Another new study indicates algorithms aren't driving polarization. The evidence is preliminary, but part of a growing trend of studies that don't find evidence of the much fabled extremist rabbit hole.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0747563220303733 …
-
-
Comparing "algorithmic" vs "non-algorithmic" news makes little sense when we know all the big players are competing on those terms (and such ecological shifts are always hard for causal inference) especially when we're measuring snaphots of shadows, not actual effects.
-
What we need, I think, is a proper longitudinal panel study. (Our moment reminds me of the extensive survey work in the 2000s trying to find internet effects by comparing internet users to non-internet users—when we know the world doesn't divide like that.)
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I am familiar with the cases you describe, I believe, but do we actually know that they radicalized people, or just that people joined more radical groups? Also, shouldn't we be concerned that media accounts of such cases are highly selective themselves?
-
I'm sure we both agree that this is why we need independent audits of algorithms, but in my reading of the (still preliminary) literature, we should not be surprised if they are much less powerful than we might think.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I'm not sure I follow your point about Fox. By "part of the algo public sphere" do you mean it's on social media like every other media outlet? Why is this a measurement complication?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.