Attention Inequality in Social Media
Open accessAbstract
Social media can be viewed as a social system where the currency is attention. People post content and interact with others to attract attention and gain new followers. In this paper, we examine the distribution of attention across a large sample of users of a popular social media site Twitter. Through empirical analysis of these data we conclude that attention is very unequally distributed: the top 20\% of Twitter users own more than 96\% of all followers, 93\% of the retweets, and 93\% of the mentions. We investigate the mechanisms that lead to attention inequality and find that it results from the "rich-get-richer" and "poor-get-poorer" dynamics of attention diffusion. Namely, users who are "rich" in attention, because they are often mentioned and retweeted, are more likely to gain new followers, while those who are "poor" in attention are likely to lose followers. We develop a phenomenological model that quantifies attention diffusion and network dynamics, and solve it to study how attention inequality grows over time in a dynamic environment of social media.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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 'rich get richer' phenomenon is well-known and confirmed in online social media.
“the well-known 'rich get richer' phenomenon confirmed repeatedly in online social media and similar online contexts [52, 102]”
From Six Million (Suspected) Fake Stars on GitHub: A Growing Spiral of Popularity Contests, Spams, and Malware (2026) · cites this paper as [102]
Observation 4 (p. 5) says the paper empirically validates a rich-get-richer pattern on Twitter and describes it as the Matthew effect operating in social media. The paper supports the social-media example, but its Twitter findings do not establish repeated confirmation across social media and similar online contexts. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredA repository with more real stars tends to also get more real stars in the future, echoing the 'rich get richer' phenomenon.
“In other words, a repository with more real stars tends to also get more real stars in the future, echoing the 'rich get richer' phenomenon prevalent in social networks [52, 102].”
From Six Million (Suspected) Fake Stars on GitHub: A Growing Spiral of Popularity Contests, Spams, and Malware (2026) · cites this paper as [102]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Experimental Study of Inequality and Unpredictability in an Artificial Cultural Market
Salganik, M. J., Dodds, P. S., & Watts, D. J. (2006) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1121066 · Cited by 2,219 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Current consensus holds that inequality cannot be explained by variation in quality of the work or individual talent (Adler 1985; Salganik, Dodds, and Watts 2006; Lariviere and Gingras 2010).”
BackgroundBuilding a Better America—One Wealth Quintile at a Time
Norton, M. I., & Ariely, D. (2011) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691610393524 · Cited by 1,119 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Algorithm-mediated social learning in online social networks
Brady, W. J., Jackson, J. C., Lindström, B., & Crockett, M. J. (2023) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2023.06.008 · Cited by 132 · see citing works
He, H., Yang, H., Burckhardt, P., Kapravelos, A., Vasilescu, B., & Kästner, C. (2026) · Proceedings of the 2026 IEEE/ACM 48th International Conference on Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3744916.3764531 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Six Million (Suspected) Fake Stars in GitHub: A Growing Spiral of Popularity Contests, Spams, and Malware
He, H., Yang, H., Burckhardt, P., Kapravelos, A., Vasilescu, B., & Kästner, C. (2024) · arXiv · Cited by 4
- Authors
- Zhu, L., & Lerman, K.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2016
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1601.07200
- OpenAlex
- W2281779345
- Cited by
- 13
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Complex Systems and Time Series Analysis
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
- Keywords
- social media, Twitter, retweets, mentions, network dynamics, phenomenological model
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
