PreprintCited by 3Media Influence and PoliticsMisinformation and Its ImpactsRecommender Systems and Techniques

Nudging the recommendation algorithm increases news consumption and diversity on youtube

Open access
Haroon, Muhammad, Yu, Xudong, Menchen-Trevino, Ericka, Wojcieszak, Magdalena·2023·Research Square

Abstract

Recommendation algorithms profoundly shape users' attention and information consumption on social media platforms. This study introduces a computational intervention aimed at mitigating two key biases in algorithms by influencing the recommendation process. We tackle interest bias, or the tendency of the algorithm to recommend non-news, non-political information to the majority of users, and ideological bias, or the algorithm directing the politically interested and more strongly partisan users to one-sided congenial content. Employing a sock-puppet experiment alongside a month-long randomized experiment involving 2,142 frequent YouTube users, we investigate if nudging the algorithm by playing videos from quality, verified, and ideologically balanced news channels in the background increases recommendations to and consumption of quality news content. We additionally test if providing balanced news input to the algorithm promotes diverse and cross-cutting news recommendations and consumption. We find that nudging the algorithm significantly and sustainably enhances both recommendations and consumption of news and also successfully minimizes ideological biases in recommendations and consumption, particularly among conservative users. In fact, recommendations have stronger effects on users’ exposure than users’ exposure has on subsequent recommendations. In contrast, nudging the users themselves has no observable effects on news consumption. Increased news consumption, however, has no effects on democratic attitudes (e.g., knowledge, participation, polarization, misperceptions), adding to growing evidence of limited effects of on-platform exposure. The intervention does not adversely affect user engagement on YouTube, showcasing its potential for real-world implementation. These findings underscore the profound influence wielded by platform recommender algorithms on users' attention and information exposure.

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 · 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3349905/v1

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

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?

  • Other research has failed to find long-term changes in user beliefs due to social media ranking algorithms.

    “On the other hand, other research has failed to find long-term changes in user beliefs due to social media ranking algorithms [26,27,29,38]”

    From Twitter's Algorithm: Amplifying Anger, Animosity, and Affective Polarization (2023) · cites this paper as [29]

    The Discussion reports no measurable effect of increased YouTube news exposure on belief accuracy, and “Effects of News Consumption on Democratic Outcomes” reports null effects at the post-survey. But the intervention lasted two weeks, and the Discussion explicitly says a longer intervention might have produced different results. The paper therefore does not establish the claimed absence of long-term changes. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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 40 · Cited by 3

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. E Hussein, P Juneja, T Mitra, Measuring Misinformation in Video Search Platforms: An Au- dit Study on YouTube in ACM Conference On Computer-Supported Cooperative Work And Social Computing (CSCW). (2020).
  2. L Sanna, R Salvatore, C Giulia, A Claudio, YTTREX: crowdsourced analysis of YouTube's recommender system during COVID-19 pandemic in International Conference on Information Management and Big Data. (2020).
  3. K Papadamou, et al., "How over is it?" Understanding the Incel Community on YouTube in ACM Conference On Computer-Supported Cooperative Work And Social Computing (CSCW). (2020).
  4. M Wojcieszak, et al., No polarization from partisan news. Int. J. Press. Polit. (2021).
  5. LM Bartels, Uninformed votes: Information effects in presidential elections. Am. journal polit- ical science, 194-230 (1996).
  6. RR Lau, DP Redlawsk, Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. Am. journal political science, 951-971 (2001).
  7. CH Achen, LM Bartels, It feels like we're thinking: The rationalizing voter and electoral democ- racy in Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia. Vol. 30, (2006).
  8. J Brennan, Against democracy in Against Democracy. (Princeton University Press), (2017).
  9. MX Delli Carpini, S Keeter, What Americans know about politics and why it matters. (Yale University Press), (1996).
  10. M Prior, Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in political in- volvement and polarizes elections. (Cambridge University Press), (2007).
  11. A Lupia, MD McCubbins, The democratic dilemma: Can citizens learn what they need to know? (Cambridge University Press), (1998).
  12. LM Bartels, Ethnic antagonism erodes Republicans' commitment to democracy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 117, 22752-22759 (2020).
  13. E Katz, The two-step flow of communication: An up-to-date report on an hypothesis. Public opinion quarterly 21, 61-78 (1957).
  14. AI Abramowitz, KL Saunders, Is polarization a myth? The J. Polit. 70, 542-555 (2008).
  15. R Palmer, B Toff, What does it take to sustain a news habit? the role of civic duty norms and a connection to a" news community" among news avoiders in the uk and spain. Int. J. Commun. 14, 20 (2020).
  16. E Pariser, The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You. (Penguin Press), (2011).
  17. MH Ribeiro, R Ottoni, R West, VA Almeida, W Meira Jr, Auditing Radicalization Pathways on YouTube in ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT*). (2020).
  18. G Eady, J Nagler, A Guess, J Zilinsky, JA Tucker, How many people live in political bubbles 771 on social media? evidence from linked survey and twitter data. SAGE Open 9 (2019). 772
  19. RE Robertson, et al., Auditing Partisan Audience Bias within Google Search in ACM Confer- 773 ence On Computer-Supported Cooperative Work And Social Computing (CSCW). (2018). 774
  20. Y Krupnikov, JB Ryan, The Other Divide. (Cambridge University Press), (2022) Google- 776 Books-ID: qnRUEAAAQBAJ. 777
  21. T Ventura, R Majumdar, J Nagler, JA Tucker, Whatsapp increases exposure to false rumors 782 but has limited effects on beliefs and polarization: Evidence from a multimedia-constrained 783 deactivation. Available at SSRN 4457400 (2023). 784

Authors
Haroon, M., Yu, X., Menchen-Trevino, E., & Wojcieszak, M.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • University of North Dakota (US)
  • American University (US)
Corresponding author
Yu, Xudong
Venue
Research Square
Published
2023-09-22
OpenAlex
W4386917642
Cited by
3
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
Keywords
recommendation algorithms, news consumption, ideological bias, YouTube, algorithmic intervention, political polarization, democratic attitudes, user engagement, news diversity

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