Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 226 references

This paper reports a 102-user experiment showing that letting readers adjust inferred political stance and topic sliders changes what a news recommender feeds them — reducing extremeness for most while cutting political diversity overall.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Users who could adjust a news recommender's stance and topic sliders changed how extreme their feed became depending on their starting point, but did not consistently increase political diversity.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-02 challenge →

load-bearing objection A real empirical contribution undermined at the subgroup level by regression to the mean; the between-group effects and the awareness finding are the credible core. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.15284 v1 pith:D5ZBGP3F submitted 2026-06-04 cs.IR cs.AI

How Does Empowering Users with Greater System Control Affect News Filter Bubbles?

Ping Liu , Karthik Shivaram , Aron Culotta , Matthew Shapiro , Mustafa Bilgic This is my paper
classification cs.IR cs.AI
keywords filter bubblesnews recommendationuser controltransparencypolitical diversityuser studyrecommender systemsecho chambers
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to show that giving people direct, transparent control over a political news recommender — sliders for political stance and topic interest — genuinely changes the recommender's trajectory compared with up/down voting alone. It finds heterogeneous effects: users initially shown extreme or moderately extreme articles steer toward less extreme content, while users initially shown mild content may steer toward more extreme content. In both groups, political diversity of the recommendations decreases. The transparency also makes users aware that they were in a filter bubble and more informed about how the recommender works. If these findings hold, they imply that user-control interfaces are a double-edged tool: they can moderate extremeness for some users but do not by themselves restore diverse news diets.

Core claim

The central discovery is that an interactive transparency-and-control interface changes the recommendation trajectory in a user-dependent way. In the treatment group, users whose recommender began with medium or high extremeness significantly reduced extremeness, while those who began with low extremeness increased it, producing a kind of extremeness 'sweet spot'. Users also moved political stance toward the center, yet normalized entropy of political stances in the top-ranked articles decreased for both control and treatment, meaning diversity fell. The up-vote ratio rose most for users who initially up-voted few articles, and the post-questionnaire showed that transparency made users reali

What carries the argument

The mechanism is a recalibrated scoring function s = λ s_r + (1−λ)(Sim(u_t,a_t)+Sim(u_s,a_s))/2, where s_r is a content-based classifier's up-vote probability, u_s and u_t are user political-stance and topic-interest vectors initialized from a pre-questionnaire, and a_s/a_t are article stance/topic vectors. The enhanced interface lets users adjust u_t and u_s by moving sliders, reranking the top articles by binary search. The paper's measures — average political stance, extremeness (absolute stance), diversity (normalized entropy over five stances) and up-vote ratio — are computed on the top 200 ranked articles at the beginning and end of each session, with users split into low/medium/high s

Load-bearing premise

The paper's subgroup-specific conclusions assume that users binned by their starting value of the same outcome measure show changes that reflect genuine steering, not statistical regression to the mean.

What would settle it

A researcher could re-run the analysis with a change-score model that conditions on the begin value (e.g., regress end−begin on begin and treatment, or use a regression-discontinuity at the low/medium/high cutpoints). If the apparent 'sweet spot' — high values falling and low values rising — disappears once begin values are controlled nonlinearly, then the central steering claim is a regression artifact. Alternatively, a randomized experiment that assigns the same initial extremeness level to users independent of their own profile would settle it.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If replicated, the results imply that transparency-and-slider interfaces are a practical way to let willing users pull a recommender away from extreme partisan content.
  • The 'sweet spot' pattern suggests users do not seek maximal extremity; there is a comfort zone of moderate partisanship.
  • Because diversity fell even when extremeness fell, moderating extremeness and preserving viewpoint diversity are distinct goals that may need separate design levers.
  • The post-questionnaire result — control users changed their diversity rating after seeing the actual stance histogram — implies users cannot accurately perceive a filter bubble without external transparency.
  • Heterogeneous effects in the treatment group warn that the same control tool can move different users in opposite directions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The subgroup analysis bins users by the beginning value of the very measure being studied (extremeness, diversity, up-vote ratio), so part of the high-decrease/low-increase pattern may be regression to the mean rather than user steering; a design that randomizes initial positions or matches users on begin values would disentangle these.
  • If the diversity decrease is real, a combined interface that lets users express 'diversity' as a goal (not just stance and topic) might recover the lost diversity; the paper's own discussion suggests more complex per-topic preference expressions.
  • The awareness effect (control users revising their diversity estimate after seeing the histogram) suggests a low-cost policy lever: platforms could display a stance histogram of the user's recommendation feed without any interactive sliders.
  • Because the study covers one hour and 102 users, the extremeness sweet spot could be a short-horizon effect; longer-term measurement (weeks) could test whether users keep pulling toward the center or drift back.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports a user study of 102 Mechanical Turk participants comparing a traditional political news recommender (up-vote/down-vote only) with an enhanced interface that displays the system's inferred political-stance and topic-interest profile and lets users adjust sliders to modify future recommendations. The authors define four outcome measures — average extremeness, political stance, diversity (normalized entropy), and up-vote ratio — computed over the top-K recommended articles before and after the session. They claim that the treatment group steered the system toward less extreme content when initially shown extreme content, toward more extreme content when initially shown mild content, and toward the political center; that diversity decreased in both groups; and that the transparent interface increased user awareness of filter bubbles. The analysis is primarily based on within-group begin-to-end changes and treatment-control differences within subgroups defined by the initial value of each outcome measure.

Significance. If the findings hold, the paper makes a worthwhile contribution to the user-control and filter-bubble literature by providing behavioral evidence from a deployed system rather than simulation. The study design includes attention checks, bootstrapped confidence intervals, and a publicly available code/data repository, which are concrete strengths. However, the central subgroup-specific conclusions are vulnerable to regression to the mean because subgroups are formed from the baseline of the same outcome measure, and the statistical evidence for many specific effects is weaker than the abstract suggests once the full multiple-testing family is considered. The awareness claim also rests on a comparison that was only run in the control arm. With appropriate robustness analyses and revised interpretations, the paper could be a solid empirical contribution.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, subgroup construction and Figure 2] The low/medium/high subgroups are formed by ranking all 102 users on the begin value m_b of the very measure being analyzed. Because m_b and m_e are repeated, noisy measurements of the same recommender state (top-K aggregate from a bootstrap-seeded model; up-vote ratio from 10 votes), a user with an extreme m_b will tend to move toward the mean at m_e even with no change in preferences. This mechanically produces the observed pattern of high subgroups decreasing and low subgroups increasing. This directly threatens the 'extremeness sweet spot' interpretation and the associated abstract claims. Please provide an independent baseline for subgrouping (e.g., pre-questionnaire ideology or initial model parameters), or model the change as a function of m_b with an explicit regression-to-the-mean correction, or compare against a no-interaction repeated-measures control.
  2. [Table 3 and statistical significance] Table 3 reports 48 t-tests (4 measures × 4 groups × 3 comparisons: C begin/end, T begin/end, C vs T change), but the caption describes a Bonferroni correction for 'four hypotheses per measure.' Within each measure there are actually 12 tests, so a proper Bonferroni threshold would be approximately 0.004, not 0.0125. Many reported significant effects (e.g., extremeness low Δ=.28, p=.034; political stance strong liberal Δ=.35, p=.064; diversity medium Δ=.15, p=.047; up-vote medium Δ=.14, p=.033) would not survive an FDR or full-family correction. Please report multiplicity-adjusted p-values or clearly pre-specify a smaller confirmatory family and label the remaining results as exploratory.
  3. [Section 4, Post-questionnaire analysis] The claim that the enhanced interface helped users realize they were in a filter bubble is not directly supported by the Qb/Qc comparison. The pre/post diversity question was administered only to the control group, with a histogram shown between the two responses; the treatment group did not receive the same manipulation. Thus the observed drop in Qc shows that transparency about the article distribution changes self-reports in the control group, but it does not establish that the treatment UI increased awareness relative to the control group. The Qd self-report is a single Likert item and is susceptible to demand characteristics. Please add the corresponding Qb–Qc comparison in the treatment arm or soften the causal wording in the abstract and conclusions.
  4. [Section 3, Eq. (1) and sensitivity of λ and K] In the treatment arm, the sliders directly update u_t and u_s in Eq. (1), so the begin-to-end changes in extremeness, stance, and diversity are partly a consequence of the pre-specified mapping from user input to ranking, rather than an emergent trajectory from user preferences alone. This is by design, but the RQ1 interpretation should be qualified as measuring the joint effect of direct control and subsequent system updates. In addition, λ=0.4 is selected on the basis of undisclosed 'preliminary analysis' and no sensitivity analysis is reported; since the slider-based recalibration recomputes the top-K ranking through this weighted sum, the magnitude and direction of treatment effects could depend on λ and on K=200. Please report sensitivity analyses for these parameters.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The paper contains several typos (e.g., 'bu it' instead of 'but it' in the post-questionnaire paragraph) and some undefined notation early (K in Eqs. 2–4 is not defined until later). A careful proofread is needed.
  2. [Section 4, subgroup samples] Because subgroups are based on the full 102-user ranking, the number of control and treatment users in each low/medium/high bin may be unbalanced. Please report the arm sizes per subgroup, particularly for the political-stance subgroups labeled 'strong liberal,' 'liberal,' and 'conservative.'
  3. [Table 3 caption] The caption does not specify the direction of the one-tailed tests used for the 'Change' columns, nor does it justify why RQ2 tests are one-tailed while RQ1 tests are two-tailed. Please state the alternative hypotheses explicitly.
  4. [Figure 2] Many bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals are visually invisible at the plotted scale; consider numeric error bars or separate panels with annotations. Reporting effect sizes (e.g., Cohen's d) alongside p-values would also aid interpretation given the modest sample size.
  5. [Abstract and Introduction] The abstract states that 'the transparent approach helped users realize that they were in a filter bubble,' but the only direct evidence is the within-control Qb→Qc change. Please align the abstract with the actual between-group evidence, or add the missing treatment-arm comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the paper's empirical user study does not derive its conclusions from its own definitions or from a load-bearing self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are the outcome of a new user study, not of a derivation from its own equations. Equation (1) is a design equation for combining a content-based score with user-profile similarity, and Eqs. (2)–(5) define measurement quantities; none of the findings is logically entailed by these definitions. The treatment/control comparison is based on randomized assignment, so the between-group results are not forced by construction. The dataset and simulation results of Liu et al. (2021) are self-citations, but they are used to motivate expectations and to supply the article corpus; the conclusions rest on newly collected behavioral data from 102 users. The subgroup analysis ranks users by the begin value m_b of the same measure and then tests m_e − m_b; this can raise a regression-to-the-mean concern, but that is a statistical validity threat, not a definitional circularity, because m_e is a separate observation and no parameter is fitted and then relabeled as a prediction. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or renamed empirical pattern is imported from the authors' prior work. Therefore no significant circularity is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or model entities. It relies on several domain assumptions about the validity of stance labels, questionnaire mapping, the content-based model, and the diversity metric. The main free parameters are design choices (λ, K, bootstrap sizes, binning, vote windows) that affect all outcome measures. The most consequential assumption is that the begin-value-binned subgroups represent stable user types rather than statistical artifacts.

free parameters (5)
  • lambda (λ) = 0.4
    In Eq. 1, λ=0.4 balances the content-based score s_r and the profile-match score; the paper states it was chosen via preliminary analysis (Section 'Recalibration of the scores'). It directly shapes all recommendations and therefore all outcome measures.
  • K (top-K articles) = 200
    State measures (Eqs. 2–4) are computed over the top K=200 ranked articles; K was chosen to give 11 topics × 5 stances a chance to appear (Section 'Measures').
  • bootstrap sample size per stance pairing = 25 positive + 25 negative per (topic, stance) pair
    Cold-start training set construction draws 25 matching and 25 opposing articles per stance pairing (Section 'Content-based recommender'); this affects the initial model quality.
  • subgroup tercile boundaries = 34 users per bin
    Users are split into low/medium/high subgroups by rank of begin value, making the bin boundaries data-dependent (Section 'Evaluation Methodology and Findings').
  • up-vote ratio window = First and last 10 of 30 votes
    Begin/end up-vote ratio uses the first/last ten up/down-voted articles (Section 'Evaluation Methodology'), a choice that affects the noise properties of this measure.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption AllSides stance ratings are the true political stance of articles.
    Dataset section: each article is annotated with a stance in {-2..+2} by AllSides; all extremeness, stance, and diversity measures inherit these labels as ground truth.
  • domain assumption Pew-style Likert responses can be mapped to continuous stance and interest vectors.
    The pre-questionnaire (Table 2) initializes u_s and u_t; the mapping from five-point Likert responses to real numbers in [-2,2] and [0,5]-like interest scales is not validated.
  • domain assumption A logistic regression over tf-idf features predicts user up-vote behavior well enough for the study.
    The content-based recommender (Section 'Content-based recommender') uses this model; no offline accuracy or ablation is reported, so model quality is implicitly assumed adequate.
  • domain assumption Cosine similarity between user and article stance/interest vectors is a meaningful preference match.
    Eq. 1 combines Sim(u_t,a_t) and Sim(u_s,a_s); this assumes cosine similarity on these small discrete vectors captures user preference alignment.
  • domain assumption Normalized political-stance entropy captures news diversity as intended.
    Eq. 4 measures only diversity across the 5 AllSides stance categories; it does not capture topic diversity, source diversity, or other dimensions users might care about.
  • domain assumption Self-reported questionnaire answers, up/down-votes, and slider moves reflect true user preferences.
    The study assumes users act rationally and truthfully; attention checks remove careless participants (44 of 146), but strategic or demand-driven behavior cannot be ruled out.

reviewed 2026-08-02 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of How Does Empowering Users with Greater System Control Affect News Filter Bubbles?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D5ZBGP3F

@misc{pith2026260715284,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: How Does Empowering Users with Greater System Control Affect News Filter Bubbles?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D5ZBGP3F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.15284}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

While recommendation systems enable users to find articles of interest, they can also create ``filter bubbles'' by presenting content that reinforces users' pre-existing beliefs. Users are often unaware that the system placed them in a filter bubble and, even when aware, they often lack direct control over it. To address these issues, we first design a political news recommendation system augmented with an enhanced interface that exposes the political and topical interests the system inferred from user behavior. This allows the user to adjust the recommendation system to receive more articles on a particular topic or presenting a particular political stance. We then conduct a user study to compare our system to a traditional interface and found that the transparent approach helped users realize that they were in a filter bubble. Additionally, the enhanced system led to less extreme news for most users but also allowed others to move the system to more extremes. Similarly, while many users moved the system from extreme liberal/conservative to the center, this came at the expense of reducing political diversity of the articles shown. These findings suggest that, while the proposed system increased awareness of the filter bubbles, it had heterogeneous effects on news consumption depending on user preferences.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15284 by Aron Culotta, Karthik Shivaram, Matthew Shapiro, Mustafa Bilgic, Ping Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: User interface to provide transparency and control [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Beginning (m g b ) and ending (mg e ) values, with bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals (1000 bootstrap samples), for each measure and subgroup, where subgroups are determined by the initial value of the system for each user. Rightmost graphs present changes over time (i.e., δ g m = mg e − m g b ). that the treatment group experienced larger shifts towards the center than the control group when considerin… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Post-questionnaire results. 1: strongly disagree, 5: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An example recommendation page for a user in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A sample transparency figure provided to users in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

226 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Political Research Quarterly , author =

    The rise of partisanship and the expansion of partisan conflict within the. Political Research Quarterly , author =. 2005 , pages =

    2005

  2. [2]

    Yale Law School, Public Law Research Paper No

    Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection: an experimental study , abstract =. Yale Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 272 , author =. 2012 , file =

    2012

  3. [3]

    Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages=

    Birds of a feather don’t fact-check each other: Partisanship and the evaluation of news in Twitter’s Birdwatch crowdsourced fact-checking program , author=. Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages=

    2022

  4. [4]

    2023 , booktitle =

    Li, Zhenyang and Dong, Yancheng and Gao, Chen and Zhao, Yizhou and Li, Dong and Hao, Jianye and Zhang, Kai and Li, Yong and Wang, Zhi , title =. 2023 , booktitle =

    2023

  5. [5]

    and Resnick, Paul , title =

    Munson, Sean A. and Resnick, Paul , title =. 2010 , booktitle =

    2010

  6. [6]

    Kelly and Kriplean, Travis and Munson, Sean A

    Resnick, Paul and Garrett, R. Kelly and Kriplean, Travis and Munson, Sean A. and Stroud, Natalie Jomini , title =. 2013 , booktitle =

    2013

  7. [7]

    Similarity vs

    Smyth, Barry and McClave, Paul. Similarity vs. Diversity. Case-Based Reasoning Research and Development. 2001

    2001

  8. [8]

    Knowledge-based systems , volume=

    Diversity in recommender systems--A survey , author=. Knowledge-based systems , volume=. 2017 , publisher=

    2017

  9. [9]

    , year =

    Habermas, J. , year =. The structural transformation of the public sphere:

  10. [10]

    , year =

    Habermas, J. , year =. The theory of communicative action:

  11. [11]

    Pew Research Center - Journalism & Media , author =

    8 key takeaways about social media and news , url =. Pew Research Center - Journalism & Media , author =

  12. [12]

    The Krakatoa Chronicle-an interactive, personalized newspaper on the Web , author=. In Proc. 4th Intl. WWW Conf , year=

  13. [13]

    and Mucklo, M.J

    Chesnais, P.R. and Mucklo, M.J. and Sheena, J.A. , booktitle=. The Fishwrap personalized news system , year=

  14. [14]

    Psychological Science in the Public Interest , author =

    Misinformation and its correction: continued influence and successful debiasing , volume =. Psychological Science in the Public Interest , author =. 2012 , pages =

    2012

  15. [15]

    Proceedings of the 14th international conference on World Wide Web , pages=

    Improving recommendation lists through topic diversification , author=. Proceedings of the 14th international conference on World Wide Web , pages=

  16. [16]

    Nature human behaviour , volume=

    Affective polarization, local contexts and public opinion in America , author=. Nature human behaviour , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  17. [17]

    Political Communication , volume=

    Does media coverage of partisan polarization affect political attitudes? , author=. Political Communication , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

    2016

  18. [18]

    Political Behavior , volume=

    Exposure to extremely partisan news from the other political side shows scarce boomerang effects , author=. Political Behavior , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  19. [19]

    Annals of the International Communication Association , volume=

    News recommender systems: A programmatic research review , author=. Annals of the International Communication Association , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  20. [20]

    Workshop on Recommender Systems-Implementation and Evaluation , year=

    Combing content-based and collaborative filters in an online newspaper , author=. Workshop on Recommender Systems-Implementation and Evaluation , year=

  21. [21]

    2019 , issue_date =

    Tsai, Chun-Hua and Brusilovsky, Peter , title =. 2019 , issue_date =. doi:10.1145/3231465 , journal =

    work page doi:10.1145/3231465 2019

  22. [22]

    Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages=

    Opinion space: a scalable tool for browsing online comments , author=. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages=

  23. [23]

    ACM Conference on Recommender Systems , pages=

    Designing for the better by taking users into account: A qualitative evaluation of user control mechanisms in (news) recommender systems , author=. ACM Conference on Recommender Systems , pages=

  24. [24]

    Evolution of Filter Bubbles and Polarization in News Recommendation

    Zhang, Han and Zhu, Ziwei and Caverlee, James. Evolution of Filter Bubbles and Polarization in News Recommendation. Advances in Information Retrieval. 2023

    2023

  25. [25]

    2023 , issue_date =

    Srba, Ivan and Moro, Robert and Tomlein, Matus and Pecher, Branislav and Simko, Jakub and Stefancova, Elena and Kompan, Michal and Hrckova, Andrea and Podrouzek, Juraj and Gavornik, Adrian and Bielikova, Maria , title =. 2023 , issue_date =. doi:10.1145/3568392 , journal =

    doi:10.1145/3568392 2023

  26. [26]

    A. G. Ekström, G. Madison, E. J. Olsson and M. Tsapos , title =. Information, Communication & Society , volume =. 2023 , publisher =. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2023.2230242 , URL =

    arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    MIS quarterly , pages=

    Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology , author=. MIS quarterly , pages=. 1989 , publisher=

    1989

  28. [28]

    Morris and Gordon B

    Viswanath Venkatesh and Michael G. Morris and Gordon B. Davis and Fred D. Davis , journal =. User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View , urldate =

  29. [29]

    Decision sciences , volume=

    Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions , author=. Decision sciences , volume=. 2008 , publisher=

    2008

  30. [30]

    Recommender systems handbook , pages=

    Novelty and diversity in recommender systems , author=. Recommender systems handbook , pages=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  31. [31]

    Conference Companion Publication of Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing , pages=

    Pop: Bursting News Filter Bubbles on Twitter Through Diverse Exposure , author=. Conference Companion Publication of Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing , pages=

  32. [32]

    Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media , volume=

    Polarization as a Function of Citizen Predispositions and Exposure to News on the Internet , author=. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media , volume=. 2015 , publisher=

    2015

  33. [33]

    and Drogos, Kristin L

    Coe, Kevin and Tewksbury, David and Bond, Bradley J. and Drogos, Kristin L. and Porter, Robert W. and Yahn, Ashley and Zhang, Yuanyuan , title = ". Journal of Communication , volume =. 2008 , month =. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00381.x , url =

    arXiv 2008

  34. [34]

    Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , volume=

    NudgeCred: Supporting News Credibility Assessment on Social Media Through Nudges , author=. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  35. [35]

    and Eckles, Dean and Rand, David G

    Pennycook, Gordon and Epstein, Ziv and Mosleh, Mohsen and Arechar, Antonio A. and Eckles, Dean and Rand, David G. , title =. Nature , volume =. 2021 , doi =

    2021

  36. [36]

    Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , pages=

    Bursting the Filter Bubble: Fairness-Aware Network Link Prediction , author=. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , pages=

  37. [37]

    Guess and Richard Bonneau and Jonathan Nagler and Joshua A

    Kevin Aslett and Andrew M. Guess and Richard Bonneau and Jonathan Nagler and Joshua A. Tucker , title =. Science Advances , volume =. 2022 , doi =. https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.abl3844 , abstract =

    doi:10.1126/sciadv.abl3844 2022

  38. [38]

    2021 , doi =

    Nyhan, Brendan , title =. 2021 , doi =. https://www.pnas.org/content/118/15/e1912440117.full.pdf , journal =

    2021

  39. [39]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , volume=

    Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media , author=. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  40. [40]

    Journal of Communication , volume =

    Kim, Jin Woo and Guess, Andrew and Nyhan, Brendan and Reifler, Jason , title = ". Journal of Communication , volume =. 2021 , month =. doi:10.1093/joc/jqab034 , url =

    doi:10.1093/joc/jqab034 2021

  41. [41]

    Who inadvertently shares deepfakes? Analyzing the role of political interest, cognitive ability, and social network size , journal =

    Saifuddin Ahmed , keywords =. Who inadvertently shares deepfakes? Analyzing the role of political interest, cognitive ability, and social network size , journal =. 2021 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101508 , url =

    arXiv 2021

  42. [42]

    Human Communication Research , volume =

    Hopp, Toby and Ferrucci, Patrick and Vargo, Chris J , title = ". Human Communication Research , volume =. 2020 , month =. doi:10.1093/hcr/hqz022 , url =

    work page doi:10.1093/hcr/hqz022 2020

  43. [43]

    The Social Science Journal , volume =

    Tom Buchanan , title =. The Social Science Journal , volume =. 2021 , publisher =. doi:10.1080/03623319.2021.1975085 , URL =

    arXiv 2021

  44. [44]

    The impact of group polarization on the quality of online debate in social media: A systematic literature review , journal =

    Luca Iandoli and Simonetta Primario and Giuseppe Zollo , keywords =. The impact of group polarization on the quality of online debate in social media: A systematic literature review , journal =. 2021 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120924 , url =

    arXiv 2021

  45. [45]

    Proceedings of the 16th

    Reducing Cross-Topic Political Homogenization in Content-Based News Recommendation , author=. Proceedings of the 16th

  46. [46]

    Social Media + Society , volume =

    Anna Sophie Kümpel and Veronika Karnowski and Till Keyling , title =. Social Media + Society , volume =. 2015 , doi =. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305115610141 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1177/2056305115610141 2015

  47. [47]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.00074 , year=

    Engagement Outweighs Exposure to Partisan and Unreliable News within Google Search , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.00074 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  48. [48]

    Bilgic, Mustafa and Mooney, Raymond , title =. Proceedings of Beyond Personalization 2005: A Workshop on the Next Stage of Recommender Systems Research at the 2005 International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces , year =

    2005

  49. [49]

    Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021 , pages=

    The Interaction between Political Typology and Filter Bubbles in News Recommendation Algorithms , author=. Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021 , pages=

    2021

  50. [50]

    American Journal of Political Science , volume=

    Separating the shirkers from the workers? Making sure respondents pay attention on self-administered surveys , author=. American Journal of Political Science , volume=. 2014 , publisher=

    2014

  51. [51]

    Pew Research Center , year=

    Political typology reveals deep fissures on the right and left: Conservative Republican groups divided on immigration,‘openness’ , author=. Pew Research Center , year=

  52. [52]

    AAAI conference on weblogs and social media , year=

    Encouraging reading of diverse political viewpoints with a browser widget , author=. AAAI conference on weblogs and social media , year=

  53. [53]

    Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media , volume=

    Empirical Evaluation of Three Common Assumptions in Building Political Media Bias Datasets , author=. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media , volume=

  54. [54]

    Pew Research Center , year=

    About one-fifth of Democrats and Republicans get political news in a kind of media buble , author=. Pew Research Center , year=

  55. [55]

    Leeper , title =

    Thomas J. Leeper , title =. Political Communication , volume =. 2020 , publisher =

    2020

  56. [56]

    Political Communication , volume =

    Subhayan Mukerjee and Tian Yang , title =. Political Communication , volume =. 2020 , publisher =

    2020

  57. [57]

    International Journal of Communication , volume =

    Yotam Shmargad and Samara Klar , title =. International Journal of Communication , volume =. 2019 , keywords =

    2019

  58. [58]

    Political Communication , volume =

    Yotam Shmargad and Samara Klar , title =. Political Communication , volume =. 2020 , publisher =

    2020

  59. [59]

    Digital Journalism , volume =

    Elia Powers , title =. Digital Journalism , volume =. 2017 , publisher =

    2017

  60. [60]

    Information, Communication & Society , volume =

    Richard Fletcher and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen , title =. Information, Communication & Society , volume =. 2019 , publisher =

    2019

  61. [61]

    International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , pages=

    Human interaction with recommendation systems , author=. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , pages=

  62. [62]

    Proceedings of the 12th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems , pages=

    How algorithmic confounding in recommendation systems increases homogeneity and decreases utility , author=. Proceedings of the 12th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems , pages=

  63. [63]

    Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , pages=

    Degenerate feedback loops in recommender systems , author=. Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , pages=

    2019

  64. [64]

    Public opinion quarterly , volume=

    Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption , author=. Public opinion quarterly , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

    2016

  65. [65]

    Psychological science , volume=

    Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber? , author=. Psychological science , volume=. 2015 , publisher=

    2015

  66. [66]

    Nature Human Behaviour , pages=

    Combining interventions to reduce the spread of viral misinformation , author=. Nature Human Behaviour , pages=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  67. [67]

    Science , volume=

    Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook , author=. Science , volume=. 2015 , publisher=

    2015

  68. [68]

    Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , volume=

    Suppressing the search engine manipulation effect (SEME) , author=. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , volume=. 2017 , publisher=

    2017

  69. [69]

    PloS one , volume=

    Users polarization on Facebook and Youtube , author=. PloS one , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

    2016

  70. [70]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , volume=

    Anatomy of news consumption on Facebook , author=. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , volume=. 2017 , publisher=

    2017

  71. [71]

    All the news that you don't like: Cross-cutting exposure and political participation in the age of social media

    Seong Jae Min and Donghee Yvette Wohn. All the news that you don't like: Cross-cutting exposure and political participation in the age of social media. Computers in Human Behavior. 2018

    2018

  72. [72]

    Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review , volume=

    Emphasizing publishers does not effectively reduce susceptibility to misinformation on social media , author=. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review , volume=

  73. [73]

    Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference , pages=

    Political discourse on social media: Echo chambers, gatekeepers, and the price of bipartisanship , author=. Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference , pages=

    2018

  74. [74]

    British Journal of Social Psychology , volume=

    The triple-filter bubble: Using agent-based modelling to test a meta-theoretical framework for the emergence of filter bubbles and echo chambers , author=. British Journal of Social Psychology , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  75. [75]

    Marketing Science , volume=

    Curation algorithms and filter bubbles in social networks , author=. Marketing Science , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  76. [76]

    Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency , pages=

    Siren: A simulation framework for understanding the effects of recommender systems in online news environments , author=. Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency , pages=

  77. [77]

    Journal of medical Internet research , volume=

    Manipulating Google’s Knowledge Graph box to counter biased information processing during an online search on vaccination: application of a technological debiasing strategy , author=. Journal of medical Internet research , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

    2016

  78. [78]

    Proceedings of the Tenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining , pages=

    Reducing controversy by connecting opposing views , author=. Proceedings of the Tenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining , pages=

  79. [79]

    Shapiro and Han Woo Park , title =

    Matthew A. Shapiro and Han Woo Park , title =. Environmental Communication , volume =. 2018 , publisher =

    2018

  80. [80]

    , title =

    Mosleh, Mohsen and Martel, Cameron and Eckles, Dean and Rand, David G. , title =. 2021 , doi =. https://www.pnas.org/content/118/7/e2022761118.full.pdf , journal =

    2021

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 2, 2026.