CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 12Social Media and PoliticsMisinformation and Its ImpactsHate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Polarization in Decentralized Online Social Networks

Open access
La Cava, Lucio, Mandaglio, Domenico, Tagarelli, Andrea·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2312.05668arXiv 2312.05668
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Centralized social media platforms are currently experiencing a shift in user engagement, drawing attention to alternative paradigms like Decentralized Online Social Networks (DOSNs). The rising popularity of DOSNs finds its root in the accessibility of open-source software, enabling anyone to create a new instance (i.e., server) and participate in a decentralized network known as Fediverse. Despite this growing momentum, there has been a lack of studies addressing the effect of positive and negative interactions among instances within DOSNs. This work aims to fill this gap by presenting a preliminary examination of instances' polarization in DOSNs, focusing on Mastodon -- the most widely recognized decentralized social media platform, boasting over 10M users and nearly 20K instances to date. Our results suggest that polarization in the Fediverse emerges in unique ways, influenced by the desire to foster a federated environment between instances, also facilitating the isolation of instances that may pose potential risks to the Fediverse.

Overview

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.2312.05668

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. [2][2] Francesco Bonchi, Edoardo Galimberti, Aristides Gionis, Bruno Ordozgoiti, and Giancarlo Ruffo. 2019. Discovering polarized communities in signed networks. In Proc. CIKM Conf. 961-970. -
  2. [1][1] Nikhil Bansal, Avrim Blum, and Shuchi Chawla. 2004. Correlation clustering. Machine learning 56 (2004), 89-113. -
  3. [3][3] Christophe Cerisara, Somayeh Jafaritazehjani, Adedayo Oluokun, and Hoa T. Le. 2018. Multi-task dialog act and sentiment recognition on Mastodon. In Proc. ACL Conf. 745-754. -
  4. [5][5] M. Conover, J. Ratkiewicz, M. Francisco, B. Goncalves, F. Menczer, and A. Flammini. 2011. Political polarization on Twitter. In Proc. ICWSM Conf. 89-96. -
  5. [4][4] Kai-Yang Chiang, Joyce Jiyoung Whang, and Inderjit S Dhillon. 2012. Scalable clustering of signed networks using balance normalized cut. In Proc. CIKM Conf. 615-624. -
  6. [6][6] M. Coscia and L. Rossi. 2022. How minimizing conflicts could lead to polarization on social media: An agent-based model investigation. PLOS ONE 17 (2022), e0263184. -
  7. [7][7] Mihai Cucuringu, Peter Davies, Aldo Glielmo, and Hemant Tyagi. 2019. SPONGE: A generalized eigenproblem for clustering signed networks. In Proc. AISTATS Conf. 1088-1098. -
  8. [9][9] Kiran Garimella, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales, Aristides Gionis, and Michael Mathioudakis. 2017. Reducing controversy by connecting opposing views. In Proc. WSDM Conf. 81-90. -
  9. [11][11] Barbara Guidi, Marco Conti, Andrea Passarella, and Laura Ricci. 2018. Managing social contents in Decentralized Online Social Networks: A survey. Online Social Networks and Media 7 (2018), 12-29. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1016/j.osnem. 2018.07.001 - · DOI
  10. [10][10] Kiran Garimella, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales, Aristides Gionis, and Michael Mathioudakis. 2018. Quantifying controversy on social media. TSC 1, 1 (2018), 1-27. -
  11. [14][14] Marilena Hohmann, Karel Devriendt, and Michele Coscia. 2023. Quantifying ideological polarization on a network using generalized Euclidean distance. Science Advances 9, 9 (2023). -
  12. [17][17] Srijan Kumar, William L Hamilton, Jure Leskovec, and Dan Jurafsky. 2018. Community interaction and conflict on the Web. In Proc. WWW Conf. 933-943. -
  13. [16][16] Anna Jobin, Marcello Ienca, and Effy Vayena. 2019. The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature machine intelligence 1, 9 (2019), 389-399. -
  14. [18][18] Jérôme Kunegis, Stephan Schmidt, Andreas Lommatzsch, Jürgen Lerner, Ernesto William De Luca, and Sahin Albayrak. 2010. Spectral Analysis of Signed Graphs for Clustering, Prediction and Visualization. In Proc. SDM Conf. 559-570. -
  15. [22][22] Lucio La Cava, Sergio Greco, and Andrea Tagarelli. 2022. Network Analysis of the Information Consumption-Production Dichotomy in Mastodon User Behaviors. Proc. ICWSM Conf. 16, 1 (May 2022), 1378-1382. https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm. v16i1.19391 - · DOI
  16. [26][26] Matteo Zignani, Sabrina Gaito, and Gian Paolo Rossi. 2018. Follow the 'Mastodon': Structure and Evolution of a Decentralized Online Social Network. In Proc. ICWSM Conf. AAAI Press, 541-551. -
  17. [25][25] Ruo-Chun Tzeng, Bruno Ordozgoiti, and Aristides Gionis. 2020. Discovering conflicting groups in signed networks. Proc. NIPS Conf. 33 (2020), 10974-10985. -
  18. [27][27] Matteo Zignani, Christian Quadri, Sabrina Gaito, Hocine Cherifi, and Gian Paolo Rossi. 2019. The Footprints of a 'Mastodon': How a Decentralized Architecture Influences Online Social Relationships. In Proc. of the IEEE Conf. on Computer Communications Workshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS). 472-477. -
  19. [28][28] M. Ángeles Serrano, Marián Boguñá, and Alessandro Vespignani. 2009. Extracting the multiscale backbone of complex weighted networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106, 16 (2009), 6483-6488. https://doi.org/10. 1073/pnas.0808904106

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
La Cava, L., Mandaglio, D., & Tagarelli, A.
Affiliations
University of Calabria (IT)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
Pages
48-52
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2312.05668
arXiv
2312.05668
OpenAlex
W4394902777
Cited by
12
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3
FWCI
27.08
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • ACM Web Science Conference (WebSci) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Archive of Doctoral Theses and Digital Collections (University of Calabria) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
Keywords
decentralized online social networks, Fediverse, Mastodon, polarization, social networking sites, federated networks, user engagement, open source software

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