Social media algorithms shape the beliefs people form
www.mpg.de
The content people see on social media is typically determined by an algorithm. Researchers from the University of Copenhagen, the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, and TU Dresden have now demonstrated in a controlled experiment involving approximately 1,500 participants that simple changes to how posts are sampled and ranked can affect the beliefs people form. The study suggests that alternative approaches to algorithmic content curation along with prosocial platform design may promote consensus and belief accuracy.

cross-posted from: https://piefed.world/c/tech/p/1305963/social-media-algorithms-shape-the-beliefs-people-form-even-small-changes-to-content-cura

Research Paper.

  • Algorithms shape the beliefs people form: Simple changes to content curation algorithms can affect beliefs, consensus, and belief accuracy.
  • Personalized engagement-based ranking can be problematic: Although users perceive these feeds positively, they tend to lead to less consensus and less accurate beliefs.
  • Consensus is possible: Bridging-based ranking can help promote consensus by surfacing content that receives approval across different groups.
  • Belief accuracy can be improved: Intelligence-based ranking can promote more accurate collective and individual judgments.
  • Small algorithmic changes can have large effects: Simple changes to how posts are sampled and ranked can substantially influence the beliefs people form.
  • PierceTheBubble@lemmy.mlEnglish
    2·
    6 hours ago

    lead people to form erroneous beliefs … whether they promote consensus or belief accuracy … more polarized and less accurate beliefs … help users find more mutual understanding on these platforms … content that receives approval across different groups is promoted … bridge divides and encourage positive interactions across diverse audiences … bridging-based ranking can promote consensus … elicit belief updates that benefit collective accuracy … improve both collective accuracy and average individual accuracy … aligning them more closely with socially desirable goals

    I don’t know what’s creepier: a polarized society but with a more diverse view on topics, or a cohesive society with an eerily uniform view instead. Polarization is problematic, but so is thought-policing. I would argue feeds shouldn’t be algorithmically determined, but composed of content by channels the user has explicitly chosen to subscribe to; and a separate explore feature for interest-based suggestions, without creepy “this is what most people agree with, and so should you” course-correction measures.

  • Sims@lemmy.mlEnglish
    112·
    1 day ago

    This is just one of the many ways the US Epstein class manipulates ordinary people to believe all their lies about other nations and their leaders/systems. It’s coordinated and a part of the ‘Manufacturing Consent’ campaign that makes people very angry at the societal systems and nation enemies of the Epstein class, and allow them to attack Iran, China, Venezuela etc, and yes, Russia !

    The censorship and manipulation on US/western media (social or msm) are sick ! Even here on Lemmy, propagandized people keep posting elite controlled western media articles and their deliberate misinformation.

      • YappyMonotheist@lemmy.worldEnglish
        12·
        1 day ago

        Yeah, that’s why the West, spearheaded as usual by the US, sorta colonized Ukraine and made it their new FOB against Russia, because both governments are in bed with each other, lol. If you’re saying that Russia also uses disinfo, propaganda and social media for their own goals, sure, but they’re not the same and they’re certainly not as damaging (Nazi/white supremacy apology/Zionism is Western stuff, for example).

    • Auth@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      1 day ago

      The other side of that coin is just another nations Epstein class manipulating ordinary people.

    • EliteCloneMike@lemmy.zipEnglish
      3·
      1 day ago

      For the betterment of the shareholders. :/

      Edit: But seriously, what do they mean by “better”? Maybe there was potential and still is to educate people and improve critical thinking skills to assess what they are being fed instead of blindly trusting algorithmic output. Thats more of a fundamental issue than the algorithms though.