From Homophily to Polarization in Social Media

Rhonda Chapman
Sep 7, 2018 · 6 min read
Image retrieved from https://culturalmosaic.org/2014/07/29/the-folly-of-homophily/

Connection and Homophily in Social Media

Social connections are vital in promoting human well-being (Social Connection, 2018). Social network connections have become as significant to people as those made physically (Social Connection, 2018). Like with person to person connections, people seek interactions that promote feelings of acceptance and belonging (Social Connection, 2018). Social networks, like Facebook, provide a huge platform to maintain or enhance existing connections with physical friends and family, while creating new connections based on common interests, ideology or beliefs (Social Connection, 2018). Social media can broaden access to more people, with the same interests, through interpersonal ties (Social Connection, 2018). As I discussed in my previous blog post, located at https://medium.com/@rchapman14/ideal-connections-on-social-media-10dabe0f4924 , homophily describes the process in which people connect with others that share the same age, profession, socio-economic status, values and ideas. Social networks use algorithms to expose users exclusively to information and other users that reflect their interests and beliefs (Stearns, 2018). It also excludes any information that would contradict those beliefs (Stearns, 2018). Such social environments can polarize, or cause division, by perpetuating one perspective without consideration other viewpoints (Stearns, 2018). This creates an information silo where information is distributed within a single social community, with no communication with other communities (Stearns, 2018). There are many negative implications to interacting and sharing information in an echo chamber, with no diversity or openness to different ideas.

The Dark Side of Homophily

According to World Economic Forum, massive digital misinformation is considered one of the main risks to modern society (Bessie et.al., 2015). One study found that homophilic social groups tend to increase the amount of unsubstantiated or false information being disseminated on the social sites (Bessie et.al., 2015). Sometimes false information is shared unintentionally (Bessie et.al, 2015). Other times, false news is spread to ensue outrage, anger or contempt for a particular issue or topic (Bessie et.al, 2015). The current political climate has offered fertile ground for fake news and propaganda to spread to millions of users. An article published on Buzzfeed News.com sought to prove that both conservative and liberal bias group pages on Facebook consistently publish and share misleading or false information to millions of users (Silverman, Strapagiel, Hamza, Hall & Singer-Vine, 2016). Their analysts performed fact-checks on every post and story published by the top three most popular homophilous liberal and conservative group Facebook pages over a seven-day period (Silverman et.al, 2016). They used the top three mainstream media news sites, Politico, CNN Politics and ABC News Politics, as their control group (Silverman et.al, 2016). They measured the stories based on whether the information was mostly true, a mixture of true and false, mostly false or contained no factual content at all (Silverman et.al, 2016). They found that when comparing conservative and liberal truthfulness, that 38% of the posts published on conservative group pages were either mostly false or a mixture of true and false to the liberal group pages’ 19% (Silverman et.al, 2016). They also found that group pages that contained the most false posts had the highest engagement ratings (Silverman et.al, 2016). That implies that more false stories and posts are being shared faster than true stories (Silverman et.al, 2016). It also indicates that people are attracted to sensationalism and information that reinforces their own beliefs, whether it is true or not (Silverman et.al, 2016).

One example used in the article was a video post on the Freedom Daily Facebook page, an alt-conservative news page, depicting a man on fire with the headlines, “Two White Men Doused with Gasoline, Set on Fire by Blacks” (Silverman et.al, 2016). The Freedom Daily was determined to be the biggest false information distributor with 46% of its information found to be false or misleading (Silverman et.al, 2016). The leading post accuses members of the Black Lives Matters movement group for setting the two men on fire. But the actual story was covered by Baltimore local news stations, CNN and the Daily News (Silverman et.al, 2016). It stated that there was no link between this incident and the Black Lives Matters Movement (Silverman et.al, 2016). They also discovered, through fact-checking that the altercation was between a black man and his non-white coworker and that second person that caught on fire did so by bumping into the man that was engulfed in flames (Silverman et.al, 2016). Although the factual story was determined to be a private matter, it was distorted in a way that would ensue anger and outrage against African Americans and the Black Lives Matter movement (Silverman et.al, 2016). This story was shared 14,000 times, generating 9,000 likes and 2,000 angry comments (Silverman et.al, 2016). Through Buzzfeed’s fact checking experiment, it was discovered that politically homophilous Facebook pages, on both the liberal and conservative sides, cater to their audiences biases by posting misleading or false information in order to gain attention and increase engagement (Silverman et.al, 2016).

Data retrieved from https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/partisan-fb-pages-analysis

Homophily Awareness

Social media users can protect themselves from becoming susceptible to false information by broadening their information sources and diversifying the groups that they frequently interact with (Kiely & Robertson, 2016). People must seek out alternative information in order to use their critical thinking skills to discern the validity of the information they receive (Kiely & Robertson, 2016). Homophilous news outlets create information silos that closes users off from other available news sources (Kiely & Robertson, 2016). By relying on a small group of like-minded resource for information, they are increasing their risk of exposure to fake news or misleading information (Kiely & Robertson, 2016). It is also important to be more diligent in fact-checking the information that is received (Kiely & Robertson, 2016). First, users should read the entire story before choosing to share it with others (Kiely & Robertson, 2016). Many times, the actual story is considerably less provocative that the headlines (Kiely & Robertson, 2016). Next, check the author’s sources (Kiely & Robertson, 2016). With many fake news stories, the sources cited are not real or do not include related information Data retrieved from https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/partisan-fb-pages-analysis mentioned in the story (Kiely & Robertson, 2016). Lastly, be aware of biases that can lead to susceptibility to misinformation (Kiely & Robertson, 2016). When stories appear that cater to a particular belief system or ideology, take the time to dig deeper to find out if it is a credible story (Kiely & Robertson, 2016). It could be propaganda designed to reinforce the bias or satire used to entertain users (Kiely & Robertson, 2016). Either way, the information should be scrutinized before share with other users (Kiely & Robertson, 2016). By practicing a little due diligence to confirm the legitimacy of social network information, users can rest assured that information that they share is credible.

References

Bessi, A.,… Quattrocciocchi, W. (2015) Viral misinformation: the role of homophily and polarization. Research Gate. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281274326/download

Dictionary. Com (2018). Polarization definition. Retrieved from https://www.dictionary.com/browse/polarization

Kiely, E., Robertson, L. (2016) How to spot fake news. FacktCheck.org. Retrieved from https://www.factcheck.org/2016/11/how-to-spot-fake-news/

Silverman, C., Strapagiel, L., Shaban, H., Hall, E., Singer-Vine, J. (2016) Hyperpartisan facebook pages are publishing false and misleading information at an alarming rate. Buzzfeed News. Retrieved from https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/partisan-fb-pages-analysis

Social Connection (2018). What is social connection? Greater Good Magazine. Great Good Science Center at UC Berkley. Retrieved from https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/topic/social_connection/definition

Stearns, C. (2018). Homophily Biases: Definition, Example and Overview. Study. Com. Retrieved from https://study.com/academy/lesson/homophily-biases-definition-example-overview.html

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade