Magdalena Wojcieszak

Jonathan Stray, Ian Baker, George Beknazar-Yuzbashev et al. · uw

We report the first direct comparisons of multiple alternative social media algorithms on multiple platforms on outcomes of societal interest. We used a browser extension to modify which posts were shown to desktop social media users, randomly assigning 9,386 users to a control group or one of five alternative ranking algorithms which simultaneously altered content across three platforms for six months during the US 2024 presidential election. This reduced our preregistered index of affective polarization by an average of 0.03 standard deviations (p < 0.05), including a 1.5 degree decrease in differences between the 100 point inparty and outparty feeling thermometers. We saw reductions in active use time for Facebook (-0.37 min/day) and Reddit (-0.2 min/day), but an increase of 0.32 min/day (p < 0.01) for X/Twitter. We saw an increase in reports of negative social media experiences but found no effects on well-being, news knowledge, outgroup empathy, perceptions of and support for partisan violence. This implies that bridging content can improve some societal outcomes without necessarily conflicting with the engagement-driven business model of social media.

Ashwin Rao, Rong-Ching Chang, Qiankun Zhong et al.

Abortion has been one of the most divisive issues in the United States. Yet, missing is comprehensive longitudinal evidence on how political divides on abortion are reflected in public discourse over time, on a national scale, and in response to key events before and after the overturn of Roe v Wade. We analyze a corpus of over 3.5M tweets related to abortion over the span of one year (January 2022 to January 2023) from over 1.1M users. We estimate users' ideology and rely on state-of-the-art transformer-based classifiers to identify expressions of hostility and extract five prominent frames surrounding abortion. We use those data to examine (a) how prevalent were expressions of hostility (i.e., anger, toxic speech, insults, obscenities, and hate speech), (b) what frames liberals and conservatives used to articulate their positions on abortion, and (c) the prevalence of hostile expressions in liberals and conservative discussions of these frames. We show that liberals and conservatives largely mirrored each other's use of hostile expressions: as liberals used more hostile rhetoric, so did conservatives, especially in response to key events. In addition, the two groups used distinct frames and discussed them in vastly distinct contexts, suggesting that liberals and conservatives have differing perspectives on abortion. Lastly, frames favored by one side provoked hostile reactions from the other: liberals use more hostile expressions when addressing religion, fetal personhood, and exceptions to abortion bans, whereas conservatives use more hostile language when addressing bodily autonomy and women's health. This signals disrespect and derogation, which may further preclude understanding and exacerbate polarization.

Sijia Qian, Cuihua Shen, Jingwen Zhang et al.

Cheapfakes, or real images presented misleadingly or in unrelated contexts, are an increasingly prominent form of visual misinformation. While media literacy interventions can enhance individuals' ability to detect such content, motivational barriers often hinder the adoption of image verification. This study examines whether incorporating different mechanisms and types of incentives into a digital media literacy intervention improves visual misinformation discernment and image verification behavior, both immediately and over time. We conducted a pre-registered two-wave between-subjects online experiment (N = 1,421) on a professionally designed social media platform. The study used a 2 (Incentive Type: symbolic vs. monetary) x 2 (Incentive Mechanism: task- vs. result-based) factorial design with additional control groups. Results show that task-based incentives, particularly monetary ones, were most effective at initiating image verification behaviors, namely reverse image search, and boosting short-term discernment, whereas result-based incentives were more effective in sustaining discernment accuracy. These findings suggest that both the mechanism and the type of incentives play a critical role in shaping the short- and long-term effectiveness of media literacy interventions, highlighting the value of multi-phased incentive strategies for combating visual misinformation in digital environments.

Hadi Askari, Anshuman Chhabra, Bernhard Clemm von Hohenberg et al.

Polarization, declining trust, and wavering support for democratic norms are pressing threats to U.S. democracy. Exposure to verified and quality news may lower individual susceptibility to these threats and make citizens more resilient to misinformation, populism, and hyperpartisan rhetoric. This project examines how to enhance users' exposure to and engagement with verified and ideologically balanced news in an ecologically valid setting. We rely on a large-scale two-week long field experiment (from 1/19/2023 to 2/3/2023) on 28,457 Twitter users. We created 28 bots utilizing GPT-2 that replied to users tweeting about sports, entertainment, or lifestyle with a contextual reply containing two hardcoded elements: a URL to the topic-relevant section of quality news organization and an encouragement to follow its Twitter account. To further test differential effects by gender of the bots, treated users were randomly assigned to receive responses by bots presented as female or male. We examine whether our over-time intervention enhances the following of news media organization, the sharing and the liking of news content and the tweeting about politics and the liking of political content. We find that the treated users followed more news accounts and the users in the female bot treatment were more likely to like news content than the control. Most of these results, however, were small in magnitude and confined to the already politically interested Twitter users, as indicated by their pre-treatment tweeting about politics. These findings have implications for social media and news organizations, and also offer direction for future work on how Large Language Models and other computational interventions can effectively enhance individual on-platform engagement with quality news and public affairs.

Claire Wonjeong Jo, Miki Wesołowska, Magdalena Wojcieszak

Short video platforms, such as YouTube, Instagram, or TikTok, are used by billions of users globally. These platforms expose users to harmful content, ranging from clickbait or physical harms to misinformation or online hate. Yet, detecting harmful videos remains challenging due to an inconsistent understanding of what constitutes harm and limited resources and mental tolls involved in human annotation. As such, this study advances measures and methods to detect harm in video content. First, we develop a comprehensive taxonomy for online harm on video platforms, categorizing it into six categories: Information, Hate and harassment, Addictive, Clickbait, Sexual, and Physical harms. Next, we establish multimodal large language models as reliable annotators of harmful videos. We analyze 19,422 YouTube videos using 14 image frames, 1 thumbnail, and text metadata, comparing the accuracy of crowdworkers (Mturk) and GPT-4-Turbo with domain expert annotations serving as the gold standard. Our results demonstrate that GPT-4-Turbo outperforms crowdworkers in both binary classification (harmful vs. harmless) and multi-label harm categorization tasks. Methodologically, this study extends the application of LLMs to multi-label and multi-modal contexts beyond text annotation and binary classification. Practically, our study contributes to online harm mitigation by guiding the definitions and identification of harmful content on video platforms.

Akash Bonagiri, Lucen Li, Rajvardhan Oak et al.

The prevalence of harmful content on social media platforms poses significant risks to users and society, necessitating more effective and scalable content moderation strategies. Current approaches rely on human moderators, supervised classifiers, and large volumes of training data, and often struggle with scalability, subjectivity, and the dynamic nature of harmful content (e.g., violent content, dangerous challenge trends, etc.). To bridge these gaps, we utilize Large Language Models (LLMs) to undertake few-shot dynamic content moderation via in-context learning. Through extensive experiments on multiple LLMs, we demonstrate that our few-shot approaches can outperform existing proprietary baselines (Perspective and OpenAI Moderation) as well as prior state-of-the-art few-shot learning methods, in identifying harm. We also incorporate visual information (video thumbnails) and assess if different multimodal techniques improve model performance. Our results underscore the significant benefits of employing LLM based methods for scalable and dynamic harmful content moderation online.

Wonjeong Jo, Magdalena Wojcieszak

Short video platforms, such as YouTube, Instagram, or TikTok, are used by billions of users. These platforms expose users to harmful content, ranging from clickbait or physical harms to hate or misinformation. Yet, we lack a comprehensive understanding and measurement of online harm on short video platforms. Toward this end, we present two large-scale datasets of multi-modal and multi-categorical online harm: (1) 60,906 systematically selected potentially harmful YouTube videos and (2) 19,422 videos annotated by three labeling actors: trained domain experts, GPT-4-Turbo (using 14 image frames, 1 thumbnail, and text metadata), and crowdworkers (Amazon Mechanical Turk master workers). The annotated dataset includes both (a) binary classification (harmful vs. harmless) and (b) multi-label categorizations of six harm categories: Information, Hate and harassment, Addictive, Clickbait, Sexual, and Physical harms. Furthermore, the annotated dataset provides (1) ground truth data with videos annotated consistently across (a) all three actors and (b) the majority of the labeling actors, and (2) three data subsets labeled by individual actors. These datasets are expected to facilitate future work on online harm, aid in (multi-modal) classification efforts, and advance the identification and potential mitigation of harmful content on video platforms.

Rajvardhan Oak, Muhammad Haroon, Claire Jo et al.

Social media platforms utilize Machine Learning (ML) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) powered recommendation algorithms to maximize user engagement, which can result in inadvertent exposure to harmful content. Current moderation efforts, reliant on classifiers trained with extensive human-annotated data, struggle with scalability and adapting to new forms of harm. To address these challenges, we propose a novel re-ranking approach using Large Language Models (LLMs) in zero-shot and few-shot settings. Our method dynamically assesses and re-ranks content sequences, effectively mitigating harmful content exposure without requiring extensive labeled data. Alongside traditional ranking metrics, we also introduce two new metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of re-ranking in reducing exposure to harmful content. Through experiments on three datasets, three models and across three configurations, we demonstrate that our LLM-based approach significantly outperforms existing proprietary moderation approaches, offering a scalable and adaptable solution for harm mitigation.

Szymon Talaga, Dominik Batorski, Magdalena Wojcieszak

Although news negativity is often studied, missing is comparative evidence on the prevalence of and engagement with negative political and non-political news posts on social media. We use 6,081,134 Facebook posts published between January 1, 2020, and April 1, 2024, by 97 media organizations in six countries (U.S., UK, Ireland, Poland, France, Spain) and develop two multilingual classifiers for labeling posts as (non-)political and (non-)negative. We show that: (1) negative news posts constitute a relatively small fraction (12.6%); (2) political news posts are neither more nor less negative than non-political news posts; (3) U.S. political news posts are less negative relative to the other countries on average (40% lower odds); (4) Negative news posts get 15% fewer likes and 13% fewer comments than non-negative news posts. Lastly, (5) we provide estimates of the proportion of the total volume of user engagement with negative news posts and show that only between 10.2% to 13.1% of engagement is linked to negative posts by the analyzed news organizations.

Muhammad Haroon, Magdalena Wojcieszak, Anshuman Chhabra

The rapid growth of social media platforms has led to concerns about radicalization, filter bubbles, and content bias. Existing approaches to classifying ideology are limited in that they require extensive human effort, the labeling of large datasets, and are not able to adapt to evolving ideological contexts. This paper explores the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) for classifying the political ideology of online content through in-context learning (ICL). Our extensive experiments involving demonstration selection in label-balanced fashion, conducted on three datasets comprising news articles and YouTube videos, reveal that our approach significantly outperforms zero-shot and traditional supervised methods. Additionally, we evaluate the influence of metadata (e.g., content source and descriptions) on ideological classification and discuss its implications. Finally, we show how providing the source for political and non-political content influences the LLM's classification.