Paper detail

Intelligent social bots uncover the link between user preference and diversity of news consumption

The boom of online social media and microblogging platforms has rapidly alter the way we consume news and exchange opinions. Even though considerable efforts try to recommend various contents to users, loss of information diversity and the polarization of interest groups are still an enormous challenge for industry and academia. Here, we take advantage of benign social bots to design a controlled experiment on Weibo (the largest microblogging platform in China). These software bots can exhibit human-like behavior (e.g., preferring particular content) and simulate the formation of personal social networks and news consumption under two well-accepted sociological hypotheses (i.e., homophily and triadic closure). We deployed 68 bots to Weibo, and each bot ran for at least 2 months and followed 100 to 120 accounts. In total, we observed 5,318 users and recorded about 630,000 messages exposed to these bots. Our results show, even with the same selection behaviors, bots preferring entertainment content are more likely to form polarized communities with their peers, in which about 80\% of the information they consume is of the same type, which is a significant difference for bots preferring sci-tech content. The result suggests that users preference played a more crucial role in limiting themselves access to diverse content by compared with the two well-known drivers (self-selection and pre-selection). Furthermore, our results reveal an ingenious connection between specific content and its propagating sub-structures in the same social network. In the Weibo network, entertainment news favors a unidirectional star-like sub-structure, while sci-tech news spreads on a bidirectional clustering sub-structure. This connection can amplify the diversity effect of user preference. The discovery may have important implications for diffusion dynamics study and recommendation system design.

preprint2019arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.