HackerPapers

arXiv:1701.02694cs.SI

Limited individual attention and online virality of low-quality information

Xiaoyan Qiu, Diego F. M. Oliveira, Alireza Sahami Shirazi, Alessandro Flammini, Filippo Menczer

Early discovery. Linked by one identifiable commenter. This paper is outside the main ranking; a mention is not an endorsement.

Abstract

Social media are massive marketplaces where ideas and news compete for our attention. Previous studies have shown that quality is not a necessary condition for online virality and that knowledge about peer choices can distort the relationship between quality and popularity. However, these results do not explain the viral spread of low-quality information, such as the digital misinformation that threatens our democracy. We investigate quality discrimination in a stylized model of online social network, where individual agents prefer quality information, but have behavioral limitations in managing a heavy flow of information. We measure the relationship between the quality of an idea and its likelihood to become prevalent at the system level. We find that both information overload and limited attention contribute to a degradation in the market's discriminative power. A good tradeoff between discriminative power and diversity of information is possible according to the model. However, calibration with empirical data characterizing information load and finite attention in real social media reveals a weak correlation between quality and popularity of information. In these realistic conditions, the model predicts that high-quality information has little advantage over low-quality information.

arXiv comments
The original paper was retracted (see http://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0132). This is a corrected version of the preprint
Journal reference
DOI
Subjects
cs.SISocial and Information Networks physics.soc-phPhysics and Society

On Hacker News

Linked by 1 identifiable commenter in 1 comment across 1 thread, from Jan 2019 to Jan 2019.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments1 thread

    • Adding another layer of complexity, versions of the paper both pre- and post-retraction are available on arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.02694 It wasn't clear from the RetractionWatch page that the authors think that at least some form of the paper is still worth republishing.

      nkurzView on HNParent context

Submitted to Hacker News

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.