4 ms·

Social Media, News Consumption, and Polarization: A Field Experiment (2020)

63 points by dash2 6y ago

nerdponx 6y ago
This is a really interesting article, because it's actually about something more fundamental than filter bubbles, and it turns out that Facebook creating filter bubbles is pretty much a corollary. The abstract: Does the consumption of ideologically congruent news on social media exacerbate polarization? I estimate the effects of social media news exposure by conducting a large field experiment randomly offering participants subscriptions to conservative or liberal news outlets on Facebook. I collect data on the causal chain of media effects: subscriptions to outlets, exposure to news on Facebook, visits to online news sites, and sharing of posts, as well as changes in political opinions and attitudes. Four main findings emerge. First, random variation in exposure to news on social media substantially affects the slant of news sites individuals visit. Second, exposure to counter-attitudinal news decreases negative attitudes toward the opposing political party. Third, in contrast to the effect on attitudes, I find no evidence that the political leanings of news outlets affect political opinions. Fourth, Facebook's algorithm is less likely to supply individuals with posts from counter-attitudinal outlets, conditional on individuals subscribing to them. Together, the results suggest that social media algorithms may limit exposure to counter-attitudinal news and thus increase polarization.
- dash2 6y ago
  Yup, what Facebook does is just one of the results. It also suggests the kind of nudges Facebook could do.
- im3w1l 6y ago
  In what sense is conditional used here? E(X | Y) or E(X | Y = y) ?
  - nerdponx 6y ago
    I don't think the phrase "conditional on individuals subscribing to them" is meant to be a probabilistic conditional. I think they are using "conditional on" solecistically to mean "unless".
    - im3w1l 6y ago
      In a non-mathematical context it would mean "given (that)", not "unless".
      - nerdponx 6y ago
        I think you're right, but this is a difficult sentence to parse: Facebook's algorithm is less likely to supply individuals with posts from counter-attitudinal outlets, conditional on individuals subscribing to them
smoldesu 6y ago
This is pretty interesting, but I've always thought that the sensationalist side of social media exacerbates this issue. Everyone is driven by clicks, so writing with a sense of urgency (not necessarily extremism) will drive your interaction up. It's part of what makes social media so exhausting these days: a billion users are all jockeying for your attention, and you need to trust that Facebook/Twitter/Reddit/$OTHER_SITE will direct your focus to the things that matter. And when everything "matters", nothing does. We've become desensitized to importance, and I imagine it will have a considerable impact on the future of journalism and how we interact with it.
- brayhite 6y ago
  So much this. My latest theory (I’ve spent more time than I care to admit pacing in my home talking to myself about social media) is that the incentive for content creators/publishers to get clicks combined with the increased behavioral pattern of readers staking claims by way of aligning their social media personas with a visible belief or #hottake (basically an online bumper sticker) — all sprinkled with the instantaneous exchange of information that is the internet — has created a perfect swirl of perpetual polarization without any wedge to throw in to stop it. I’ve been concluding lately that the only way to slow down or stop continued polarization is to drop off of social media entirely OR remove revenue-earning by way of just clicks. I don’t see either of these happening.
  - EGreg 6y ago
    We started https://rational.app https://rational.app exactly for this reason. If you’re interested then join the project
WaitWaitWha 6y ago
I would love to see this done in more realistic dimensions, not just "liberal" & "conservative".
- userbinator 6y ago
  What others would you propose? That is currently the biggest and most divisive one, at least in the US.
  - chriswarbo 6y ago
    The US use of the word 'liberal' is already ambiguous, and is generally orthogonal to 'conservative' (e.g. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism ). Some interesting dimensions might be: - liberal vs authoritarian - conservative vs progressive - nationalist vs globalist - individual vs collective
isoskeles 6y ago
I wonder what effect this has on peoples' perceptions and willingness for political parties to negotiate and compromise. My general sense is that polarization makes compromise practically impossible, hindering democracy (in the US) to a point where it looks too ineffective. --- More personally, most of the political news media I 'consume' comes from outlets that oppose my own perspective. I used to think I was 'hate-listening' to this stuff, but I also realized that listening to outlets I already agree with feels a bit too self-indulgent for me. I'm curious if this is like a separate form of junk food that requires its own kind of self-control to avoid.

63 points by dash2 6y ago

This is a really interesting article, because it's actually about something more fundamental than filter bubbles, and it turns out that Facebook creating filter bubbles is pretty much a corollary. The abstract: Does the consumption of ideologically congruent news on social media exacerbate polarization? I estimate the effects of social media news exposure by conducting a large field experiment randomly offering participants subscriptions to conservative or liberal news outlets on Facebook. I collect data on the causal chain of media effects: subscriptions to outlets, exposure to news on Facebook, visits to online news sites, and sharing of posts, as well as changes in political opinions and attitudes. Four main findings emerge. First, random variation in exposure to news on social media substantially affects the slant of news sites individuals visit. Second, exposure to counter-attitudinal news decreases negative attitudes toward the opposing political party. Third, in contrast to the effect on attitudes, I find no evidence that the political leanings of news outlets affect political opinions. Fourth, Facebook's algorithm is less likely to supply individuals with posts from counter-attitudinal outlets, conditional on individuals subscribing to them. Together, the results suggest that social media algorithms may limit exposure to counter-attitudinal news and thus increase polarization.

dash2 6y ago
Yup, what Facebook does is just one of the results. It also suggests the kind of nudges Facebook could do.
im3w1l 6y ago
In what sense is conditional used here? E(X | Y) or E(X | Y = y) ?
- nerdponx 6y ago
  I don't think the phrase "conditional on individuals subscribing to them" is meant to be a probabilistic conditional. I think they are using "conditional on" solecistically to mean "unless".
  - im3w1l 6y ago
    In a non-mathematical context it would mean "given (that)", not "unless".
    - nerdponx 6y ago
      I think you're right, but this is a difficult sentence to parse: Facebook's algorithm is less likely to supply individuals with posts from counter-attitudinal outlets, conditional on individuals subscribing to them

smoldesu 6y ago

This is pretty interesting, but I've always thought that the sensationalist side of social media exacerbates this issue. Everyone is driven by clicks, so writing with a sense of urgency (not necessarily extremism) will drive your interaction up. It's part of what makes social media so exhausting these days: a billion users are all jockeying for your attention, and you need to trust that Facebook/Twitter/Reddit/$OTHER_SITE will direct your focus to the things that matter. And when everything "matters", nothing does. We've become desensitized to importance, and I imagine it will have a considerable impact on the future of journalism and how we interact with it.

brayhite 6y ago
So much this. My latest theory (I’ve spent more time than I care to admit pacing in my home talking to myself about social media) is that the incentive for content creators/publishers to get clicks combined with the increased behavioral pattern of readers staking claims by way of aligning their social media personas with a visible belief or #hottake (basically an online bumper sticker) — all sprinkled with the instantaneous exchange of information that is the internet — has created a perfect swirl of perpetual polarization without any wedge to throw in to stop it. I’ve been concluding lately that the only way to slow down or stop continued polarization is to drop off of social media entirely OR remove revenue-earning by way of just clicks. I don’t see either of these happening.
- EGreg 6y ago
  We started https://rational.app https://rational.app exactly for this reason. If you’re interested then join the project

WaitWaitWha 6y ago

I would love to see this done in more realistic dimensions, not just "liberal" & "conservative".

userbinator 6y ago
What others would you propose? That is currently the biggest and most divisive one, at least in the US.
- chriswarbo 6y ago
  The US use of the word 'liberal' is already ambiguous, and is generally orthogonal to 'conservative' (e.g. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism ). Some interesting dimensions might be: - liberal vs authoritarian - conservative vs progressive - nationalist vs globalist - individual vs collective

isoskeles 6y ago

I wonder what effect this has on peoples' perceptions and willingness for political parties to negotiate and compromise. My general sense is that polarization makes compromise practically impossible, hindering democracy (in the US) to a point where it looks too ineffective. --- More personally, most of the political news media I 'consume' comes from outlets that oppose my own perspective. I used to think I was 'hate-listening' to this stuff, but I also realized that listening to outlets I already agree with feels a bit too self-indulgent for me. I'm curious if this is like a separate form of junk food that requires its own kind of self-control to avoid.