PreprintCited by 20Social Media and PoliticsMisinformation and Its ImpactsOpinion Dynamics and Social Influence

Simulating Social Media Using Large Language Models to Evaluate Alternative News Feed Algorithms

Open access
Törnberg, Petter, Valeeva, Diliara, Uitermark, Justus, Bail, Christopher·2023·arXiv

Abstract

Social media is often criticized for amplifying toxic discourse and discouraging constructive conversations. But designing social media platforms to promote better conversations is inherently challenging. This paper asks whether simulating social media through a combination of Large Language Models (LLM) and Agent-Based Modeling can help researchers study how different news feed algorithms shape the quality of online conversations. We create realistic personas using data from the American National Election Study to populate simulated social media platforms. Next, we prompt the agents to read and share news articles - and like or comment upon each other's messages - within three platforms that use different news feed algorithms. In the first platform, users see the most liked and commented posts from users whom they follow. In the second, they see posts from all users - even those outside their own network. The third platform employs a novel "bridging" algorithm that highlights posts that are liked by people with opposing political views. We find this bridging algorithm promotes more constructive, non-toxic, conversation across political divides than the other two models. Though further research is needed to evaluate these findings, we argue that LLMs hold considerable potential to improve simulation research on social media and many other complex social settings.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2310.05984

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?

  • The use of LLMs in simulating social dynamics is a rapidly growing research area, showcasing promising results in terms of human-like interactions.

    “The use of LLMs in simulating social dynamics is a rapidly growing research area , showcasing promising results in terms of human-like interactions (Park et al., 2023, 2022; Kaiya et al., 2023; Törnberg et al., 2023; Li et al., 2023a; Zhou et al., 2023b; Mou et al., 2024; Liu et al., 2024).”

    From Simulating Opinion Dynamics with Networks of LLM-based Agents (2024) · cites this paper as Törnberg et al., 2023

    Section 2 says LLMs can engage in realistic conversation, and the Discussion reports that the simulation produced plausible group behavior. The Discussion calls computational social science a growing field, but does not establish that research specifically using LLMs to simulate social dynamics is rapidly growing. (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.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. C Bail, et al., Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 115, 9216-9221 (2018) Publisher: National Acad Sciences.
  2. P Lorenz-Spreen, L Oswald, S Lewandowsky, R Hertwig, A systematic review of worldwide causal and correlational evidence on digital media and democracy. Nat. human behaviour pp. 1-28 (2022) Publisher: Nature Publishing Group.
  3. N Persily, JA Tucker, eds., Social Media and Democracy: The State of the Field, Prospects for Reform. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom ; New York, NY), (2020).
  4. JE Settle, Frenemies: How Social Media Polarizes Amer- ica. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge ; New York), (2018).
  5. M Cinelli, GDF Morales, A Galeazzi, W Quattrociocchi, M Starnini, The echo chamber effect on social media. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 118, e2023301118 (2021) Publisher: National Academy of Sciences Section: Physical Sciences.
  6. CR Sunstein, Republic.com. (Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.), (2002).
  7. W Brady, JA Wills, JT Jost, JA Tucker, JJV Bavel, Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114, 7313-7318 (2017) Publisher: National Academy of Sciences Section: Social Sciences.
  8. S Rathje, JJV Bavel, Svd Linden, Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 118 (2021) Publisher: National Academy of Sciences Section: Social Sciences.
  9. Y Shmargad, S Klar, Sorting the News: How Rank- ing by Popularity Polarizes Our Politics. Polit. Com- mun. 37, 423-446 (2020) Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1713267. · DOI
  10. P Törnberg, How digital media drive affective polariza- tion through partisan sorting. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 119, e2207159119 (2022) Publisher: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
  11. GM Masullo, T Wilner, NJ Stroud, What Social Media Could Be: Normative Frameworks for Evaluating Digital Public Spaces. Soc. Media + Soc. 8, 20563051221130447 (2022) Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd.
  12. G Eady, J Nagler, A Guess, J Zalinsky, JA Tucker, How Many People Live in Political Bubbles on Social Media? Evidence From Linked Survey and Twitter Data. SAGE Open 9, 1-21 (2019).
  13. J Haidt, C Bail, Social Media and Political Dysfunction: A Collaborative Review. Crowd-sourced literature review (2022).
  14. C Bail, Breaking the Social Media Prism: How to Make our Platforms Less Polarizing. (Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J), (2021).
  15. Y Benkler, The Wealth of Networks: How Social Produc- tion Transforms Markets and Freedom. (Yale University Press, New Haven Conn.), (2007).
  16. M Castells, Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Move- ments in the Internet Age. (Polity, Cambridge, UK ; Malden, MA), 1 edition edition, (2012).
  17. S Aral, The Hype Machine: How Social Media Disrupts Our Elections, Our Economy, and Our Health-and How We Must Adapt. (Penguin Randonhouse, New York), (2020).
  18. J Dewey, The Public and Its Problems. (Swallow Press, Athens), 1 edition edition, (1927).
  19. J Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Soci- ety. (The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass), Sixth printing edition edition, (1989).
  20. Q Yang, K Qureshi, T Zaman, Mitigating the Backfire Effect Using Pacing and Leading. arXiv:2008.00049 [cs, stat] (2020) arXiv: 2008.00049. · arXiv
  21. JB Bak-Coleman, et al., Stewardship of global collec- tive behavior. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 118, e2025764118 (2021) Publisher: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
  22. D Byrne, G Callaghan, Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences: The State of the Art. (Routledge), (2023).
  23. D Freelon, Computational Research in the Post-API Age. Polit. Commun. 35, 665- 668 (2018) Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2018.1477506. · DOI · Paper page
  24. JM Epstein, Generative social science: Studies in agent- based computational modeling. (Princeton University Press) Vol. 13, (2006).
  25. MW Macy, R Willer, From Factors to Actors: Computational Sociology and Agent-Based Model- ing. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 28, 143-166 (2002) _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.141117. · DOI
  26. R Axelrod, The dissemination of culture: A model with local convergence and global polarization. J. conflict resolution 41, 203-226 (1997) Publisher: Sage Periodicals Press 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320.
  27. H Noorazar, KR Vixie, A Talebanpour, Y Hu, From classical to modern opinion dynamics. Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 31, 2050101 (2020) Publisher: World Scientific.
  28. C Goldspink, R Kay, Social emergence: distinguishing re- flexive and non-reflexive modes in AAAI Fall Symposium. pp. 48-55 (2007) Isbn: 9781577353492.
  29. R Conte, M Paolucci, On agent-based modeling and computational social science. Front. psychology 5, 668 (2014) Publisher: Frontiers Media SA.
  30. JS Park, et al., Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior (2023) arXiv:2304.03442 [cs]. · arXiv
  31. J Wei, et al., Emergent abilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07682 (2022). · arXiv
  32. P Törnberg, Chatgpt-4 outperforms experts and crowd workers in annotating political twitter messages with zero- shot learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.06588 (2023). · arXiv
  33. S Bubeck, et al., Sparks of Artificial General Intelli- gence: Early experiments with GPT-4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12712 (2023). · arXiv
  34. LP Argyle, et al., Out of One, Many: Using Language Models to Simulate Human Samples. Polit. Analysis pp. 1-15 (2023) Publisher: Cambridge University Press.
  35. F Huszár, et al., Algorithmic amplification of politics on Twitter. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 119 (2022) Publisher: National Academy of Sciences Section: Social Sciences.
  36. A Ovadya, L Thorburn, Bridging Systems: Open Prob- lems for Countering Destructive Divisiveness across Ranking, Recommenders, and Governance (2023) arXiv:2301.09976 [cs]. · arXiv
  37. S Wojcik, et al., Birdwatch: Crowd wisdom and bridging algorithms can inform understanding and re- duce the spread of misinformation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.15723 (2022). · arXiv
  38. JJ Horton, Large Language Models as Simulated Eco- nomic Agents: What Can We Learn from Homo Silicus? (2023) arXiv:2301.07543 [econ, q-fin]. · arXiv
  39. S Santurkar, et al., Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect? (2023) arXiv:2303.17548 [cs]. · arXiv
  40. A Campbell, PE Converse, WE Miller, DE Stokes, The American Voter. (University Of Chicago Press, Chicago), (1980).
  41. P Dandekar, A Goel, DT Lee, Biased assimilation, homophily, and the dynamics of polarization. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 110, 5791-5796 (2013) ISBN: 1091-6490 (Electronic)\r0027-8424 (Linking).
  42. D DellaPosta, Y Shi, M Macy, Why Do Liberals Drink Lattes? Am. J. Sociol. 120, 1473-1511 (2015) Publisher: The University of Chicago Press.
  43. AD Crossley, Facebook Feminism: Social Media, Blogs, and New Technologies of Contemporary U.S. Feminism. Mobilization: An Int. Q. 20, 253-268 (2015) Publisher: Hank Johnston DBA Mobilization Journal.
  44. EM Bender, T Gebru, A McMillan-Major, S Shmitchell, On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? in Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Con- ference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT '21. (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA), pp. 610-623 (2021).
  45. P Törnberg, How to use LLMs for Text Analysis (2023) arXiv:2307.13106 [cs]. · arXiv
  46. R Axelrod, The Complexity of Cooperation: Agent-Based Models of Competition and Collaboration: Agent-Based Models of Competition and Collaboration. (Princeton university press), (1997).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Törnberg, P., Valeeva, D., Uitermark, J., & Bail, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • Duke University (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4387560611
Cited by
20
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (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
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
Keywords
social media simulation, large language models, agent-based modeling, toxic discourse, political polarization

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