skip to main content

Explore Research Products in the NSF-PAR

Title: Poster abstract: Homophily and controversy: On the role of public opinion in online viral diffusion
It is critical in social network analysis to understand the underlying mechanisms of online information diffusion. Although there has been much progress on the influential factors that lead to online viral diffusion, little is known about the impact by public opinion. In this paper, we examine the relations between the public opinion among information propagators and the virality of online diffusion based on a large-scale real-world dataset. We propose a set of new metrics for public opinion in online diffusion to reveal their correlation with diffusion structural virality, and further apply our understanding to predict diffusion virality based on public opinion. The experimental results show the effectiveness of the proposed analysis in the prediction of viral diffusion events.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1662487
NSF-PAR ID:
10127235
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ; ; ; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
IEEE INFOCOM 2018 - IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS)
Page Range / eLocation ID:
1 to 2
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ; ( , PLOS ONE)
    Cremonini, Marco (Ed.)
    Understanding the spread of false or dangerous beliefs—often called misinformation or disinformation—through a population has never seemed so urgent. Network science researchers have often taken a page from epidemiologists, and modeled the spread of false beliefs as similar to how a disease spreads through a social network. However, absent from those disease-inspired models is an internal model of an individual’s set of current beliefs, where cognitive science has increasingly documented how the interaction between mental models and incoming messages seems to be crucially important for their adoption or rejection. Some computational social science modelers analyze agent-based models where individuals do have simulated cognition, but they often lack the strengths of network science, namely in empirically-driven network structures. We introduce a cognitive cascade model that combines a network science belief cascade approach with an internal cognitive model of the individual agents as in opinion diffusion models as a public opinion diffusion (POD) model, adding media institutions as agents which begin opinion cascades. We show that the model, even with a very simplistic belief function to capture cognitive effects cited in disinformation study (dissonance and exposure), adds expressive power over existing cascade models. We conduct an analysis of the cognitive cascade model with our simple cognitive function across various graph topologies and institutional messaging patterns. We argue from our results that population-level aggregate outcomes of the model qualitatively match what has been reported in COVID-related public opinion polls, and that the model dynamics lend insights as to how to address the spread of problematic beliefs. The overall model sets up a framework with which social science misinformation researchers and computational opinion diffusion modelers can join forces to understand, and hopefully learn how to best counter, the spread of disinformation and “alternative facts.” 
    more » « less
  2. ; ; ( , Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media)
    Social media has become an important method for information sharing. This has also created opportunities for bad actors to easily spread disinformation and manipulate public opinion. This paper explores the possibility of applying Authorship Verification on online communities to mitigate abuse by analyzing the writing style of online accounts to identify accounts managed by the same person. We expand on our similarity-based authorship verification approach, previously applied on large fanfictions, and show that it works in open-world settings, shorter documents, and is largely topic-agnostic. Our expanded model can link Reddit accounts based on the writing style of only 40 comments with an AUC of 0.95, and the performance increases to 0.98 given more content. We apply this model on a set of suspicious Reddit accounts associated with the disinformation campaign surrounding the 2016 U.S. presidential election and show that the writing style of these accounts are inconsistent, indicating that each account was likely maintained by multiple individuals. We also apply this model to Reddit user accounts that commented on the WallStreetBets subreddit around the 2021 GameStop short squeeze and show that a number of account pairs share very similar writing styles. We also show that this approach can link accounts across Reddit and Twitter with an AUC of 0.91 even when training data is very limited. 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; ; ; ; ( , Journal of Medical Internet Research)
    Background Social networks such as Twitter offer the clinical research community a novel opportunity for engaging potential study participants based on user activity data. However, the availability of public social media data has led to new ethical challenges about respecting user privacy and the appropriateness of monitoring social media for clinical trial recruitment. Researchers have voiced the need for involving users’ perspectives in the development of ethical norms and regulations. Objective This study examined the attitudes and level of concern among Twitter users and nonusers about using Twitter for monitoring social media users and their conversations to recruit potential clinical trial participants. Methods We used two online methods for recruiting study participants: the open survey was (1) advertised on Twitter between May 23 and June 8, 2017, and (2) deployed on TurkPrime, a crowdsourcing data acquisition platform, between May 23 and June 8, 2017. Eligible participants were adults, 18 years of age or older, who lived in the United States. People with and without Twitter accounts were included in the study. Results While nearly half the respondents—on Twitter (94/603, 15.6%) and on TurkPrime (509/603, 84.4%)—indicated agreement that social media monitoring constitutes a form of eavesdropping that invades their privacy, over one-third disagreed and nearly 1 in 5 had no opinion. A chi-square test revealed a positive relationship between respondents’ general privacy concern and their average concern about Internet research (P<.005). We found associations between respondents’ Twitter literacy and their concerns about the ability for researchers to monitor their Twitter activity for clinical trial recruitment (P=.001) and whether they consider Twitter monitoring for clinical trial recruitment as eavesdropping (P<.001) and an invasion of privacy (P=.003). As Twitter literacy increased, so did people’s concerns about researchers monitoring Twitter activity. Our data support the previously suggested use of the nonexceptionalist methodology for assessing social media in research, insofar as social media-based recruitment does not need to be considered exceptional and, for most, it is considered preferable to traditional in-person interventions at physical clinics. The expressed attitudes were highly contextual, depending on factors such as the type of disease or health topic (eg, HIV/AIDS vs obesity vs smoking), the entity or person monitoring users on Twitter, and the monitored information. Conclusions The data and findings from this study contribute to the critical dialogue with the public about the use of social media in clinical research. The findings suggest that most users do not think that monitoring Twitter for clinical trial recruitment constitutes inappropriate surveillance or a violation of privacy. However, researchers should remain mindful that some participants might find social media monitoring problematic when connected with certain conditions or health topics. Further research should isolate factors that influence the level of concern among social media users across platforms and populations and inform the development of more clear and consistent guidelines. 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; ; ( , CHI '22: Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems)
    Online data visualizations play an important role in informing public opinion but are often inaccessible to screen reader users. To address the need for accessible data representations on the web that provide direct, multimodal, and up-to-date access to the data, we investigate audio data narratives –which combine textual descriptions and sonification (the mapping of data to non-speech sounds). We conduct two co-design workshops with screen reader users to define design principles that guide the structure, content, and duration of a data narrative. Based on these principles and relevant auditory processing characteristics, we propose a dynamic programming approach to automatically generate an audio data narrative from a given dataset. We evaluate our approach with 16 screen reader users. Findings show with audio narratives, users gain significantly more insights from the data. Users describe data narratives help them better extract and comprehend the information in both the sonification and description. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; ( , Proceedings of WWW)
    Discourse involves two perspectives: a person’s intention in making an utterance and others’ perception of that utterance. The misalignment between these perspectives can lead to undesirable outcomes, such as misunderstandings, low productivity and even overt strife. In this work, we present a computational framework for exploring and comparing both perspectives in online public discussions. We combine logged data about public comments on Facebook with a survey of over 16,000 people about their intentions in writing these comments or about their perceptions of comments that others had written. Unlike previous studies of online discussions that have largely relied on third-party labels to quantify properties such as sentiment and subjectivity, our approach also directly captures what the speakers actually intended when writing their comments. In particular, our analysis focuses on judgments of whether a comment is stating a fact or an opinion, since these concepts were shown to be often confused. We show that intentions and perceptions diverge in consequential ways. People are more likely to perceive opinions than to intend them, and linguistic cues that signal how an utterance is intended can differ from those that signal how it will be perceived. Further, this misalignment between intentions and perceptions can be linked to the future health of a conversation: when a comment whose author intended to share a fact is misperceived as sharing an opinion, the subsequent conversation is more likely to derail into uncivil behavior than when the comment is perceived as intended. Altogether, these findings may inform the design of discussion platforms that better promote positive interactions. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email