skip to main content
10.1145/3447535.3462491acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswebsciConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open access

Auditing Algorithmic Bias on Twitter

Published: 22 June 2021 Publication History

Abstract

Digital media platforms are reshaping our habits, how we access information, and how we interact with others. As a result, algorithms used by platforms, for example, to recommend content, play an increasingly important role in our access to information. Due to practical difficulties of accessing how platforms present content to their users, relatively little is known about how recommendation algorithms affect the information people receive. In this paper we implement a sock-puppet audit, a computational framework to audit black-box social media systems so as to quantify the impact of algorithmic curation on the information people see. We evaluate this framework by conducting a study on Twitter. We demonstrate that Twitter’s timeline curation algorithms skew the popularity and novelty of content people see and increase the inequality of their exposure to friends’ tweets. Our work provides evidence that algorithmic curation of content systematically distorts the information people see.

Supplementary Material

MP4 File (PS2.2_NathanBartley_AuditingAlgorithmicBias_on_Twitter_15_06_21.mp4)
Auditing Algorithmic Bias on Twitter

References

[1]
Andrés Abeliuk, Gerardo Berbeglia, Manuel Cebrian, and Pascal Van Hentenryck. 2015. The benefits of social influence in optimized cultural markets. PloS one 10, 4 (2015), e0121934.
[2]
Andrés Abeliuk, Gerardo Berbeglia, Pascal Van Hentenryck, Tad Hogg, and Kristina Lerman. 2017. Taming the unpredictability of cultural markets with social influence. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, 745–754.
[3]
Ricardo Baeza-Yates. 2018. Bias on the web. Commun. ACM 61, 6 (2018), 54–61.
[4]
Eytan Bakshy, Solomon Messing, and Lada A Adamic. 2015. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science 348, 6239 (2015), 1130–1132.
[5]
Jack Bandy and Nicholas Diakopoulos. 2020. Auditing news curation systems: A case study examining algorithmic and editorial logic in apple news. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Vol. 14. 36–47.
[6]
Michael A Beam. 2014. Automating the news: How personalized news recommender system design choices impact news reception. Communication Research 41, 8 (2014), 1019–1041.
[7]
Òscar Celma and Pedro Cano. 2008. From hits to niches? or how popular artists can bias music recommendation and discovery. In Proceedings of the 2nd KDD Workshop on Large-Scale Recommender Systems and the Netflix Prize Competition. 1–8.
[8]
Allison JB Chaney, Brandon M Stewart, and Barbara E Engelhardt. 2018. How algorithmic confounding in recommendation systems increases homogeneity and decreases utility. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. ACM, 224–232.
[9]
Wen Chen, Diogo Pacheco, Kai-Cheng Yang, and Filippo Menczer. 2020. Neutral Bots Reveal Political Bias on Social Media. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.08141(2020).
[10]
Sunshine Chong and Andrés Abeliuk. 2019. Quantifying the Effects of Recommendation Systems. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data). IEEE, 3008–3015.
[11]
Giovanni Luca Ciampaglia, Azadeh Nematzadeh, Filippo Menczer, and Alessandro Flammini. 2018. How algorithmic popularity bias hinders or promotes quality. Scientific reports 8, 1 (2018), 1–7.
[12]
The Economist. 2020. Twitter’s algorithm does not seem to silence conservatives. https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/08/01/twitters-algorithm-does-not-seem-to-silence-conservatives
[13]
Seth Flaxman, Sharad Goel, and Justin M Rao. 2016. Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public opinion quarterly 80, S1 (2016), 298–320.
[14]
Santo Fortunato, Alessandro Flammini, Filippo Menczer, and Alessandro Vespignani. 2006. Topical interests and the mitigation of search engine bias. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences 103, 34(2006), 12684–12689.
[15]
Eduardo Hargreaves, Claudio Agosti, Daniel Menasché, Giovanni Neglia, Alexandre Reiffers-Masson, and Eitan Altman. 2018. Biases in the facebook news feed: a case study on the italian elections. In 2018 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM). IEEE, 806–812.
[16]
Nathan O Hodas and Kristina Lerman. 2014. The simple rules of social contagion. Scientific reports 4(2014), 4343.
[17]
Adam Hughes and Stefan Wojcik. 2019 (accessed July 3, 2020). 10 facts about Americans and Twitter. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/02/10-facts-about-americans-andtwitter/
[18]
Dietmar Jannach, Lukas Lerche, Iman Kamehkhosh, and Michael Jugovac. 2015. What recommenders recommend: an analysis of recommendation biases and possible countermeasures. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 25, 5 (2015), 427–491.
[19]
Juhi Kulshrestha, Motahhare Eslami, Johnnatan Messias, Muhammad Bilal Zafar, Saptarshi Ghosh, Krishna P Gummadi, and Karrie Karahalios. 2017. Quantifying search bias: Investigating sources of bias for political searches in social media. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. 417–432.
[20]
Kristina Lerman and Tad Hogg. 2014. Leveraging position bias to improve peer recommendation. PloS one 9, 6 (2014), e98914.
[21]
Solomon Messing and Sean J Westwood. 2014. Selective exposure in the age of social media: Endorsements trump partisan source affiliation when selecting news online. Communication research 41, 8 (2014), 1042–1063.
[22]
Dimitar Nikolov, Mounia Lalmas, Alessandro Flammini, and Filippo Menczer. 2019. Quantifying biases in online information exposure. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 70, 3(2019), 218–229.
[23]
Yoon-Joo Park and Alexander Tuzhilin. 2008. The long tail of recommender systems and how to leverage it. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Recommender systems. 11–18.
[24]
Matjaž Perc. 2014. The Matthew effect in empirical data. Journal of The Royal Society Interface 11, 98 (2014), 20140378.
[25]
Ashwin Rao, Fred Morstatter, Minda Hu, Emily Chen, Keith Burghardt, Emilio Ferrara, and Kristina Lerman. 2020. Political Partisanship and Anti-Science Attitudes in Online Discussions about Covid-19. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.08498(2020).
[26]
Ronald E Robertson, Shan Jiang, Kenneth Joseph, Lisa Friedland, David Lazer, and Christo Wilson. 2018. Auditing partisan audience bias within google search. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2, CSCW(2018), 1–22.
[27]
Manuel Gomez Rodriguez, Krishna Gummadi, and Bernhard Schoelkopf. 2014. Quantifying information overload in social media and its impact on social contagions. In Eighth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media.
[28]
Matthew J Salganik, Peter Sheridan Dodds, and Duncan J Watts. 2006. Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market. Science 311, 5762 (2006), 854–856.
[29]
Christian Sandvig, Kevin Hamilton, Karrie Karahalios, and Cedric Langbort. 2014. Auditing algorithms: Research methods for detecting discrimination on internet platforms. Data and discrimination: converting critical concerns into productive inquiry 22(2014), 4349–4357.
[30]
Clay Shirky. 2011. The political power of social media: Technology, the public sphere, and political change. Foreign affairs (2011), 28–41.
[31]
Jessica Su, Aneesh Sharma, and Sharad Goel. 2016. The effect of recommendations on network structure. In Proceedings of the 25th international conference on World Wide Web. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, 1157–1167.
[32]
Twitter. 2020. About your Twitter timeline. https://help.twitter.com/en/using-twitter/twitter-timeline
[33]
Siqi Wu, Marian-Andrei Rizoiu, and Lexing Xie. 2020. Variation across Scales: Measurement Fidelity under Twitter Data Sampling. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Vol. 14. 715–725.
[34]
JungAe Yang. 2016. Effects of popularity-based news recommendations (“most-viewed”) on users’ exposure to online news. Media Psychology 19, 2 (2016), 243–271.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Law and the Emerging Political Economy of Algorithmic AuditsThe 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency10.1145/3630106.3658970(1255-1267)Online publication date: 5-Jun-2024
  • (2024)Mapping the Design Space of Teachable Social Media Feed ExperiencesProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642120(1-20)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
  • (2024)Ethics-based AI auditingInformation and Management10.1016/j.im.2024.10396961:5Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
WebSci '21: Proceedings of the 13th ACM Web Science Conference 2021
June 2021
328 pages
ISBN:9781450383301
DOI:10.1145/3447535
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike International 4.0 License.

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 22 June 2021

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. algorithmic bias
  2. black-box recommender systems
  3. social networks

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Funding Sources

  • AFOSR
  • DARPA

Conference

WebSci '21
Sponsor:
WebSci '21: WebSci '21 13th ACM Web Science Conference 2021
June 21 - 25, 2021
Virtual Event, United Kingdom

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 245 of 933 submissions, 26%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)1,072
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)134
Reflects downloads up to 23 Sep 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Law and the Emerging Political Economy of Algorithmic AuditsThe 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency10.1145/3630106.3658970(1255-1267)Online publication date: 5-Jun-2024
  • (2024)Mapping the Design Space of Teachable Social Media Feed ExperiencesProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642120(1-20)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
  • (2024)Ethics-based AI auditingInformation and Management10.1016/j.im.2024.10396961:5Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
  • (2024)AI-based prediction of academic success: support for many, disadvantage for some?Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100303(100303)Online publication date: Sep-2024
  • (2024)Auditing the audits: evaluating methodologies for social media recommender system auditsApplied Network Science10.1007/s41109-024-00668-69:1Online publication date: 16-Sep-2024
  • (2024)Algorithmic Amplification of Politics and Engagement Maximization on Social MediaComplex Networks & Their Applications XII10.1007/978-3-031-53503-1_11(131-142)Online publication date: 29-Feb-2024
  • (2024) What's in your PIE ? Understanding the contents of personalized information environments with PIEGraph Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology10.1002/asi.2486975:10(1119-1133)Online publication date: 12-Jan-2024
  • (2023)Building Support Through the Personalization of Twitter Messages in a Permanent CampaignAmerican Politics Research10.1177/1532673X23118443451:5(570-587)Online publication date: 16-Jun-2023
  • (2023)Marginalization and the Construction of Mental Illness Narratives Online: Foregrounding Institutions in Technology-Mediated CareProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36101957:CSCW2(1-30)Online publication date: 4-Oct-2023
  • (2023)Having your Privacy Cake and Eating it Too: Platform-supported Auditing of Social Media Algorithms for Public InterestProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/35796107:CSCW1(1-33)Online publication date: 16-Apr-2023
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Get Access

Login options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media