اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدWho has the last word? Understanding How to Sample Online Discussions
127
0
0.0
(
0
)
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
In online debates individual arguments support or attack each other, leading to some subset of arguments being considered more relevant than others. However, in large discussions readers are often forced to sample a subset of the arguments being put forth. Since such sampling is rarely done in a principled manner, users may not read all the relevant arguments to get a full picture of the debate. This paper is interested in answering the question of how users should sample online conversations to selectively favour the currently justified or accepted positions in the debate. We apply techniques from argumentation theory and complex networks to build a model that predicts the probabilities of the normatively justified arguments given their location in online discussions. Our model shows that the proportion of replies that are supportive, the number of replies that comments receive, and the locations of un-replied comments all determine the probability that a comment is a justified argument. We show that when the degree distribution of the number of replies is homogeneous along the discussion, for acrimonious discussions, the distribution of justified arguments depends on the parity of the graph level. In supportive discussions the probability of having justified comments increases as one moves away from the root. For discussion trees that have a non-homogeneous in-degree distribution, for supportive discussions we observe the same behaviour as before, while for acrimonious discussions we cannot observe the same parity-based distribution. This is verified with data obtained from the online debating platform Kialo. By predicting the locations of the justified arguments in reply trees, we can suggest which arguments readers should sample to grasp the currently accepted opinions in such discussions. Our models have important implications for the design of future online debating platforms.
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
Qualitative research provides methodological guidelines for observing and studying communities and cultures on online social media platforms. However, such methods demand considerable manual effort from researchers and may be overly focused and narro
wed to certain online groups. In this work, we propose a complete solution to accelerate qualitative analysis of problematic online speech -- with a specific focus on opinions emerging from online communities -- by leveraging machine learning algorithms. First, we employ qualitative methods of deep observation for understanding problematic online speech. This initial qualitative study constructs an ontology of problematic speech, which contains social media postings annotated with their underlying opinions. The qualitative study also dynamically constructs the set of opinions, simultaneous with labeling the postings. Next, we collect a large dataset from three online social media platforms (Facebook, Twitter and Youtube) using keywords. Finally, we introduce an iterative data exploration procedure to augment the dataset. It alternates between a data sampler, which balances exploration and exploitation of unlabeled data, the automatic labeling of the sampled data, the manual inspection by the qualitative mapping team and, finally, the retraining of the automatic opinion classifier. We present both qualitative and quantitative results. First, we present detailed case studies of the dynamics of problematic speech in a far-right Facebook group, exemplifying its mutation from conservative to extreme. Next, we show that our method successfully learns from the initial qualitatively labeled and narrowly focused dataset, and constructs a larger dataset. Using the latter, we examine the dynamics of opinion emergence and co-occurrence, and we hint at some of the pathways through which extreme opinions creep into the mainstream online discourse.
This paper studies the dynamics of opinion formation and polarization in social media. We investigate whether users stance concerning contentious subjects is influenced by the online discussions they are exposed to and interactions with users support
ing different stances. We set up a series of predictive exercises based on machine learning models. Users are described using several posting activities features capturing their overall activity levels, posting success, the reactions their posts attract from users of different stances, and the types of discussions in which they engage. Given the user description at present, the purpose is to predict their stance in the future. Using a dataset of Brexit discussions on the Reddit platform, we show that the activity features regularly outperform the textual baseline, confirming the link between exposure to discussion and opinion. We find that the most informative features relate to the stance composition of the discussion in which users prefer to engage.
In an increasingly polarized world, demagogues who reduce complexity down to simple arguments based on emotion are gaining in popularity. Are opinions and online discussions falling into demagoguery? In this work, we aim to provide computational tool
s to investigate this question and, by doing so, explore the nature and complexity of online discussions and their space of opinions, uncovering where each participant lies. More specifically, we present a modeling framework to construct latent representations of opinions in online discussions which are consistent with human judgements, as measured by online voting. If two opinions are close in the resulting latent space of opinions, it is because humans think they are similar. Our modeling framework is theoretically grounded and establishes a surprising connection between opinions and voting models and the sign-rank of a matrix. Moreover, it also provides a set of practical algorithms to both estimate the dimension of the latent space of opinions and infer where opinions expressed by the participants of an online discussion lie in this space. Experiments on a large dataset from Yahoo! News, Yahoo! Finance, Yahoo! Sports, and the Newsroom app suggest that unidimensional opinion models may often be unable to accurately represent online discussions, provide insights into human judgements and opinions, and show that our framework is able to circumvent language nuances such as sarcasm or humor by relying on human judgements instead of textual analysis.
Recent evidence has emerged linking coordinated campaigns by state-sponsored actors to manipulate public opinion on the Web. Campaigns revolving around major political events are enacted via mission-focused trolls. While trolls are involved in spread
ing disinformation on social media, there is little understanding of how they operate, what type of content they disseminate, how their strategies evolve over time, and how they influence the Webs information ecosystem. In this paper, we begin to address this gap by analyzing 10M posts by 5.5K Twitter and Reddit users identified as Russian and Iranian state-sponsored trolls. We compare the behavior of each group of state-sponsored trolls with a focus on how their strategies change over time, the different campaigns they embark on, and differences between the trolls operated by Russia and Iran. Among other things, we find: 1) that Russian trolls were pro-Trump while Iranian trolls were anti-Trump; 2) evidence that campaigns undertaken by such actors are influenced by real-world events; and 3) that the behavior of such actors is not consistent over time, hence automated detection is not a straightforward task. Using the Hawkes Processes statistical model, we quantify the influence these accounts have on pushing URLs on four social platforms: Twitter, Reddit, 4chans Politically Incorrect board (/pol/), and Gab. In general, Russian trolls were more influential and efficient in pushing URLs to all the other platforms with the exception of /pol/ where Iranians were more influential. Finally, we release our data and source code to ensure the reproducibility of our results and to encourage other researchers to work on understanding other emerging kinds of state-sponsored troll accounts on Twitter.
Users of social media sites like Facebook and Twitter rely on crowdsourced content recommendation systems (e.g., Trending Topics) to retrieve important and useful information. Contents selected for recommendation indirectly give the initial users who
promoted (by liking or posting) the content an opportunity to propagate their messages to a wider audience. Hence, it is important to understand the demographics of people who make a content worthy of recommendation, and explore whether they are representative of the media sites overall population. In this work, using extensive data collected from Twitter, we make the first attempt to quantify and explore the demographic biases in the crowdsourced recommendations. Our analysis, focusing on the selection of trending topics, finds that a large fraction of trends are promoted by crowds whose demographics are significantly different from the overall Twitter population. More worryingly, we find that certain demographic groups are systematically under-represented among the promoters of the trending topics. To make the demographic biases in Twitter trends more transparent, we developed and deployed a Web-based service Who-Makes-Trends at twitter-app.mpi-sws.org/who-makes-trends.
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
