CHI.

[25]  Christopher Musco,et al.  Analyzing the Impact of Filter Bubbles on Social Network Polarization , 2020, WSDM.

[26]  Elmie Nekmat Nudge Effect of Fact-Check Alerts: Source Influence and Media Skepticism on Sharing of News Misinformation in Social Media , 2020 .

[27]  Lexing Xie,et al.  Estimating Attention Flow in Online Video Networks , 2019, Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact..

[28]  Munindar P. Singh,et al.  The public and legislative impact of hyperconcentrated topic news , 2019, Science Advances.

[29]  Sam Jackson The Double-Edged Sword of Banning Extremists from Social Media , 2019 .

[30]  Rui Zhang,et al.  Variational Inference for Sparse Gaussian Process Modulated Hawkes Process , 2019, AAAI.

[31]  T. Venturini,et al.  “API-Based Research” or How can Digital Sociology and Journalism Studies Learn from the Facebook and Cambridge Analytica Data Breach , 2019, Digital Journalism.

[32]  Jonathan A. Busam,et al.  Real Solutions for Fake News? Measuring the Effectiveness of General Warnings and Fact-Check Tags in Reducing Belief in False Stories on Social Media , 2019, Political Behavior.

[33]  Tiangang Cui,et al.  Stein Variational Online Changepoint Detection with Applications to Hawkes Processes and Neural Networks , 2019, ArXiv.

[34]  Vivek Venkatesh,et al.  Exposure to Extremist Online Content Could Lead to Violent Radicalization:A Systematic Review of Empirical Evidence , 2018, International Journal of Developmental Science.

[35]  Renaud Lambiotte,et al.  Identifying exogenous and endogenous activity in social media , 2018, Physical Review E.

[36]  T. O'rourke,et al.  The Challenge of Alternative Facts and the Rise of Misinformation in the Digital Age: Responsibilities and Opportunities for Health Promotion and Education , 2018 .

[37]  Muhammad Faizal Abdul Rahman,et al.  Countering Fake News: A Survey of Recent Global Initiatives , 2018 .

[38]  Utkarsh Upadhyay,et al.  On the Complexity of Opinions and Online Discussions , 2018, WSDM.

[39]  Huan Liu,et al.  Tracing Fake-News Footprints: Characterizing Social Media Messages by How They Propagate , 2018, WSDM.

[40]  Huan Liu,et al.  Beyond News Contents: The Role of Social Context for Fake News Detection , 2017, WSDM.

[41]  Swapnil Mishra,et al.  SIR-Hawkes: Linking Epidemic Models and Hawkes Processes to Model Diffusions in Finite Populations , 2017, WWW.

[42]  Niloy Ganguly,et al.  SLANT+: A Nonlinear Model for Opinion Dynamics in Social Networks , 2017, 2017 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM).

[43]  Lexing Xie,et al.  Online Popularity Under Promotion: Viral Potential, Forecasting, and the Economics of Time , 2017, ICWSM.

[44]  J. Balcells,et al.  Tweeting on Catalonia’s Independence: The Dynamics of Political Discussion and Group Polarisation , 2016 .

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

[46]  M. Betz Constraints and opportunities: what role for media development in countering violent extremism? , 2016 .

[47]  Matthew Costello,et al.  Who views online extremism? Individual attributes leading to exposure , 2016, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[48]  Swapnil Mishra,et al.  Feature Driven and Point Process Approaches for Popularity Prediction , 2016, CIKM.

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

[50]  Scott Sanner,et al.  Expecting to be HIP: Hawkes Intensity Processes for Social Media Popularity , 2016, WWW.

[51]  Hongyuan Zha,et al.  Correlated Cascades: Compete or Cooperate , 2015, AAAI.

[52]  Niloy Ganguly,et al.  Learning and Forecasting Opinion Dynamics in Social Networks , 2015, NIPS.

[53]  Isabel Valera,et al.  Modeling Adoption and Usage of Competing Products , 2014, 2015 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining.

[54]  Gail M Williams,et al.  Internet-based surveillance systems for monitoring emerging infectious diseases , 2013, The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

[55]  Gentry White,et al.  Terrorism Risk, Resilience and Volatility: A Comparison of Terrorism Patterns in Three Southeast Asian Countries , 2013 .

[56]  Jussara M. Almeida,et al.  Using early view patterns to predict the popularity of youtube videos , 2013, WSDM.

[57]  Jure Leskovec,et al.  Clash of the Contagions: Cooperation and Competition in Information Diffusion , 2012, 2012 IEEE 12th International Conference on Data Mining.

[58]  A. Vespignani,et al.  Competition among memes in a world with limited attention , 2012, Scientific Reports.

[59]  Rajiv Johal,et al.  Factiva: Gateway to Business Information , 2009 .

[60]  A. Hawkes Spectra of some self-exciting and mutually exciting point processes , 1971 .

[61]  Marian-Andrei Rizoiu,et al.  You are what you browse: A robust framework for uncovering political ideology , 2022, ArXiv.

[62]  Lee G. Cooper Chapter 6 Market-share models , 1993, Marketing.