Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
12 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
12 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
41 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
5 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
37 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
33 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Embedding Democratic Values into Social Media AIs via Societal Objective Functions (2307.13912v3)

Published 26 Jul 2023 in cs.HC and cs.AI

Abstract: Can we design AI systems that rank our social media feeds to consider democratic values such as mitigating partisan animosity as part of their objective functions? We introduce a method for translating established, vetted social scientific constructs into AI objective functions, which we term societal objective functions, and demonstrate the method with application to the political science construct of anti-democratic attitudes. Traditionally, we have lacked observable outcomes to use to train such models, however, the social sciences have developed survey instruments and qualitative codebooks for these constructs, and their precision facilitates translation into detailed prompts for LLMs. We apply this method to create a democratic attitude model that estimates the extent to which a social media post promotes anti-democratic attitudes, and test this democratic attitude model across three studies. In Study 1, we first test the attitudinal and behavioral effectiveness of the intervention among US partisans (N=1,380) by manually annotating (alpha=.895) social media posts with anti-democratic attitude scores and testing several feed ranking conditions based on these scores. Removal (d=.20) and downranking feeds (d=.25) reduced participants' partisan animosity without compromising their experience and engagement. In Study 2, we scale up the manual labels by creating the democratic attitude model, finding strong agreement with manual labels (rho=.75). Finally, in Study 3, we replicate Study 1 using the democratic attitude model instead of manual labels to test its attitudinal and behavioral impact (N=558), and again find that the feed downranking using the societal objective function reduced partisan animosity (d=.25). This method presents a novel strategy to draw on social science theory and methods to mitigate societal harms in social media AIs.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (112)
  1. Douglas J Ahler and Gaurav Sood. 2018. The parties in our heads: Misperceptions about party composition and their consequences. The Journal of Politics 80, 3 (2018), 964–981.
  2. The Welfare Effects of Social Media. American Economic Review 110, 3 (March 2020), 629–76. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20190658
  3. Carolina Are. 2020. How Instagram’s algorithm is censoring women and vulnerable users but helping online abusers. Feminist media studies 20, 5 (2020), 741–744.
  4. Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback. arXiv:2212.08073 [cs.CL]
  5. Chris Bail. 2022. Breaking the social media prism: How to make our platforms less polarizing. Princeton University Press.
  6. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science 348, 6239 (2015), 1130–1132.
  7. Digital Technology and Democratic Theory. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226748603.001.0001
  8. Embedding Societal Values into Social Media Algorithms. Journal of Online Trust and Safety 2, 1 (2023).
  9. Gobo: A System for Exploring User Control of Invisible Algorithms in Social Media. In Conference Companion Publication of the 2019 on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (Austin, TX, USA) (CSCW ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 151–155. https://doi.org/10.1145/3311957.3359452
  10. Monika Bickert. 2018. Publishing Our Internal Enforcement Guidelines and Expanding Our Appeals Process. https://about.fb.com/news/2018/04/comprehensive-community-standards/
  11. Reuben Binns. 2017. Fairness in Machine Learning: Lessons from Political Philosophy. CoRR abs/1712.03586 (2017). arXiv:1712.03586 http://arxiv.org/abs/1712.03586
  12. Cross-Country Trends in Affective Polarization. Working Paper 26669. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w26669
  13. Overperception of moral outrage in online social networks inflates beliefs about intergroup hostility. Nature human behaviour (2023), 1–11.
  14. Language Models are Few-Shot Learners. Advances in neural information processing systems 33 (2020), 1877–1901.
  15. Controlling polarization in personalization: An algorithmic framework. In Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency. 160–169.
  16. Uthsav Chitra and Christopher Musco. 2020. Analyzing the impact of filter bubbles on social network polarization. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. 115–123.
  17. How algorithmic popularity bias hinders or promotes quality. Scientific reports 8, 1 (2018), 15951.
  18. James Price Dillard and Lijiang Shen. 2005. On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication. Communication monographs 72, 2 (2005), 144–168.
  19. The Augmented Social Scientist: Using Sequential Transfer Learning to Annotate Millions of Texts with Human-Level Accuracy. Sociological Methods & Research (2022). https://doi.org/10.1177/00491241221134526 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/00491241221134526
  20. Correcting misperceptions of out-partisans decreases American legislators’ support for undemocratic practices. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120, 23 (2023), e2301836120.
  21. Dean Eckles. 2022. Algorithmic transparency and assessing effects of algorithmic ranking. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/c8za6
  22. Will the crowd game the algorithm? Using layperson judgments to combat misinformation on social media by downranking distrusted sources. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–11.
  23. Political sectarianism in America. Science 370, 6516 (2020), 533–536.
  24. Measuring the reach of” fake news” and online disinformation in Europe. Australasian Policing 10, 2 (2018).
  25. Erin D Foster and Ariel Deardorff. 2017. Open science framework (OSF). Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA 105, 2 (2017), 203.
  26. Tarleton Gillespie. 2018. Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press.
  27. Asymmetric ideological segregation in exposure to political news on Facebook. Science 381, 6656 (2023), 392–398.
  28. Algorithmic content moderation: Technical and political challenges in the automation of platform governance. Big Data & Society 7, 1 (2020), 2053951719897945. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951719897945 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951719897945
  29. How accurate are survey responses on social media and politics? Political Communication 36, 2 (2019), 241–258.
  30. How do social media feed algorithms affect attitudes and behavior in an election campaign? Science 381, 6656 (2023), 398–404.
  31. Reshares on social media amplify political news but do not detectably affect beliefs or opinions. Science 381, 6656 (2023), 404–408.
  32. Trans time: Safety, privacy, and content warnings on a transgender-specific social media site. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW2 (2020), 1–27.
  33. Evaluating Large Language Models in Generating Synthetic HCI Research Data: A Case Study. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 433, 19 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3580688
  34. Psychological well-being and social media use: a meta-analysis of associations between social media use and depression, anxiety, loneliness, eudaimonic, hedonic and social well-being. Anxiety, Loneliness, Eudaimonic, Hedonic and Social Well-Being (March 9, 2022) (2022).
  35. The Oxford handbook of Internet studies.
  36. Interventions to reduce partisan animosity. Nature Human Behaviour 6, 9 (2022), 1194–1205.
  37. Anna Lauren Hoffmann. 2019. Where fairness fails: data, algorithms, and the limits of antidiscrimination discourse. Information, Communication & Society 22, 7 (2019), 900–915. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1573912 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1573912
  38. Distilling Step-by-Step! Outperforming Larger Language Models with Less Training Data and Smaller Model Sizes. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics, Toronto, Canada, 8003–8017. https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.507
  39. Is ChatGPT Better than Human Annotators? Potential and Limitations of ChatGPT in Explaining Implicit Hate Speech. In Companion Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023 (Austin, TX, USA) (WWW ’23 Companion). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 294–297. https://doi.org/10.1145/3543873.3587368
  40. Algorithmic amplification of politics on Twitter. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119, 1 (2022), e2025334119.
  41. The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual review of political science 22 (2019), 129–146.
  42. Shanto Iyengar and Sean J. Westwood. 2015. Fear and Loathing across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization. American Journal of Political Science 59, 3 (2015), 690–707. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12152 arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/ajps.12152
  43. Dietmar Jannach and Gediminas Adomavicius. 2016. Recommendations with a purpose. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM conference on recommender systems. 7–10.
  44. Understanding Effects of Algorithmic vs. Community Label on Perceived Accuracy of Hyper-partisan Misinformation. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW2 (2022), 1–27.
  45. Exploiting Programmatic Behavior of LLMs: Dual-Use Through Standard Security Attacks. arXiv:2302.05733 [cs.CR]
  46. Jon Keegan. 2016. Blue Feed, Red Feed. http://graphics.wsj.com/blue-feed-red-feed/
  47. Junsol Kim and Byungkyu Lee. 2023. AI-Augmented Surveys: Leveraging Large Language Models for Opinion Prediction in Nationally Representative Surveys. arXiv:2305.09620 [cs.CL]
  48. How affective polarization undermines support for democratic norms. Public Opinion Quarterly 85, 2 (2021), 663–677.
  49. Affective polarization or partisan disdain? Untangling a dislike for the opposing party from a dislike of partisanship. Public Opinion Quarterly 82, 2 (2018), 379–390.
  50. The Challenge of Understanding What Users Want: Inconsistent Preferences and Engagement Optimization. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (Boulder, CO, USA) (EC ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 29. https://doi.org/10.1145/3490486.3538365
  51. Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 35. 22199–22213.
  52. Rotating Online Behavior Change Interventions Increases Effectiveness But Also Increases Attrition. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2, CSCW, Article 95 (nov 2018), 25 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274364
  53. Resolving content moderation dilemmas between free speech and harmful misinformation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120, 7 (2023), e2210666120.
  54. Social media use and depressive symptoms among United States adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health 68, 3 (2021), 572–579.
  55. TurkPrime. com: A versatile crowdsourcing data acquisition platform for the behavioral sciences. Behavior research methods 49, 2 (2017), 433–442.
  56. Personalized news recommendation based on click behavior. In Proceedings of the 15th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces. 31–40.
  57. A systematic review of worldwide causal and correlational evidence on digital media and democracy. Nature human behaviour 7, 1 (2023), 74–101.
  58. Li Lucy and David Bamman. 2021. Gender and Representation Bias in GPT-3 Generated Stories. In Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Narrative Understanding. Association for Computational Linguistics, Virtual, 48–55. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.nuse-1.5
  59. Christoph Lutz. 2022. Inequalities in Social Media Use and their Implications for Digital Methods Research. 679–690.
  60. Hybrid media consumption: How tweeting during a televised political debate influences the vote decision. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing. 1422–1432.
  61. From Optimizing Engagement to Measuring Value. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Virtual Event, Canada) (FAccT ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 714–722. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445933
  62. Twitter’s Algorithm: Amplifying Anger, Animosity, and Affective Polarization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16941 (2023).
  63. Emily Moyer-Gusé and Robin L Nabi. 2010. Explaining the effects of narrative in an entertainment television program: Overcoming resistance to persuasion. Human communication research 36, 1 (2010), 26–52.
  64. Luke Munn. 2020. Angry by design: Toxic communication and technical architectures. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 7, 1 (2020), 1–11.
  65. Encouraging reading of diverse political viewpoints with a browser widget. In Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media, Vol. 7. 419–428.
  66. Sean A Munson and Paul Resnick. 2010. Presenting diverse political opinions: how and how much. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1457–1466.
  67. StereoSet: Measuring stereotypical bias in pretrained language models. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics, Online, 5356–5371. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.416
  68. Arvind Narayanan. 2023. Understanding Social Media Recommendation Algorithms. https://knightcolumbia.org/content/understanding-social-media-recommendation-algorithms.
  69. Social media is polarized, social media is polarized: towards a new design agenda for mitigating polarization. In Proceedings of the 2018 designing interactive systems conference. 957–970.
  70. (Re) Design to Mitigate Political Polarization: Reflecting Habermas’ ideal communication space in the United States of America and Finland. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-computer Interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1–25.
  71. Like-minded sources on Facebook are prevalent but not polarizing. Nature 620, 7972 (2023), 137–144.
  72. OpenAI. 2023. GPT-4 Technical Report. arXiv:2303.08774 [cs.CL]
  73. Training Language Models to Follow Instructions with Human Feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022), 27730–27744.
  74. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. arXiv:2203.02155 [cs.CL]
  75. Aviv Ovadya and Luke Thorburn. 2023. Bridging Systems: Open Problems for Countering Destructive Divisiveness across Ranking, Recommenders, and Governance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.09976 (2023).
  76. Predicting the importance of newsfeed posts and social network friends. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 24. 1419–1424.
  77. Nitish Pahwa. 2021. Facebook Asked Users What Content Was “Good” or “Bad for the World.” Some of the Results Were Shocking. https://slate.com/technology/2021/11/facebook-good-bad-for-the-world-gftw-bftw.html
  78. Automated Annotation with Generative AI Requires Validation. arXiv:2306.00176 [cs.CL]
  79. Fábio Perez and Ian Ribeiro. 2022. Ignore Previous Prompt: Attack Techniques For Language Models. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2211.09527
  80. Jay Peters. 2022. Twitter makes it harder to choose the old reverse-chronological feed. https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/10/22971307/twitter-home-timeline-algorithmic-reverse-chronological-feed
  81. Pew Research Center. 2019. Partisan Antipathy: More Intense, More Personal. Technical Report. Washington, D.C. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/10/10/the-partisan-landscape-and-views-of-the-parties/
  82. Google Transparency Report. 2023. YouTube Community Guidelines enforcement. https://transparencyreport.google.com/youtube-policy/removals
  83. Antecedents of support for social media content moderation and platform regulation: the role of presumed effects on self and others. Information, Communication & Society 25, 11 (2022), 1632–1649.
  84. Users choose to engage with more partisan news than they are exposed to on Google Search. Nature (2023), 1–7.
  85. Digital inequalities and why they matter. Information, Communication & Society 18, 5 (2015), 569–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1012532 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1012532
  86. Fred Rowland. 2011. The filter bubble: what the internet is hiding from you. portal: Libraries and the Academy 11, 4 (2011), 1009–1011.
  87. Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect? arXiv:2303.17548 [cs.CL]
  88. Perspective-taking to reduce affective polarization on social media. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Vol. 16. 885–895.
  89. Michael Scharkow and Marko Bachl. 2017. How measurement error in content analysis and self-reported media use leads to minimal media effect findings in linkage analyses: A simulation study. Political Communication 34, 3 (2017), 323–343.
  90. Nick Seaver. 2017. Algorithms as culture: Some tactics for the ethnography of algorithmic systems. Big data & society 4, 2 (2017), 2053951717738104.
  91. Designing political deliberation environments to support interactions in the public sphere. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 3167–3176.
  92. The Woman Worked as a Babysitter: On Biases in Language Generation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP). Association for Computational Linguistics, Hong Kong, China, 3407–3412. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D19-1339
  93. Charles Percy Snow. 1959. Two cultures. Science 130, 3373 (1959), 419–419.
  94. Building Human Values into Recommender Systems: An Interdisciplinary Synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.10192 (2022).
  95. Cass R Sunstein. 2001. http://Republic. com.
  96. Cass R Sunstein. 2015. Partyism. U. Chi. Legal F. (2015), 1.
  97. Distilling Task-Specific Knowledge from BERT into Simple Neural Networks. arXiv:1903.12136 [cs.CL]
  98. The YouTube Team. 2019. The Four Rs of Responsibility, Part 1: Removing harmful content. https://blog.youtube/inside-youtube/the-four-rs-of-responsibility-remove/
  99. Petter Törnberg. 2022. How digital media drive affective polarization through partisan sorting. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119, 42 (2022), e2207159119.
  100. Manipulating Twitter Through Deletions. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Vol. 16. 1029–1039.
  101. Twitter Transparency. 2021. Rules Enforcement. https://transparency.twitter.com/en/reports/rules-enforcement.html
  102. David van Mill. 2021. Freedom of Speech. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2021 ed.), Edward N. Zalta (Ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
  103. Social media use and risky behaviors in adolescents: A meta-analysis. Journal of Adolescence 79 (2020), 258–274.
  104. Megastudy identifying effective interventions to strengthen Americans’ democratic attitudes. (2023).
  105. Want To Reduce Labeling Cost? GPT-3 Can Help. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021. Association for Computational Linguistics, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 4195–4205. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.findings-emnlp.354
  106. Magdalena Wojcieszak and Benjamin R Warner. 2020. Can interparty contact reduce affective polarization? A systematic test of different forms of intergroup contact. Political Communication 37, 6 (2020), 789–811.
  107. Returning is believing: Optimizing long-term user engagement in recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 1927–1936.
  108. Supporting Qualitative Analysis with Large Language Models: Combining Codebook with GPT-3 for Deductive Coding. In Companion Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (Sydney, NSW, Australia) (IUI ’23 Companion). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1145/3581754.3584136
  109. Kai-Cheng Yang and Filippo Menczer. 2023. Large language models can rate news outlet credibility. arXiv:2304.00228 [cs.CL]
  110. Effects of credibility indicators on social media news sharing intent. In Proceedings of the 2020 chi conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–14.
  111. Value-Sensitive Algorithm Design: Method, Case Study, and Lessons. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2, CSCW, Article 194 (nov 2018), 23 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274463
  112. Can Large Language Models Transform Computational Social Science? arXiv:2305.03514 [cs.CL]
Citations (21)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.