Ranking for engagement: How social media algorithms fuel misinformation and polarization
Open accessAbstract
Social media are at the center of countless debates on polarization, misinformation, and even the state of democracy in various parts of the world. An essential feature of social media is their recommendation algorithm that determines the ranking of content presented to the users. This paper investigates the dynamic feedback loop between recommendation algorithms and user behavior, and develops a theoretical framework to assess the impact of popularity-based parameters on platform engagement, misinformation, and polarization. The model uncovers a fundamental trade-off: assigning greater weight to online social interactions—such as likes and shares—increases user engagement but also increases misinformation ( crowding-out the truth ) and polarization. Building on this insight, the analysis considers how a simple “engagement tax” on social interactions can mitigate these negative externalities by altering platform incentives in the design of profit-maximizing algorithms. The framework is extended to include personalized rankings, demonstrating that personalization further amplifies polarization. Finally, empirical evidence from survey data in Italy and the United States indicates that Facebook’s 2018 “Meaningful Social Interactions” update—which increased the emphasis on certain engagement metrics—contributed to increased ideological extremism and affective polarization.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The spread of true and false news online
Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aap9559 · Cited by 8,847 · see citing works
The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States
Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034 · Cited by 3,317 · see citing works
Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook
Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. A. (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aaa1160 · Cited by 3,245 · see citing works
Filter Bubbles, Echo Chambers, and Online News Consumption
Flaxman, S., Goel, S., & Rao, J. M. (2016) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfw006 · Cited by 1,992 · see citing works
Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 U.S. presidential election
Grinberg, N., Joseph, K., Friedland, L., Swire-Thompson, B., & Lazer, D. (2019) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aau2706 · Cited by 1,803 · see citing works
What Drives Media Slant? Evidence From U.S. Daily Newspapers
Gentzkow, M. A., & Shapiro, J. M. (2010) · Econometrica · doi:10.3982/ecta7195 · Cited by 1,559 · see citing works
Mullainathan, S., & Shleifer, A. (2005) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/0002828054825619 · Cited by 1,236 · see citing works
In Google We Trust: Users’ Decisions on Rank, Position, and Relevance
Pan, B., Hembrooke, H., Joachims, T., Lorigo, L., Gay, G., & Granka, L. (2007) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00351.x · Cited by 715 · see citing works
Social Media, News Consumption, and Polarization: Evidence from a Field Experiment
Levy, R. (2021) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.20191777 · Cited by 624 · see citing works
Affective Polarization in Multiparty Systems
Wagner, M. (2021) · Electoral Studies · doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2020.102199 · Cited by 593 · see citing works
The search engine manipulation effect (SEME) and its possible impact on the outcomes of elections
Epstein, R., & Robertson, R. E. (2015) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1419828112 · Cited by 578 · see citing works
Fanning the Flames of Hate: Social Media and Hate Crime
Müller, K., & Schwarz, C. (2021) · Journal of the European Economic Association · doi:10.1093/jeea/jvaa045 · Cited by 448 · see citing works
How do social media feed algorithms affect attitudes and behavior in an election campaign?
Guess, A. M., Malhotra, N., Pan, J., Barberá, P., Allcott, H., Brown, T., Crespo-Tenorio, A., Dimmery, D., Freelon, D., Gentzkow, M., et al. (2023) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abp9364 · Cited by 363 · see citing works
Galasso, V., & Nannicini, T. (2011) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055410000535 · Cited by 347 · see citing works
Overconfidence in Political Behavior
Ortoleva, P., & Snowberg, E. (2015) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.20130921 · Cited by 346 · see citing works
Political polarization and the electoral effects of media bias
Bernhardt, D., Krasa, S., & Polborn, M. K. (2008) · Journal of Public Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2008.01.006 · Cited by 327 · see citing works
Asymmetric ideological segregation in exposure to political news on Facebook
González-Bailón, S., Lazer, D., Barberá, P., Zhang, M., Allcott, H., Brown, T., Crespo-Tenorio, A., Freelon, D., Gentzkow, M., Guess, A. M., et al. (2023) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.ade7138 · Cited by 315 · see citing works
Allcott, H., Gentzkow, M. A., & Song, L. (2022) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.20210867 · Cited by 243 · see citing works
Reshares on social media amplify political news but do not detectably affect beliefs or opinions
Guess, A. M., Malhotra, N., Pan, J., Barberá, P., Allcott, H., Brown, T., Crespo-Tenorio, A., Dimmery, D., Freelon, D., Gentzkow, M., et al. (2023) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.add8424 · Cited by 184 · see citing works
Party System Compactness: Measurement and Consequences
Alvarez, R. M., & Nagler, J. (2004) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mph003 · Cited by 172 · see citing works
Mosleh, M., Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2020) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0228882 · Cited by 172 · see citing works
Why Are “Others” So Polarized? Perceived Political Polarization and Media Use in 10 Countries
Yang, J., Rojas, H., Wojcieszak, M., Aalberg, T., Coen, S., Curran, J., Hayashi, K., Iyengar, S., Jones, P. K., Mazzoleni, G., et al. (2016) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/jcc4.12166 · Cited by 155 · see citing works
Random Choice as Behavioral Optimization
Gül, F., Natenzon, P., & Pesendorfer, W. (2014) · Econometrica · doi:10.3982/ecta10621 · Cited by 148 · see citing works
Hopp, T., Ferrucci, P., & Vargo, C. J. (2020) · Human Communication Research · doi:10.1093/hcr/hqz022 · Cited by 115 · see citing works
Is mandatory voting better than voluntary voting?
Krasa, S., & Polborn, M. K. (2008) · Games and Economic Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.geb.2008.05.004 · Cited by 115 · see citing works
The Effect of Social Media on Elections: Evidence from The United States
Fujiwara, T., Müller, K., & Schwarz, C. R. (2023) · Journal of the European Economic Association · doi:10.1093/jeea/jvad058 · Cited by 97 · see citing works
Gentzkow, M. A., Shapiro, J. M., & Stone, D. F. (2015) · Handbook of media economics · doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-63685-0.00014-0 · Cited by 93 · see citing works
A model of online misinformation
Acemoglu, D., Ozdaglar, A., & Siderius, J. (2024) · Review of Economic Studies · doi:10.1093/restud/rdad111 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
Aridor, G., Jiménez-Durán, R., Levy, R., & Song, L. (2024) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.20241743 · Cited by 75 · see citing works
Overcoming Ideological Bias in Elections
Krishna, V., & Morgan, J. M. (2011) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/660731 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Partisan Selective Engagement: Evidence from Facebook
Garz, M., Sörensen, J., & Stone, D. F. (2019) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2020.06.016 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Belief Dynamics and Biases in Web Search
White, R. W., & Horvitz, E. (2015) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/2746229 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Content moderation and advertising in social media platforms
Madio, L., & Quinn, M. (2024) · Journal of Economics & Management Strategy · doi:10.1111/jems.12602 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
The Impact of Consumer Multi-homing on Advertising Markets and Media Competition
Athey, S. C., Calvano, E., & Gans, J. S. (2016) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2016.2675 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Humans and algorithms work together — so study them together
Matias, J. N. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-023-01521-z · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Citizen-editors' endogenous information acquisition and news accuracy
Sobbrio, F. (2014) · Journal of Public Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2014.03.007 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Self-citationHow Does Ranking Affect User Choice in Online Search?
Glick, M. A., Richards, G., Sapozhnikov, M., & Seabright, P. (2014) · Review of Industrial Organization · doi:10.1007/s11151-014-9435-y · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Bartels, L. M. (2016) · The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science · doi:10.1177/0002716216661145 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Social media feedback and extreme opinion expression
Konovalova, E., Mens, G. L., & Schoell, N. (2023) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0293805 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Opinion dynamics via search engines (and other algorithmic gatekeepers)
Germano, F., & Sobbrio, F. (2020) · Journal of Public Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104188 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Self-citationA Game-Theoretic Model of Misinformation Spread on Social Networks
Hsu, C.-C., Ajorlou, A., & Jadbabaie, A. (2024) · Games and Economic Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.geb.2025.07.007 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Misinformation as strategy: Epistemic consequences and the undermining of shared truth
Ecker, U. K. H., Spearing, E. R., DiResta, R., & Lewandowsky, S. (2026) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2026.06.009 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
This Is The World (Recommender Systems Made It For You)
Ungruh, R., & Pera, M. S. (2026) · ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP) · doi:10.1145/3774935.3806148 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
D'Ignazi, J., Fraxanet, E., Kaltenbrunner, A., Mens, G. L., Germano, F., & Gómez, V. (2026) · ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) · doi:10.1145/3770855.3818037 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Self-citationChen, Y. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.6369178
Erfolgreich verkaufen über Social Media
Jahnecke, D., Kern, M. (. D. )., & Dittes, S. (2026) · HMD Praxis der Wirtschaftsinformatik · doi:10.1365/s40702-026-01272-1
Cardoso, P. M. C., Oliveira, R. S., Gomes, T. F. N., Bastos, E. S., & Lopes, S. F. S. F. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-7660-8.ch015
Dijital Etkileşim Kültürünün Duygusal Dönüşümü: Tık Tuzağından Öfke Tuzağına Kavramsal Bir Tartışma
Çelebi, E. (2026) · Medya ve Kültür · doi:10.60077/medkul.1948262
Kırmızısakal, K. (2026) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-9008-6.ch011
Political accountability in press conferences and social media
Hernández, J. A. L., & Rocci, A. (2026) · Journal of Argumentation in Context · doi:10.1075/jaic.26011.her
Lu, Y., & Zhou, Y. (2026) · SHS Web of Conferences · doi:10.1051/shsconf/202623603007
Gao, Q., & Ziqi, F. E. N. G. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10704845/v1
Cai, L., & Feng, J. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7391541
Hafifuddin, H., Sumarwan, U., & Pasaribu, P. N. (2026) · Sharia Economic and Management Business Journal (SEMBJ) · doi:10.62159/sembj.v7i2.2270
The North Star Imperative: Optimizing for Long-term Wellbeing for All
Howard, C. (2026) · Conference on Artificial Life (ALIFE) · doi:10.1162/isal.a.934
Can AI-Driven News Translation Europeanise the Public Sphere?
Kermer, J. E., & Bleyer-Simon, K. (2026) · Journalism Practice · doi:10.1080/17512786.2026.2733454
Digital Misinformation and the Crisis of Conscience Formation
Ramos, J., Cruess, S. M., & Holt, J. (2026) · The Linacre Quarterly · doi:10.1177/00243639261487051
Introduction: Celebrity Populism and the Crisis of Liberal Democracy
Grbeša, M., Vuković, S., & Šalaj, B. (2026) · Political campaigning and communication · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-36583-5_1
Kristianto, A. B., & Zulaikha, Z. (2026) · Journal of Communication Research · doi:10.61105/jcr.v2i2.488
Knox, J. (2026) · Journalism and Media · doi:10.3390/journalmedia7040227
- Authors
- Germano, F., Gómez, V., & Sobbrio, F.
- Affiliations
- Universitat Pompeu Fabra (ES)
- University of Rome Tor Vergata (IT)
- Corresponding author
- Sobbrio, Francesco
- Venue
- Journal of Public Economics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2026-03
- Volume
- 255
- Pages
- 105589
- ISSN
- 0047-2727 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W7128793951
- Cited by
- 14
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14
- FWCI
- 162.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Public Economics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
- Keywords
- content ranking, misinformation, political polarization, user engagement, personalized ranking, platform incentives, externalities, ideological extremism, affective polarization, democratic backsliding
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
