Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Decentralization of Agenda-Setting Power and Domain-Selective Bridging: Algorithm Design Beyond the Echo Chamber Debate

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Domain-selective bridging—bridging weight set by collective scope over verifiability—beats uniform bridging in a simulation.

desk verdict A genuinely useful conceptual proposal — domain-selective bridging — but the simulation doesn't test the proposed clipped algorithm, and the saturation fit contradicts the reported CIS values, so the quantitative claim is currently unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04774 v1 pith:5TN4FE5T submitted 2026-08-05 cs.CY cs.SI

Masahiro Fujita This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYcs.SI
keywords agenda-settingechochambersalgorithmicbridgingdomain-selectiveagent-basedsimulationSocialInformationHealthverifiabilitycollectivescope
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that echo chambers are a normal by-product of human cognitive constraints and engagement-optimizing algorithms, so the useful question is not how to eliminate them but how to design algorithms that bridge selectively. It proposes two indices—the Agenda Democratization Index (ADI), the ratio of granularity, interactivity, and feedback resolution to entry barriers, and Social Information Health (SIH), ADI times bridging strength—and derives domain-selective bridging, in which the algorithmic bridging weight scales with a domain's collective scope over its verifiability, capped at a saturation point. To test this, it runs an agent-based simulation of three recommendation designs: no bridging, uniform bridging, and domain-selective bridging. The paper's central claim is that domain-selective bridging improves cross-cluster information sharing in collective-decision domains while holding user satisfaction at no-bridging levels in hobby domains, yielding a joint efficiency several times better than uniform bridging.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the bridging-weight formula $\lambda_k = \lambda_0 \cdot \min(S_k/V_k, \rho_{\mathrm{sat}})$, where $V_k$ is how directly individuals can verify information in a domain and $S_k$ is how many people's decisions are affected by it; the cap $\rho_{\mathrm{sat}}$ is anchored to the saturation curve $E(C)=C_{\max}(1-e^{-\kappa C})$ fitted to the simulation. This formula is embedded in an agent-based bounded-confidence opinion model in which agents update their interest vectors only toward items within a confidence threshold, so bridging information that is too distant does not shift opinions. Around this core sit the ADI–SIH scaffolding, $\mathrm{ADI}=G\cdot I\cdot F/B$ and $\mathrm{SIH}=\mathrm{ADI}\cdot(\alpha C_s+\beta C_{\mathrm{inst}}+\gamma C_a)$, which supplies the historical framing, while the simulation's three scoring functions carry the test of the specific proposal.

What would settle it

A reader can first check an internal consistency: the fitted saturation ceiling C_max=0.447 is lower than the CIS=0.66 reported for the unclipped Domain C run, so the fitted curve does not by itself reproduce the headline result. The decisive test is an out-of-sample version of the same simulation on held-out (V,S) pairs, comparing clipped and unclipped weights; if the clipped λ* fails to preserve CIS while saving US, the transfer assumption fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that bridging need not be all-or-nothing: the same scoring function can carry a per-domain bridging weight, and that weight should grow with collective scope and shrink with verifiability. In the simulation, the domain-selective model reaches the highest cross-cluster information sharing in the national-policy domain (CIS 0.66 with λ=4.50), keeps the hobby domain's user satisfaction at 0.69, and holds full-domain satisfaction at 0.60, essentially matching the no-bridging model (0.59), while the uniform-bridging model collapses satisfaction to 0.023. The efficiency index SIH×US is reported as 3.93 for domain-selective bridging versus 1.13 for no bridging and 0.14 for uniform bridging; the paper is explicit that the absolute ratios depend on the near-zero denominator for uniform bridging and that the robust claim is the qualitative dominance ranking rather than the precise 28-fold number. The paper also claims that bridging effects saturate asymptotically near λ*≈0.21, so unlimited bridging only wastes user satisfaction.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical advantage of domain-selective bridging rests on the saturation curve fitted to one simulated domain being transferable to every other domain with the same ceiling and rate, so clipping the bridging weight at the fitted cap preserves the information-sharing gains at lower user-satisfaction cost.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Platform designers can replace one global bridging knob with per-domain weights: near-zero bridging in high-verifiability, low-scope domains and strong bridging in policy, security, and public-health domains.
  • Uniform bridging of the kind the paper attributes to 'chance encounter' prescriptions is likely to drive users away (simulated satisfaction 0.023), so the feasibility of any bridging design depends on preserving satisfaction in hobby domains.
  • Because bridging effects saturate near λ*≈0.21, there is a finite investment level for each domain beyond which more bridging adds no information sharing and only erodes satisfaction.
  • Feedback resolution F has opposite effects depending on design: without bridging it sharpens echo-chamber deepening, with bridging it improves precision, suggesting regulation should direct F toward bridging rather than restrict it.
  • The echo chamber debate can be reframed as an allocation problem—which domains, how much, which mechanism—so policy can be tested by measurable S/V weights instead of a normative verdict on echo chambers.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the saturation cap is calibrated on one simulated domain and then transferred to all domains, the exact λ* value (0.21) is the paper's least transferable quantitative claim; an out-of-sample calibration would settle how general the cap is.
  • The S/V ratio also suggests a practical auditing tool for existing platforms: algorithm logs could be scored by domain to see whether bridging effort is concentrated where collective decisions are made, a step the paper does not itself take.
  • The entertainment-frame argument—that high satisfaction for policy content measures unbridged content, and bridging shifts users from entertainment to factual consumption—is explicitly flagged by the paper as beyond the simulation; it is directly testable in a field experiment that tracks engagement mode as well as clicks.
  • The multiplicative ADI form implies that any one near-zero component (say, interactivity) would have suppressed the index in the cable era; building historical proxies for B, G, I, F would give a quantitative test of the media-history narrative the paper offers qualitatively.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that echo chambers are an inevitable byproduct of evolved human cognitive constraints and engagement-maximizing algorithms, and that the appropriate response is not to demand behavioral change but to design algorithmic bridging that is differentiated by information domain. It introduces an Agenda Democratization Index (ADI) and a Social Information Health (SIH) model, and proposes domain-selective bridging in which the bridging weight λ_k is set proportional to S_k/V_k (collective scope over verifiability) subject to a saturation cap. An agent-based simulation compares three algorithm designs—no bridging (Model 0), uniform bridging (Model 1), and domain-selective bridging (Model 2)—and reports that Model 2 dominates on a joint efficiency measure (SIH×user satisfaction), with an efficiency index of 3.93 versus 1.13 for Model 0 and 0.14 for Model 1. The paper also reports a saturation analysis in which bridging effects saturate at λ*≈0.21, and it argues that the proposed capped algorithm would achieve the same CIS at lower user-satisfaction cost than the unclipped Model 2. The central quantitative claim rests on the transfer of this saturation result to the Model 2 simulation, but the reported numbers appear internally inconsistent.

Significance. If the central claim were adequately supported, the paper would make a useful contribution by reframing the echo-chamber debate as a domain-differentiated algorithmic design problem. The ADI-SIH framework offers a plausible conceptual vocabulary, the distinction between high-verifiability/low-scope (e.g., hobbies) and low-verifiability/high-scope (e.g., national policy) domains is intuitive, and the bounding-confidence dynamic is a sensible way to incorporate cognitive constraints. The paper also has notable strengths: the simulation code is promised on OSF; the text explicitly warns that the 28× efficiency ratio is sensitive to Model 1's near-zero user satisfaction; the limitations section candidly acknowledges missing empirical calibration of (V,S), the absence of robustness checks, and the speculative status of the entertainment-frame argument. These strengths, however, cannot compensate for the fact that the proposed capped algorithm is never simulated and that the saturation fit used to bridge that gap is inconsistent with the reported main results. The quantitative superiority claim is therefore not established, although the underlying idea remains plausible and testable.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.5 vs §5.3] The fitted saturation curve in §5.5 yields C_max = 0.447 and κ = 14.15 for Domain C, with λ* = 0.21 corresponding to 95% of the asymptotic maximum. But §5.3 reports Model 2 Domain C achieving CIS = 0.66 at λ = 4.50, and Model 1 achieving CIS ≈ 0.57–0.59 at λ = 0.40. Both values exceed the fitted asymptotic maximum of 0.447. Since Eq. (6) is monotonically increasing in C, the saturation curve cannot be the mechanism by which λ = 0.21 reproduces CIS = 0.66. This internal inconsistency means the claim that the clipped optimum yields the same CIS at lower US cost is unsupported. The authors must either re-fit the saturation curve including the λ = 4.50 point, explain why the reported CIS values are compatible with the fitted asymptote, or provide direct simulation of the capped algorithm.
  2. [§5.2 and §5.3] Model 2 is simulated with the unclipped weight λ_k = λ_0·S_k/V_k, yielding λ = 4.50 for Domain C and λ = 0.50 for Domain B, both of which the paper notes substantially exceed the proposed saturation cap λ* ≈ 0.21. The proposed algorithm in Eq. (5), however, caps λ at ρ_sat, so the simulation never tests the actual proposed scoring function. The headline efficiency advantage (SIH×US = 3.93 vs 0.14) is derived from the unclipped simulation, and the paper's only bridge to the capped algorithm is the inconsistent saturation fit. As a result, the central quantitative claim—that domain-selective bridging with the saturation cap outperforms uniform bridging—is not directly evidenced. A simulation of the Eq. (5) scoring function, or at least a proper re-fit and extrapolation, is required.
  3. [§4.5 and §5.5] The saturation cap ρ_sat is calibrated from a Domain C sweep of the same simulation that is used to validate the model, and the parameters C_max and κ are then treated as domain-independent. This is a calibration circularity: the proposed rule's key parameter is fitted to the very output it is then claimed to reproduce. The paper acknowledges that the (V,S) values are illustrative but does not address the transfer of the saturation fit to other domains. I would like to see either an independent calibration of ρ_sat (e.g., from a separate experiment or a theoretical derivation) or a robustness analysis showing that the qualitative dominance ranking survives variation in the saturation parameters across a plausible range. Without this, the 'parameter-free' status of the domain-selective advantage is overstated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains a typo: 'quantities the decentralization' should be 'quantifies the decentralization.' Also, 'SIH user satisfaction' should read 'SIH × user satisfaction' to match the notation used in the body.
  2. [§4.5] The symbol λ* is used both for the fitted saturation point (≈0.21) and for the optimal bridging weight in Eq. (5). This dual use is confusing; consider denoting the saturation point as λ_sat and the optimal weight as λ_k*.
  3. [§5.2] When Model 2 is first introduced, the scoring function is written as λ_k = λ_0·S_k/V_k without the min cap that appears in Eq. (5). The reader is not told until much later that this is the unclipped version. Please note the discrepancy explicitly at first use.
  4. [§5.5] The caption of Figure 4 reportedly says 'CIS saturates at λ* = 0.21,' while the text says that λ* is the point at which CIS reaches 95% of the theoretical maximum. Please align the caption with the text to avoid implying complete saturation at that point.
  5. [§6.4] The entertainment-frame discussion is appropriately flagged as beyond the simulation's scope, but the paragraph beginning 'The introduction of domain-selective bridging renders this entertainment frame dysfunctional' reads as though it follows from the simulation results. Consider moving this explicitly into the speculative/hypothesis-generation register earlier in the section.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The proposed algorithm's saturation cap is calibrated on the same Domain C simulation that is offered as its validation, and the asserted equivalence between the capped and unclipped versions rests on a fitted saturation curve inconsistent with the reported CIS values.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.5, Eq. (5); calibration in Section 5.5]
    "where λ0 > 0 is a global scale and ρsat is a domain-independent saturation cap calibrated so that the resulting λ∗k does not exceed the saturation point λ∗ derived from Section 4.6 (empirically estimated at λ∗ ≈ 0.21 in Section 5)."

    The proposed design rule Eq. (5) takes its ceiling from λ* ≈ 0.21, a number obtained by fitting the saturation curve to the Domain C simulation in Section 5.5. The same simulation is then used as evidence that domain-selective bridging outperforms uniform bridging. Because Model 2 actually ran with unclipped λ = 4.50 in Domain C, the optimality of the cap is not independently established; it is calibrated on the very data used for validation. The key parameter of the proposal is therefore an output of the simulation recycled as an input to the algorithm, so the 'optimized' bridging weight is not a prediction but a fitted value.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.2; saturation fit in Section 5.5]
    "As theoretically predicted by the saturation model, the CIS values produced in these domains under Model 2 correspond to the plateau of the saturation curve; the clipped optimum λ∗k = λ0 · min(S/V, ρsat) introduced in Section 4.5 would yield the same CIS plateau at lower US cost, and we treat Model 2's simulation results as an upper bound on the CIS component and a lower bound on the US component for these domains."

    This is not a simulation of the proposed capped algorithm; it is an inference from a saturation curve fitted to the λ sweep over 0 to 2.0 in Domain C. The fit's asymptotic maximum is Cmax = 0.447, yet the same Domain C under Model 2 at λ = 4.50 is reported with CIS = 0.66, which exceeds the fitted maximum. The asserted 'same CIS plateau' at λ* = 0.21 therefore cannot be grounded in the fitted curve, and the central efficiency comparison (SIH × US = 3.93) rests on an extrapolation from calibration data rather than a direct test of Eq. (5).

full rationale

No self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem is involved; the paper's theoretical sources (Sperber and Wilson, Dunbar, Ovadya and Thorburn) are external and not load-bearing in a circular way. The main circularity is concentrated in the saturation cap: Eq. (5) defines the proposed rule using λ* ≈ 0.21, which Section 5.5 fits from the Domain C simulation, and Section 5.2 then claims that the unclipped Model 2 results (λ = 4.50) are an upper bound for the capped algorithm because of the same fitted saturation curve. Since the capped algorithm is never simulated, the quantitative claim that domain-selective bridging achieves SIH × US = 3.93 reduces to an extrapolation from the fitted curve, and that curve is internally inconsistent with the reported CIS = 0.66. The paper itself acknowledges that the (V, S) values are illustrative and that the entertainment-frame claim is beyond the simulation, which shows some epistemic caution, but those admissions do not repair the circular calibration of the central design parameter. A score of 6 reflects partial circularity: the qualitative direction of the result has independent simulation content, but the proposed algorithm's defining saturation threshold is fitted from, and validated on, the same simulation output.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The central claim rests on several hand-chosen free parameters (λ0, uniform λ, simulation parameters, illustrative V and S pairs) and on assumptions that are asserted rather than derived. The saturation model, which is used to transfer results from the simulated unclipped version to the proposed clipped algorithm, is fit to the same simulation and appears internally inconsistent with the reported CIS values.

free parameters (5)
  • lambda_0 (global bridging scale) = 0.5
    Chosen by hand in Model 2 (Section 5.2); determines λ_k = λ0 * S_k/V_k for each domain.
  • Uniform bridging weight (Model 1) = 0.4
    Set in Section 5.2; directly affects the comparison baseline and the reported 28x ratio.
  • Saturation fit parameters = C_max = 0.447, κ = 14.15, λ* = 0.21
    Fitted in Section 5.5 to simulation output for Domain C; used to set the saturation cap ρ_sat in Eq. 5.
  • V, S domain endpoints = (0.9,0.1), (0.5,0.5), (0.1,0.9)
    Illustrative choices (Section 5.2), not empirical; determine the domain-specific λ_k values.
  • Simulation parameters = N=300, μ=0.02, δ=2.0, θ=1.5, 150 steps, cluster radius 4.0, std 0.8, item mix 60/20/20
    Chosen by hand (Section 5.1) based on theoretical considerations; no sensitivity analysis reported.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Relevance theory: cognition maximizes relevance = cognitive effects / processing effort (Eq. 1).
    Borrowed from Sperber and Wilson (1995) and treated as a starting point for the distance-decay model.
  • ad hoc to paper Distance decay of relevance: R_ij ∝ 1/d^λ with λ > 1 (Eq. 2).
    Assumed without empirical fitting; it motivates the claim that bridging is only needed in low-V/high-S domains.
  • domain assumption Dunbar's number (~150) bounds the natural scope of information processing.
    Cited from Dunbar (1992); used to argue echo chambers are evolutionarily natural.
  • domain assumption Bounded confidence model (Deffuant et al., 2000) captures human response to cross-cutting information.
    Adopted in Section 5.1; the δ=2.0 threshold and one-tenth attenuation shape all CIS results.
  • ad hoc to paper Multiplicative composition ADI = G·I·F/B (Eq. 3).
    Presented as a definition; no derivation or empirical test of the functional form.
  • ad hoc to paper Asymptotic saturation of bridging effects (Eq. 6) with domain-independent λ*.
    Asserted in Section 4.6 and fitted in Section 5.5; used to claim unclipped Model 2 results transfer to the proposed clipped algorithm.
  • domain assumption Independence of V and S.
    The paper itself flags the likely correlation in Section 6.5; the optimal allocation formula assumes independence.
invented entities (3)
  • Agenda Democratization Index (ADI)
    purpose: Quantifies decentralization of agenda-setting power as G·I·F/B
    No empirical measurement procedure is provided (Section 6.5 admits ADI is a comparative-descriptive index, not a measurement instrument).
  • Social Information Health (SIH)
    purpose: Combines ADI with bridging strength C to evaluate information environments
    Defined in Eq. 4; no external validation or calibration data.
  • Domain-selective bridging
    purpose: Algorithmic design that differentiates bridging weight λ_k by S_k/V_k per domain
    Proposed in Section 4.5; supported only by the simulation in this paper, not by real-world tests.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Decentralization of Agenda-Setting Power and Domain-Selective Bridging: Algorithm Design Beyond the Echo Chamber Debate." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5TN4FE5T

@misc{pith2026260804774,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Decentralization of Agenda-Setting Power and Domain-Selective Bridging: Algorithm Design Beyond the Echo Chamber Debate},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5TN4FE5T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04774}
}
read the original abstract

Echo chambers are an inevitable consequence of the human cognitive system being evolutionarily designed to prioritize processing of high-relevance information at the small-group scale, combined with algorithms that optimize engagement as their sole objective. Conventional prescriptions that normatively criticize echo chambers and demand individual behavioral change have low feasibility given these cognitive constraints. This paper constructs an Agenda Democratization Index (ADI) that quantities the decentralization of agenda-setting power using four variables barrier to entry, granularity, interactivity, and feedback resolution and a SocialInformation Health (SIH) model that integrates ADI with the strength of bridging mechanisms. Based on this model, we propose domain-selective bridging, which incorporates not only engagement but also bridging into algorithmic scoring functions, optimizing the bridging weight for each information domain based on variability (V ) and collective scope (S). An agent-based simulation comparing three algorithm designs no bridging, uniform bridging, and domain-selective bridging demonstrated that domain-selective bridging substantially outperforms uniform bridging on a joint efficiency measure (SIH user satisfaction) by a factor whose absolute value is sensitive to Model 1's near-zero user satisfaction, but whose direction and dominance ranking are robust improving information sharing in domains relevant to collective decision-making while maintaining user experience in hobby and lifestyle domains. This paper reframes the echo chamber debate from a normative opposition over whether to eliminate echo chambers to an engineer-ing design problem of in which information domains, to what degree, and through what algorithm design should bridging be implemented.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04774 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of three algorithm designs across information domains. Left: Echo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Trade-off between user satisfaction and social information health. Model 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. CIS dynamics over time by information domain. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Effect of bridging weight (λ) on CIS and user satisfaction in Domain C (national policy). CIS saturates at λ ∗ = 0.21. To verify the theoretically predicted asymptotic saturation of bridging effects from Sec￾tion 4, we analyzed changes in CIS and US when λ was varied f…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Effect of feedback resolution (F) on CIS and user satisfaction. In Model 0, higher F deepens echo chambers; in Model 2, higher F improves bridging precision. In Section 4, algorithmic bridging was formalized as Ca = h(λk, F), and it was argued that feedback resolution …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Agent distribution in interest space: initial state and final state for each model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abernathy, Penelope Muse , title =

    work page

  2. [2]

    Anderson, Chris , title =

    work page

  3. [3]

    and Argyle, Lisa P

    Bail, Christopher A. and Argyle, Lisa P. and Brown, Taylor W. and Bumpus, John P. and Chen, Haohan and Hunzaker, M. B. Fallin and Lee, Jaemin and Mann, Marcus and Merhout, Friedolin and Volfovsky, Alexander , title =. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , volume =

    work page

  4. [4]

    , title =

    Bakshy, Eytan and Messing, Solomon and Adamic, Lada A. , title =. Science , volume =

    work page

  5. [5]

    Benkler, Yochai and Faris, Robert and Roberts, Hal , title =

    work page

  6. [6]

    Bruns, Axel , title =

    work page

  7. [7]

    Chadwick, Andrew , title =

    work page

  8. [8]

    , title =

    Cohen, Bernard C. , title =

    work page

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Mixing Beliefs Among Interacting Agents , journal =

    Deffuant, Guillaume and Neau, David and Amblard, Fr\'. Mixing Beliefs Among Interacting Agents , journal =

  2. [10]

    The Dual Echo Chamber: Modeling Social Media Polarization for Interventional Use , booktitle =

    Donkers, Tim and Ziegler, J\". The Dual Echo Chamber: Modeling Social Media Polarization for Interventional Use , booktitle =

  3. [11]

    Information, Communication & Society , volume =

    Dubois, Elizabeth and Blank, Grant , title =. Information, Communication & Society , volume =

  4. [12]

    Dunbar, Robin I. M. , title =. Journal of Human Evolution , volume =

  5. [13]

    , title =

    Flaxman, Seth and Goel, Sharad and Rao, Justin M. , title =. Public Opinion Quarterly , volume =

  6. [14]

    Fujita, Masahiro , title =

  7. [15]

    , title =

    Gentzkow, Matthew and Shapiro, Jesse M. , title =. Quarterly Journal of Economics , volume =

  8. [16]

    Asymmetric Ideological Segregation in Exposure to Political News on

    Gonz\'. Asymmetric Ideological Segregation in Exposure to Political News on. Science , volume =

  9. [17]

    , title =

    Granovetter, Mark S. , title =. American Journal of Sociology , volume =

  10. [18]

    and Malhotra, Neil and Pan, Jennifer and Barber\'

    Guess, Andrew M. and Malhotra, Neil and Pan, Jennifer and Barber\'. How Do Social Media Feed Algorithms Affect Attitudes and Behavior in an Election Campaign? , journal =

  11. [19]

    and Malhotra, Neil and Pan, Jennifer and Barber\'

    Guess, Andrew M. and Malhotra, Neil and Pan, Jennifer and Barber\'. Reshares on Social Media Amplify Political News but Do Not Detectably Affect Beliefs or Opinions , journal =

  12. [20]

    Guo, Lei and McCombs, Maxwell , title =

  13. [21]

    Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation , volume =

    Hegselmann, Rainer and Krause, Ulrich , title =. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation , volume =

  14. [22]

    , title =

    McCombs, Maxwell E. , title =

  15. [23]

    and Shaw, Donald L

    McCombs, Maxwell E. and Shaw, Donald L. , title =. Public Opinion Quarterly , volume =

  16. [24]

    Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , volume =

    Meraz, Sharon , title =. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , volume =

  17. [25]

    , title =

    Napoli, Philip M. , title =

  18. [26]

    Like-Minded Sources on

    Nyhan, Brendan and Settle, Jaime and Thorson, Emily and Wojcieszak, Magdalena and Barber\'. Like-Minded Sources on. Nature , volume =

  19. [27]

    Ovadya, Aviv and Thorburn, Luke , title =

  20. [28]

    Pariser, Eli , title =

  21. [29]

    Prior, Markus , title =

  22. [30]

    and Reese, Stephen D

    Shoemaker, Pamela J. and Reese, Stephen D. , title =

  23. [31]

    1995 , note =

    Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deirdre , title =. 1995 , note =

    1995

  24. [32]

    Starr, Paul , title =

  25. [33]

    , title =

    Sunstein, Cass R. , title =

  26. [34]

    The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture , editor =

    Tooby, John and Cosmides, Leda , title =. The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture , editor =

  27. [35]

    and Guo, Lei and McCombs, Maxwell and Shaw, Donald L

    Vargo, Chris J. and Guo, Lei and McCombs, Maxwell and Shaw, Donald L. , title =. Journal of Communication , volume =

  28. [36]

    and Delli Carpini, Michael X

    Williams, Bruce A. and Delli Carpini, Michael X. , title =

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.