Presentation about the Quello Search Project in relation to echo chambers, filter bubbles, fake news, and policy at the 2017 TPRC conference, Sep 2017.
"Subclassing and Composition – A Pythonic Tour of Trade-Offs", Hynek Schlawack
Social Shaping of the Politics of Internet Search and Networking: Moving Beyond Filter Bubbles, Echo Chambers, and Fake News
1. Social Shaping of the Politics of Internet
Search and Networking:
Moving Beyond Filter Bubbles, Echo
Chambers, and Fake News
Dr. Bibi C. Reisdorf
Assistant Professor, Department of Media and Information
Assistant Director, Quello Center, Michigan State University
TPRC45, Arlington, VA, 8-9 September 2017
3. The Part Played by Search in Shaping Political Opinion
• Quello Center team in collaboration with the Oxford
Internet Institute (OII), University of Oxford and
Department of Communication, University of Ottawa
• Professor William H. Dutton (Quello)
• Dr. Bianca C. Reisdorf (Quello)
• Dr. Grant Blank (OII)
• Dr. Elizabeth Dubois (Ottawa)
• With the assistance of:
• Craig Robertson (PhD Student, Quello)
• Sabrina Ahmed (BA Student, Ottawa)
• Support from Google, with thanks to Jon Steinberg
4. Centrality of Information to
Democratic Processes
Mass Media
• News, Radio, Television, and the Fourth Estate
The Internet and Search
• Search Engines, Algorithms, Social Media, User Choice,
and a Fifth Estate
5. Key Questions
How do media and search shape public opinion
and actions?
Enable citizens to make well-informed political
decisions?
Distort the information citizens gain access to and
choose in taking political decisions and actions?
How does personalization shape the results of
search? Creating a filter bubble?
6. Approach:
Cross-National Comparative Research
Report on Search and Politics
Review of
Literature
Comparative
Trace Data
Comparative
Survey of 7
nations
Britain
France
Germany
Italy
Poland
Spain
United States
14,000 Internet Users,
January 2017
7. The Centrality of Search
Becoming the first place people go for information
After email, search is one of the most common uses of the
Internet
Politics is a limited, specialized topic of search
8. Frequency of Using a Search Engine
France Germany Italy Poland Spain UK US Total
Never
1.4 0.14 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 1.1 0.54
Less than monthly
1.4 2.02 0.8 0.1 0.6 2.5 3 1.5
Monthly
1.8 2.4 0.8 0.2 1.4 2.4 2.4 1.62
Weekly
12.1 17.5 6.9 2.7 6.5 14.2 11.3 10.1
Daily
22.5 28.9 19.3 21.8 19.8 24.3 20 22.4
Greater than once per day
60.9 49.0 72.1 75 71.4 56.2 62.3 63.85
Total N
1,972 1,972 1,979 1,992 1,989 1,961 1,995 13,859
Total percent
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
9. The Purpose of Search
3.19
3.19
3.22
3.44
3.57
3.66
3.87
3.97
0 1 2 3 4
Mean results out of 5
Find entertaining content
Politics and current events
Medical or health questions
Check accuracy of news,info
Look up news on topic, event
Look up fact(s)
Navigation to sites
Info about particular topic
0=never; 4=very often
10. The Reliability of Search:
A Learned Level of Trust
As reliable as other major sources, e.g., TV
Internet users in Poland, Italy, and Spain more trusting
in search than those in Germany, France, and Britain
One of first places people go for information about
politics
11. Reliability of Different Sources
2.69
3.35
3.41
3.41
3.47
3.49
3.52
0 1 2 3 4
Mean results out of 5
Social media
Television
Newspapers
Online news
Family, friends, colleagues
Radio
Search engine results
0=not reliable at all; 4=totally reliable
12. The Diversity of Sources
Those interested in politics look at multiple (4.5)
sources of information
More than two (2.4) offline, and more than two
(2.1) online
Search engines most frequent online source
13. Multiple Sources of Information
about Politics
1.53
1.82
2.13
2.24
2.31
2.50
2.51
N
ever
Som
etim
es
O
ften
Very
often
Mean results out of 4
Charities, religious groups
Political websites
Radio
Print news
Family & friends
Online sources
TV
14. Online Sources of Information
about Politics
2.36
2.52
2.54
2.88
3.02
3.07
3.49
N
ever
R
arely
Som
etim
es
O
ften
Very
often
Mean results out of 5
Political website
Email
Online video platforms
Social media
Online sites of news & mags
Online news sites
Search engines
15. The Diversity of Views Encountered
Online
36% read news they disagree with ‘often’/‘very
often’
Less than 20% un-friend or block others
Diversity of Views Among People Communicated
with Online
• 15%: Views Different from you
• 65%: Mixed Beliefs
• 20%: Same as you
16. Diversity of Views on Social Networks
Social Media Research (OxIS, et al)
• Maintains and enhances existing ties, over space
• Introduces new people, friends, meet in person
Diversifies the News Diet
• 2017 Reuters Institute Digital News Report
• News and politics not the central role of social media
• Social media use increases incidental exposure to additional
news sources, with more politically diverse news
Social, not Politically Centric, Media
17. Users Check, Confirm, Information
Multiple approaches to confirming information
Over 80% use search to check facts
74% use search to check info on social media
18. Other Patterns that Bust Bubbles
76% occasionally or often find information they
were not looking for (serendipity) through search
48% ‘often’ learn something new – serendipity
Many recognize ‘wrong’ information
19. Search Matters: Outcomes
Perceived to lead some to change their opinion
on an issue
Two-thirds of respondents say search was
important to their voting decisions
20. Importance of Online Search to
Voting
France Germany Italy Poland Spain UK US Total
Not important
41.7 34.5 27.4 21.1 33.3 40.5 21 31.7
Important
58.3 65.5 72.6 78.9 66.7 59.5 79 68.3
Total N
1,496 1,486 1,666 1,129 1,617 1,559 1,568 10,520
Total percent
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
21. • Google Studie
• Forschungsfragen
• Methodologie
• Erste Resultate
• Bedeutung
• Diskussion
Factors Shaping Individual Differences
in Search
22. Individual Factors Shaping Strong
Search Practices
Political
• Interest in Politics
• Online political participation
Internet
• Skills
• Levels of Internet Use
• Mobile, Next Generation Users
Information
• Diversity of Sources
• Learned Level of Trust
23. Key Issues Moving Forward
Theoretical Perspectives
• Be more critical of deterministic perspectives
• Don’t underestimate users & social shaping of search
Interest in Politics
• Are those least interested & involved more vulnerable?
Skills in Search and Internet
• Are those offline or least skilled at greater risk?
• Can digital media literacy reduce risks?
25. The Report Plus
Dutton, W.H., Reisdorf, B.C., Dubois, E., and Blank, G. (2017), Search and
Politics: The Uses and Impacts of Search in Britain, France, Germany, Italy,
Poland, Spain, and the United States, Quello Center Working Paper available
on SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2960697
Dutton, W.H. (2017), ‘Fake News, Echo Chambers, and Filter Bubbles:
Underresearched and Overhyped’: https://theconversation.com/fake-news-
echo-chambers-and-filter-bubbles-underresearched-and-overhyped-76688
Dutton, W. H. (2017), ‘Bubblebusters’, NESTA. http://readie.eu/bubblebusters-
countering-fake-news-filter-bubbles-and-echo-chambers/
Project focuses on the centrality of information on democratic processes
In addition to mass media, such as print media and broadcast media (i.e. fourth estate), we now also have the internet, search engines, algorithms, and socila media
Users have a lot more choice, gatekeepers play a smaller role
Fifth estate: Internet and related digital technologies is creating a space for networking individuals in ways that enable a new source of accountability in government, politics and other sectors
We wanted to look further into how traditional and digital media affect public opinions and actions, for example voting decisions
Specifically we ask whether the combination of these media enables citizens to make well-informed decisions OR whether it distorts the info they can gain access to
For example, does personalization in search shape the results of search? Is it creating a filter bubble? Do people live in echo chambers, which a lot of previous research on single platforms like Twitter and Facebook seem to point to?
To examine these questions we used a multi-pronged methodological approach.
Extremely rich data set stemming from 30-minute online surveys with representative online samples from 7 nations; conducted in January 2017
Unique dataset as it inquires about a wide range of media and media uses both online and offline; so we can compare and contrast the use and importance of different media; and can compare between countries with different media systems, e.g. strong public service broadcasting traditions in Germany and Britain
Trace data on most popular search topics over time
Results
There is no doubt that search engines play a central role in how Internet users find information
After sending emails, search is one of the most popular uses of the Internet
However !! Looking for political information is a very limited and specialized topic of search
For example, we can see here that 86% of our complete sample said they use search at least once a day (and almost two thirds say several times daily)….
However, looking for politics and current events is a less popular search topic – in fact, the least popular one together with finding entertaining content
Instead, search is used mostly to find information on a particular non-political topic, simply to navigate to other websites, and to look up facts
We can also observe a fairly high level of trust in search engines, which are rated as reliable as other major news sources across the complete sample
However, we can also observe country differences…
In addition, search engines are one of the first places people go to for information about politics
As you can see here, Internet users regard the results of search engines as very reliable, similar to information found on the radio and obtained from friends and colleagues
In contrast, trust in the accuracy of information found on social media is comparatively low—and in fact the lowest out of any information source that we asked for
You can learn more about the country differences in our full paper (Table 4)
Which table in report?
Diversity of Views Among People Communicated with Online (Table 4.25 in full report)