Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3178876.3186140acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesthewebconfConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Algorithmic Glass Ceiling in Social Networks: The effects of social recommendations on network diversity

Published: 23 April 2018 Publication History

Abstract

As social recommendations such as friend suggestions and people to follow become increasingly popular and influential on the growth of social media, we find that prominent social recommendation algorithms can exacerbate the under-representation of certain demographic groups at the top of the social hierarchy. To study this imbalance in online equal opportunities, we leverage new Instagram data and offer for the first time an analysis that studies the effect of gender, homophily and growth dynamics under social recommendations. Our mathematical analysis demonstrates the existence of an algorithmic glass ceiling that exhibits all the properties of the metaphorical social barrier that hinders groups like women or people of color from attaining equal representation. What raises concern is that our proof shows that under fixed minority and homophily parameters the algorithmic effect is systematically larger than the glass ceiling generated by the spontaneous growth of social networks. We discuss ways to address this concern in future design.

References

[1]
C Avin, B Keller, Z Lotker, C Mathieu, and David Peleg. 2015. Homophily and the glass ceiling effect in social networks. ITCS (2015).
[2]
S Barocas and A D Selbst. 2016. Big data's disparate impact. California Law Review (2016).
[3]
Tolga Bolukbasi, Kai-Wei Chang, James Y Zou, Venkatesh Saligrama, and Adam T Kalai. 2016. Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddings. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS) (2016), 4349--4357.
[4]
Alexandra Chouldechova. 2017. Fair Prediction with Disparate Impact: A Study of Bias in Recidivism Prediction Instruments. Big data 5, 2 (2017), 153--163.
[5]
Y Dong, R A Johnson, J Xu, and N V Chawla. 2017. Structural Diversity and Homophily: A Study Across More Than One Hundred Big Networks. In KDD '17. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 807--816.
[6]
Maeve Duggan. 2015. Mobile Messaging and Social Media 2015. Pew Research Center (2015).
[7]
Benjamin G Edelman, Michael Luca, and Dan Svirsky. 2017. Racial Discrimination in the Sharing Economy: Evidence from a Field Experiment. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 9, 2 (2017), 1--22.
[8]
A Hannak, C Wagner, D Garcia, Alan Mislove, Markus Strohmaier, and Christo Wilson. 2017. Bias in Online Freelance Marketplaces: Evidence from TaskRabbit and Fiverr. Proceedings of CSCW (2017).
[9]
Ravi Kumar, Prabhakar Raghavan, S Rajagopalan, D Sivakumar, Andrew Tomkins, and E Upfal. 2000. Stochastic models for the Web graph. IEEE FOCS (2000), 57--65.
[10]
Michael Ley. 2009. DBLP: some lessons learned. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 2, 2 (2009), 1493--1500.
[11]
David Liben-Nowell and Jon Kleinberg. 2007. The link-prediction problem for social networks. journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 58, 7 (2007), 1019--1031.
[12]
Miller McPherson, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and James M Cook. 2001. Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks. Annual review of sociology 27 (2001), 415--444.
[13]
Alan Mislove, S Lehmann, Y Y Ahn, and J-P Onnela. 2011. Understanding the Demographics of Twitter Users. In ICWSM.
[14]
Shirin Nilizadeh, Anne Groggel, Peter Lista, Srijita Das, Yong-Yeol Ahn, Apu Kapadia, and Fabio Rojas. 2016. Twitter's Glass Ceiling: The Effect of Perceived Gender on Online Visibility. In ICWSM. 289--298.
[15]
Flávio Souza, Diego de Las Casas, Vinícius Flores, SunBum Youn, Meeyoung Cha, Daniele Quercia, and Virgílio Almeida. 2015. Dawn of the selfie era: The whos, wheres, and hows of selfies on Instagram. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM on conference on online social networks. ACM, 221--231.
[16]
J Su, A Sharma, and S Goel. 2016. The Effect of Recommendations on Network Structure. WWW '18: Proceeding of the 25th International Conference on World Wide Web (2016).
[17]
Ke Yang and Julia Stoyanovich. 2016. Measuring Fairness in Ranked Outputs. Proceedings of Workshop FATML (2016).
[18]
Muhammad Bilal Zafar, Isabel Valera, Manuel Gomez Rodriguez, and Krishna Gummadi. 2017. Fairness Beyond Disparate Treatment & Disparate Impact: Learning Classification without Disparate Mistreatment. In WWW '17 Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Networked inequalityProceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning10.5555/3692070.3693978(46891-46925)Online publication date: 21-Jul-2024
  • (2024)Trends and topics: Characterizing echo chambers’ topological stability and in-group attitudesPLOS Complex Systems10.1371/journal.pcsy.00000081:2(e0000008)Online publication date: 3-Oct-2024
  • (2024)Fairness and Bias in Algorithmic Hiring: A Multidisciplinary SurveyACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology10.1145/369645716:1(1-54)Online publication date: 23-Sep-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Algorithmic Glass Ceiling in Social Networks: The effects of social recommendations on network diversity

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    WWW '18: Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference
    April 2018
    2000 pages
    ISBN:9781450356398
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Sponsors

    • IW3C2: International World Wide Web Conference Committee

    In-Cooperation

    Publisher

    International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee

    Republic and Canton of Geneva, Switzerland

    Publication History

    Published: 23 April 2018

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. fairness
    2. homophily
    3. random walks
    4. social recommender

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Funding Sources

    Conference

    WWW '18
    Sponsor:
    • IW3C2
    WWW '18: The Web Conference 2018
    April 23 - 27, 2018
    Lyon, France

    Acceptance Rates

    WWW '18 Paper Acceptance Rate 170 of 1,155 submissions, 15%;
    Overall Acceptance Rate 1,899 of 8,196 submissions, 23%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)623
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)89
    Reflects downloads up to 20 Feb 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)Networked inequalityProceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning10.5555/3692070.3693978(46891-46925)Online publication date: 21-Jul-2024
    • (2024)Trends and topics: Characterizing echo chambers’ topological stability and in-group attitudesPLOS Complex Systems10.1371/journal.pcsy.00000081:2(e0000008)Online publication date: 3-Oct-2024
    • (2024)Fairness and Bias in Algorithmic Hiring: A Multidisciplinary SurveyACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology10.1145/369645716:1(1-54)Online publication date: 23-Sep-2024
    • (2024)Network Fairness Ambivalence: When does social network capital mitigate or amplify unfairness?Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems10.1145/36560178:2(1-28)Online publication date: 29-May-2024
    • (2024)FairSNA: Algorithmic Fairness in Social Network AnalysisACM Computing Surveys10.1145/365371156:8(1-45)Online publication date: 26-Apr-2024
    • (2024)Fairness Matters: A look at LLM-generated group recommendationsProceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems10.1145/3640457.3688182(993-998)Online publication date: 8-Oct-2024
    • (2024)Fairness Rising from the Ranks: HITS and PageRank on Homophilic NetworksProceedings of the ACM Web Conference 202410.1145/3589334.3645609(2594-2602)Online publication date: 13-May-2024
    • (2024)Diffusion Containment in Complex Networks Through Collective Influence of ConnectionsIEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security10.1109/TIFS.2023.333842319(1510-1524)Online publication date: 2024
    • (2024)AI auditing: The Broken Bus on the Road to AI Accountability2024 IEEE Conference on Secure and Trustworthy Machine Learning (SaTML)10.1109/SaTML59370.2024.00037(612-643)Online publication date: 9-Apr-2024
    • (2024)Polarized social media networks: a novel approach to quantify the polarization level of individual usersInformation, Communication & Society10.1080/1369118X.2024.2360508(1-35)Online publication date: 9-Jul-2024
    • Show More Cited By

    View Options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format.

    HTML Format

    Login options

    Figures

    Tables

    Media

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media