IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/zbw/iprjir/235968.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Recommender systems and the amplification of extremist content

Author

Listed:
  • Whittaker, Joe
  • Looney, Seán
  • Reed, Alastair
  • Votta, Fabio

Abstract

Policymakers have recently expressed concerns over the role of recommendation algorithms and their role in forming "filter bubbles". This is a particularly prescient concern in the context of extremist content online; these algorithms may promote extremist content at the expense of more moderate voices. In this article, we make two contributions to this debate. Firstly, we provide a novel empirical analysis of three platforms' recommendation systems when interacting with far-right content. We find that one platform-YouTube-does amplify extreme and fringe content, while two-Reddit and Gab-do not. Secondly, we contextualise these findings into the regulatory debate. There are currently few policy instruments for dealing with algorithmic amplification, and those that do exist largely focus on transparency. We argue that policymakers have yet to fully understand the problems inherent in "de-amplifying" legal, borderline content and argue that a co-regulatory approach may offer a route towards tackling many of these challenges.

Suggested Citation

  • Whittaker, Joe & Looney, Seán & Reed, Alastair & Votta, Fabio, 2021. "Recommender systems and the amplification of extremist content," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 10(2), pages 1-29.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:iprjir:235968
    DOI: 10.14763/2021.2.1565
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/235968/1/1764293231.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.14763/2021.2.1565?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Napoli, Philip M., 2015. "Social media and the public interest: Governance of news platforms in the realm of individual and algorithmic gatekeepers," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(9), pages 751-760.
    2. Copland, Simon, 2020. "Reddit quarantined: Can changing platform affordances reduce hateful material online?," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 9(4), pages 1-26.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Griffin, Rachel, 2022. "New school speech regulation as a regulatory strategy against hate speech on social media: The case of Germany's NetzDG," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(9).
    2. Padden, Michaela, 2023. "The transformation of surveillance in the digitalisation discourse of the OECD: A brief genealogy," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 12(3), pages 1-39.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rieder, Bernhard & Hofmann, Jeanette, 2020. "Towards platform observability," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 9(4), pages 1-28.
    2. Germano, Fabrizio & Sobbrio, Francesco, 2020. "Opinion dynamics via search engines (and other algorithmic gatekeepers)," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    3. Mezei, Péter & Verteș-Olteanu, Andreea, 2020. "Editorial: From trust in the system to trust in the content," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 9(4), pages 1-28.
    4. Lee, Changjun & Hwang, Junseok, 2018. "The influence of giant platform on content diversity," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 157-165.
    5. Liudmila Sivetc & Mariëlle Wijermars, 2021. "The Vulnerabilities of Trusted Notifier-Models in Russia: The Case of Netoscope," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(4), pages 27-38.
    6. Cheng, Kuo-Tai, 2016. "Test of the mediating effects of regulatory decision tools in the communications regulator," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 277-289.
    7. Griffin, Rachel, 2022. "New school speech regulation as a regulatory strategy against hate speech on social media: The case of Germany's NetzDG," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(9).
    8. Matthew Tenney & Renee Sieber, 2016. "Data-Driven Participation: Algorithms, Cities, Citizens, and Corporate Control," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 1(2), pages 101-113.
    9. Rosa Vicari & Nadejda Komendatova, 2023. "Systematic meta-analysis of research on AI tools to deal with misinformation on social media during natural and anthropogenic hazards and disasters," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-14, December.
    10. Cheng, John W. & Mitomo, Hitoshi & Otsuka, Tokio & Jeon, Stefan Y., 2015. "Media’s Effects on People’s Perceptions and Intentions in Post-Disaster Recovery – a Case Study of the Great East Japan Earthquake," 26th European Regional ITS Conference, Madrid 2015 127133, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    11. She, Chaoyuan & Michelon, Giovanna, 2019. "Managing stakeholder perceptions: Organized hypocrisy in CSR disclosures on Facebook," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 54-76.
    12. Haenschen, Katherine & Wolf, Jordan, 2019. "Disclaiming responsibility: How platforms deadlocked the Federal Election Commission's efforts to regulate digital political advertising," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(8), pages 1-1.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:iprjir:235968. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://policyreview.info/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.