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
Items 101–200 of 579
Munger, K. (2024) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009359795 · Cited by 26
Marino, E. B., Baleato, S., & Ribeiro, A. S. (2024) · Social Sciences · doi:10.3390/socsci13110603 · Cited by 27
Green, J., McCabe, S., Shugars, S., Chwe, H., Horgan, L., CAO, S., & Lazer, D. M. J. (2025) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055424000984 · Cited by 28
Investigating Influencer VPN Ads on YouTube
Akgul, O., Roberts, R. M., Namara, M., Levin, D., & Mazurek, M. L. (2022) · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P) · doi:10.1109/sp46214.2022.9833633 · Cited by 25
Recommender Systems and Algorithmic Hate
Smith, J. J., Jayne, L., & Burke, R. (2022) · ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys) · doi:10.1145/3523227.3551480 · Cited by 32
Ng, Y. M. M., Pham, K. H., & Luengo-Oroz, M. A. (2023) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/49061 · Cited by 27
Addictive Technology and Its Implications for Antitrust EnforcementPreprint
Rosenquist, J. N., Morton, F. S., & Weinstein, S. (2021) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3787822 · Cited by 22
Evaluating Platform Accountability: Terrorist Content on YouTube
Murthy, D. (2021) · American Behavioral Scientist · doi:10.1177/0002764221989774 · Cited by 26
Auditing the Biases Enacted by YouTube for Political Topics in Germany
Heuer, H., Hoch, H., Breiter, A., & Theocharis, Y. (2021) · Message Understanding Conference · doi:10.1145/3473856.3473864 · Cited by 19
Value and Impact of Recommender Systems
Jannach, D., & Zanker, M. (2012) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-0716-2197-4_14 · Cited by 21
Building Credibility, Trust, and Safety on Video-Sharing Platforms
Niu, S., Lu, Z., Zhang, A. X., Cai, J., Griggio, C. F., & Heuer, H. (2023) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/3544549.3573809 · Cited by 26
Smith, J. J., Beattie, L., & Cramer, H. S. M. (2023) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/3543507.3583204 · Cited by 27
Analyzing Genetic Testing Discourse on the Web Through the Lens of Twitter, Reddit, and 4chan
Mittos, A., Zannettou, S., Blackburn, J., & Cristofaro, E. D. (2020) · ACM Transactions on the Web · doi:10.1145/3404994 · Cited by 23
Efstratiou, A., Blackburn, J., Caulfield, T., Stringhini, G., Zannettou, S., & Cristofaro, E. D. (2023) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v17i1.22138 · Cited by 20
Estimating the Ideology of Political YouTube Videos
Lai, A., Brown, M. A., Bisbee, J. H., Tucker, J. A., Nagler, J., & Bonneau, R. (2022) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1017/pan.2023.42 · Cited by 19
From traffic classes to content: A hierarchical approach for encrypted traffic classification
Li, Y., Huang, Y., Seneviratne, S., Thilakarathna, K., Cheng, A., Jourjon, G., Webb, D., Smith, D. B., & Xu, R. Y. D. (2022) · Computer Networks · doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2022.109017 · Cited by 19
Imana, B., Korolova, A., & Heidemann, J. (2023) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3579610 · Cited by 19
Measuring Recommender System Effects with Simulated UsersPreprint
Yao, S., Halpern, Y., Thain, N., Wang, X., Lee, K., Prost, F., Ed, H., Chen, J., & Beutel, A. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2101.04526 · Cited by 57
Spaces of Hybridized Prefatory Extremism (HYPE) on Social Media
Petersen, L. N., & Johansen, M. B. (2025) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/20563051251340145 · Cited by 19
Capelos, T., Salmela, M., Talalakina, A., & Cotena, O. (2024) · Philosophies · doi:10.3390/philosophies9020036 · Cited by 17
Understanding the influence of online misogyny in schools from the perspective of teachers
Over, H., Bunce, C., Baggaley, J., & Zendle, D. I. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0299339 · Cited by 17
Trustworthy Misinformation Mitigation with Soft Information Nudging
Horne, B. D., Gruppi, M., & Adalı, S. (2019) · IEEE International Conference on Trust, Privacy and Security in Intelligent Systems and Applications (TPS-ISA) · doi:10.1109/tps-isa48467.2019.00039 · Cited by 17
On the Evolution of (Hateful) Memes by Means of Multimodal Contrastive Learning
Qu, Y., He, X., Pierson, S., Michael Backes, A., Zhang, Y., & Zannettou, S. (2023) · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P) · doi:10.1109/sp46215.2023.10179315 · Cited by 17
Recommend Me? Designing Fairness Metrics with Providers
Smith, J. J., Satwani, A., Burke, R., & Fiesler, C. L. (2024) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3630106.3659044 · Cited by 17
Black Panther and the Alt-right: networks of racial ideology
Varda, S. J., & Hahner, L. A. (2020) · Critical Studies in Media Communication · doi:10.1080/15295036.2020.1737327 · Cited by 18
Ye, J., Luceri, L., & Ferrara, E. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3715275.3732159 · Cited by 16
Dynamics of algorithmic content amplification on TikTok
Baumann, F., Arora, N., Rahwan, I., & Czaplicka, A. (2026) · EPJ Data Science · doi:10.1140/epjds/s13688-026-00629-2 · Cited by 16
Verschure, P. F. M. J., & Wierenga, S. (2021) · Holocaust Studies · doi:10.1080/17504902.2021.1979178 · Cited by 17
Choi, A., D’Ignazio, C., Welles, B. F., & Parker, A. G. (2023) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3580823 · Cited by 20
Misinformation, Extremism, and Conspiracies: Amplification and Polarization by Algorithms
Shin, D. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-52569-8_3 · Cited by 16
When the Echo Chamber Shatters: Examining the Use of Community-Specific Language Post-Subreddit Ban
Trujillo, M. Z., Rosenblatt, S. F., de Anda-Jáuregui, G., Moog, E., Samson, B., Hébert-Dufresne, L., & Roth, A. M. (2021) · WOAH · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.woah-1.18 · Cited by 23
Understanding the Incel Community on YouTube
Papadamou, K., Zannettou, S., Blackburn, J., Cristofaro, E. D., Stringhini, G., & Sirivianos, M. (2020) · MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.3630084 · Cited by 15
Performative Prediction in a Stateful WorldPreprint
Brown, G., Hod, S., & Kalemaj, I. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2011.03885 · Cited by 16
Why more social interactions lead to more polarization in societies
Stefan Thurner, A., Hofer, M., & Korbel, J. (2025) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2517530122 · Cited by 22
Youth Practitioners Can Counter Fascism: What We Know and What We Need
Arbeit, M. R., Burnham, S. L. F., de Four, D., & Cronk, H. (2020) · Journal of Youth Development · doi:10.5195/jyd.2020.936 · Cited by 14
Open source intelligence extraction for terrorism‐related information: A review
Chaudhary, M., & Bansal, D. (2022) · Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery · doi:10.1002/widm.1473 · Cited by 15
Election Fraud, YouTube, and Public Perception of the Legitimacy of President Biden
Bisbee, J. H., Brown, M. A., Lai, A., Bonneau, R., Nagler, J., & Tucker, J. A. (2022) · Journal of Online Trust and Safety · doi:10.54501/jots.v1i3.60 · Cited by 15
The Interconnected Nature of Online Harm and Moderation
Gatta, V. L., Luceri, L., Fabbri, F., & Ferrara, E. (2023) · ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media (HT) · doi:10.1145/3603163.3609058 · Cited by 27
Manifestations of xenophobia in AI systems
Tomašev, N., Maynard, J. L., & Gabriel, I. (2024) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-024-01893-4 · Cited by 22
Towards Psychologically-Grounded Dynamic Preference Models
Curmei, M., Haupt, A. A., Recht, B., & Hadfield-Menell, D. (2022) · ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys) · doi:10.1145/3523227.3546778 · Cited by 15
Reducing Cross-Topic Political Homogenization in Content-Based News Recommendation
Shivaram, K., Liu, P., Shapiro, M. A., Bilgic, M., & Culotta, A. (2022) · ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys) · doi:10.1145/3523227.3546782 · Cited by 18
Wang, E., Luceri, L., Pierri, F., & Ferrara, E. (2023) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v17i1.22197 · Cited by 15
Algorithmic Audit of Italian Car Insurance: Evidence of Unfairness in Access and Pricing
Fabris, A., Mishler, A., Gottardi, S., Carletti, M., Daicampi, M., Susto, G. A., & Silvello, G. (2021) · Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society · doi:10.1145/3461702.3462569 · Cited by 16
AI Accidents: An Emerging Threat
Arnold, Z., & Toner, H. (2021) · doi:10.51593/20200072 · Cited by 15
Over, H., Bunce, C., Konu, D., & Zendle, D. I. (2025) · Child and Adolescent Mental Health · doi:10.1111/camh.12747 · Cited by 15
Modeling Language Usage and Listener Engagement in Podcasts
Reddy, S., Lazarova, M., Yu, Y., & Jones, R. (2021) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.52 · Cited by 16
Characterizing Reddit Participation of Users Who Engage in the QAnon Conspiracy Theories
Engel, K., Hua, Y., Zeng, T., & Naaman, M. (2022) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3512900 · Cited by 19
Online Disinformation and the Role of WikipediaPreprint
Sáez-Trumper, D. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1910.12596 · Cited by 32
Schellingerhout, R., Beraldo, D., & Marx, M. (2023) · Digital Journalism · doi:10.1080/21670811.2023.2209153 · Cited by 13
Algorithmic audits of algorithms, and the law
Merrer, E. L., Pons, R., & Trédan, G. (2023) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-023-00343-z · Cited by 21
Hilbert, M., Thakur, A., Flores, P. M., Zhang, X., Bhan, J. Y., Bernhard, P., & Ji, F. (2023) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102743 · Cited by 20
Kirdemir, B., Kready, J., Mead, E. L., Hussain, M. N., Agarwal, N., & Adjeroh, D. (2021) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-80387-2_7 · Cited by 13
Dunna, A., Keith, K. A., Zuckerman, E., Vallina-Rodríguez, N., O'Connor, B., & Nithyanand, R. (2022) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3555209 · Cited by 14
Ma, C. (2021) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/20563051211036385 · Cited by 13
The Amplification Paradox in Recommender Systems
Ribeiro, M. H., Veselovsky, V., & West, R. (2023) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v17i1.22223 · Cited by 12
Self-citationCoppolillo, E., Manco, G., & Gionis, A. (2024) · ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) · doi:10.1145/3637528.3671949 · Cited by 12
No trade-offs between news and entertainment: Evidence from online engagement data
Huang, S., & Tian, Y. (2022) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448211063899 · Cited by 12
Digital Culture, Online Misogyny, and Gender‐based Violence
Ging, D. (2023) · doi:10.1002/9781119800729.ch13 · Cited by 12
‘For the Greater Good?’ Vigilantism in Online Pop Culture Fandoms
Driessen, S. (2020) · Open Book Publishers · doi:10.11647/obp.0200.02 · Cited by 11
Mann, M., Zulli, D., Foote, J., Ku, E., & Primm, E. (2023) · Socius Sociological Research for a Dynamic World · doi:10.1177/23780231231174823 · Cited by 12
Ma, C. (2023) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/10584609.2023.2283703 · Cited by 12
A Normative Framework for Assessing the Information Curation Algorithms of the Internet
Lazer, D. M. J., Swire‐Thompson, B., & Wilson, C. (2023) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/17456916231186779 · Cited by 16
Coppolillo, E., Mungari, S., Ritacco, E., Fabbri, F., Minici, M., Bonchi, F., & Manco, G. (2025) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2025.104125 · Cited by 16
Park, J., Ma, R., Ali, N. S., Baptiste, N. J., Agha, Z., & Wiśniewski, P. (2025) · ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC) · doi:10.1145/3713043.3728840 · Cited by 12
What Kind of Learning Is Machine Learning?
Reigeluth, T., & Castelle, M. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-56286-1_3 · Cited by 12
Writer movements between news outlets reflect political polarization in media
Hagar, N., Wachs, J., & Horvát, E.-Á. (2021) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448211027173 · Cited by 11
Auditing Source Diversity Bias in Video Search Results Using Virtual Agents
Urman, A., Makhortykh, M., & Ulloa, R. (2021) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/3442442.3452306 · Cited by 11
Lupșa-Tătaru, D. A., & Lixandroiu, R. C. (2022) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su142013112 · Cited by 12
Berjawi, O., Fenza, G., & Loia, V. (2023) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3326995 · Cited by 10
Auditing Algorithmic Explanations of Social Media Feeds: A Case Study of TikTok Video Explanations
Mousavi, S., Gummadi, K. P., & Zannettou, S. (2024) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v18i1.31376 · Cited by 10
Ravi, K., & Yuan, J.-S. (2024) · Intelligent Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.iswa.2024.200456 · Cited by 13
Epstein, R., & Flores, A. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0303036 · Cited by 15
Costa, P. R. (2020) · SOCIOLOGIA ON LINE · doi:10.30553/sociologiaonline.2020.23.4 · Cited by 10
Detecting Social Media Manipulation in Low-Resource Languages
Haider, S., Luceri, L., Deb, A., Badawy, A., Peng, N., & Ferrara, E. (2023) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/3543873.3587615 · Cited by 13
Exploring Bias and Information Bubbles in YouTube’s Video Recommendation Networks
Kirdemir, B., & Agarwal, N. (2022) · Studies in computational intelligence · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-93413-2_15 · Cited by 10
Exploring the community of older adult viewers on YouTube
Lee, J., Gwak, S., Gwon, J., Park, J., Eom, S., Hong, S.-Y., Ku, G., Lee, W., & Jung, H. (2022) · Universal Access in the Information Society · doi:10.1007/s10209-022-00918-3 · Cited by 10
RICo: Reddit ideological communities
Ravi, K., & Vela, A. (2024) · Online Social Networks and Media · doi:10.1016/j.osnem.2024.100279 · Cited by 11
Introducing Vigilant Audiences
Trottier, D., Gabdulhakov, R., & Huang, Q. (2020) · Open Book Publishers · doi:10.11647/obp.0200 · Cited by 13
T-RECS: A Simulation Tool to Study the Societal Impact of Recommender SystemsPreprint
Lucherini, E., Sun, M. D., Winecoff, A., & Narayanan, A. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2107.08959 · Cited by 11
AI and the Future of Disinformation Campaigns: Part 2: A Threat Model
Sedova, K., McNeill, C., Johnson, A., Joshi, A. A., & Wulkan, I. (2021) · doi:10.51593/2021ca011 · Cited by 13
Personalized Patient Preference Predictors Are Neither Technically Feasible nor Ethically Desirable
Sharadin, N. (2024) · The American Journal of Bioethics · doi:10.1080/15265161.2024.2353821 · Cited by 10
Reducing Exposure to Harmful Content via Graph Rewiring
Coupette, C., Neumann, S., & Gionis, A. (2023) · ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) · doi:10.1145/3580305.3599489 · Cited by 9
Nigatu, H. H., & Raji, I. D. (2024) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3630106.3658546 · Cited by 19
How Audit Methods Impact Our Understanding of YouTube’s Recommendation Systems
Chandio, S., Dar, M. D., & Nithyanand, R. (2024) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v18i1.31311 · Cited by 9
Digital traps: How technology fuels nomophobia and insomnia in Taiwanese college students
Lin, Y., & Huang, P. (2024) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104674 · Cited by 12
Social Media as Marginalisation Machine: The Trans Desire for Solidarity Spaces
Kender, K., & Spiel, K. (2025) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3713136 · Cited by 13
Shajari, S., & Agarwal, N. (2025) · Social Network Analysis and Mining · doi:10.1007/s13278-025-01470-7 · Cited by 10
Feminist Cyber-resistance to Digital Violence: Surviving Gamergate
Martínez, M. H. (2020) · Debats: Revista de cultura, poder i societat · doi:10.28939/iam.debats-en.2020-17 · Cited by 9
An actor-based approach to understanding radical right viral tweets in the UK
Sprejer, L., Margetts, H. Z., Oliveira, K. A., O’Sullivan, D. J. P., & Vidgen, B. (2022) · Journal of Policing Intelligence and Counter Terrorism · doi:10.1080/18335330.2022.2086440 · Cited by 9
COVID-19 Induced Misinformation on YouTube: An Analysis of User Commentary
Suter, V., Shahrezaye, M., & Meckel, M. (2022) · Frontiers in Political Science · doi:10.3389/fpos.2022.849763 · Cited by 13
Hijacking Epistemic Agency: How Emerging Technologies Threaten our Wellbeing as Knowers
Dorsch, J. (2022) · Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society · doi:10.1145/3514094.3539537 · Cited by 8
AlDahoul, N., Rahwan, T., & Zaki, Y. (2024) · Journal Of Big Data · doi:10.1186/s40537-024-00946-1 · Cited by 8
Harm Mitigation in Recommender Systems under User Preference Dynamics
Chee, J., Kalyanaraman, S., Ernala, S. K., Weinsberg, U., Dean, S., & Ioannidis, S. (2024) · ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) · doi:10.1145/3637528.3671925 · Cited by 8
Cultural criminology, counter-extremism and the contemporary far right
Karas, T. (2024) · Crime Media Culture An International Journal · doi:10.1177/17416590241279413 · Cited by 8
A Survey on Opinion Dynamics in Social Media Networks: Analysis, Simulation, and Control
Zareer, M. N., & Šelmić, R. R. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems · doi:10.1109/tcss.2025.3622498 · Cited by 10
Söderlund, K. (2025) · Technology and Regulation · doi:10.71265/6bedar76 · Cited by 9
Successive Cohorts of Twitter Users Show Increasing Activity and Shrinking Content Horizons
Wolf, F., Lorenz-Spreen, P., & Lehmann, S. (2022) · Journal of Quantitative Description Digital Media · doi:10.51685/jqd.2022.014 · Cited by 8
AI Opaqueness: What Makes AI Systems More Transparent?
Rubin, V. L. (2020) · Proceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS / Actes du congrès annuel de l ACSI · doi:10.29173/cais1139 · Cited by 8
Status Threat, Social Concerns, and Conservative Media: A Look at White America and the Alt-Right
Isom, D. A., Boehme, H. M., Mikell, T. C., Chicoine, S., & Renner, M. (2021) · Societies · doi:10.3390/soc11030072 · Cited by 8
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
