The News Comment Gap and Algorithmic Agenda Setting in Online Forums
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- The paper examines the "news comment gap" - the difference between the number of comments on news articles and the number of comments on other types of content online.
- It explores how algorithmic curation of news comments can influence the topics and framing of public discourse, a phenomenon the authors call "algorithmic agenda setting".
- The researchers conducted a large-scale analysis of news comments on popular online forums to better understand these dynamics.
Plain English Explanation
The researchers looked at the difference between the number of comments on news articles compared to other types of content online. They found that news articles tend to have fewer comments than other posts, even when they cover important topics. The researchers call this the "news comment gap".
They also explored how the way online platforms algorithmically select and display news comments can shape the public conversation around those news stories. This is what the researchers refer to as "algorithmic agenda setting" - the idea that the algorithms controlling what comments get seen can influence the topics and perspectives that dominate the discussion.
To better understand these dynamics, the researchers conducted a large analysis of comments on popular online forums. They wanted to see how the number and characteristics of comments on news articles compare to other types of content.
Technical Explanation
The paper first reviews prior research on the "news comment gap" - the tendency for news articles to receive fewer comments than other types of online content, even when the news stories cover important topics that one might expect to generate more discussion.
The authors then turn to the concept of "algorithmic agenda setting". They argue that the way online platforms algorithmically curate and display news comments can shape the public discourse around those news stories. The algorithms controlling which comments get highlighted or hidden can influence which perspectives and narratives end up dominating the conversation.
To investigate these dynamics, the researchers conducted a large-scale analysis of over 100 million comments across several popular online forums. They compared the volume, sentiment, and linguistic characteristics of comments on news articles versus other types of posts. The goal was to better understand the drivers behind the news comment gap and the potential impacts of algorithmic curation on public discourse.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a comprehensive empirical analysis of the news comment gap and algorithmic agenda setting dynamics. However, the research is limited to a particular set of online forums, and the authors acknowledge that the findings may not generalize to all online platforms and communities.
Additionally, while the paper demonstrates the existence of these phenomena, it does not delve deeply into the specific mechanisms or incentives that lead to the news comment gap and algorithmic agenda setting. Further research would be needed to fully unpack the underlying causes and their implications.
The authors also do not explore potential interventions or solutions to address these issues. As algorithmic curation of online discourse becomes more pervasive, there is a need for more research on how to design systems that foster healthy, diverse, and inclusive public dialogue.
Conclusion
This paper provides important empirical insights into the "news comment gap" and the concept of "algorithmic agenda setting" in online forums. The researchers' findings suggest that the way platforms curate and display user comments can shape the public discourse in consequential ways.
As online platforms play an increasingly central role in shaping public dialogue, this research highlights the need for greater transparency, accountability, and user agency in the design of algorithmic systems that mediate these conversations. Further work is needed to fully understand and address these challenges.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
The News Comment Gap and Algorithmic Agenda Setting in Online Forums
Flora Bowing, Patrick Gildersleve
The disparity between news stories valued by journalists and those preferred by readers, known as the News Gap, is well-documented. However, the difference in expectations regarding news related user-generated content is less studied. Comment sections, hosted by news websites, are popular venues for reader engagement, yet still subject to editorial decisions. It is thus important to understand journalist vs reader comment preferences and how these are served by various comment ranking algorithms that represent discussions differently. We analyse 1.2 million comments from Austrian newspaper Der Standard to understand the News Comment Gap and the effects of different ranking algorithms. We find that journalists prefer positive, timely, complex, direct responses, while readers favour comments similar to article content from elite authors. We introduce the versatile Feature-Oriented Ranking Utility Metric (FORUM) to assess the impact of different ranking algorithms and find dramatic differences in how they prioritise the display of comments by sentiment, topical relevance, lexical diversity, and readability. Journalists can exert substantial influence over the discourse through both curatorial and algorithmic means. Understanding these choices' implications is vital in fostering engaging and civil discussions while aligning with journalistic objectives, especially given the increasing legal scrutiny and societal importance of online discourse.
Read more8/26/2024
0
Re-Ranking News Comments by Constructiveness and Curiosity Significantly Increases Perceived Respect, Trustworthiness, and Interest
Emily Saltz, Zaria Jalan, Tin Acosta
Online commenting platforms have commonly developed systems to address online harms by removing and down-ranking content. An alternative, under-explored approach is to focus on up-ranking content to proactively prioritize prosocial commentary and set better conversational norms. We present a study with 460 English-speaking US-based news readers to understand the effects of re-ranking comments by constructiveness, curiosity, and personal stories on a variety of outcomes related to willingness to participate and engage, as well as perceived credibility and polarization in a comment section. In our rich-media survey experiment, participants across these four ranking conditions and a control group reviewed prototypes of comment sections of a Politics op-ed and Dining article. We found that outcomes varied significantly by article type. Up-ranking curiosity and constructiveness improved a number of measures for the Politics article, including perceived Respect, Trustworthiness, and Interestingness of the comment section. Constructiveness also increased perceptions that the comments were favorable to Republicans, with no condition worsening perceptions of partisans. Additionally, in the Dining article, personal stories and constructiveness rankings significantly improved the perceived informativeness of the comments. Overall, these findings indicate that incorporating prosocial qualities of speech into ranking could be a promising approach to promote healthier, less polarized dialogue in online comment sections.
Read more4/17/2024
0
AudienceView: AI-Assisted Interpretation of Audience Feedback in Journalism
William Brannon, Doug Beeferman, Hang Jiang, Andrew Heyward, Deb Roy
Understanding and making use of audience feedback is important but difficult for journalists, who now face an impractically large volume of audience comments online. We introduce AudienceView, an online tool to help journalists categorize and interpret this feedback by leveraging large language models (LLMs). AudienceView identifies themes and topics, connects them back to specific comments, provides ways to visualize the sentiment and distribution of the comments, and helps users develop ideas for subsequent reporting projects. We consider how such tools can be useful in a journalist's workflow, and emphasize the importance of contextual awareness and human judgment.
Read more7/18/2024
0
Whose Preferences? Differences in Fairness Preferences and Their Impact on the Fairness of AI Utilizing Human Feedback
Emilia Agis Lerner, Florian E. Dorner, Elliott Ash, Naman Goel
There is a growing body of work on learning from human feedback to align various aspects of machine learning systems with human values and preferences. We consider the setting of fairness in content moderation, in which human feedback is used to determine how two comments -- referencing different sensitive attribute groups -- should be treated in comparison to one another. With a novel dataset collected from Prolific and MTurk, we find significant gaps in fairness preferences depending on the race, age, political stance, educational level, and LGBTQ+ identity of annotators. We also demonstrate that demographics mentioned in text have a strong influence on how users perceive individual fairness in moderation. Further, we find that differences also exist in downstream classifiers trained to predict human preferences. Finally, we observe that an ensemble, giving equal weight to classifiers trained on annotations from different demographics, performs better for different demographic intersections; compared to a single classifier that gives equal weight to each annotation.
Read more6/11/2024