The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 13 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Auditing radicalization pathways on YouTube
Open accessAbstract
Non-profits, as well as the media, have hypothesized the existence of a radicalization pipeline on YouTube, claiming that users systematically progress towards more extreme content on the platform. Yet, there is to date no substantial quantitative evidence of this alleged pipeline. To close this gap, we conduct a large-scale audit of user radicalization on YouTube. We analyze 330,925 videos posted on 349 channels, which we broadly classified into four types: Media, the Alt-lite, the Intellectual Dark Web (I.D.W.), and the Alt-right. According to the aforementioned radicalization hypothesis, channels in the I.D.W. and the Alt-lite serve as gateways to fringe far-right ideology, here represented by Alt-right channels. Processing 72M+ comments, we show that the three channel types indeed increasingly share the same user base; that users consistently migrate from milder to more extreme content; and that a large percentage of users who consume Alt-right content now consumed Alt-lite and I.D.W. content in the past. We also probe YouTube's recommendation algorithm, looking at more than 2M video and channel recommendations between May/July 2019. We find that Alt-lite content is easily reachable from I.D.W. channels, while Alt-right videos are reachable only through channel recommendations. Overall, we paint a comprehensive picture of user radicalization on YouTube.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This paper audits whether YouTube users radicalize across I.D.W., Alt-lite, and Alt-right channels, using 330,925 videos from 349 channels and 72M+ comments. It finds that the three communities increasingly share commenters, that users migrate from milder to more extreme content, and that Alt-right channels are reachable through YouTube’s channel recommendations even without personalization.
Key findings
- The commenting user bases of the I.D.W., Alt-lite, and Alt-right increasingly overlap: in 2018, the Jaccard similarity between Alt-lite and I.D.W. reached almost 30%, and the Overlap Coefficient of Alt-right with Alt-lite and I.D.W. reached around 50%, meaning about half of users who commented on Alt-right channels also commented in the other communities.
- Users systematically migrate toward more extreme content: among users who in 2006–2012 commented only on I.D.W. or Alt-lite content (227,945 users), by 2018 around 10% were lightly exposed to Alt-right content and roughly 4% were mildly or severely exposed, about 9K users total; among those who in 2017 commented only on Alt-lite or I.D.W. videos (1,251,674 users), approximately 12% were exposed, more than 60K users.
- In 2018, roughly 40% of Alt-right commenting users could be traced back to cohorts that had commented only on Alt-lite or I.D.W. videos in the past; media-channel users never surpassed 6% for any exposure level. For light exposure in 2018, 23.3% traced back to prior Alt-lite-only commenters versus 7.6% to prior I.D.W.-only commenters.
- Recommendation simulations show Alt-lite content is easily reachable from I.D.W. channels, while Alt-right videos are reachable only through channel recommendations: channel reachability@5 for Alt-right was about 4% from Alt-lite and 1.5% from I.D.W.; starting from I.D.W., there was about a 10% chance of being in an Alt-lite channel at the next step and 25% chance of having found at least one Alt-lite channel in 5 steps. Video recommendations made Alt-right much less reachable, with reachability@5 around 0.05% from Alt-lite.
Methods
- Large-scale audit of YouTube channels classified into Media, Alt-lite, I.D.W., and Alt-right. Data collection used seed channels, keywords, and iterative featured/related-channel expansion; two authors manually annotated channels over 3 weeks with interannotator agreement of 75.57% (95% CI [67.5, 82.5]), yielding 85 I.D.W., 112 Alt-lite, 84 Alt-right, and 68 media channels.
- Dataset: 349 channels, 330,925 videos, 72,069,878 comments, 5,980,709 commenting users, 2,474,044 video recommendations, and 14,283 channel recommendations. Data collection occurred 19–30 May 2019, with recommendations collected May–July 2019 using crawlers, 22 channel-recommendation rounds, 19 video-recommendation rounds, VPNs from 7 locations, random channel visit order, and no logged-in personalization.
- Analyses included Jaccard and Overlap Coefficient set similarities across commenting-user sets, cohort tracking of users who commented only on milder communities and later commented on Alt-right videos, and random-walk simulations on weighted recommendation graphs (10K runs, 5 steps) to measure probability and reachability.
Limitations
- The paper states that it cannot obtain the entire history of YouTube recommendations, so algorithmic analyses are limited to a time slice of a constantly changing black box; it also cannot fully tease apart the algorithm’s influence in earlier periods, and the recommendation analysis does not account for personalization.
- The paper states that it provides little insight into why radicalization pipelines exist, and that its focus is on basic statistics and user trajectories rather than tracing the evolution of speech or narratives over time.
- The paper states that its radicalization findings rely on the assumptions that commenting users are a good enough proxy for radicalization and that comments are supportive of the videos they accompany; it supports these assumptions with a manual check of 900 randomly selected comments, finding only 5 that could be interpreted as criticisms, and with higher like proportions for the communities of interest (>91% mean, >96% median) than for media channels (85% mean, 93% median). Evident from the text: channel labeling is fuzzy and conservative, and the video-recommendation simulation is less realistic because it ignores untracked videos.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 of 13 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This effect is much stronger than for the large traditional and alternative media channels we collected (Sec. 6).”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and that Alt-right channels may be reached from the two other communities (Sec. 7).”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, in 2018, there is a sharp growth in the similarity with media channels.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“as we can see that the communities of interest have many more highly active commenters.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, comments per view seem to be particularly high in more extreme content, reaching near to 1 comment for every 5 views in Alt-right channels in 2018 (Sec. 4).”
- Also stated in: § 4 THE RISE OF CONTRARIANS · p. 5 · plain
“Notably, Alt-right channels have, since 2017, become the ones with the highest number of comments per view, with nearly 1 comment per 5 views by 2018.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Also stated in: § 4 THE RISE OF CONTRARIANS · p. 5 · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We find that Alt-lite content is easily reachable from I.D.W. channels”
- Also stated in: § 1 INTRODUCTION · p. 2 · plain
“Our analyses show that, particularly through the channel recommender system, Alt-lite channels are easily discovered from I.D.W. channels”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Also stated in: § 1 INTRODUCTION · p. 2 · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Processing 72M+ comments, we show that the three channel types indeed increasingly share the same user base”
- Also stated in: § 1 INTRODUCTION · p. 2 · plain
“We inspect the intersection of commenting users across the communities, finding they increasingly share the same user base.”
- Also stated in: § 5 USER INTERSECTION · p. 6 · plain
“We again see that their users are more engaged, and, notably, find that the I.D.W, the Alt-lite, and the Alt-right increasingly share the same commenting user base.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Also stated in: § 1 INTRODUCTION · p. 2 · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“that users consistently migrate from milder to more extreme content”
- Also stated in: § 1 INTRODUCTION · p. 2 · plain
“We also find that the intersection is not only growing due to new users but that there is significant user migration among the communities being studied.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Also stated in: § 1 INTRODUCTION · p. 2 · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These users are a significant fraction of the Alt-right commenting user base.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“while Alt-right videos are reachable only through channel recommendations.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
- It may state two separate claims as one. 27
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
- Probably not a substantial claim. 15
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most of the initial videos in the channel are about working out or video-games, with politics related videos becoming increasingly occurring.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, for media channels, we find that the Jaccard similarity is plateauing since 2014 and that the overlap coefficient only recently started to grow”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“while media and Alt-lite channels had published nearly 40% of their content, the Alt-right had published a bit more than 20%.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Notably, in 2018, the Jaccard Similarity between the Alt-lite and the I.D.W. reached almost 30%, which is more than the self-similarity between the two communities.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Alt-lite and I.D.W. channels recommend channels from the same community around 50% of the time, and recommend each other around 14% (Alt-L to I.D.W.) and 23% (I.D.W. to Alt-L) of the time.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We show that this migration phenomenon is not only consistent throughout the years, but also that it is significant in its absolute quantity.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Commenting users are a good enough proxy for radicalization.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Comments in YouTube channels are supportive of the videos they are associated with.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Less than 1% of users in media channels were mildly or severely exposed, against 3% to 4% for Alt-lite or I.D.W. users, and roughly 4% were lightly exposed versus approximately 8% for Alt-lite or I.D.W users.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So, while in 2018, 23 . 3% of users who were lightly exposed can be traced back to users who commented on Alt-lite channels in previous years, only 7 . 6% can be traced back to I.D.W. channels.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“More relevant, though, starting from media channels, the reachability@5 of I.D.W. and Alt-lite channels is of around 4 . 5% and 1 . 5% respectively.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This number is much more expressive than the number of users which came from media channels - in the last row - which never surpasses 6% for any level of exposure.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“here we see that users who initially commented only on I.D.W. channels constitute a much less significant percentage of the Alt-right consumer base in upcoming years.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Less than 1% of users in media channels were mildly or severely exposed, against 3% to 4% for Alt-lite or I.D.W. users, and roughly 4% were lightly exposed versus approximately 8% for Alt-lite or I.D.W users.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For channel recommendations, we have that the reachability@5 of Alt-right channels is of approximately 4% for the simulations starting from Alt-lite 1 . 5% for I.D.W. channels.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For users who were tracked in 2006 -2012, around 15% were exposed in both scenarios, while for those tracked in 2017, this difference grew farther apart ( ∼ 12% Alt-lite vs. ∼ 6% I.D.W.).”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For all levels of exposure, at all times, the number of exposed users that can be traced back to commenting exclusively on I.D.W. channels is around 3 times lower.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When teasing apart users that commented only on Alt-lite or only on I.D.W. content, we find that, not only users who commented only on I.D.W. get less exposed, but increasingly less so.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Starting from the media channels, reachability@5 of I.D.W. channels is of 2 . 5%, and of slightly less than 1% for Alt-lite channels.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This phenomenon is significant both in terms of the percentage of the users tracked - as in Fig. 3 - and in terms of the total Alt-right commenting user base - as in Fig. 4.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, we note that the proportion of likes for the communities of interest is higher for the communities of interest ( > 91% mean, > 96% median) than for the media channels (85% mean, 93% median), which suggests the people interacting with the three communities agree with their videos.”
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Commenting users are a good enough proxy for radicalization.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Comments in YouTube channels are supportive of the videos they are associated with.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“From these two communities, it is possible to find Alt-right content from recommended channels, but not from recommended videos.”
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To address this problem, in this paper we take a conservative approach to our labeling, naming only the most extreme content creators as Alt-right.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Each seed was independently annotated two times and discarded in case there was any disagreement.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The annotation process lasted for 3 weeks. In case they disagreed, they had to discuss the cases individually until a conclusion was reached.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although comments may give us insight into the past, it is challenging to tease apart the influence of the algorithm in previous times.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Notice that we do not have the user's entire activity history, and thus, we track their activity only in the channels whose videos we collected.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and thus it is hard to tell whether their users are less engaged.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, channels were always visited in random order, to prevent any biases from arising from session-based recommendations.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To circumvent possible location bias in the data we collected we used VPNs from 7 different locations: 3 in the USA, 2 in Canada, 1 in Switzerland and 1 in Brazil.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the video recommender system, Alt-right channels are less recommended, but finding Alt-lite channels from the I.D.W. and I.D.W. channels from the large media channels in the media group is also feasible.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This process may also be amplified when taking personalization into account.”
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, we find that, in the channel recommender system, it is easy to navigate from the I.D.W. to the Alt-lite (and vice-versa), and it is possible to find Alt-right channels.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“We argue that this finding provides significant evidence that there has been, and there continues to be, user radicalization on YouTube, and our analyses of the activity of these communities (Sec. 4) is consistent with the theory that more extreme content 'piggybacked' on the surge in popularity of I.D.W. and Alt-lite content [30].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [30] [30] Angela Nagle. 2017. Kill All Normies: Online Culture Wars From 4Chan And Tumblr To Trump And The Alt-Right . -
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Commenting users are a good enough proxy for radicalization.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Comments in YouTube channels are supportive of the videos they are associated with.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, it does not give insight into how expressive the effect is in terms of what part of the Alt-right user base has gone through it.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unfortunately, we have only a snapshot of the recommender system which does not take into account personalization. Thus, it is hard to reach significant conclusions on what was the role of the recommender system in the radicalization process we depicted in Sec. 6.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The previous study suggests that the pipeline effect does exist, and that indeed, users systematically go from milder communities to the Alt-right.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is, to our best knowledge, the first large scale quantitative audit of user radicalization on YouTube.”
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: There is to date no substantial quantitative evidence of the alleged radicalization pipeline on YouTube.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Since the channel is small, removing it has no noticeable impact on the results presented in this paper.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: The removed channel 'theglassblindspot' is small.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although we argue this is strong evidence for the existence of radicalization pathways on YouTube, our work provides little insight on why these radicalization pipelines exist.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Commenting users are a good enough proxy for radicalization.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Comments in YouTube channels are supportive of the videos they are associated with.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Notice that the scenario for the channels is more realistic, and we give more weight to the conclusions drawn there.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Noticeably, our analysis has several shortcomings which do not allow us to make bold claims about this research question. Firstly, we are able to look only at a tiny fraction of actual recommendations - it could very well be that Alt-right content was being more widely promoted in the past. Secondly, our analysis does not take into account personalization, which could reveal a completely different”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
There is to date no substantial quantitative evidence of the alleged radicalization pipeline on YouTube.
“Yet, there is to date no substantial quantitative evidence of this alleged pipeline.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Commenting users are a good enough proxy for radicalization.
“Noticeably, the findings related to this research question make the implicit assumption that commenting users are a good enough proxy for radicalization, and that comments in YouTube channels are supportive of the videos they are associated with.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Comments in YouTube channels are supportive of the videos they are associated with.
“Noticeably, the findings related to this research question make the implicit assumption that commenting users are a good enough proxy for radicalization, and that comments in YouTube channels are supportive of the videos they are associated with.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The removed channel 'theglassblindspot' is small.
“Since the channel is small”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Such path dependencies may have transformative effects, changing the preferences and values of the users themselves and leading to radicalization”
From Stewardship of global collective behavior (2021) · cites this paper as [128]
In the citing paper
“Despite the opacity, research has revealed how algorithms lead users to radical or age-inappropriate content (128, 164), exacerbate disparities in health (123), and increase bias in policing (124).”
From Stewardship of global collective behavior (2021) · cites this paper as [128]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Alt-right channel-recommendation row exceeds 100%
MinorThe five channel-recommendation percentages in the Alt-R row of Table 3 sum to 116.83%, although they describe the distribution of outgoing recommendations among destinations. The corresponding video-recommendation percentages sum to 100%.
Reported 100 · recomputed 116.83
“| Alt-R | 25.73/ 1.89 | 42.94/ 1.15 | 25.73/ 8.55 | 1.35/ 3.38 | 21.08/ 85.03 |”
Alt-lite-to-Alt-right recommendation percentage differs from Table 3
MinorThe text gives 3.08% for Alt-lite channel recommendations to Alt-right channels, while Table 3 gives 3.38% for that source and destination.
“Alt-right channels are only recommended by Alt-lite channels (3 . 08%).”
“| Alt-L | 13.69/ 2.46 | 55.15/ 12.70 | 3.38/ 0.13 | 2.82/ 3.24 | 24.96/ 81.47 |”
Video-recommendation reachability contradicts the claim that it is impossible
MinorThe abstract says Alt-right videos are reachable only through channel recommendations, but Section 7 reports nonzero Alt-right reachability through video recommendations from Alt-lite.
“Alt-right videos are reachable only through channel recommendations.”
“For video recommendations, reaching Alt-right channels from other communities is less likely. From the Alt-lite, reachability@5 is of around 0 . 05%.”
Reverse Alt-right-to-Alt-lite percentage is incorrect
MinorIn Table 6, 2,962 infected users out of 5,691 tracked users is approximately 52.05%, not 525%.
Reported 525 · recomputed 52.047092
“| | | 2017 | 2962 | 5691 | 0.64% | 525% |”
Citations
Cites
Deep Neural Networks for YouTube Recommendations
Covington, P., Adams, J., & Sargin, E. (2016) · Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems · doi:10.1145/2959100.2959190 · Cited by 3,539
The YouTube video recommendation system
Davidson, J., Liebald, B., Liu, J., Nandy, P., Vleet, T. V., Gargi, U., Gupta, S. K., He, Y. H., Lambert, M., Livingston, B., et al. (2010) · ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys) · doi:10.1145/1864708.1864770 · Cited by 1,282
Mechanisms of Political Radicalization: Pathways Toward Terrorism
McCauley, C. R., & Moskalenko, S. (2008) · Terrorism and Political Violence · doi:10.1080/09546550802073367 · Cited by 1,222
(2018) · Cited by 900
Digital Discrimination: The Case of Airbnb.com
Edelman, B. G., & Luca, M. (2014) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2377353 · Cited by 471
Measuring price discrimination and steering on e-commerce web sites
Hannak, A., Soeller, G., Lazer, D., Mislove, A., & Wilson, C. (2014) · Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Internet Measurement Conference · doi:10.1145/2663716.2663744 · Cited by 405 · cited 1×
“Previous large scale algorithmic auditing include measuring discrimination on AirBnB [14], personalization onweb search [19] and price discrimination on e-commerce web sites [20].”
BackgroundMeasuring personalization of web search
Hannak, A., Sapiezynski, P., Molavi Kakhki, A., Krishnamurthy, B., Lazer, D., Mislove, A., & Wilson, C. (2013) · Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on World Wide Web · doi:10.1145/2488388.2488435 · Cited by 396
Kill All Normies: Online Culture Wars from 4chan and Tumblr to Trump and the Alt-Right
Nagle, A. (2017) · Cited by 306
Alternative Influence: Broadcasting the Reactionary Right on YouTube
Lewis, R. A. (2018) · doi:10.69985/snfr4363 · Cited by 303
On the Origins of Memes by Means of Fringe Web Communities
Zannettou, S., Caulfield, T., Blackburn, J., Cristofaro, E. D., Sirivianos, M., Stringhini, G., & Suárez‐Tangil, G. (2018) · ACM Internet Measurement Conference (IMC) · doi:10.1145/3278532.3278550 · Cited by 296
Flagged first, then by citations
1 of the 23 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Mathew Ingram . 2018. Most Americans say they have lost trust in the media. Columbia Journalism Review ( 2018 ). https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/trust-in-media-down.php Mathew Ingram. 2018. Most Americans say they have lost trust in the media. Columbia Journalism Review (2018). https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/trust-in-media-down.php
- Brendan Joel Kelly . 2017 . Lauren Southern: The alt-right's Canadian dog whistler. https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/11/07/lauren-southern-alt-right%E2%80%99s-canadian-dog-whistler Brendan Joel Kelly. 2017. Lauren Southern: The alt-right's Canadian dog whistler. https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/11/07/lauren-southern-alt-right%E2%80%99s-canadian-dog-whistler
- Max Kutner . 2016. Roosh V's journey from pickup artist to right-wing provocateur. Newsweek ( 2016 ). https://www.newsweek.com/2016/10/21/roosh-v-pickup-artist-right-wing-provocateur-509319.html Max Kutner. 2016. Roosh V's journey from pickup artist to right-wing provocateur. Newsweek (2016). https://www.newsweek.com/2016/10/21/roosh-v-pickup-artist-right-wing-provocateur-509319.html
- Newman Nic , Richard Fletcher , Antonis Kalogeropoulos , David AL Levy, and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen . 2018 . Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2018. Technical Report. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Newman Nic, Richard Fletcher, Antonis Kalogeropoulos, David AL Levy, and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen. 2018. Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2018. Technical Report. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A systematic review of worldwide causal and correlational evidence on digital media and democracy
Lorenz-Spreen, P., Oswald, L., Lewandowsky, S., & Hertwig, R. (2022) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-022-01460-1 · Cited by 348
Stewardship of global collective behavior
Bak-Coleman, J. B., Alfano, M., Barfuss, W., Bergstrom, C. T., Centeno, M. A., Couzin, I. D., Donges, J. F., Galesic, M., Gersick, A. S., Jacquet, J., et al. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2025764118 · Cited by 289
False equivalencies: Online activism from left to right
Freelon, D., Marwick, A., & Kreiss, D. (2020) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abb2428 · Cited by 281
Right-Wing YouTube: A Supply and Demand Perspective
Munger, K., & Phillips, J. (2022) · The International Journal of Press/Politics · doi:10.1177/1940161220964767 · Cited by 265
Dancing to the Partisan Beat: A First Analysis of Political Communication on TikTok
Serrano, J. C. M., Papakyriakopoulos, O., & Hegelich, S. (2020) · ACM Web Science Conference (WebSci) · doi:10.1145/3394231.3397916 · Cited by 264
MERLOT: Multimodal Neural Script Knowledge ModelsPreprint
Zellers, R., Lu, X., Hessel, J., Yu, Y., Park, J. S., Cao, J., Farhadi, A., & Choi, Y. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2106.02636 · Cited by 239
(2020) · MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) · Cited by 192
Self-citationProblematic Machine Behavior: A Systematic Literature Review of Algorithm Audits
Bandy, J. (2021) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3449148 · Cited by 193
Social Drivers and Algorithmic Mechanisms on Digital Media.
Metzler, H., & Garcia, D. (2024) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/17456916231185057 · Cited by 204
Examining the consumption of radical content on YouTube
Hosseinmardi, H., Ghasemian, A., Clauset, A., Mobius, M., Rothschild, D. M., & Watts, D. J. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2101967118 · Cited by 171
MERLOT RESERVE: Neural Script Knowledge through Vision and Language and Sound
Zellers, R., Lu, J., Lu, X., Yu, Y., Zhao, Y., Salehi, M., Kusupati, A., Hessel, J., Farhadi, A., & Choi, Y. (2022) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr52688.2022.01589 · Cited by 179
SoK: Hate, Harassment, and the Changing Landscape of Online Abuse
Thomas, K., Akhawe, D., Bailey, M., Boneh, D., Bursztein, E., Consolvo, S., Dell, N. L., Durumeric, Z., Kelley, P. G., Kumar, D., et al. (2021) · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P) · doi:10.1109/sp40001.2021.00028 · Cited by 159
Social media and the spread of misinformation: infectious and a threat to public health
Denniss, E., & Lindberg, R. (2025) · Health Promotion International · doi:10.1093/heapro/daaf023 · Cited by 212
Algorithmic extremism: Examining YouTube's rabbit hole of radicalization
Ledwich, M., & Zaitsev, A. (2020) · First Monday · doi:10.5210/fm.v25i3.10419 · Cited by 143
The Evolution of the Manosphere across the Web
Horta Ribeiro, M., Blackburn, J., Bradlyn, B., De Cristofaro, E., Stringhini, G., Long, S., Greenberg, S., & Zannettou, S. (2021) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v15i1.18053 · Cited by 10
Self-citationHarms from Increasingly Agentic Algorithmic Systems
Chan, A., Salganik, R., Markelius, A., Pang, C., Rajkumar, N., Krasheninnikov, D., Langosco, L., He, Z., Duan, Y., Carroll, M., et al. (2023) · 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3593013.3594033 · Cited by 149
“Several landmark works in the FATE community have involved audits [Raji et al. 2020] of algorithmic systems [Black et al. 2022; Buolamwini and Gebru 2018; Obermeyer and Mullainathan 2019; Ribeiro et al. 2020].”
BackgroundBuilding Human Values into Recommender Systems: An Interdisciplinary Synthesis
Stray, J., Halevy, A. Y., Assar, P., Hadfield-Menell, D., Boutilier, C. E., Ashar, A., Bakalar, C., Beattie, L., Ekstrand, M. D., Leibowicz, C., et al. (2023) · ACM Transactions on Recommender Systems · doi:10.1145/3632297 · Cited by 183
Angry by design: toxic communication and technical architectures
Munn, L. (2020) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-020-00550-7 · Cited by 119
Phillips, W., & Milner, R. M. (2021) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/12436.001.0001 · Cited by 161
An Empirical Investigation of Personalization Factors on TikTok
Boeker, M., & Urman, A. (2022) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/3485447.3512102 · Cited by 118
Contemporary Social Movements in a Hybrid Media Environment
Caren, N., Andrews, K. T., & Lu, T. (2020) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054627 · Cited by 108
Technologically scaffolded atypical cognition: the case of YouTube’s recommender system
Alfano, M., Fard, A. E., Carter, J. A., Clutton, P., & Klein, C. (2020) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-020-02724-x · Cited by 123
Do Platform Migrations Compromise Content Moderation? Evidence from r/The_Donald and r/Incels
Horta Ribeiro, M., Jhaver, S., Zannettou, S., Blackburn, J., Stringhini, G., De Cristofaro, E., & West, R. (2021) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3476057 · Cited by 124
Self-citationPedreschi, D., Pappalardo, L., Ferragina, E., Baeza-Yates, R., Barabási, A.-L., Dignum, F., Dignum, V., Eliassi-Rad, T., Giannotti, F., Kertész, J., et al. (2025) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.artint.2024.104244 · Cited by 102
Do Platform Migrations Compromise Content Moderation? Evidence from r/The_Donald and r/Incels
Ribeiro, M. H., Jhaver, S., Zannettou, S., Blackburn, J., De Cristofaro, E., Stringhini, G., & West, R. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.10397 · Cited by 102
Self-citationCIRS: Bursting Filter Bubbles by Counterfactual Interactive Recommender System
Gao, C., Wang, S., Li, S., Chen, J., He, X., Lei, W., Li, B., Zhang, Y., & Jiang, P. (2023) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/3594871 · Cited by 109
Bergram, K., Djokovic, M., Bezençon, V., & Holzer, A. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3517638 · Cited by 99
BOR, A., & PETERSEN, M. B. (2022) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055421000885 · Cited by 128
Reliance on metrics is a fundamental challenge for AI
Thomas, R. L., & Uminsky, D. (2022) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2022.100476 · Cited by 86
Towards Decolonising Computational Sciences
Birhane, A., & Guest, O. (2021) · Kvinder Køn & Forskning · doi:10.7146/kkf.v29i2.124899 · Cited by 117
Toward an End-to-End Sociology of 21st-Century Machine Learning
Roberge, J., & Castelle, M. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-56286-1_1 · Cited by 81
"How over is it?" Understanding the Incel Community on YouTube
Papadamou, K., Zannettou, S., Blackburn, J., Cristofaro, E. D., Stringhini, G., & Sirivianos, M. (2021) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3479556 · Cited by 119
The Engagement-Diversity Connection: Evidence from a Field Experiment on Spotify
Holtz, D., Carterette, B., Chandar, P., Nazari, Z., Cramer, H. S. M., & Aral, S. (2020) · ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC) · doi:10.1145/3391403.3399532 · Cited by 80
Far-Right Online Radicalization: A Review of the Literature
Marwick, A. E., Clancy, B., & Furl, K. (2022) · doi:10.21428/bfcb0bff.e9492a11 · Cited by 78
Are Anti-Feminist Communities Gateways to the Far Right? Evidence from Reddit and YouTube
Mamié, R., Horta Ribeiro, M., & West, R. (2021) · 13th ACM Web Science Conference 2021 · doi:10.1145/3447535.3462504 · Cited by 75
Self-citationEcho Chambers, Rabbit Holes, and Algorithmic Bias: How YouTube Recommends Content to Real UsersPreprint
Brown, M. A., Bisbee, J. H., Lai, A., Bonneau, R., Nagler, J., & Tucker, J. A. (2022) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4114905 · Cited by 72
Neutral bots probe political bias on social media
Chen, W., Pacheco, D. F., Yang, K.-C., & Menczer, F. (2021) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 68
Practical knowledge of algorithms: The case of BreadTube
Cotter, K. (2022) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448221081802 · Cited by 100
Neutral bots probe political bias on social media
Chen, W., Pacheco, D. F., Yang, K.-C., & Menczer, F. (2021) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-25738-6 · Cited by 106
Algorithmic Amplification of Politics on Twitter
Huszár, F., Ktena, S. I., O’Brien, C., Belli, L., Schlaikjer, A., & Hardt, M. (2022) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2025334119 · Cited by 65
“We Dissect Stupidity and Respond to It”: Response Videos and Networked Harassment on YouTube
Lewis, R. A., Marwick, A. E., & Partin, W. C. (2021) · American Behavioral Scientist · doi:10.1177/0002764221989781 · Cited by 73
Rafieian, O., & Yoganarasimhan, H. (2023) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/s1548-643520230000020004 · Cited by 77
Characterizing Manipulation from AI Systems
Carroll, M., Chan, A., Ashton, H., & Krueger, D. (2023) · ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization (EAAMO) · doi:10.1145/3617694.3623226 · Cited by 131
Haroon, M., Wojcieszak, M., Chhabra, A., Liu, X., Mohapatra, P., & Shafiq, Z. (2023) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2213020120 · Cited by 64
Inoculating against the spread of Islamophobic and radical-Islamist disinformation
Lewandowsky, S., & Yesilada, M. (2021) · Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications · doi:10.1186/s41235-021-00323-z · Cited by 62
The Philosophy of Online Manipulation
Jongepier, F., & Klenk, M. (2022) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781003205425 · Cited by 75
Chen, A. Y., Nyhan, B. J., Reifler, J., Robertson, R. E., & Wilson, C. (2023) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.add8080 · Cited by 88
A Longitudinal Analysis of YouTube's Promotion of Conspiracy VideosPreprint
Faddoul, M., Chaslot, G. M. J. B., & Farid, H. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2003.03318 · Cited by 100
An Audit of Misinformation Filter Bubbles on YouTube: Bubble Bursting and Recent Behavior Changes
Tomlein, M., Pecher, B., Simko, J., Srba, I., Moro, R., Stefancova, E., Kompan, M., Hrckova, A., Podrouzek, J., & Bielikova, M. (2021) · Fifteenth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems · doi:10.1145/3460231.3474241 · Cited by 65
The “Great Meme War:” the Alt-Right and its Multifarious Enemies
Dafaure, M. (2020) · Angles · doi:10.4000/angles.369 · Cited by 58
Current cases of AI misalignment and their implications for future risks
Dung, L. (2023) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-023-04367-0 · Cited by 80
Salojärvi, V., Palonen, E., Horsmanheimo, L., & Kylli, R.-M. (2023) · Visual Studies · doi:10.1080/1472586x.2023.2249430 · Cited by 56
Auditing YouTube’s Recommendation Algorithm for Misinformation Filter Bubbles
Srba, I., Moro, R., Tomlein, M., Pecher, B., Simko, J., Stefancova, E., Kompan, M., Hrckova, A., Podrouzek, J., Gavornik, A., et al. (2023) · ACM Transactions on Recommender Systems · doi:10.1145/3568392 · Cited by 61
Yang, S., Krause, N. M., Bao, L., Calice, M. N., Newman, T. P., Scheufele, D. A., Xenos, M. A., & Brossard, D. (2023) · Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly · doi:10.1177/10776990231190868 · Cited by 52
Rewiring What-to-Watch-Next Recommendations to Reduce Radicalization Pathways
Fabbri, F., Wang, Y., Bonchi, F., Castillo, C., & Mathioudakis, M. (2022) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/3485447.3512143 · Cited by 57
Shin, D., & Jitkajornwanich, K. (2024) · Social Science Computer Review · doi:10.1177/08944393231225547 · Cited by 51
AI alignment: Assessing the global impact of recommender systems
Bojić, L. (2024) · Futures · doi:10.1016/j.futures.2024.103383 · Cited by 70
Causally estimating the effect of YouTube’s recommender system using counterfactual bots
Hosseinmardi, H., Ghasemian, A., Rivera-Lanas, M., Ribeiro, M. H., West, R., & Watts, D. J. (2024) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2313377121 · Cited by 49
Self-citationRieder, B., Coromina, Ò., & Matamoros-Fernández, A. (2020) · First Monday · doi:10.5210/fm.v25i8.10667 · Cited by 62
Hartmann, D., de Pereira, J. R. L., Streitbörger, C., & Berendt, B. (2025) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-024-00595-3 · Cited by 58
Evaluating Twitter’s algorithmic amplification of low-credibility content: an observational study
Corsi, G. (2024) · EPJ Data Science · doi:10.1140/epjds/s13688-024-00456-3 · Cited by 45
Tubes and bubbles topological confinement of YouTube recommendations
Roth, C., Mazières, A., & Menezes, T. (2020) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0231703 · Cited by 44
From Moral Panic to Systemic Change: Making Child-Centered Design the Default
Radesky, J., & Hiniker, A. (2022) · International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.100351 · Cited by 44
“Born for a Storm”: Hard-Right Social Media and Civil Unrest
Karell, D., Linke, A. M., Holland, E. C., & Hendrickson, E. (2023) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/00031224231156190 · Cited by 59
Towards a multi-stakeholder value-based assessment framework for algorithmic systems
Yurrita, M., Murray-Rust, D., Balayn, A., & Bozzon, A. (2022) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3531146.3533118 · Cited by 50
Characterizing Alternative Monetization Strategies on YouTube
Hua, Y., Horta Ribeiro, M., Ristenpart, T., West, R., & Naaman, M. (2022) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3555174 · Cited by 36
Self-citationAlternative media framing of COVID-19 risks
Rooke, M. (2021) · Current Sociology · doi:10.1177/00113921211006115 · Cited by 40
Habib, H., Srinivasan, P., & Nithyanand, R. (2022) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3555551 · Cited by 68
Children’s Safety on YouTube: A Systematic Review
Alqahtani, S. I., Yafooz, W. M. S., Alsaeedi, A., Syed, L., & Alluhaibi, R. (2023) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app13064044 · Cited by 45
What’s “Up Next”? Investigating Algorithmic Recommendations on YouTube Across Issues and Over Time
Matamoros-Fernández, A., Gray, J. E., Bartolo, L., Burgess, J., & Suzor, N. P. (2021) · Media and Communication · doi:10.17645/mac.v9i4.4184 · Cited by 54
(Re)Politicizing Digital Well-Being: Beyond User Engagements
Docherty, N., & Biega, A. J. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3501857 · Cited by 45
The Problem with Metrics is a Fundamental Problem for AIPreprint
Thomas, R., & Uminsky, D. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2002.08512 · Cited by 37
Kwon, S., Kim, R., Lee, J.-T., Kim, J., Song, S., Kim, S., & Oh, H. (2022) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.13237 · Cited by 35
Language and Mediated Masculinities
Lawson, R. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190081041.001.0001 · Cited by 37
Designing recommender systems to depolarize
Stray, J. (2022) · First Monday · doi:10.5210/fm.v27i5.12604 · Cited by 64
A Systematic Review of Worldwide Causal and Correlational Evidence on Digital Media and DemocracyPreprint
Lorenz-Spreen, P., Oswald, L., Lewandowsky, S., & Hertwig, R. (2021) · doi:10.31235/osf.io/p3z9v · Cited by 35
feminist data ethics of care for machine learning: The what, why, who and how
Gray, J. E., & Witt, A. (2021) · First Monday · doi:10.5210/fm.v26i12.11833 · Cited by 42
Wu, S., & Resnick, P. (2021) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v15i1.18105 · Cited by 34
E-extremism: A conceptual framework for studying the online far right
Zhang, X., & Davis, M. (2022) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448221098360 · Cited by 37
Juneja, P., Bhuiyan, M. M., & Mitra, T. (2023) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3580846 · Cited by 33
Modeling rabbit-holes on YouTube
Merrer, E. L., Trédan, G., & Yesilkanat, A. (2023) · Social Network Analysis and Mining · doi:10.1007/s13278-023-01105-9 · Cited by 34
Kantian Ethics and the Attention Economy
Aylsworth, T., & Castro, C. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-45638-1 · Cited by 30
RePBubLik: Reducing Polarized Bubble Radius with Link Insertions
Haddadan, S., Menghini, C., Riondato, M., & Upfal, E. (2021) · ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM) · doi:10.1145/3437963.3441825 · Cited by 31
Lee, T., Johnson, T. J., Jia, C., & Lacasa-Mas, I. (2023) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448231202480 · Cited by 31
Dialing for Videos: A Random Sample of YouTube
McGrady, R., Zheng, K., Curran, R., Baumgartner, J., & Zuckerman, E. (2023) · Journal of Quantitative Description Digital Media · doi:10.51685/jqd.2023.022 · Cited by 30
Vombatkere, K., Mousavi, S., Zannettou, S., Roesner, F., & Gummadi, K. P. (2024) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/3589334.3645600 · Cited by 29
Hate begets Hate: A Temporal Study of Hate SpeechPreprint
Mathew, B., Illendula, A., Saha, P., Sarkar, S., Goyal, P., & Mukherjee, A. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1909.10966 · Cited by 29
Papakyriakopoulos, O., Engelmann, S., & Winecoff, A. (2023) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3580644 · Cited by 35
Examining Video Recommendation Bias on YouTube
Kirdemir, B., Kready, J., Mead, E. L., Hussain, M. N., & Agarwal, N. (2021) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-78818-6_10 · Cited by 27
Do Platform Migrations Compromise Content Moderation? Evidence from r/The_Donald and r/Incels
Ribeiro, M. H., Jhaver, S., Zannettou, S., Blackburn, J., Stringhini, G., Cristofaro, E. D., & West, R. (2021) · UCL Discovery (University College London) · Cited by 28
Self-citationAI Challenges for Society and Ethics
Whittlestone, J., & Clarke, S. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197579329.013.3 · Cited by 35
A Survey of the Potential Long-term Impacts of AI
Clarke, S., & Whittlestone, J. (2022) · Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society · doi:10.1145/3514094.3534131 · Cited by 41
Algorithmic Gatekeeping for Professional Communicators
van Dalen, A. (2023) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781003375258 · Cited by 42
Don't Let Netflix Drive the Bus: User's Sense of Agency Over Time and Content Choice on Netflix
Schaffner, B., Stefanescu, A., Campili, O., & Chetty, M. (2023) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3579604 · Cited by 26
Mendonça, R. F., Almeida, V. A. F., & Filgueiras, F. D. B. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192870070.001.0001 · Cited by 28
Self-citationConspiracy Brokers: Understanding the Monetization of YouTube Conspiracy Theories
Ballard, C., Goldstein, I., Mehta, P., Smothers, G., Take, K., Zhong, V., Greenstadt, R., Lauinger, T., & McCoy, D. (2022) · The Web Conference · doi:10.1145/3485447.3512142 · Cited by 28
Adherence to Misinformation on Social Media Through Socio-Cognitive and Group-Based Processes
Efstratiou, A., & Cristofaro, E. D. (2022) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3555589 · Cited by 33
Liu, N., Hu, X. E., Savas, Y., Baum, M., Berinsky, A. J., Chaney, A. J. B., Lucas, C., Mariman, R., Benedictis-Kessner, J. D., Guess, A. M., et al. (2025) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2318127122 · Cited by 23
Albadi, N., Kurdi, M., & Mishra, S. (2022) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3555618 · Cited by 23
Picturing Opaque Power: How Conspiracy Theorists Construct Oppositional Videos on YouTube
Grusauskaite, K., Harambam, J., & Aupers, S. (2022) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/20563051221089568 · Cited by 27
Metadata
- Authors
- Ribeiro, M. H., Ottoni, R., West, R., Almeida, V. A. F., & Meira, W.
- Affiliations
- École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (CH)
- Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (BR)
- UFMG
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2020-01-27
- Pages
- 131-141
- OpenAlex
- W2969399596
- Semantic Scholar
- 57911e835999c5b0fc8aea382bd7569a180503ae
- Cited by
- 580
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2026: 110 · 2025: 70 · 2024: 89 · 2023: 105 · 2022: 78 · 2021: 69 · 2020: 52
- FWCI
- 161.71
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- Atmosphere
- Capes
- INCT-Cyber
- Google Research Award
- Fapemig
- CNPq
- MASWEB
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Populism, Right-Wing Movements
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Keywords
- radicalization, YouTube, far-right ideology, alt-right, user engagement
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
