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 …
-
-
Replying to @chris_bail
Maybe, maybe not but that design cannot measure that question. You also cannot measure the polarization question like that imo to be honest, because on what planet is, say, Fox news outside of the algorithmic public sphere? It orients itself to compete with Breitbart on Facebook.
6 replies 5 retweets 71 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @chris_bail
However to your point re Fox, they are included in the algo. category when that info is via SMS or news aggs. I suspect selection effects that limit impact on polarization. That type of info via algos is probably likely to pull on the tails ala Levendusky but needs long. data.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @JessicaFeezell @chris_bail
Right, though the problem is they've also reoriented their TV programming to compete with their audience pulled by Breitbart on Facebook—where recs/ranking play a big role. (One producer put it as: "gotta compete with the crazy). It makes it very hard to measure, for sure.
1 reply 1 retweet 7 likes -
I'm not saying I have an easy answer here: before the pandemic, I was wondering how we could fund a national longitudinal panel, cut a deal with the companies for a different data access approach etc. The ground has shifted and key data is private—hard measurement problem.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes
For example, there is research showing *content* of fast-food has also shifted—competing with each other—but also we eat more. There, at least, we can measure and see this. Imagine having no content data or sales data, looking at health metrics alone. Hard to reverse engineer.
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.