5 ms·

It's another sock puppet study: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.17831 https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.17831 Very similar methodology to an earlier study the government c

It's another sock puppet study: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.17831 https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.17831 Very similar methodology to an earlier study the government cited in their case against TikTok: https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/NCRI-Report_-The-CCPs-Digital-Charm-Offensive.pdf https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/NCRI-Report_-... There are a number of issues with these studies, one being that the way the sock puppet bots interact with content is not exactly organic. Typically they search for content in a conditioning phase, followed by random scrolling during which the recommended videos are collected and classified by an LLM. Modern recommendation algorithms famously work by examining how long and how users engage with content, and there's none of that going on here. Still, the methodology itself and the use of LLMs to classify content is clever and probably about the best we can get. Also, even if there _is_ a bias, it doesn't tell us why. Are the recommendations intentionally spiked, or is this simply the recommendation strategy that maximizes profit? (Or that the recommendation model thinks will maximize profit?) It's very difficult to tell, which is part of what makes these models dangerous and also part of what makes them difficult to regulate. On a sidenote, TikTok (and presumably other content platforms) _really_ does not like these studies, as demonstrated by them nerfing search functionality after the second study above was released to prevent researchers using these techniques in the future. I haven't read the study in detail yet, but it will be interesting to see how the team at NYU Abu Dhabi adapted their methodology.

ziddoap 2y ago
While I am skeptical of what reasonable conclusions can be drawn from a study like this, they explain the methodology in the article. You said: >Typically [...] followed by random scrolling during which the recommended videos are collected and classified [...] Modern recommendation algorithms famously work by examining how long and how users engage with content, and there's none of that going on here. But they claim that videos are watched, not just collected from the recommendation page. "The accounts watched 10 videos, followed by a one-hour pause, and repeated this process for six days"
- xiii1408 2y ago
  Perhaps I should have been more clear. It's TikTok, so of course the only way to collect recommendations is to watch videos. Some studies watch the whole video, some just watch part of it, but it's TikTok, so fundamentally you're watching a video.
  - ziddoap 2y ago
    I might just not be reading it properly. I've never used TikTok, I assumed by your description that they scraped video titles/transcripts/etc. from the recommendation page without any engagement on the video. (I suppose I should read the study you linked!) When you say "how users engage with content, and there's none of that going on here", by "none of that", do you just mean likes/comments, that sort of thing? I would usually consider watching as engaging with content, but if you mean additional engagement (as I would call it, anyways), that would make a lot more sense to me.
    - xiii1408 2y ago
      I think the key metric missing here is how long the user watches each video. Likes and replies are probably helpful too, but when I've used short-form video content apps like TikTok, Reels, and YouTube Shorts before, they've gotten a pretty good measure of me without me ever liking, replying, or following. With the current methodology, the bot either watches the whole video, a fixed duration of it, or a random duration before swiping. The bot doesn't organically watch or swipe based on its interests like a human user would.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
threeseed 2y ago
> Also, even if there _is_ a bias, it doesn't tell us why Because that is a political discussion that will inevitably derail the point. If there is identified bias then the platform must address it. Or it should be labelled a national security threat.
- normalaccess 2y ago
  The problem is that the algorithms are programed to show people what they want to see OR what the platform want's you to see. If it's orgasmic then this is no different than any other form of organic popularity. Seeing as Trump won the popular vote and the electoral collage, people were interested in republican content. On the same token it's very easy to AstroTurf and claim it was organic. From my personal conversations in meat-space I lean organic. Is there funny business going on? Absolutely, all the time everywhere in every way. Can we say this was funny business? Not without the code. TLDR: Popularity algorithms push popular content algorithmically.
  - threeseed 2y ago
    > TLDR: Popularity algorithms push popular content algorithmically Not aware of any major platform that solely uses a popularity algorithm.
- xiii1408 2y ago
  I think this is a valid point and a really interesting question. If that's the standard, we need to regulate all recommendation algorithms. (i.e. put limits on Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube as well.) How could we regulate this? I can think of two ways: - Results-based enforcement. i.e., companies are free to use whatever recommendation model they like, but have to recommend content within ideological bounds. i.e., you can't bias toward one partisanship more than X%. There's some precedent for this with the equal-time rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule) and FCC fairness doctrine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine). - Algorithm-based enforcement. i.e., there are limits on the algorithm itself. Perhaps you have to present your algorithm to a government agency and provide a proof that it obeys certain properties. But the enforcement here is analytical rather than empirical.

ziddoap 2y ago

While I am skeptical of what reasonable conclusions can be drawn from a study like this, they explain the methodology in the article. You said: >Typically [...] followed by random scrolling during which the recommended videos are collected and classified [...] Modern recommendation algorithms famously work by examining how long and how users engage with content, and there's none of that going on here. But they claim that videos are watched, not just collected from the recommendation page. "The accounts watched 10 videos, followed by a one-hour pause, and repeated this process for six days"

xiii1408 2y ago
Perhaps I should have been more clear. It's TikTok, so of course the only way to collect recommendations is to watch videos. Some studies watch the whole video, some just watch part of it, but it's TikTok, so fundamentally you're watching a video.
- ziddoap 2y ago
  I might just not be reading it properly. I've never used TikTok, I assumed by your description that they scraped video titles/transcripts/etc. from the recommendation page without any engagement on the video. (I suppose I should read the study you linked!) When you say "how users engage with content, and there's none of that going on here", by "none of that", do you just mean likes/comments, that sort of thing? I would usually consider watching as engaging with content, but if you mean additional engagement (as I would call it, anyways), that would make a lot more sense to me.
  - xiii1408 2y ago
    I think the key metric missing here is how long the user watches each video. Likes and replies are probably helpful too, but when I've used short-form video content apps like TikTok, Reels, and YouTube Shorts before, they've gotten a pretty good measure of me without me ever liking, replying, or following. With the current methodology, the bot either watches the whole video, a fixed duration of it, or a random duration before swiping. The bot doesn't organically watch or swipe based on its interests like a human user would.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

threeseed 2y ago

> Also, even if there _is_ a bias, it doesn't tell us why Because that is a political discussion that will inevitably derail the point. If there is identified bias then the platform must address it. Or it should be labelled a national security threat.

normalaccess 2y ago
The problem is that the algorithms are programed to show people what they want to see OR what the platform want's you to see. If it's orgasmic then this is no different than any other form of organic popularity. Seeing as Trump won the popular vote and the electoral collage, people were interested in republican content. On the same token it's very easy to AstroTurf and claim it was organic. From my personal conversations in meat-space I lean organic. Is there funny business going on? Absolutely, all the time everywhere in every way. Can we say this was funny business? Not without the code. TLDR: Popularity algorithms push popular content algorithmically.
- threeseed 2y ago
  > TLDR: Popularity algorithms push popular content algorithmically Not aware of any major platform that solely uses a popularity algorithm.
xiii1408 2y ago
I think this is a valid point and a really interesting question. If that's the standard, we need to regulate all recommendation algorithms. (i.e. put limits on Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube as well.) How could we regulate this? I can think of two ways: - Results-based enforcement. i.e., companies are free to use whatever recommendation model they like, but have to recommend content within ideological bounds. i.e., you can't bias toward one partisanship more than X%. There's some precedent for this with the equal-time rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule) and FCC fairness doctrine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine). - Algorithm-based enforcement. i.e., there are limits on the algorithm itself. Perhaps you have to present your algorithm to a government agency and provide a proof that it obeys certain properties. But the enforcement here is analytical rather than empirical.