Cited by 218Complex Network Analysis TechniquesSocial Media and PoliticsMisinformation and Its Impacts

“Gesundheit! Modeling Contagion through Facebook News Feed.”

Open access
Sun, Eric, Rosenn, Itamar, Marlow, Cameron, Lento, Thomas·2009·Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media

Abstract

Whether they are modeling bookmarking behavior in Flickr or cascades of failure in large networks, models of diffusion often start with the assumption that a few nodes start long chain reactions, resulting in large-scale cascades. While reasonable under some conditions, this assumption may not hold for social media networks, where user engagement is high and information may enter a system from multiple disconnected sources. Using a dataset of 262,985 Facebook Pages and their associated fans, this paper provides an empirical investigation of diffusion through a large social media network. Although Facebook diffusion chains are often extremely long (chains of up to 82 levels have been observed), they are not usually the result of a single chain-reaction event. Rather, these diffusion chains are typically started by a substantial number of users. Large clusters emerge when hundreds or even thousands of short diffusion chains merge together. This paper presents an analysis of these diffusion chains using zero-inflated negative binomial regressions. We show that after controlling for distribution effects, there is no meaningful evidence that a start node’s maximum diffusion chain length can be predicted with the user's demographics or Facebook usage characteristics (including the user's number of Facebook friends). This may provide insight into future research on public opinion formation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1609/icwsm.v3i1.13947

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 23 · Cited by 218

Authors
Sun, E., Rosenn, I., Marlow, C., & Lento, T.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Meta (United Kingdom) (GB)
Venue
Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media
Published
2009-03-19
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
146-153
ISSN
  • 2162-3449 (ISSN-L)
  • 2334-0770
OpenAlex
W2124532437
Cited by
218
References
23
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 32
FWCI
21.46
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
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)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
Keywords
information dissemination, contagion, Facebook page, news feeds, chain length, zero-inflated negative binomial regression, user demographics, public opinion formation, social media

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