
-
Syria says deadly Israeli strikes a 'blatant violation'
-
Financial markets tumble after Trump tariff announcement
-
Starbucks faces new hot spill lawsuits weeks after $50mn ruling
-
Europe riled, but plans cool-headed response to Trump's tariffs
-
'Shenmue' voted most influential video game ever in UK poll
-
New coal capacity hit 20-year low in 2024: report
-
Revealed: Why monkeys are better at yodelling than humans
-
Key details on Trump's market-shaking tariffs
-
'A little tough love': Top quotes from Trump tariff talk
-
US business groups voice dismay at Trump's new tariffs
-
Grealish dedicates Man City goal to late brother
-
US tariffs take aim everywhere, including uninhabited islands
-
Trump sparks trade war with sweeping global tariffs
-
Israeli strikes hit Damascus, central Syria; monitor says 4 dead
-
Slot 'hates' offside rule that gave Liverpool win over Everton
-
US stocks end up, but volatility ahead after latest Trump tariffs
-
Barca oust Atletico to set up Clasico Copa del Rey final
-
Mourinho grabs Galatasaray coach's face after losing Istanbul derby
-
Grealish strikes early as Man City move up to fourth in Premier League
-
Reims edge out fourth-tier Cannes to set up PSG French Cup final
-
Liverpool beat Everton as title looms, Man City win without Haaland
-
Jota wins bad-tempered derby as Liverpool move 12 points clear
-
Inter and Milan level in derby Italian Cup semi
-
Stuttgart beat Leipzig to reach German Cup final
-
Trump unveils sweeping global tariffs
-
Italian director Nanni Moretti in hospital after heart attack: media
-
LIV Golf stars playing at Doral with Masters on their minds
-
Trump unveils sweeping 'Liberation Day' tariffs
-
Most deadly 2024 hurricane names retired from use: UN agency
-
Boeing chief reports progress to Senate panel after 'serious missteps'
-
Is Musk's political career descending to Earth?
-
On Mexico-US border, Trump's 'Liberation Day' brings fears for future
-
Starbucks faces new hot spill lawsuit weeks after $50mn ruling
-
Ally of Pope Francis elected France's top bishop
-
'Determined' Buttler leads Gujarat to IPL win over Bengaluru
-
US judge dismisses corruption case against New York mayor
-
Left-wing party pulls ahead in Greenland municipal elections
-
Blistering Buttler leads Gujarat to IPL win over Bengaluru
-
Tesla sales slump as pressure piles on Musk
-
Amazon makes last-minute bid for TikTok: report
-
Canada Conservative leader warns Trump could break future trade deal
-
British band Muse cancels planned Istanbul gig
-
'I'll be back' vows Haaland after injury blow
-
Trump to unveil 'Liberation Day' tariffs as world braces
-
New coach Edwards adamant England can win women's cricket World Cup
-
Military confrontation 'almost inevitable' if Iran nuclear talks fail: French FM
-
US stocks advance ahead of looming Trump tariffs
-
Scramble for food aid in Myanmar city near quake epicentre
-
American Neilson Powless fools Visma to win Across Flanders
-
NATO chief says alliance with US 'there to stay'

Facebook's algorithm doesn't alter people's beliefs: research
Do social media echo chambers deepen political polarization, or simply reflect existing social divisions?
A landmark research project that investigated Facebook around the 2020 US presidential election published its first results Thursday, finding that, contrary to assumption, the platform's often criticized content-ranking algorithm doesn't shape users' beliefs.
The work is the product of a collaboration between Meta -- the parent company of Facebook and Instagram -- and a group of academics from US universities who were given broad access to internal company data, and signed up tens of thousands of users for experiments.
The academic team wrote four papers examining the role of the social media giant in American democracy, which were published in the scientific journals Science and Nature.
Overall, the algorithm was found to be "extremely influential in people's on-platform experiences," said project leaders Talia Stroud of the University of Texas at Austin and Joshua Tucker, of New York University.
In other words, it heavily impacted what the users saw, and how much they used the platforms.
"But we also know that changing the algorithm for even a few months isn't likely to change people's political attitudes," they said, as measured by users' answers on surveys after they took part in three-month-long experiments that altered how they received content.
The authors acknowledged this conclusion might be because the changes weren't in place for long enough to make an impact, given that the United States has been growing more polarized for decades.
Nevertheless, "these findings challenge popular narratives blaming social media echo chambers for the problems of contemporary American democracy," wrote the authors of one of the papers, published in Nature.
- 'No silver bullet' -
Facebook's algorithm, which uses machine-learning to decide which posts rise to the top of users' feeds based on their interests, has been accused of giving rise to "filter bubbles" and enabling the spread of misinformation.
Researchers recruited around 40,000 volunteers via invitations placed on their Facebook and Instagram feeds, and designed an experiment where one group was exposed to the normal algorithm, while the other saw posts listed from newest to oldest.
Facebook originally used a reverse chronological system and some observers have suggested that switching back to it will reduce social media's harmful effects.
The team found that users in the chronological feed group spent around half the amount of time on Facebook and Instagram compared to the algorithm group.
On Facebook, those in the chronological group saw more content from moderate friends, as well as more sources with ideologically mixed audiences.
But the chronological feed also increased the amount of political and untrustworthy content seen by users.
Despite the differences, the changes did not cause detectable changes in measured political attitudes.
"The findings suggest that chronological feed is no silver bullet for issues such as political polarization," said coauthor Jennifer Pan of Stanford.
- Meta welcomes findings -
In a second paper in Science, the same team researched the impact of reshared content, which constitutes more than a quarter of content that Facebook users see.
Suppressing reshares has been suggested as a means to control harmful viral content.
The team ran a controlled experiment in which a group of Facebook users saw no changes to their feeds, while another group had reshared content removed.
Removing reshares reduced the proportion of political content seen, resulting in reduced political knowledge -- but again did not impact downstream political attitudes or behaviors.
A third paper, in Nature, probed the impact of content from "like-minded" users, pages, and groups in their feeds, which the researchers found constituted a majority of what the entire population of active adult Facebook users see in the US.
But in an experiment involving over 23,000 Facebook users, suppressing like-minded content once more had no impact on ideological extremity or belief in false claims.
A fourth paper, in Science, did however confirm extreme "ideological segregation" on Facebook, with politically conservative users more siloed in their news sources than liberals.
What's more, 97 percent of political news URLs on Facebook rated as false by Meta's third-party fact checking program -- which AFP is part of -- were seen by more conservatives than liberals.
Meta welcomed the overall findings.
They "add to a growing body of research showing there is little evidence that social media causes harmful... polarization or has any meaningful impact on key political attitudes, beliefs or behaviors," said Nick Clegg, the company's president of global affairs.
O.M.Souza--AMWN