Information manipulation is widespread in today’s media environment. Online networks have disrupted the gatekeeping role of traditional media by allowing various actors to influence the public agenda; they have also allowed automated accounts (or bots) to blend with human activity in the flow of information. Here, we assess the impact that bots had on the dissemination of content during two contentious political events that evolved in real time on social media. We focus on events of heightened political tension because they are particularly susceptible to information campaigns designed to mislead or exacerbate conflict. We compare the visibility of bots with human accounts, verified accounts, and mainstream news outlets. Our analyses combine millions of posts from a popular microblogging platform with web-tracking data collected from two different countries and timeframes. We employ tools from network science, natural language processing, and machine learning to analyze the diffusion structure, the content of the messages diffused, and the actors behind those messages as the political events unfolded. We show that verified accounts are significantly more visible than unverified bots in the coverage of the events but also that bots attract more attention than human accounts. Our findings highlight that social media and the web are very different news ecosystems in terms of prevalent news sources and that both humans and bots contribute to generate discrepancy in news visibility with their activity.
more »
« less
The advantage of the right in social media news sharing
We analyze social media activity during one of the largest protest mobilizations in US history to examine ideological asymmetries in the posting of news content. Using an unprecedented combination of four datasets (tracking offline protests, social media activity, web browsing, and the reliability of news sources), we show that there is no evidence of unreliable sources having any prominent visibility during the protest period, but we do identify asymmetries in the ideological slant of the sources shared on social media, with a clear bias towards right-leaning domains. These results support the “amplification of the right” thesis, which points to the structural conditions (social and technological) that lead to higher visibility of content with a partisan bent towards the right. Our findings provide evidence that right-leaning sources gain more visibility on social media and reveal that ideological asymmetries manifest themselves even in the context of movements with progressive goals.
more » « less- Award ID(s):
- 2017655
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10369850
- Publisher / Repository:
- Oxford University Press
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- PNAS Nexus
- Volume:
- 1
- Issue:
- 3
- ISSN:
- 2752-6542
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
The ideological asymmetries have been recently observed in contested online spaces, where conservative voices seem to be relatively more pronounced even though liberals are known to have the population advantage on digital platforms. Most prior research, however, focused on either one single platform or one single political topic. Whether an ideological group garners more attention across platforms and/or topics, and how the attention dynamics evolve over time, have not been explored. In this work, we present a quantitative study that links collective attention across two social platforms -- YouTube and Twitter, centered on online activities surrounding popular videos of three controversial political topics including Abortion, Gun control, and Black Lives Matter over 16 months. We propose several sets of video-centric metrics to characterize how online attention is accumulated for different ideological groups. We find that neither side is on a winning streak: left-leaning videos are overall more viewed, more engaging, but less tweeted than right-leaning videos. The attention time series unfold quicker for left-leaning videos, but span a longer time for right-leaning videos. Network analysis on the early adopters and tweet cascades show that the information diffusion for left-leaning videos tends to involve centralized actors; while that for right-leaning videos starts earlier in the attention lifecycle. In sum, our findings go beyond the static picture of ideological asymmetries in digital spaces and provide a set of methods to quantify attention dynamics across different social platforms.more » « less
-
When one searches for political candidates on Google, a panel composed of recent news stories, known as Top stories, is commonly shown at the top of the search results page. These stories are selected by an algorithm that chooses from hundreds of thousands of articles published by thousands of news publishers. In our previous work, we identified 56 news sources that contributed 2/3 of all Top stories for 30 political candidates running in the primaries of 2020 US Presidential Election. In this paper, we survey US voters to elicit their familiarity and trust with these 56 news outlets. We find that some of the most frequent outlets are not familiar to all voters (e.g. The Hill or Politico), or particularly trusted by voters of any political stripes (e.g. Washington Examiner or The Daily Beast). Why then, are such sources shown so frequently in Top stories? We theorize that Google is sampling news articles from sources with different political leanings to offer a balanced coverage. This is reminiscent of the so-called “fairness doctrine” (1949-1987) policy in the United States that required broadcasters (radio or TV stations) to air contrasting views about controversial matters. Because there are fewer right-leaning publications than center or left-leaning ones, in order to maintain this “fair” balance, hyper-partisan far-right news sources of low trust receive more visibility than some news sources that are more familiar to and trusted by the public.more » « less
-
This study analyzes and compares how the digital semantic infrastructure of U.S. based digital news varies according to certain characteristics of the media outlet, including the community it serves, the content management system (CMS) it uses, and its institutional affiliation (or lack thereof). Through a multi-stage analysis of the actual markup found on news outlets’ online text articles, we reveal how multiple factors may be limiting the discoverability and reach of online media organizations focused on serving specific communities. Conceptually, we identify markup and metadata as aspects of the semantic infrastructure underpinning platforms’ mechanisms of distributing online news. Given the significant role that these platforms play in shaping the broader visibility of news content, we further contend that this markup therefore constitutes a kind of infrastructure of visibility by which news sources and voices are rendered accessible—or, conversely—invisible in the wider platform economy of journalism. We accomplish our analysis by first identifying key forms of digital markup whose structured data is designed to make online news articles more readily discoverable by search engines and social media platforms. We then analyze 2,226 digital news stories gathered from the main pages of 742 national, local, Black, and other identity-based news organizations in mid-2021, and analyze each for the presence of specific tags reflecting the Schema.org, OpenGraph, and Twitter metadata structures. We then evaluate the relationship between audience focus and the robustness of this digital semantic infrastructure. While we find only a weak relationship between the markup and the community served, additional analysis revealed a much stronger association between these metadata tags and content management system (CMS), in which 80% of the attributes appearing on an article were the same for a given CMS, regardless of publisher, market, or audience focus. Based on this finding, we identify the organizational characteristics that may influence the specific CMS used for digital publishing, and, therefore, the robustness of the digital semantic infrastructure deployed by the organization. Finally, we reflect on the potential implications of the highly disparate tag use we observe, particularly with respect to the broader visibility of online news designed to serve particular US communities.more » « less
-
Healthy news consumption requires limited exposure to unreliable content and ideological diversity in the sources consumed. There are two challenges to this normative expectation: the prevalence of unreliable content online; and the prominence of misinformation within individual news diets. Here, we assess these challenges using an observational panel tracking the browsing behavior of N ≈ 140,000 individuals in the United States for 12 months (January–December 2018). Our results show that panelists who are exposed to misinformation consume more reliable news and from a more ideologically diverse range of sources. In other words, exposure to unreliable content is higher among the better informed. This association persists after we control for partisan leaning and consider inter- and intra-person variation. These findings highlight the tension between the positive and negative consequences of increased exposure to news content online.more » « less
