Quick Links from the Past Year, Part 4 (The Algorithms; Facebook)
[Shoutout to all of the dads out there! đ]
The Algorithms
* What would happen if FB turned off its newsfeed algorithm?
In February 2018, a Facebook researcher all but shut off the News Feed ranking algorithm for .05% of Facebook users. âWhat happens if we delete ranked News Feed?â they asked in an internal report summing up the experiment. Their findings: Without a News Feed algorithm, engagement on Facebook drops significantly, people hide 50% more posts, content from Facebook Groups rises to the top, and â surprisingly â Facebook makes even more money from users scrolling through the News FeedâŠ
Turning off the News Feed ranking algorithm, the researcher found, led to a worse experience almost across the board. People spent more time scrolling through the News Feed searching for interesting stuff, and saw more advertisements as they went (hence the revenue spike). They hid 50% more posts, indicating they werenât thrilled with what they were seeing. They saw more Groups content, because Groups is one of the few places on Facebook that remains vibrant. And they saw double the amount of posts from public pages they donât follow, often because friends commented on those pages. âWe reduce the distribution of these posts massively as they seem to be a constant quality compliant,â the researcher said of the public pages.
* This Twitter study concludes that âmainstream right-wing parties benefit at least as much, & often substantially more, from algorithmic personalization as their left-wing counterpartsâ
* Nature: âno strong or consistent evidence of political bias in the [Twitter] news feedâŠThe interactions of conservative accounts are skewed toward the right, whereas liberal accounts are exposed to moderate content shifting their experience toward the political center. Partisan accounts, especially conservative ones, tend to receive more followers and follow more automated accounts. Conservative accounts also find themselves in denser communities and are exposed to more low-credibility content.â
During [the study] period, while only 7.7% of the Democratic users were suspended, 35.6% of the Republican users were suspended. The Republican users, however, shared substantially more news from misinformation sites â as judged by either fact-checkers or politically balanced crowds â than the Democratic users. Critically, we found that usersâ misinformation sharing was as predictive of suspension as was their political orientation. Thus, the observation that Republicans were more likely to be suspended than Democrats provides no support for the claim that Twitter showed political bias in its suspension practices. Instead, the observed asymmetry could be explained entirely by the tendency of Republicans to share more misinformation. While support for action against misinformation is bipartisan, the sharing of misinformation â at least at this historical moment â is heavily asymmetric across parties. As a result, our study shows that it is inappropriate to make inferences about political bias from asymmetries in suspension rates.
* âExamining the consumption of radical content on YouTubeâ: â news consumption on YouTube is dominated by mainstream and largely centrist sources. Consumers of far-right content, while more engaged than average, represent a small and stable percentage of news consumers. However, consumption of âanti-wokeâ content, defined in terms of its opposition to progressive intellectual and political agendas, grew steadily in popularity and is correlated with consumption of far-right content off-platform. We find no evidence that engagement with far-right content is caused by YouTube recommendations systematically, nor do we find clear evidence that anti-woke channels serve as a gateway to the far right. Rather, consumption of political content on YouTube appears to reflect individual preferences that extend across the web as a whole.â
* âOn YouTubeâs recommendation systemâ
* Playlisting Favorites: Measuring Platform Bias in the Music Industry: âWe find that Spotifyâs New Music rankings favor indie-label music and music by women.â
* NYT: âElection Falsehoods Surged on Podcasts Before Capitol Riots, Researchers FindâÂ
* The Verge: âTumblr is settling with NYCâs human rights agency over alleged porn ban biasâ
* WaPo:Â How Twitch took down Buffalo shooterâs stream in under two minutes
* WSJ: âFacebook Says Its Rules Apply to All. Company Documents Reveal a Secret Elite Thatâs Exemptâ
* The Intercept: Revealed: Facebookâs Secret Blacklist of âDangerous Individuals and Organizationsâ
* Politico: Inside Facebookâs struggle to contain insurrectionistsâ posts
* The Markup: What Does Facebook Mean When It Says It Supports âInternet Regulationsâ?
* WSJ: Facebook Says AI Will Clean Up the Platform. Its Own Engineers Have Doubts.
* NYT: In India, Facebook Grapples With an Amplified Version of Its Problems
* NYT: Internal Alarm, Public Shrugs: Facebookâs Employees Dissect Its Election Role
* WSJ: âFacebookâs management team has been so intently focused on avoiding charges of bias that it regularly places political considerations at the center of its decision makingâ
* Wired: The Infinite Reach of Joel Kaplan, Facebookâs Man in Washington
* Washington Post: Facebook paid GOP firm to malign TikTok
* NYT: Facebook Wrestles With the Features It Used to Define Social Networking. âwhen the Like button was hidden, users interacted less with posts and ads. At the same time, it did not alleviate teenagersâ social anxiety and young users did not share more photosâ
* NYT: Eating Disorders and Social Media Prove Difficult to Untangle
* NYT: The Silent Partner Cleaning Up Facebook for $500 Million a Year
* Nieman Labs: Facebook looks ready to divorce the news industry, and I doubt couples counseling will help