Identifying platform effects in social media data
Open accessAbstract
Even when external researchers have access to social media data, they are not privy to decisions that went into platform design—including the measurement and testing that goes into deploying new platform features, such as recommender systems, seeking to shape user behavior towards desirable ends. Finding ways to identify platform effects is thus important both for generalizing findings, as well as understanding the nature of platform usage. One approach is to find temporal data covering the introduction of a new feature; observing differences in behavior before and after allow us to estimate the effect of the change. We investigate platform effects using two such datasets, the Netflix Prize dataset and the Facebook New Orleans data, in which we observe seeming discontinuities in user behavior but that we know or suspect are the result of a change in platform design. For the Netflix Prize, we estimate user ratings changing by an average of about 3% after the change, and in Facebook New Orleans, we find that the introduction of the ‘People You May Know’ feature locally nearly doubled the average number of edges added daily, and increased by 63% the average proportion of triangles created by each new edge. Our work empirically verifies several previously expressed theoretical concerns, and gives insight into the magnitude and variety of platform effects.
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?
Effects observed on a social platform may manifest differently on other platforms due to different functionalities, communities, or cultural norms.
“For example, effects observed on a social platform may manifest differently on other platforms due to different functionalities, communities, or cultural norms (Wijnhoven and Bloemen, 2014; Malik and Pfeffer, 2016).”
From Social Data: Biases, Methodological Pitfalls, and Ethical Boundaries (2019) · cites this paper as Malik and Pfeffer, 2016
Cites
Segmented regression analysis of interrupted time series studies in medication use research
Wagner, A. K., Soumerai, S. B., Zhang, F., & Ross-Degnan, D. (2002) · Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2710.2002.00430.x · Cited by 3,279 · see citing works
Measurement and analysis of online social networks
Mislove, A., Marcon, M., Gummadi, K. P., Druschel, P., & Bhattacharjee, B. (2007) · Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGCOMM conference on Internet measurement · doi:10.1145/1298306.1298311 · Cited by 3,057 · see citing works
Tufekci, Z. (2014) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v8i1.14517 · Cited by 780 · see citing works
Social media for large studies of behavior
Ruths, D., & Pfeffer, J. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.346.6213.1063 · Cited by 648 · see citing works
Self-citationFacebook bullying: an extension of battles in school
Kwan, G. C. E., & Skoric, M. M. (2013) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.07.014 · Cited by 322 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Social Data: Biases, Methodological Pitfalls, and Ethical Boundaries
Olteanu, A., Castillo, C., Diaz, F., & Kıcıman, E. (2019) · Frontiers in Big Data · doi:10.3389/fdata.2019.00013 · Cited by 763 · see citing works
Tampering with Twitter’s Sample API
Pfeffer, J., Mayer, K., & Morstatter, F. (2018) · EPJ Data Science · doi:10.1140/epjds/s13688-018-0178-0 · Cited by 135 · see citing works
Self-citationSocial Data: Biases, Methodological Pitfalls, and Ethical Boundaries
Olteanu, A., Castillo, C., Diaz, F., & Kiciman, E. (2016) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2886526 · Cited by 763 · see citing works
- Authors
- Malik, M., & Pfeffer, J.
- Affiliations
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- Technical University of Munich (DE)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media
- Published
- 2016-05-17
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 241-249
- ISSN
- 2162-3449 (ISSN-L)
- 2334-0770
- OpenAlex
- W2565284482
- Cited by
- 45
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3
- FWCI
- 7.44
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (publishedVersion)
- AAAI Publications (The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Achievement Rewards for College Scientists Foundation
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Digital Platforms and Economics
- Keywords
- platform effects, social media, platform design, temporal discontinuity, Netflix Prize, Facebook, recommender systems, user ratings, social network dynamics, triangles
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