Rational Silence and False Polarization: How Viewpoint Organizations and Recommender Systems Distort the Expression of Public Opinion (2403.06264v2)
Abstract: AI-based social media platforms has already transformed the nature of economic and social interaction. AI enables the massive scale and highly personalized nature of online information sharing that we now take for granted. Extensive attention has been devoted to the polarization that social media platforms appear to facilitate. However, a key implication of the transformation we are experiencing due to these AI-powered platforms has received much less attention: how platforms impact what observers of online discourse come to believe about community views. These observers include policymakers and legislators, who look to social media to gauge the prospects for policy and legislative change, as well as developers of AI models trained on large-scale internet data, whose outputs may similarly reflect a distorted view of public opinion. In this paper, we present a nested game-theoretic model to show how observed online opinion is produced by the interaction of the decisions made by users about whether and with what rhetorical intensity to share their opinions on a platform, the efforts of organizations (such as traditional media and advocacy organizations) that seek to encourage or discourage opinion-sharing online, and the operation of AI-powered recommender systems controlled by social media platforms. We show that signals from ideological organizations encourage an increase in rhetorical intensity, leading to the 'rational silence' of moderate users. This, in turn, creates a polarized impression of where average opinions lie. We also show that this observed polarization can also be amplified by recommender systems that encourage the formation of communities online that end up seeing a skewed sample of opinion. We also identify practical strategies platforms can implement, such as reducing exposure to signals from ideological organizations and a tailored approach to content moderation.
- A survey on echo chambers on social media: Description, detection and mitigation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.05084 (2021).
- Carlos Algara and Roi Zur. 2023. The Downsian roots of affective polarization. Electoral Studies 82 (2023), 102581.
- John M Anderies and Marco A Janssen. 2016. Sustaining the commons. Independent.
- Masahiko Aoki. 1996. Towards a comparative institutional analysis: motivations and some tentative theorizing. The Japanese Economic Review 47 (1996), 1–19.
- Polarization and social media: A systematic review and research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 183 (2022), 121942.
- Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, 37 (2018), 9216–9221.
- Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science 348, 6239 (2015), 1130–1132.
- Social norms and behavior change: The interdisciplinary research frontier.
- Is the internet causing political polarization? Evidence from demographics. Technical Report. National Bureau of Economic Research.
- Cross-country trends in affective polarization. Review of Economics and Statistics (2022), 1–60.
- Robert Boyd and Peter J Richerson. 1992. Punishment allows the evolution of cooperation (or anything else) in sizable groups. Ethology and sociobiology 13, 3 (1992), 171–195.
- Understanding polarization: Meanings, measures, and model evaluation. Philosophy of science 84, 1 (2017), 115–159.
- Political polarization on twitter. In Proceedings of the international aaai conference on web and social media, Vol. 5. 89–96.
- Strategic behavior with tight, loose, and polarized norms. Loose, and Polarized Norms (April 2, 2023) (2023).
- Jon Elster. 1989. Social norms and economic theory. Journal of economic perspectives 3, 4 (1989), 99–117.
- Frank Fagan. 2017. Systemic social media regulation. Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 16 (2017), 393.
- Political influencers on YouTube: Business strategies and content characteristics. Media and Communication 10, 1 (2022), 259–271.
- Political discourse on social media: Echo chambers, gatekeepers, and the price of bipartisanship. In Proceedings of the 2018 world wide web conference. 913–922.
- Benjamin Golub and Matthew O Jackson. 2012. How homophily affects the speed of learning and best-response dynamics. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 127, 3 (2012), 1287–1338.
- Algorithmic content moderation: Technical and political challenges in the automation of platform governance. Big Data & Society 7, 1 (2020), 2053951719897945.
- Gillian K Hadfield and Barry R Weingast. 2012. What is law? A coordination model of the characteristics of legal order. Journal of Legal Analysis 4, 2 (2012), 471–514.
- Gillian K Hadfield and Barry R Weingast. 2014. Microfoundations of the Rule of Law. Annual Review of Political Science 17 (2014), 21–42.
- Belief polarization in a complex world: A learning theory perspective. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, 19 (2021), e2010144118.
- Christopher Hare and Keith T Poole. 2014. The polarization of contemporary American politics. Polity 46, 3 (2014), 411–429.
- The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual review of political science 22 (2019), 129–146.
- Belief polarization is not always irrational. Psychological review 121, 2 (2014), 206.
- Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts. Nature Reviews Psychology 1, 10 (2022), 560–576.
- A multidisciplinary understanding of polarization. American Psychologist 74, 3 (2019), 301.
- Erin L Krupka and Roberto A Weber. 2013. Identifying social norms using coordination games: Why does dictator game sharing vary? Journal of the European Economic Association 11, 3 (2013), 495–524.
- Emily Kubin and Christian von Sikorski. 2021. The role of (social) media in political polarization: a systematic review. Annals of the International Communication Association 45, 3 (2021), 188–206.
- Yves Le Yaouanq. 2018. A model of ideological thinking. Technical Report. Discussion Paper.
- Jeffrey Lees and Mina Cikara. 2020. Inaccurate group meta-perceptions drive negative out-group attributions in competitive contexts. Nature human behaviour 4, 3 (2020), 279–286.
- Sophie Legros and Beniamino Cislaghi. 2020. Mapping the social-norms literature: An overview of reviews. Perspectives on Psychological Science 15, 1 (2020), 62–80.
- Yphtach Lelkes. 2021. Policy over party: comparing the effects of candidate ideology and party on affective polarization. Political Science Research and Methods 9, 1 (2021), 189–196.
- Matthew S Levendusky and Neil Malhotra. 2016. (Mis) perceptions of partisan polarization in the American public. Public Opinion Quarterly 80, S1 (2016), 378–391.
- Gilat Levy and Ronny Razin. 2019. Echo chambers and their effects on economic and political outcomes. Annual Review of Economics 11 (2019), 303–328.
- Soo Ling Lim and Peter J Bentley. 2022. Opinion amplification causes extreme polarization in social networks. Scientific Reports 12, 1 (2022), 18131.
- A systematic review of worldwide causal and correlational evidence on digital media and democracy. Nature human behaviour 7, 1 (2023), 74–101.
- Ariadna Matamoros-Fernández and Johan Farkas. 2021. Racism, hate speech, and social media: A systematic review and critique. Television & New Media 22, 2 (2021), 205–224.
- Bryce Morsky and Erol Akçay. 2021. False beliefs can bootstrap cooperative communities through social norms. Evolutionary Human Sciences 3 (2021), e36.
- Sendhil Mullainathan and Andrei Shleifer. 2005. The market for news. American economic review 95, 4 (2005), 1031–1053.
- Exploring the filter bubble: the effect of using recommender systems on content diversity. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on World wide web. 677–686.
- Like-minded sources on Facebook are prevalent but not polarizing. Nature 620, 7972 (2023), 137–144.
- Eli Pariser. 2011. The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. penguin UK.
- Hegselmann Rainer and Ulrich Krause. 2002. Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence: models, analysis and simulation. (2002).
- Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, 26 (2021), e2024292118.
- Political Influencers on Social Media: An Introduction. Social Media+ Society 9, 2 (2023), 20563051231177938.
- A systematic review on media bias detection: What is media bias, how it is expressed, and how to detect it. Expert Systems with Applications (2023), 121641.
- The general fault in our fault lines. Nature Human Behaviour 5, 10 (2021), 1369–1380.
- Rational social and political polarization. Philosophical Studies 176 (2019), 2243–2267.
- Richard S Sutton and Andrew G Barto. 2018. Reinforcement learning: An introduction. MIT press.
- Charles S Taber and Milton Lodge. 2006. Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American journal of political science 50, 3 (2006), 755–769.
- Social media, political polarization, and political disinformation: A review of the scientific literature. Political polarization, and political disinformation: a review of the scientific literature (March 19, 2018) (2018).
- How social media shapes polarization. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 25, 11 (2021), 913–916.
- Isaac Waller and Ashton Anderson. 2021. Quantifying social organization and political polarization in online platforms. Nature 600, 7888 (2021), 264–268.
- Perceiving political polarization in the United States: Party identity strength and attitude extremity exacerbate the perceived partisan divide. Perspectives on Psychological Science 10, 2 (2015), 145–158.
- Political polarization on the digital sphere: A cross-platform, over-time analysis of interactional, positional, and affective polarization on social media. Political Communication 38, 1-2 (2021), 98–139.
- The perception gap: How false impressions are pulling Americans apart. (2019).
- Atrisha Sarkar (12 papers)
- Gillian K. Hadfield (10 papers)