Search for: All records

Social media platforms are too often understood as monoliths with clear priorities. Instead, we analyze them as complex organizations torn between starkly different justifications of their missions. Focusing on the case of Meta, we inductively analyze the company’s public materials and identify three evaluative logics that shape the platform’s decisions: an engagement logic, a public debate logic, and a wellbeing logic. There are clear trade-offs between these logics, which often result in internal conflicts between teams and departments in charge of these different priorities. We examine recent examples showing how Meta rotates between logics in its decision-making, though the goal of engagement dominates in internal negotiations. We outline how this framework can be applied to other social media platforms such as TikTok, Reddit, and X. We discuss the ramifications of our findings for the study of online harms, exclusion, and extraction. 

Mounting evidence indicates that the artificial intelligence (AI) systems that rank our social media feeds bear nontrivial responsibility for amplifying partisan animosity: negative thoughts, feelings, and behaviors toward political out-groups. Can we design these AIs to consider democratic values such as mitigating partisan animosity as part of their objective functions? We introduce a method for translating established, vetted social scientific constructs into AI objective functions, which we term societal objective functions, and demonstrate the method with application to the political science construct of anti-democratic attitudes. Traditionally, we have lacked observable outcomes to use to train such models-however, the social sciences have developed survey instruments and qualitative codebooks for these constructs, and their precision facilitates translation into detailed prompts for large language models. We apply this method to create a democratic attitude model that estimates the extent to which a social media post promotes anti-democratic attitudes, and test this democratic attitude model across three studies. In Study 1, we first test the attitudinal and behavioral effectiveness of the intervention among US partisans (N=1,380) by manually annotating (alpha=.895) social media posts with anti-democratic attitude scores and testing several feed ranking conditions based on these scores. Removal (d=.20) and downranking feeds (d=.25) reduced participants' partisan animosity without compromising their experience and engagement. In Study 2, we scale up the manual labels by creating the democratic attitude model, finding strong agreement with manual labels (rho=.75). Finally, in Study 3, we replicate Study 1 using the democratic attitude model instead of manual labels to test its attitudinal and behavioral impact (N=558), and again find that the feed downranking using the societal objective function reduced partisan animosity (d=.25). This method presents a novel strategy to draw on social science theory and methods to mitigate societal harms in social media AIs. 

Social scientists and computer scientists are increasingly using observational digital trace data and analyzing these data post hoc to understand the content people are exposed to online. However, these content collection efforts may be systematically biased when the entirety of the data cannot be captured retroactively. We call this often unstated assumption the problematic assumption of accessibility. To examine the extent to which this assumption may be problematic, we identify 107k hard news and misinformation web pages visited by a representative panel of 1,238 American adults and record the degree to which the web pages individuals visited were accessible via successful web scrapes or inaccessible via unsuccessful scrapes. While we find that the URLs collected are largely accessible and with unrestricted content, we find there are systematic biases in which URLs are restricted, return an error, or are inaccessible. For example, conservative misinformation URLs are more likely to be inaccessible than other types of misinformation. We suggest how social scientists should capture and report digital trace and web scraping data. 

Human communication is increasingly intermixed with language generated by AI. Across chat, email, and social media, AI systems suggest words, complete sentences, or produce entire conversations. AI-generated language is often not identified as such but presented as language written by humans, raising concerns about novel forms of deception and manipulation. Here, we study how humans discern whether verbal self-presentations, one of the most personal and consequential forms of language, were generated by AI. In six experiments, participants (N = 4,600) were unable to detect self-presentations generated by state-of-the-art AI language models in professional, hospitality, and dating contexts. A computational analysis of language features shows that human judgments of AI-generated language are hindered by intuitive but flawed heuristics such as associating first-person pronouns, use of contractions, or family topics with human-written language. We experimentally demonstrate that these heuristics make human judgment of AI-generated language predictable and manipulable, allowing AI systems to produce text perceived as “more human than human.” We discuss solutions, such as AI accents, to reduce the deceptive potential of language generated by AI, limiting the subversion of human intuition. 

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a transformative force in communication and messaging strategy, with potential to disrupt traditional approaches. Large language models (LLMs), a form of AI, are capable of generating high-quality, humanlike text. We investigate the persuasive quality of AI-generated messages to understand how AI could impact public health messaging. Specifically, through a series of studies designed to characterize and evaluate generative AI in developing public health messages, we analyze COVID-19 pro-vaccination messages generated by GPT-3, a state-of-the-art instantiation of a large language model. Study 1 is a systematic evaluation of GPT-3's ability to generate pro-vaccination messages. Study 2 then observed peoples' perceptions of curated GPT-3-generated messages compared to human-authored messages released by the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), finding that GPT-3 messages were perceived as more effective, stronger arguments, and evoked more positive attitudes than CDC messages. Finally, Study 3 assessed the role of source labels on perceived quality, finding that while participants preferred AI-generated messages, they expressed dispreference for messages that were labeled as AI-generated. The results suggest that, with human supervision, AI can be used to create effective public health messages, but that individuals prefer their public health messages to come from human institutions rather than AI sources. We propose best practices for assessing generative outputs of large language models in future social science research and ways health professionals can use AI systems to augment public health messaging. 

This paper examines strategies for making misinformation interventions responsive to four communities of color. Using qualitative focus groups with members of four non-profit organizations, we worked with community leaders to identify misinformation narratives, sources of exposure, and effective intervention strategies in the Asian American Pacific Islander (AAPI), Black, Latino, and Native American communities. Analyzing the findings from those focus groups, we identified several pathways through which misinformation prevention efforts can be more equitable and effective. Building from our findings, we propose steps practitioners, academics, and policymakers can take to better address the misinformation crisis within communities of color. We illustrate how these recommendations can be put into practice through examples from workshops co-designed with a non-profit working on disinformation and media literacy.