There is a positive relationship between the number of comments in
a thread and the rate at which the Yule’s I characteristic increases.
We can also use this equation to draw a line predicting the meaning
generated in a thread using the coefficient of the X Variable1 (0.02)
and the intercept (-9.09).
\(\begin{equation}{Yul}e^{{}^{\prime}}s\ I\ Score=\ -9.09+\text{Comments\ }\times\ 0.02\nonumber \\ \end{equation}\)
This means what with each extra comment in the threads studied, the
Yule’s I score increased by 0.02.
Why?
-
Strength in diversity: diverse ideas bounce off each other and
generate new diverse ideas.
-
The anonymity of crowds: because Reddit emphasizes the text of the
comment rather than the user, users might feel more confident saying
their ideas in public than under a smaller thread with more scrutiny.
-
All the simple thoughts were taken: people are pushed further and
further off the beaten path to generate more meaning rich posts
because all of the simplest ideas have already been said.
More research is needed to test any of these assumptions.
Reddit’s Hot algorithm shapes debate by determining how many commenters
will comment on a thread. An increase in the number of commenters is
associated with an increase in meaning generated per post.
Therefore, Polemic Science issues on Reddit are examples of the Alternative Loop. As more people talk about polemic science issues on reddit, the threads become more complex. Consensus is not developed, but this is a rich environment for new ideas.
How does this contribute to the
literature?
By studying which Loop is dominating an area online, we can determine if new ideas are being developed or if they are stagnating. According to Luhmann’s conception, a social system is driven by two
clashing impulses:
- A desire to reduce the complexity of the world around us into an
easily understandable form
-
An accumulation of meanings, in the past choices made by the system.
Reddit and Wikipedia are excellent at accumulating meaning. On the
other hand, Twitter and Facebook are much better at simplifying
complexity. Both Twitter and Facebook have more advanced source code
and algorithms that are not open to the public. Reddit and Wikipedia’s
source code has barely changed in the last decade. Facebook and
Twitter are great simplifying tools, but this might wash away valuable
nuance. Some issues can’t be argued coherently in and 140 characters
or less (Twitter’s limit). When we oversimplify, we might lose pieces
we need to actually understand and solve an issue.
According to its mission statement “… Facebook’s mission is to
give people the power to share and make the world more open and
connected…” In this aim, Facebook’s engineers manage people’s
home page feed (newsfeed) so that voters see things they like and stay
longer. For example, if a voter is interested in politics will show
posts by their friends that support their political views but repress
those that would clash \cite{Keegan2016}. Why is this a problem? By only
showing views that users are likely to agree with, they are sheltered
from new ideas. They end up trapped in an echo chamber listening only to
the similar. These echo chambers inflame crises and divisions by only
showing one set of opinions and blocking out the rest- killing any
chance for compromise. If the world seems to be going mad, part of the
reason is algorithms meant to keep us looking at advertisements.
Unlike Facebook, Reddit’s crude code is worse at creating echo chambers.
When a thread appears on the front page, diverse contributors with many
different interests and points of view can join in and comment on that
thread. I believe that this is the reason that linguistic richness and
meaning increased as the number of commenters increase.
I do not think that in general popularity leads to complexity. The top
five most viewed videos on YouTube are music videos. Videos of Luhmann
and systems theory languish almost unknown.
People can build great things on social media. We can process
information together, take concepts that would have normally taken years
of study to understand and make them accessible after 30 minutes of
research. People can also be petty, vain, and destructive. Algorithms
shape how we act on social media thereby shaping what kind of online
societies we will create and wheat they will produce. As more and more
about social activity moves online, it is critical that sociologists,
behavioral scientists, and social psychologists understand what these
algorithms are doing and study the effects that they have on their
users.