This network analysis thing appear to be a growing academic field.

What anti-vaccination groups tell us about Facebook's filter bubbles

http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-01-17/what-anti-vaccination-groups-reveal-about-facebook-filter-bubble/9324876

Did Facebook invent the "filter bubble"? Or is it created by our tendency to seek out views that fit us snugly like a well-worn T-shirt?

These questions were chewed over long before the 2016 US Presidential election became defined by algorithmically-driven fake news, but sociologists remain unsure.

Even the term "filter bubble" is controversial. Loosely, it refers to the way the internet is likely to serve us views we like over those we do not.

In a recent paper, Naomi Smith, a digital sociologist at Federation University, examined the anti-vaccination movement's activity on Facebook and asked, among other things, whether it acted as some kind of "conspiracy-style" echo chamber.

Dr Smith's findings, based on three years' worth of data from six anti-vaccination Facebook pages, provide a complex picture.

In being eager to accuse Facebook, we shouldn't ignore the impact of our own tendency to like and share only those posts we agree with. But the social media giant also wants to show us posts that it figures we will click on.

In its rush to grow and cash in on its users, Facebook may have created an algorithm that amplifies our worst instincts.

Rapid spread of ideas

Dr Smith said very few online sites describe themselves explicitly as "anti-vaccination". Instead, they "claim to be pro-safe vaccines, or in favour of vaccine choice", while warning vaccines can be toxic or harmful.

The Facebook pages she studied in particular showed resistance to vaccines centred on "moral outrage and structural oppression by institutional government and the media, suggesting a strong logic of 'conspiracy-style' beliefs and thinking".

But one reason why anti-vaccine views spread on Facebook perhaps matters most: people worry for the health of their children.

As the Washington Post noted, "the heart of the problem is human nature".

Dr Smith said for users, which she found were mainly women, anti-vaccination messages were made to be clicked on.

"Anti-vaxxers are eloquent, they're passionate, they're persuasive, they use emotionally-loaded rhetoric," she said.

But she found Facebook's architecture may also play a role in the rapid spread of views critical of vaccination.

The community on Facebook is a "small world" network — many "clumps" of tightly connected people within the bigger network.

Sherri Tenpenny

Anti-vaccination campaigner Sherri Tenpenny has caused a stir with plans to speak in Australia, but just who is the controversial American doctor?

This lets messages spread quickly because, rather than posts spreading between single individuals, there are multiple points of contact between groups.

It also means the network is remarkably resilient. Even if you knock out one individual or one page, the clusters will persist.

One particular Facebook page, VaccineInfo, run by anti-vaccination spokesperson Sherri Tenpenny, had the most industrious users among the pages studied.

About one third of VaccineInfo users were active on other pages examined in the study, making it "singularly important" to the antivaccination movement on Facebook.

It is possible users may be involved in "creating a filter bubble effect that reinforces anti-vaccination sentiment and practice," Dr Smith noted in her paper.

"It is difficult to discern from the data to what extent the filter bubble is created through users' own agency and activity, and how much is influenced by the algorithmic structure of Facebook."

We spread for our benefit

Dr Smith also found people were more likely to share than comment on anti-vaccination content, suggesting that the anti-vaccination network's impact extends beyond the pages she studied.

While liking or sharing something is easier than commenting, Dr Smith speculated the latter action may be a result of the movement's strong moral imperative.

"They want people to share in their outrage and their concerns, and the way you do that is by sharing the post. You don't get the same outreach if you just like or comment," she said.

If people we know are sharing this content, rather than "official" sources, that presents another problem.

It suggests Facebook's recent algorithm changes, which aim to show us posts of family and friends, may do little to undermine the spread of bad information — at least for a network of people that tell each other Bill Gates invented the Zika virus.

Who sees what?

But can Facebook users create a "filter bubble" to the exclusion of accurate health information? Dr Smith was unsure.

Axel Bruns, a professor in the Digital Media Research Centre at Queensland University of Technology, doubts users will only encounter anti-vaccination views.

While Facebook's news feed has assisted with the spread of information and misinformation, the extent to which users are disconnecting themselves from alternative views remains uncertain.

Facebook users still live in the world — they work, study, watch TV.

"My problem is that we always end up studying these spaces as if they exist in a vacuum," he added.

"These people, if they're using Facebook for anything other than anti-vaxxer stuff, then will they not at times also encounter people who disagree with their views?"

Fight the bubble