Eckles, D. Testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Communications, Media, and Broadband: Algorithmic Transparency and Assessing Effects of Algorithmic Ranking (US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, 2022).Milli, S. et al. Engagement, user satisfaction, and the amplification of divisive content on social media. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. Nexus 4, pgaf062 (2025).Google Scholar Knight, M. Explainer: how Facebook has become the world’s largest echo chamber. The Conversation https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-facebook-has-become-the-worlds-largest-echo-chamber-91024 (2018).Wojcieszak, M., Casas, A., Yu, X., Nagler, J. & Tucker, J. A. Echo chambers revisited: the (overwhelming) sharing of in-group politicians, pundits and media on Twitter. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/xwc79_v1 (2021).Cinelli, M., De Francisci Morales, G., Galeazzi, A., Quattrociocchi, W. & Starnini, M. The echo chamber effect on social media. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2023301118 (2021).Article Google Scholar Hswen, Y., Xu, X., Hing, A., Hawkins, J. B., Brownstein, J. S. & Gee, G. C. Association of “# covid19” versus “# chinesevirus” with anti-Asian sentiments on Twitter: March 9–23, 2020. Am. J. Public Health 111, 956–964 (2021).Article Google Scholar Noble, S. U. Algorithms of Oppression (New York Univ. Press, 2018).Shmargad, Y. & Klar, S. Sorting the news: how ranking by popularity polarizes our politics. Polit. Commun. 37, 423–446 (2020).Article Google Scholar Van Bavel, J. J., Rathje, S., Harris, E., Robertson, C. & Sternisko, A. How social media shapes polarization. Trends Cogn. Sci. 25, 913–916 (2021).Article Google Scholar Levy, R. Social media, news consumption, and polarization: evidence from a field experiment. Am. Econ. Rev. 111, 831–870 (2021).Article Google Scholar Allcott, H., Braghieri, L., Eichmeyer, S. & Gentzkow, M. The welfare effects of social media. Am. Econ. Rev. 110, 629–676 (2020).Article Google Scholar Strümke, I., Slavkovik, M. & Stachl, C. Against algorithmic exploitation of human vulnerabilities. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.04993 (2023).Ceylan, G., Anderson, I. A. & Wood, W. Sharing of misinformation is habitual, not just lazy or biased. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 120, e2216614120 (2023).Article Google Scholar Chen, A. Y., Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., Robertson, R. E. & Wilson, C. Subscriptions and external links help drive resentful users to alternative and extremist YouTube channels. Sci. Adv. 9, eadd8080 (2023).Article Google Scholar Guess, A. M. et al. Reshares on social media amplify political news but do not detectably affect beliefs or opinions. Science 381, 404–408 (2023).Article Google Scholar Munger, K. All the news that’s fit to click: the economics of clickbait media. Polit. Commun. 37, 376–397 (2020).Article Google Scholar Munger, K. & Phillips, J. Right-wing YouTube: a supply and demand perspective. Int. J. Press Polit. 27, 186–219 (2022).Article Google Scholar Aridor, G., Jiménez-Durán, R., Levy, R. & Song, L. The economics of social media. J. Econ. Lit. 62, 1422–1474 (2024).Article Google Scholar DiResta, R. et al. The Tactics & Tropes of the Internet Research Agency (UN Digital Commons, 2019).Golovchenko, Y., Buntain, C., Eady, G., Brown, M. A. & Tucker, J. A. Cross-platform state propaganda: Russian trolls on Twitter and YouTube during the 2016 US presidential election. Int. J. Press Polit. 25, 357–389 (2020).Article Google Scholar Tufekci, Z. YouTube, the great radicalizer. The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/10/opinion/sunday/youtube-politics-radical.html (2018).Lewis, P. ‘Fiction is outperforming reality’: how YouTube’s algorithm distorts truth. The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/02/how-youtubes-algorithm-distorts-truth (2018).Levin, S. Las Vegas survivors furious as YouTube promotes clips calling shooting a hoax. The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/04/las-vegas-shooting-youtube-hoax-conspiracy-theories/ (2017).Twenge, J. M. Have smartphones destroyed a generation. The Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/has-the-smartphone-destroyed-a-generation/534198/ (2017).Haidt, J. & Twenge, J. M. This is our chance to pull teenagers out of the smartphone trap. The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/31/opinion/smartphone-iphone-social-media-isolation.html (2021).Waterson, J. & Milmo, D. Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen calls for urgent external regulation. The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/25/facebook-whistleblower-frances-haugen-calls-for-urgent-external-regulation (2021).Stokel-Walker, C. The EU wants to label ‘addictive design’ a systemic risk under the DSA https://www.techpolicy.press/the-eu-wants-to-label-addictive-design-a-systemic-risk-under-the-dsa/ (2026).Tiffany, K. Can Instagram ruin your life? The jury will decide. The Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/2026/02/instagram-meta-addiction-lawsuits/685947/ (2026).Sunstein, C. Republic.com (Princeton Univ. Press, 2001).Sunstein, C. Republic.com 2.0 (Princeton Univ. Press, 2007).Johnson, S. L., Kitchens, B. & Gray, P. Facebook serves as an echo chamber, especially for conservatives. blame its algorithm. The Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/10/26/facebook-algorithm-conservative-liberal-extremes/ (2020).Pariser, E. The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web is Changing What We Read and How We Think (Penguin Books, 2012).Shapiro, A., Levitt, M. & Intagliata, C. How the polarizing effect of social media is speeding up. NPR (9 September, 2022).Fisher, M. The Chaos Machine: the Inside Story of How Social Media Rewired our Minds and Our World (Little Brown and Company, 2022).Whitaker, B. Social media’s role in America’s polarized political climate. CBS News https://www.cbsnews.com/news/social-media-political-polarization-60-minutes-2022-11-06/ (2022).Lorenz-Spreen, P., Oswald, L., Lewandowsky, S. & Hertwig, R. A systematic review of worldwide causal and correlational evidence on digital media and democracy. Nat. Hum. Behav. 7, 74–101 (2023).Article Google Scholar Haidt, J. Yes, social media really is undermining democracy. The Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/07/social-media-harm-facebook-meta-response/670975/ (2022).El-Bermawy, M. M. Your filter bubble is destroying democracy. Wired https://www.wired.com/2016/11/filter-bubble-destroying-democracy/ (2016).Sunstein, C. #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media (Princeton Univ. Press, 2018).Benkler, Y. Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics (Oxford Academic, 2018).Vaidhyanathan, S. Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy (Oxford Univ. Press, 2018).Mosleh, M., Allen, J. & Rand, D. G. Divergent patterns of engagement with partisan and low-quality news across seven social media platforms. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 122, e2425739122 (2025).Article Google Scholar Wang, S., Huang, S., Zhou, A. & Metaxa, D. Lower quantity, higher quality: auditing news content and user perceptions on Twitter/X algorithmic versus chronological timelines. In Proc. ACM on Human Computer Interaction Vol. 8 (ed. Nichols, J.) 57 (ACM, 2024).Anti-Defamation League, Avaaz, Decode Democracy, Mozilla, & New America’s Open Technology Institute Ranking and recommendation systems https://www.mozillafoundation.org/en/campaigns/trained-for-deception-how-artificial-intelligence-fuels-online-disinformation/ranking-and-recommendation-systems/ (Mozilla Foundation, 2023).Narayanan, A. Understanding social media recommendation algorithms https://knightcolumbia.org/content/understanding-social-media-recommendation-algorithms (The Knight First Amendment Institute, 2023).Ribeiro, M. H., Veselovsky, V. & West, R. The amplification paradox in recommender systems. In Proc. International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (eds Lin, Y.-R. et al.) Vol. 17, 1138–1142 https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v17i1.22223 (AAAI Press, 2023).Mansoury, M., Abdollahpouri, H., Pechenizkiy, M., Mobasher, B. & Burke, R. Feedback loop and bias amplification in recommender systems. In Proc. 29th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management 2145–2148 (ACM, 2020).Jiang, R., Chiappa, S., Lattimore, T., György, A. & Kohli, P. Degenerate feedback loops in recommender systems. In Proc. 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics and Society 383–390 (ACM, 2019).Pedreschi, D. et al. Human-AI coevolution. Artif. Intell. 339, 104244 (2024).Article Google Scholar Wagner, C. et al. Measuring algorithmically infused societies. Nature 595, 197–204 (2021).Article Google Scholar Matias, J. N. Humans and algorithms work together-so study them together. Nature 617, 248–251 (2023).Article Google Scholar Lewandowsky, S., Robertson, R. E. & DiResta, R. Challenges in understanding human-algorithm entanglement during online information consumption. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 19, 758–766 (2024).Article Google Scholar Roose, K. The making of a YouTube radical. The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/08/technology/youtube-radical.html (2019).Mozilla. YouTube regrets: a crowdsourced investigation into YouTube’s recommendation algorithm https://www.mozillafoundation.org/en/youtube/findings/ (Mozilla Foundation, 2022).Myers, S. L. How social media amplifies misinformation more than information. The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/13/technology/misinformation-integrity-institute-report.html (2022).Sunstein, C. R. Echo Chambers: Bush v. Gore, Impeachment, and Beyond (Princeton Univ. Press, 2001).Bruns, A. It’s not the technology, stupid: how the ‘echo chamber’ and ‘filter bubble’ metaphors have failed us. In Proc. IAMCR Conference 19771 (International Association for Media and Communication Research, 2019).Dahlgren, P. M. A critical review of filter bubbles and a comparison with selective exposure. Nordicom Rev. 42, 15–33 (2021).Article Google Scholar Paul, K. Facebook harms children, damaging democracy, claims whistleblower. The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/05/facebook-harms-children-damaging-democracy-claims-whistleblower (2021).Allen, J. Misinformation amplification analysis and tracking dashboard. The Integrity Institute https://www.integrityinstitute.org/blog/misinformation-amplification-tracking-dashboardAuxier, B. 64% of Americans say social media have a mostly negative effect on the way things are going in the U.S. today. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/10/15/64-of-americans-say-social-media-have-a-mostly-negative-effect-on-the-way-things-are-going-in-the-u-s-today/ (Pew Research Center, 2020).Budak, C., Nyhan, B., Rothschild, D. M., Thorson, E. & Watts, D. J. Misunderstanding the harms of online misinformation. Nature 630, 45–53 (2024).Article Google Scholar Allen, J., Howland, B., Mobius, M., Rothschild, D. & Watts, D. J. Evaluating the fake news problem at the scale of the information ecosystem. Sci. Adv. 6, eaay3539 (2020).Article Google Scholar Guess, A. M., Nyhan, B. & Reifler, J. Exposure to untrustworthy websites in the 2016 US election. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 472–480 (2020).Article Google Scholar Hosseinmardi, H. et al. Examining the consumption of radical content on YouTube. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2101967118 (2021).Article Google Scholar Gentzkow, M. & Shapiro, J. M. Ideological segregation online and offline. Q. J. Econ. 126, 1799–1839 (2011).Article Google Scholar Eady, G. et al. Exposure to the Russian Internet Research Agency foreign influence campaign on Twitter in the 2016 US election and its relationship to attitudes and voting behavior. Nat. Commun. 14, 62 (2023).Article Google Scholar Grinberg, N., Joseph, K., Friedland, L., Swire-Thompson, B. & Lazer, D. Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 US presidential election. Science 363, 374–378 (2019).Article Google Scholar Guess, A. M., Nyhan, B., O’Keeffe, Z. & Reifler, J. The sources and correlates of exposure to vaccine-related (mis)information online. Vaccine 38, 7799–7805 (2020).Article Google Scholar Bergeron-Boutin, O. et al. Untrustworthy sources on Facebook and Instagram in 2020: concentrated exposure but no attitudinal effects. Sci. Adv. 12, eadz6502 (2026).Article Google Scholar Guess, A., Nyhan, B., Lyons, B. & Reifler, J. Avoiding the echo chamber about echo chambers https://kf-site-production.s3.amazonaws.com/media_elements/files/000/000/133/original/Topos_KF_White-Paper_Nyhan_V1.pdf (Knight Foundation, 2018).González-Bailón, S. et al. Asymmetric ideological segregation in exposure to political news on Facebook. Science 381, 392–398 (2023).Article Google Scholar Nyhan, B. et al. Like-minded sources on Facebook are prevalent but not polarizing. Nature 620, 137–144 (2023).Article Google Scholar Muise, D. et al. Quantifying partisan news diets in Web and TV audiences. Sci. Adv. 8, eabn0083 (2022).Article Google Scholar Eady, G., Nagler, J., Guess, A., Zilinsky, J. & Tucker, J. A. How many people live in political bubbles on social media? Evidence from linked survey and Twitter data. Sage Open https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019832705 (2019).Guess, A. M. (Almost) everything in moderation: new evidence on Americans’ online media diets. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 65, 1007–1022 (2021).Article Google Scholar Robertson, R. E. et al. Auditing partisan audience bias within google search. Proc. ACM. Hum. Comput. Interact. 2, 1–22 (2018).Article Google Scholar Courtois, C., Slechten, L. & Coenen, L. Challenging google search filter bubbles in social and political information: disconforming evidence from a digital methods case study. Telemat. Inform. 35, 2006–2015 (2018).Article Google Scholar Hannak, A. et al. Measuring personalization of web search. In Proc. 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web 527–538 (ACM, 2013).Haim, M., Graefe, A. & Brosius, H.-B. Burst of the filter bubble? Effects of personalization on the diversity of Google News. Digit. Journal. 6, 330–343 (2018).Google Scholar Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. J. et al. Should we worry about filter bubbles? Internet Policy Rev. https://doi.org/10.14763/2016.1.401 (2016).Bruns, A. Filter bubble. Internet Policy Rev. https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.4.1426 (2019).Flaxman, S., Goel, S. & Rao, J. M. Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opin. Q. 80, 298–320 (2016).Article Google Scholar Fletcher, R. & Nielsen, R. K. Automated serendipity: the effect of using search engines on news repertoire balance and diversity. Digit. Journal. 6, 976–989 (2018).Google Scholar Lorenz, T. Substack sent a push alert promoting a Nazi blog. User Magazine https://www.usermag.co/p/substack-sent-a-push-alert-promoting-nazi-white-supremacist-blog (2025).Whittaker, J., Looney, S., Reed, A. & Votta, F. Recommender systems and the amplification of extremist content. Internet Policy Rev. https://doi.org/10.14763/2021.2.1565 (2021).Article Google Scholar Hussein, E., Juneja, P. & Mitra, T. Measuring misinformation in video search platforms: an audit study on YouTube. Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact. 4, 1–27 (2020).Article Google Scholar Papadamou, K. et al. ‘It is just a flu’: assessing the effect of watch history on YouTube’s pseudoscientific video recommendations. In Proc. International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media Vol. 16, 723–734 (2022).Haroon, M. et al. Auditing YouTube’s recommendation system for ideologically congenial, extreme, and problematic recommendations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 120, e2213020120 (2023).Article Google Scholar Ibrahim, H., AlDahoul, N., Lee, S., Rahwan, T. & Zaki, Y. YouTube’s recommendation algorithm is left-leaning in the United States. PNAS Nexus 2, pgad264 (2023).Article Google Scholar Ibrahim, H. et al. Systematic partisan content skews in TikTok during the 2024 US elections. Nature 65, 1004–1011 (2026).Article Google Scholar Hosseinmardi, H. et al. Causally estimating the effect of YouTube’s recommender system using counterfactual bots. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 121, e2313377121 (2024).Article Google Scholar Bandy, J. & Diakopoulos, N. More accounts, fewer links: how algorithmic curation impacts media exposure in Twitter timelines. Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact. 5, 1–28 (2021).Google Scholar Huszár, F. et al. Algorithmic amplification of politics on Twitter. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2025334119 (2022).Article Google Scholar Bakshy, E., Messing, S. & Adamic, L. A. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science 348, 1130–1132 (2015).Article MathSciNet Google Scholar Hosanagar, K. Blame the echo chamber on Facebook. But blame yourself, too. Wired https://www.wired.com/2016/11/facebook-echo-chamber/ (2016).Hosanagar, K., Fleder, D., Lee, D. & Buja, A. Will the global village fracture into tribes? Recommender systems and their effects on consumer fragmentation. Manage. Sci. 60, 805–823 (2013).Article Google Scholar Guess, A. M. et al. How do social media feed algorithms affect attitudes and behavior in an election campaign? Science 381, 398–404 (2023).Article Google Scholar Gauthier, G., Hodler, R., Widmer, P. & Zhuravskaya, E. The political effects of X’s feed algorithm. Nature 652, 416–423 (2026).Article Google Scholar Bagchi, C. et al. Social media algorithms can curb misinformation, but do they? Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.18393 (2024).Robertson, R. E. et al. Users choose to engage with more partisan news than they are exposed to on Google Search. Nature 618, 342–348 (2023).Article Google Scholar Bak-Coleman, J. B. et al. Moving towards informative and actionable social media research. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2505.09254 (2025).Williams, D. Is social media destroying democracy or giving it to us good and hard? Conspicuous Cognization https://www.conspicuouscognition.com/p/is-social-media-destroying-democracyor/ (2025).Ledwich, M. & Zaitsev, A. Algorithmic extremism: examining YouTube’s rabbit hole of radicalization. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.11211 (2019).Mele, N. et al. Combating fake news: an agenda for research and action https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/combating-fake-news-agenda-research-and-action (Harvard Kennedy School, 2017).Scheufele, D. A. & Krause, N. M. Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 7662–7669 (2019).Article Google Scholar Sellars, A. Defining Hate Speech. Research Publication 16 (Berkman Klein Center, 2016).Kim, B., Xiong, A., Lee, D. & Han, K. A systematic review on fake news research through the lens of news creation and consumption: research efforts, challenges, and future directions. PLoS ONE 16, e0260080 (2021).Article Google Scholar Michiels, L., Leysen, J., Smets, A. & Goethals, B. What are filter bubbles really? A review of the conceptual and empirical work. In Adjunct Proc. 30th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization 274–279 (ACM, 2022).Ross Arguedas, A., Robertson, C., Fletcher, R. & Nielsen, R. Echo chambers, filter bubbles, and polarisation: a literature review https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/echo-chambers-filter-bubbles-and-polarisation-literature-review (Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, 2022).Sachdeva, P. S., Barreto, R., von Vacano, C. & Kennedy, C. J. Assessing annotator identity sensitivity via item response theory: a case study in a hate speech corpus. In Proc. 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency 1585–1603 (ACM, 2022).Lin, W.-H. & Hauptmann, A. Vox Populi Annotation: measuring intensity of ideological perspectives by aggregating group judgments. In Proc. Sixth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC, 2008).Green, J. et al. Curation bubbles. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 119, 1704–1722 (2025).Article Google Scholar Hosseinmardi, H., Wolken, S., Rothschild, D. M. & Watts, D. J. Unpacking media bias in the growing divide between cable and network news. Sci. Rep. 15, 17607 (2025).Article Google Scholar Kim, E., Lelkes, Y. & McCrain, J. Measuring dynamic media bias. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2202197119 (2022).Article Google Scholar Ribeiro, M. H., Ottoni, R., West, R., Almeida, V. A. & Meira, W. Jr. Auditing radicalization pathways on YouTube. In Proc. 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency 131–141 (ACM, 2020).Ying, L., Montgomery, J. M. & Stewart, B. M. Topics, concepts and measurement: a crowdsourced procedure for validating topics as measures. Polit. Anal. 30, 570–589 (2021).Article Google Scholar Bernard, H. R., Killworth, P., Kronenfeld, D. & Sailer, L. The problem of informant accuracy: the validity of retrospective data. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 13, 495–517 (1984).Article Google Scholar Scharkow, M. The accuracy of self-reported internet use—a validation study using client log data. Commun. Methods Measures 10, 13–27 (2016).Article Google Scholar Konitzer, T. et al. Comparing estimates of news consumption from survey and passively collected behavioral data. Public Opin. Q. 85, 347–370 (2021).Article Google Scholar Prior, M. The immensely inflated news audience: assessing bias in self-reported news exposure. Public Opin. Q. 73, 130–143 (2009).Article Google Scholar Fletcher, R. & Nielsen, R. K. Are people incidentally exposed to news on social media? A comparative analysis. New Media Soc. 20, 2450–2468 (2018).Article Google Scholar Parry, D. A. et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of discrepancies between logged and self-reported digital media use. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5, 1535–1547 (2021).Article Google Scholar Li, L. et al. Political-LLM: large language models in political science. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.06864 (2024).Maier, D. et al. in Computational Methods for Communication Science (eds van Atteveldt, W. & Peng, T.-Q.) 13–38 (Routledge, 2021).Birkenmaier, L., Lechner, C. M. & Wagner, C. The search for solid ground in text as data: a systematic review of validation practices and practical recommendations for validation. Commun. Methods Measures 18, 249–277 (2023).Article Google Scholar DeVerna, M. R., Yan, H. Y., Yang, K.-C. & Menczer, F. Fact-checking information from large language models can decrease headline discernment. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 121, e2322823121 (2024).Article Google Scholar Mohr, J. W. & Bogdanov, P. Special issue title: topic models and the cultural sciences. Poetics 41, 545–770 (2013).Article Google Scholar O’Callaghan, D., Greene, D., Conway, M., Carthy, J. & Cunningham, P. Down the (white) rabbit hole: the extreme right and online recommender systems. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 33, 459–478 (2015).Article Google Scholar Grimmer, J. & Stewart, B. M. Text as data: the promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Polit. Anal. 21, 267–297 (2013).Article Google Scholar Isoaho, K., Gritsenko, D. & Mäkelä, E. Topic modeling and text analysis for qualitative policy research. Policy Stud. J. 49, 300–324 (2021).Article Google Scholar Hoyle, A. et al. Is automated topic model evaluation broken? The incoherence of coherence. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 34, 2018–2033 (2021).Google Scholar Heseltine, M. & Clemm von Hohenberg, B. Large language models as a substitute for human experts in annotating political text. Res. Polit. https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680241236239 (2024).Le Mens, G. & Gallego, A. Positioning political texts with large language models by asking and averaging. Polit. Anal. 33, 274–282 (2025).Article Google Scholar Le Mens, G., Kovács, B., Hannan, M. T. & Pros, G. Uncovering the semantics of concepts using GPT-4. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 120, e2309350120 (2023).Article Google Scholar Törnberg, P., Valeeva, D., Uitermark, J. & Bail, C. Simulating social media using large language models to evaluate alternative news feed algorithms. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.05984 (2023).Egami, N., Hinck, M., Stewart,B. & Wei H. Using large language model annotations for the social sciences: a general framework of using predicted variables in downstream analyses (2024).Allcott, H. et al. The effects of Facebook and Instagram on the 2020 election: a deactivation experiment. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 121, e2321584121 (2024).Article Google Scholar Schmitt, J. B., Rieger, D., Rutkowski, O. & Ernst, J. Counter-messages as prevention or promotion of extremism?! The potential role of YouTube: recommendation algorithms. J. Commun. 68, 780–808 (2018).Article Google Scholar X developer platform https://developer.x.com/en/docs/x-api (X, 2024).Stokel-Walker, C. Twitter’s $42,000-per-month API prices out nearly everyone. Wired https://www.wired.com/story/twitter-data-api-prices-out-nearly-everyone/ (2023).Geurkink, B. & Gilbert, S. Why Reddit’s decision to cut off researchers is bad for its business—and humanity. Fast Company https://www.fastcompany.com/91014116/reddit-researchers-bad-for-business (2024).Peters, J. Reddit is making sitewide protests basically impossible. The Verge https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/30/24253727/reddit-communities-subreddits-request-protests (2024).Le, H. et al. Measuring political personalization of Google News Search. In Proc. The World Wide Web Conference 2957–2963 (ACM, 2019).Bartley, N., Abeliuk, A., Ferrara, E. & Lerman, K. Auditing algorithmic bias on Twitter. In Proc. 13th ACM Web Science Conference 2021 65–73 (ACM, 2021).Ohme, J. et al. Digital trace data collection for social media effects research: Apis, data donation, and (screen) tracking. Commun. Methods. Measures 18, 124–141 (2024).Article Google Scholar Gómez Ortega, A., Bourgeois, J. & Kortuem, G. Participation in data donation: co-creative, collaborative, and contributory engagements with athletes and their intimate data. In Proc. 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2388–2402 (ACM, 2024).Sandvig, C., Hamilton, K., Karahalios, K. & Langbort, C. Auditing algorithms: research methods for detecting discrimination on internet platforms. In Proc. 64th Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association 4349 (International Communication Association, 2014).Özkula, S. M., Reilly, P. J. & Hayes, J. Easy data, same old platforms? A systematic review of digital activism methodologies. Inf. Commun. Soc. 26, 1470–1489 (2022).Article Google Scholar Horta Ribeiro, M., Hosseinmardi, H., West, R. & Watts, D. J. Deplatforming did not decrease Parler users’ activity on fringe social media. PNAS Nexus 2, pgad035 (2023).Article Google Scholar Hobbs, W. R. & Roberts, M. E. How sudden censorship can increase access to information. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 112, 621–636 (2018).Article Google Scholar D’Amour, A. et al. Fairness is not static: deeper understanding of long term fairness via simulation studies. In Proc. 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency 525–534 (ACM, 2020).Sinha, A., Gleich, D. F. & Ramani, K. Deconvolving feedback loops in recommender systems. In Proc. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 29 (NeurIPS, 2016).Lucherini, E., Sun, M., Winecoff, A. & Narayanan, A. T-RECS: a simulation tool to study the societal impact of recommender systems. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.08959 (2021).Chaney, A. J., Stewart, B. M. & Engelhardt, B. E. How algorithmic confounding in recommendation systems increases homogeneity and decreases utility. In Proc. 12th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems 224–232 (ACM, 2018).Zhang, Y. et al. Causal intervention for leveraging popularity bias in recommendation. In Proc. 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval 11–20 (ACM, 2021).Figà Talamanca, G. & Arfini, S. Through the newsfeed glass: rethinking filter bubbles and echo chambers. Philos. Technol. 35, 20 (2022).Article Google Scholar Hart, W. et al. Feeling validated versus being correct: a meta-analysis of selective exposure to information. Psychol. Bull. 135, 555–588 (2009).Article Google Scholar Liu, N. et al. Short-term exposure to filter-bubble recommendation systems has limited polarization effects: naturalistic experiments on YouTube. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 122, e2318127122 (2025).Article Google Scholar Stray, J., Thorburn, L. & Bengani, P. Making amplification measurable. Tech Policy Press https://www.techpolicy.press/making-amplification-measurable (2023).Chan, A. et al. Redefining research crowdsourcing: incorporating human feedback with LLM-powered digital twins: incorporating human feedback with LLM-powered digital twins. In Proc. Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 1–10 (ACM, 2025).Park, J. S. et al. Generative agents: interactive simulacra of human behavior. In Proc. 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology 1–22 (ACM, 2023).Argyle, L. P. et al. Out of one, many: using language models to simulate human samples. Polit. Anal. 31, 337–351 (2023).Article Google Scholar Horton, J. J., Apostolos, F. & Manning, B. S. Large Language Models as Simulated Economic Agents: What Can We Learn from Homo Silicus? Working Paper 31122 https://doi.org/10.3386/w31122 (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2023).Wang, C., Liu, Z., Yang, D. & Chen, X. Decoding echo chambers: LLM-powered simulations revealing polarization in social networks. In Proc. 31st International Conference on Computational Linguistics 3913–3923 (ACL, 2025).Larooij, M. & Törnberg, P. Can we fix social media? Testing prosocial interventions using generative social simulation. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.03385 (2025).Bisbee, J., Clinton, J. D., Dorff, C., Kenkel, B. & Larson, J. M. Synthetic replacements for human survey data? The perils of large language models. Polit. Anal. 32, 401–416 (2024).Article Google Scholar Wang, Z. Z. et al. How well does agent development reflect real-world work? Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.01203 (2026).Guess, A. M., Barberá, P., Munzert, S. & Yang, J. The consequences of online partisan media. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2013464118 (2021).Article Google Scholar Chandio, S., Dar, M. D. P. & Nithyanand, R. How audit methods impact our understanding of YouTube's recommendation systems. In Proc. International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (eds Lin, Y.-R. et al.) Vol. 18, 241–253 https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v18i1.31311 (AAAI Press, 2024).Metaxa, D. et al. Auditing algorithms: understanding algorithmic systems from the outside in. Found. Trends Hum. Comput. Interact. 14, 272–344 (2021).Article Google Scholar Bandy, J. Problematic machine behavior: a systematic literature review of algorithm audits. Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact. 5, 1–34 (2021).Google Scholar Mosnar, M. et al. Revisiting algorithmic audits of TikTok: poor reproducibility and short-term validity of findings. In Proc. 48th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval 3357–3366 (ACM, 2025).Messing, S. Are algorithmic bias claims supported? Science 381, 1420 (2023).Article Google Scholar National Internet Observatory https://nationalinternetobservatory.org/@XDevelopers X, https://x.com/XDevelopers/status/1621026986784337922 (2023).Meta Crowdtangle https://transparency.meta.com/researchtools/other-data-catalogue/crowdtangle/ (2024).Meta Meta content library and api https://transparency.meta.com/en-gb/researchtools/meta-content-library/ (2025).Brown, M. A. et al. Echo chambers, rabbit holes and algorithmic bias: how YouTube recommends content to real users https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4114905 (2022).Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the council on a single market for digital services (digital services act) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2065/oj/eng (2022).Keller, D. Determining which researchers can collect public data under the DSA. Tech Policy Press https://www.techpolicy.press/determining-which-researchers-can-collect-public-data-under-the-dsa/ (2025).Kalton, G. Methods for oversampling rare subpopulations in social surveys. Survey Methodol. 35, 125–141 (2009).Google Scholar Kleinberg, J., Mullainathan, S. & Raghavan, M. The challenge of understanding what users want: inconsistent preferences and engagement optimization. Manage. Sci. 70, 6336–6355 (2024).Google Scholar Ekstrand, M. D. et al. Recommending with, not for: co-designing recommender systems for social good. ACM Trans. Recommender Syst. https://doi.org/10.1145/3759261 (2025).Bernstein, M. et al. Embedding societal values into social media algorithms. J. Online Trust Safety https://doi.org/10.54501/jots.v2i1.148 (2023).Jia, C., Lam, M. S., Mai, M. C., Hancock, J. T. & Bernstein, M. S. Embedding democratic values into social media AIs via societal objective functions. Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact. 8, 1–36 (2024).Article Google Scholar Jahanbakhsh, F. et al. Value alignment of social media ranking algorithms. In Proc. of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems article no. 1401, 1–26 https://doi.org/10.1145/3772318.3791281 (ACM, 2026).Kaminskas, M. & Bridge, D. Diversity, serendipity, novelty and coverage: a survey and empirical analysis of beyond-accuracy objectives in recommender systems. ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst. (TiiS) 7, 1–42 (2016).Google Scholar Patro, G. K., Biswas, A., Ganguly, N., Gummadi, K. P. & Chakraborty, A. FairRec: two-sided fairness for personalized recommendations in two-sided platforms. In Proc. Web Conference 2020 1194–1204 (ACM, 2020).Williams, D. Scapegoating the algorithm. Asterisk https://asteriskmag.com/issues/11/scapegoating-the-algorithm (2025).Solsman, J. E. YouTube’s AI is the puppet master over most of what you watch. CNET https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/youtube-ces-2018-neal-mohan (2018).