There are many types of bridges. Those that literally bring us closer by connecting two geographic points, and those that try to bridge the ideological or emotional divide between two or more parties that are at odds or in conflict.

So given that in today’s world, social media is often a field of polarization and toxic confrontation on many issues, one wonders if digital bridges can be built to make this online landscape healthier and more value-friendly. democracy.

This is the question that researchers Aviv Ovadia and Luke Thorborn are trying to answer in their study of “bridge systems,” that is, algorithms designed to promote social media posts that are relevant to and of interest to different user groups.

Two researchers told K. in detail about the proposal under consideration, mentioning its goals and prospects and responding to criticisms made against him. In addition, Professor Emeritus of the University of Athens Michalis Meimaris explains to us how “connection algorithms” can be applied in a digital world that “craves” our attention and does not hesitate to use even controversial means to obtain it.

The ‘antidote’ to the toxic status quo

As Aviv Ovandia points out, modern algorithms in social networks are based on the so-called “engagement-based score” (engagement-based rating). This means that priority should be given to content that captures the attention of users and encourages them to interact with it.

“This is due to what is called: “economy of attention”, that is, “economy of attention,” emphasizes Mr. Meimaris. “In other words, it means that those who run the social media platform are trying to distract us from the competitor, because attention is a zero-sum game: when something gets your attention, something else loses it.”

A typical example of the above is Elon Musk’s recent Twitter post in which he explains that: “The curse of accounts you hate will cause our algorithm to show you more of them as it works based on your interactions.”

Deleting accounts you hate will cause our algorithm to show you more of those accounts as it blocks your interactions.

In fact, if you enjoy deleting *this* account, then you probably also enjoy deleting *this* account. Actually not, lol.

-Mr. Tweet (@elonmusk) January 17, 2023

“The problem is that it leads us to exaggerate,” says Ovandia, who works with Harvard and Cambridge universities, among others. According to him, this is because “you get more attention when you express extremist views or create a confrontation by exaggerating something and giving it more and more importance.”

Thus, as an “antidote” to “occupation-based scoring,” a “transition-based scoring” method (bridge-based scoring) can work, explains Ovandia.

“One way we could do that would be to identify cases where people with very different ideologies seem to identify themselves on certain issues and where they could have positive interaction,” notes Luke Thorborn, Ovandia partner and candidate Sciences at King’s College London.

“Don’t delete algorithms, change them”

Both Ovandia and Thorburn state that Bridge Systems’ goal is not to abolish social media algorithms, but to overhaul them so that instead of polarizing them, they create fertile ground for dialogue even between parties that represent very different ideas and opinions.

“One of the alternatives that were considered for social networks was to abandon the algorithms and return to displaying content in chronological order,” says Ovandia. “But even in this case, there are problematic elements, such as the frequency with which someone posts the reward.”

On the other hand, Ovandia and Thorborn state in their study that their own goal is to explore “the potential of ‘bridge-based estimating’ to take advantage of its benefits on platforms that are already driven by algorithms.”

As Mr. Meimaris points out, the motives of the “bridge system” can be explained as follows: “Since algorithms will continue to exist in social networks, why not promote those who take a different type of assessment, which prioritizes union over separation and, therefore, good for both digital societies and democracy?”

“In this other type of evaluation,” Meimaris continues, “the goal is for the algorithms to act more like centripetal forces than centrifugal forces.”

“We have the opportunity to bring people together, help them understand each other,” emphasizes Ovandia. This, he explains, can be done with “content that makes two communities that hate each other realize they are all human, as opposed to content that says ‘you all must die’.” .

Example Twitter Community Notes

As Luke Thorborn points out, there is already one case where “bridge systems” have been applied to varying degrees: Twitter Community Notes, formerly known as “Birdwatch”.

The Twitter tool in question allows a group of people from different walks of life to rate the content posted by users as “useful” or “useless”.

“Elon Musk is especially excited about this,” notes Ovandia.

“It wouldn’t surprise me if other platforms are experimenting with these methods in a broader context, but there isn’t enough evidence about that yet,” says Thorborn.

Both he and Aviv Ovandia express optimism that social media platforms will be ready to move further in the direction of “building bridges”.

However, Thorborn notes that “more evidence is needed to know the extent to which this new approach can be applied.”

Criticism

At the same time, it is worth noting that “bridge algorithms” probably have some problematic aspects. In particular, this new approach has been criticized as being likely to lead to the exclusion of marginalized ideas and opinions.

In relation to the above, Ovandia states that “we don’t want to marginalize ideas and opinions. Our goal is not to eliminate confrontation. Confrontation is one of the ways of development of society. Our goal is a “productive confrontation.”

However, as Thorborn notes, “there must be a limit, that is, content must be classified based on whether it can be characterized as constructive or not.”

“There is a distance between someone who expresses a different point of view and someone who perpetuates hatred or even incites violence,” Mr. Meimaris notes. “Even in the case of very different opinions, one should follow the rules of dialogue and not lose control.”

New page (?) in the digital domain

Ovandia and Thorburn say there are many reasons to believe in a better future for social media, although they note that there is still a long way to go to create a healthy digital environment.

“The goal is to have a ‘good enough screen’, which means ‘a good enough screen’,” says Mr. Meimaris. “In other words, teach the world to prefer content that encourages reflection and mental flexibility over hate, discrimination, and underestimation.”

Finally, Aviv Ovandia states that if we look around, we will see countless examples of “bridge systems”. It could be a diplomatic corps, a marriage counselor, or even a priest.

“The point is to build bridges to the digital world in a way that brings us closer together,” he says.

“Such systems exist everywhere, and ‘connection algorithms’ are essentially their application in the digital world.”