Search

When a re-election rally for the U.S. president drew smaller crowds than expected in Tulsa, Oklahoma, many people attributed the low turnout to collective action organized by TikTok users. Motivated by TikTok's surge in popularity and its growing sociopolitical implications, this work explores the role of TikTok's recommender algorithm in amplifying call-to-action videos that promoted collective action against the Tulsa rally. We analyze call-to-action videos from more than 600 TikTok users and compare the visibility (i.e. play count) of these videos with other videos published by the same users. Evidence suggests that Tulsa-related videos generally received more plays, and in some cases the amplification was dramatic. For example, one user's call-to-action video was played over 2 million times, but no other video by the user exceeded 100,000 plays, and the user had fewer than 20,000 followers. Statistical modeling suggests that the increased play count is explained by increased engagement rather than any systematic amplification of call-to-action videos. We conclude by discussing the implications of recommender algorithms amplifying sociopolitical messages, and motivate several promising areas for future work., Comment: Presented at the FAccTRec Workshop on Responsible Recommendation (at RecSys 2020)

Making conjectures about future consequences of a technology is an exercise in trying to reduce various forms of uncertainty. Both to produce and reason about these conjectures requires understanding their potential limitations. In other words, we need systematic ways of considering uncertainty associated with given conjectures for downstream consequences. In this work, we frame the task of considering future consequences as an anticipatory ethics problem, where the goal is to develop scenarios that reflect plausible outcomes and their ethical implications following a technology's introduction into society. In order to shed light on how various forms of uncertainty might inform how we reason about a resulting scenario, we provide a characterization of the types of uncertainty that arise in a potential scenario-building process., Comment: Part of the Navigating the Broader Impacts of AI Research Workshop at NeurIPS 2020

How do news sources tackle controversial issues? In this work, we take a data-driven approach to understand how controversy interplays with emotional expression and biased language in the news. We begin by introducing a new dataset of controversial and non-controversial terms collected using crowdsourcing. Then, focusing on 15 major U.S. news outlets, we compare millions of articles discussing controversial and non-controversial issues over a span of 7 months. We find that in general, when it comes to controversial issues, the use of negative affect and biased language is prevalent, while the use of strong emotion is tempered. We also observe many differences across news sources. Using these findings, we show that we can indicate to what extent an issue is controversial, by comparing it with other issues in terms of how they are portrayed across different media., Comment: Computation+Journalism Symposium 2014

How can we characterize the power that various algorithms may exert on us? And how can we better understand when algorithms might be wronging us? What should be the role of journalists in holding that power to account? In this report I discuss what algorithms are and how they encode power. I then describe the idea of algorithmic accountability, first examining how algorithms problematize and sometimes stand in tension with transparency. Next, I describe how reverse engineering can provide an alternative way to characterize algorithmic power by delineating a conceptual model that captures different investigative scenarios based on reverse engineering algorithms’ input-output relationships. I then provide a number of illustrative cases and methodological details on how algorithmic accountability reporting might be realized in practice. I conclude with a discussion about broader issues of human resources, legality, ethics, and transparency.