Me, My Echo Chamber, and I: Introspection on Social Media Polarization
Open accessAbstract
Homophily -- our tendency to surround ourselves with others who share our perspectives and opinions about the world -- is both a part of human nature and an organizing principle underpinning many of our digital social networks. However, when it comes to politics or culture, homophily can amplify tribal mindsets and produce "echo chambers" that degrade the quality, safety, and diversity of discourse online. While several studies have empirically proven this point, few have explored how making users aware of the extent and nature of their political echo chambers influences their subsequent beliefs and actions. In this paper, we introduce Social Mirror, a social network visualization tool that enables a sample of Twitter users to explore the politically-active parts of their social network. We use Social Mirror to recruit Twitter users with a prior history of political discourse to a randomized experiment where we evaluate the effects of different treatments on participants' i) beliefs about their network connections, ii) the political diversity of who they choose to follow, and iii) the political alignment of the URLs they choose to share. While we see no effects on average political alignment of shared URLs, we find that recommending accounts of the opposite political ideology to follow reduces participants' beliefs in the political homogeneity of their network connections but still enhances their connection diversity one week after treatment. Conversely, participants who enhance their belief in the political homogeneity of their Twitter connections have less diverse network connections 2-3 weeks after treatment. We explore the implications of these disconnects between beliefs and actions on future efforts to promote healthier exchanges in our digital public spheres.
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?
Rodearnos de quienes comparten nuestras perspectivas puede amplificar la mentalidad tribal y degradar la calidad, seguridad y diversidad de los contenidos online.
“Habitualmente tendemos a rodearnos de otros que comparten nuestras mismas perspectivas y opiniones sobre el mundo y esto puede amplificar la mentalidad tribal y degradar la calidad, la seguridad y la diversidad de los contenidos online (Gillani et al., 2018).”
From Homofilia, polarización afectiva y desinformación en Twitter. Caso de estudio sobre la crisis migratoria #Openarms (2021) · cites this paper as Gillani et al., 2018
The Introduction (p. 1) describes people connecting with others who share their political views and links polarization to tribal loyalties and poorer civic discourse. The Conclusion (p. 9) calls for quality, safe, and diverse online discourse, but does not establish that surrounding oneself with like-minded people degrades the quality, safety, and diversity of online content. The claim extends the paper’s discussion of discourse into a broader claim about content. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredHabitualmente tendemos a rodearnos de otros que comparten nuestras mismas perspectivas y opiniones sobre el mundo.
“Habitualmente tendemos a rodearnos de otros que comparten nuestras mismas perspectivas y opiniones sobre el mundo y esto puede amplificar la mentalidad tribal y degradar la calidad, la seguridad y la diversidad de los contenidos online (Gillani et al., 2018).”
From Homofilia, polarización afectiva y desinformación en Twitter. Caso de estudio sobre la crisis migratoria #Openarms (2021) · cites this paper as Gillani et al., 2018
The Introduction (p. 1) describes people with similar political views connecting online and discusses tribal loyalties and their implications for civic discourse. This supports the claim about like-minded association in a political online setting, but not its unrestricted wording about people generally. The Conclusion (p. 9) calls for quality, safe, diverse online discourse; it does not establish that like-minded association degrades all three qualities of online content. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredLa conectividad, aun siendo global, mantiene la prevalencia de los lazos locales.
“Este hecho implica que la conectividad, aun siendo global, siguen prevaleciendo los lazos locales, constatándose determinadas pautas que reflejan afinidades y similitudes, tal y como indica la teoría del espejo social (Gillani et al., 2018).”
From Homofilia, polarización afectiva y desinformación en Twitter. Caso de estudio sobre la crisis migratoria #Openarms (2021) · cites this paper as Gillani et al., 2018
The Introduction (p. 1) describes social-media users connecting with others who share their political views, and the Appendix (p. 9) describes politically active Twitter users surrounded by people with similar perspectives. These passages support the point about affinity and similarity, but the paper does not establish that geographic local ties prevail despite global connectivity. (LLM, conf=0.82)
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.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 27 · Cited by 33
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- [3][3] Bakshy, E., Messing, S., Adamic, L. 2015. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science , 348 (6239), 1130-1132. (2015). -
- [4][4] Bateman, D.A., Clinton, J.D., Lapinski, J.S. 2012. A House Divided? Roll Calls, Polarization, and Policy Differences in the U.S. House, 1877-2011. American Journal of Political Science , 61 (3), pages 698-714. (2012). -
- [7][7] Conover, M.D., Ratkiewicz, J., Francisco, M., Gonçalves, B., Flammini, A., Menczer, F. 2011. Political polarization on Twitter. Proceedings of the 5th AAAI International Conference on Web and Social Media . (2011). -
- [17][17] Lelkes, Y., Sood, G., Iyengar, S. 1971. The hostile audience: The effect of access to broadband internet on partisan affect. American Journal of Political Science , 61 (1): 5-20. (1971). -
- [19][19] Mislove, A., Lehmann, S.; Ahn, Y.; Onnela, J.; and Rosenquist, J. 2011. Understanding the Demographics of Twitter Users. Proceedings of the 5th AAAI International Conference on Web and Social Media . (2011). -
- [21][21] Munson, S.A., Lee, S.Y., Resnick, P. 2013. Encouraging Reading of Diverse Political Viewpoints with a Browser Widget. Proceedings of the 7th AAAI International Conference on Web and Social Media . (2013). -
- [25][25] Vijayaraghavan, P., Vosoughi, S., Roy, D. 2016. Automatic Detection and Categorization of Election-Related Tweets. Proceedings of the 10th AAAI International Conference on Web and Social Media . (2016). -
- Authors
- Gillani, N., Yuan, A., Saveski, M., Vosoughi, S., & Roy, D.
- Affiliations
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2018
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1803.01731
- OpenAlex
- W2788624819
- Cited by
- 33
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
- Keywords
- echo chambers, homophily, political polarization, social network visualization, Twitter, political diversity, online discourse, network homogeneity, social mirror
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