Matus Tomlein
Ivan Srba
Robert Moro
Maria Bielikova
ABSTRACT
The negative effects of misinformation filter bubbles in adaptive systems have been known to researchers for some time. Several studies investigated, most prominently on YouTube, how fast a user can get into a misinformation filter bubble simply by selecting “wrong choices” from the items offered. Yet, no studies so far have investigated what it takes to “burst the bubble”, i.e., revert the bubble enclosure. We present a study in which pre-programmed agents (acting as YouTube users) delve into misinformation filter bubbles by watching misinformation promoting content (for various topics). Then, by watching misinformation debunking content, the agents try to burst the bubbles and reach more balanced recommendation mixes. We recorded the search results and recommendations, which the agents encountered, and analyzed them for the presence of misinformation. Our key finding is that bursting of a filter bubble is possible, albeit it manifests differently from topic to topic. Moreover, we observe that filter bubbles do not truly appear in some situations. We also draw a direct comparison with a previous study. Sadly, we did not find much improvements in misinformation occurrences, despite recent pledges by YouTube.
Supplemental Material
- Deena Abul-Fottouh, Melodie Yunju Song, and Anatoliy Gruzd. 2020. Examining algorithmic biases in YouTube’s recommendations of vaccine videos. Int. Journal of Medical Informatics 140 (2020), 104175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2020.104175Google Scholar
- Eytan Bakshy, Solomon Messing, and Lada A. Adamic. 2015. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science 348, 6239 (2015), 1130–1132.Google Scholar
- Alessandro Bessi. 2016. Personality traits and echo chambers on facebook. Computers in Human Behavior 65 (2016), 319–324.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Paul Covington, Jay Adams, and Emre Sargin. 2016. Deep Neural Networks for YouTube Recommendations. In Proc. of the 10th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 191–198. https://doi.org/10.1145/2959100.2959190Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michela Del Vicario, Alessandro Bessi, Fabiana Zollo, Fabio Petroni, Antonio Scala, Guido Caldarelli, H Eugene Stanley, and Walter Quattrociocchi. 2016. The spreading of misinformation online. Proc. of the National Academy of Sciences 113, 3 (2016), 554–559.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Leon Festinger. 1957. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Vol. 2. Stanford university press.Google Scholar
- Aniko Hannak, Piotr Sapiezynski, Arash Molavi Kakhki, Balachander Krishnamurthy, David Lazer, Alan Mislove, and Christo Wilson. 2013. Measuring Personalization of Web Search. In Proc. of the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 527–538. https://doi.org/10.1145/2488388.2488435Google ScholarDigital Library
- Eslam Hussein, Prerna Juneja, and Tanushree Mitra. 2020. Measuring Misinformation in Video Search Platforms: An Audit Study on YouTube. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 4, CSCW1, Article 048 (May 2020), 27 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3392854Google ScholarDigital Library
- Prerna Juneja and Tanushree Mitra. 2021. Auditing E-Commerce Platforms for Algorithmically Curated Vaccine Misinformation. In Proc. of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’21). https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445250 arxiv:2101.08419Google ScholarDigital Library
- Huyen Le, Andrew High, Raven Maragh, Timothy Havens, Brian Ekdale, and Zubair Shafiq. 2019. Measuring political personalization of Google news search. In Proc. of the World Wide Web Conference (WWW ’19). 2957–2963. https://doi.org/10.1145/3308558.3312504Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ben Lockwood. 2017. Confirmation Bias and Electoral Accountability. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 11, 4 (February 2017), 471–501. https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00016037Google ScholarCross Ref
- Danaë Metaxa, Joon Sung Park, James A. Landay, and Jeff Hancock. 2019. Search Media and Elections: A Longitudinal Investigation of Political Search Results. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 3, CSCW, Article 129 (Nov. 2019), 17 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359231Google ScholarDigital Library
- Diana C. Mutz and Lori Young. 2011. Communication and public opinion: Plus ça change?Public opinion quarterly 75, 5 (2011), 1018–1044.Google Scholar
- Kostantinos Papadamou, Savvas Zannettou, Jeremy Blackburn, Emiliano De Cristofaro, Gianluca Stringhini, and Michael Sirivianos. 2020. ”It is just a flu”: Assessing the Effect of Watch History on YouTube’s Pseudoscientific Video Recommendations. arxiv:2010.11638 [cs.CY]Google Scholar
- Eli Pariser. 2011. The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. Penguin UK.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Branislav Pecher, Ivan Srba, Robert Moro, Matus Tomlein, and Maria Bielikova. 2021. FireAnt: Claim-Based Medical Misinformation Detection and Monitoring. In Proc. of the Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases (ECML PKDD ’20). 555–559. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67670-4_38Google ScholarDigital Library
- Manoel Horta Ribeiro, Raphael Ottoni, Robert West, Virgílio A. F. Almeida, and Wagner Meira. 2020. Auditing Radicalization Pathways on YouTube. In Proc. of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 131–141. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372879Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ronald E. Robertson, David Lazer, and Christo Wilson. 2018. Auditing the personalization and composition of politically-related search engine results pages. Proc. of the World Wide Web Conference (WWW ’18), 955–965. https://doi.org/10.1145/3178876.3186143Google ScholarDigital Library
- Christian Sandvig, Kevin Hamilton, Karrie Karahalios, and Cedric Langbort. 2014. Auditing algorithms: Research methods for detecting discrimination on internet platforms. Data and discrimination: converting critical concerns into productive inquiry 22(2014), 4349–4357.Google Scholar
- Márcio Silva, Lucas Santos de Oliveira, Athanasios Andreou, Pedro Olmo Vaz de Melo, Oana Goga, and Fabricio Benevenuto. 2020. Facebook Ads Monitor: An Independent Auditing System for Political Ads on Facebook. In Proc. of The Web Conference (WWW ’20). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 224–234. https://doi.org/10.1145/3366423.3380109Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jakub Simko, Patrik Racsko, Matus Tomlein, Martina Hanakova, Robert Moro, and Maria Bielikova. 2021. A study of fake news reading and annotating in social media context. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia(2021), 1–31.Google Scholar
- Jakub Simko, Matus Tomlein, Branislav Pecher, Robert Moro, Ivan Srba, Elena Stefancova, Andrea Hrckova, Michal Kompan, Juraj Podrouzek, and Maria Bielikova. 2021. Towards Continuous Automatic Audits of Social Media Adaptive Behavior and Its Role in Misinformation Spreading. In Adjunct Proc. of the 29th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP ’21). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 411–414. https://doi.org/10.1145/3450614.3463353Google Scholar
- Larissa Spinelli and Mark Crovella. 2020. How YouTube Leads Privacy-Seeking Users Away from Reliable Information. In Adjunct Publication of the 28th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 244–251. https://doi.org/10.1145/3386392.3399566Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ivan Srba, Robert Moro, Daniela Chuda, Maria Bielikova, Jakub Simko, Jakub Sevcech, Daniela Chuda, Pavol Navrat, and Maria Bielikova. 2019. Monant: Universal and Extensible Platform for Monitoring, Detection and Mitigation of Antisocial Behavior. In Proc. of Workshop on Reducing Online Misinformation Exposure (ROME ’19). 1–7.Google Scholar
- Cass R Sunstein. 1999. The law of group polarization. University of Chicago Law School, John M. Olin Law & Economics Working Paper91(1999).Google ScholarCross Ref
- Pernille Tranberg, Gry Hasselbalch, Catrine S. Byrne, and Birgitte K. Olsen. 2020. DATAETHICS – Principles and Guidelines for Companies, Authorities & Organisations. Dataethics.eu. https://spintype.com/book/dataethics-principles-and-guidelines-for-companies-authorities-organisationsGoogle Scholar
- Siva Vaidhyanathan. 2018. Antisocial media: How Facebook disconnects us and undermines democracy. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- YouTube. 2020. Managing harmful conspiracy theories on YouTube. https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/harmful-conspiracy-theories-youtube/Google Scholar
- Savvas Zannettou, Michael Sirivianos, Jeremy Blackburn, and Nicolas Kourtellis. 2019. The Web of False Information: Rumors, Fake News, Hoaxes, Clickbait, and Various Other Shenanigans. Journal of Data and Information Quality(2019), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1145/3309699 arxiv:1804.03461Google Scholar
- Zhe Zhao, Lichan Hong, Li Wei, Jilin Chen, Aniruddh Nath, Shawn Andrews, Aditee Kumthekar, Maheswaran Sathiamoorthy, Xinyang Yi, and Ed Chi. 2019. Recommending what video to watch next: A multitask ranking system. In Proc. of the 13th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys ’19). ACM, 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1145/3298689.3346997Google ScholarDigital Library
- Xinyi Zhou and Reza Zafarani. 2020. A Survey of Fake News: Fundamental Theories, Detection Methods, and Opportunities. Comput. Surveys 53, 5 (Dec. 2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3395046 arxiv:1812.00315Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fabiana Zollo, Petra Kralj Novak, Michela Del Vicario, Alessandro Bessi, Igor Mozetic, Antonio Scala, Guido Caldarelli, and Walter Quattrociocchi. 2015. Emotional Dynamics in the Age of Misinformation.CoRR (2015). http://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/journals/corr/corr1505.html#ZolloNVBMSCQ15Google Scholar
- Shoshana Zuboff. 2019. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. Profile Books.Google Scholar
Recommendations
Auditing YouTube’s Recommendation Algorithm for Misinformation Filter Bubbles
In this article, we present results of an auditing study performed over YouTube aimed at investigating how fast a user can get into a misinformation filter bubble, but also what it takes to “burst the bubble,” i.e., revert the bubble enclosure. We employ ...
The Dynamics of (Not) Unfollowing Misinformation Spreaders
WWW '24: Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024Many studies explore how people "come into" misinformation exposure. But much less is known about how people "come out of" misinformation exposure.Do people organically sever ties to misinformation spreaders? And what predicts doing so? Over six months, ...
Are Mutated Misinformation More Contagious? A Case Study of COVID-19 Misinformation on Twitter
WebSci '22: Proceedings of the 14th ACM Web Science Conference 2022The spread of online misinformation has become a major global risk. Understanding how misinformation propagates on social media is vital. While prior studies suggest that the content factors, such as emotion and topic in texts, are closely related to the ...
Comments