More Accounts, Fewer Links: How Algorithmic Curation Impacts Media Exposure in Twitter Timelines
Abstract
Algorithmic timeline curation is now an integral part of Twitter's platform, affecting information exposure for more than 150 million daily active users. Despite its large-scale and high-stakes impact, especially during a public health emergency such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the exact effects of Twitter's curation algorithm generally remain unknown. In this work, we present a sock-puppet audit that aims to characterize the effects of algorithmic curation on source diversity and topic diversity in Twitter timelines. We created eight sock puppet accounts to emulate representative real-world users, selected through a large-scale network analysis. Then, for one month during early 2020, we collected the puppets' timelines twice per day. Broadly, our results show that algorithmic curation increases source diversity in terms of both Twitter accounts and external domains, even though it drastically decreases the number of external links in the timeline. In terms of topic diversity, algorithmic curation had a mixed effect, slightly amplifying a cluster of politically-focused tweets while squelching clusters of tweets focused on COVID-19 fatalities and health information. Finally, we present some evidence that the timeline algorithm may exacerbate partisan differences in exposure to different sources and topics. The paper concludes by discussing broader implications in the context of algorithmic gatekeeping.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The accounts that were most de-amplified were news outlets.
“Consistent with prior findings [6], the accounts that were most de-amplified were news outlets.”
From Twitter's Algorithm: Amplifying Anger, Animosity, and Affective Polarization (2023) · cites this paper as [6]
The average number of links is almost halved in the engagement-based timeline compared to the chronological timeline.
“Interestingly, the average number of links is almost halved, which is consistent with the results of a prior study that used eight sock puppets to audit properties of Twitter's algorithm [6].”
From Twitter's Algorithm: Amplifying Anger, Animosity, and Affective Polarization (2023) · cites this paper as [6]
Previous sock-puppet audits on X are often constrained by small sample sizes of fewer than 10 accounts and restricted tweet collection in quantity and frequency, limiting the generalization and robustness of their findings.
“Furthermore, previous sock-puppet audits on X are often constrained by small sample sizes (fewer than 10 accounts) and restricted tweet collection in terms of both quantity and frequency [4,6,9], limiting the generalization and robustness of their findings.”
From Auditing Political Exposure Bias: Algorithmic Amplification on Twitter/X During the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election (2025) · cites this paper as [4]
Other studies report increased exposure to ideologically aligned friends but decreased exposure to external links.
“Other studies report increased exposure to ideologically aligned friends [4,8], but decreased exposure to external links [4,29].”
From Auditing Political Exposure Bias: Algorithmic Amplification on Twitter/X During the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election (2025) · cites this paper as [4]
Cites
The spread of true and false news online
Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aap9559 · Cited by 8,847 · cited 2× · see citing works
“2While some papers [36, 93] have called these accounts "followees," in this paper we use Twitter’s vernacular, so "friends" refers to accounts followed by a user.”
BackgroundMethodMeasuring user influence in twitter: The million follower fallacy
Cha, M., Haddadi, H., Benevenuto, F., & Gummadi, K. (2010) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v4i1.14033 · Cited by 3,022 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Other studies have used similar approximations to influence, alongside alternatives such as retweets and mentions [7, 18].”
FILTER BUBBLE: Wie wir im Internet entmündigt werden
Pariser, E. (2012) · doi:10.3139/9783446431164 · Cited by 1,849 · see citing works
Are people incidentally exposed to news on social media? A comparative analysis
Fletcher, R., & Nielsen, R. K. (2018) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444817724170 · Cited by 738 · see citing works
Fair and Balanced? Quantifying Media Bias through Crowdsourced Content Analysis
Budak, C., Goel, S., & Rao, J. M. (2016) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfw007 · Cited by 336 · see citing works
Who Falls for Online Political Manipulation?
Badawy, A., Lerman, K., & Ferrara, E. (2019) · Companion Proceedings of The 2019 World Wide Web Conference · doi:10.1145/3308560.3316494 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Milli, S., Carroll, M., Wang, Y., Pandey, S., & Dragan, A. D. (2023) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.16941 · Cited by 200 · see citing works
Echo Chambers in the Age of Algorithms: An Audit of Twitter’s Friend Recommender System
Duskin, K., Schafer, J. S., West, J. D., & Spiro, E. S. (2024) · ACM Web Science Conference · doi:10.1145/3614419.3643996 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Wang, S., Huang, S., Zhou, A., & Metaxa, D. (2024) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3687046 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bandy, J., & Diakopoulos, N.
- Affiliations
- Northwestern University (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
- Published
- 2021-04-13
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- CSCW1
- Pages
- 1-28
- ISSN
- 2573-0142 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3157826390
- Cited by
- 54
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 3
- FWCI
- 12.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (IIS-1717330)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Communication and COVID-19 Impact
- Keywords
- Twitter, algorithmic curation, source diversity, topic diversity, external links, COVID-19 pandemic, political polarization, partisan differences, algorithmic gatekeeping, information exposure
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review