I presented in and chaired the Saturday morning session at the AoIR 2024 conference, which was on polarisation in news publishing and engagement, so no liveblogging this time. However, here are the slides from the three presentations that our various teams and I were involved in.

We started with my QUT DMRC colleague Laura Vodden, who discussed our plans for manual and automated content coding of news content for indicators of polarisation, and especially highlighted the surprising difficulties in getting access to quality and comprehensive news content data:

I presented the next paper, which explored the evidence for polarisation in news recommendations from Google News, building on our Australian Search Experience project in the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society (ADM+S):

Before we launch properly into 2022 and the new Australian Laureate Fellowship that will be the main focus of my year, I need to close the loop on two more talks I presented just before my summer holidays in December, and which are now online as videos.

On 26 November 2021, I had the pleasure to present some thoughts on Facebook’s week-long blanket ban of news content in Australia in an invited presentation at Griffith University’s Centre for Governance and Public Policy. My sincere thanks to Max Grömping and the rest of the CGPP team for hosting me. The talk, available below, also gave me an opportunity to speak more generally about the continued challenges of researching social media platforms and their activities, and to outline some of the work that my colleagues and I in the QUT Digital Media Research Centre and the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society are doing to address these issues. The audio on the recording is a little soft, but I hope the overall discussion comes through clearly enough; slides and further details are linked below.

Axel Bruns. “Facebook's Australian News Ban and Its Implications for Critical Platform Studies.” Invited presentation at the Griffith Centre for Governance and Public Policy, Brisbane, 26 Nov. 2021.

A few days later I gave a talk to the Social Media Data Science Group at the University of Sydney – many thanks to Monika Bednarek for the invitation. This was a great opportunity for me to step through a number of different, related concepts from groups through communities to publics, and organise some thoughts on how to distinguish these broadly similar but nonetheless distinct formations from one another. This is important especially in the context of network analysis, which all too often jumps to calling collections of similar entities a ‘community’ without paying sufficient attention to the specific meaning of that term: not every cluster is necessarily a community in the proper sense of the word.

I’ve not yet had the chance to write much about one of the major new projects I’m involved with: the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society (ADM+S), a large-scale, multi-institutional, seven-year research centre that investigates the impact of automated decision-making technologies (including algorithms, artificial intelligence, and other such technologies) on all aspects of our personal and professional lives. In particular, for the first year of the Centre I’ve led the News & Media Focus Area, which recently held its inaugural symposium to take stock of current research projects and plan for the future. (This was also the time for me to hand that leadership over to my colleagues Jean Burgess (QUT) and James Meese (RMIT), as I step back from that role to concentrate on another major project – more on this in a future update.)

Within News & Media, I’ve also led a major research project which we launched publicly in late July, and which is now producing first research outcomes: the Australian Search Experience. Inspired by an earlier project by our ADM+S partner organisation AlgorithmWatch in Germany, this project investigates the extent to which the search results Australian users encounter as they query search engines like Google are personalised and therefore differ from user to user; if they are, this would leave open the possibility of user being placed in so-called ‘filter bubbles’ – a concept which I’ve questioned in my recent book Are Filter Bubbles Real? We even have a promo video:

Investigating such personalisation is difficult: since every user is assumed to see a personalised set of search results, we need to compare these results across a large number of users in order to determine whether there is any significant personalisation, and what aspects of these users’ identities might drive such personalisation. While some studies approach this challenge by setting up a large number of ‘fake’ user accounts that are given a particular user persona by making them search repeatedly for specific topics that are expected to contribute to the search engine’s profile for the account, AlgorithmWatch’s earlier, German study took a different approach and invited a large number of real users to contribute as citizen scientists to the study. To do so, they were asked to install a browser plugin that regularly searched for a predefined set of keywords and reported the results back to AlgorithmWatch’s server.

Our ADM+S project uses this same data donation approach, but extends it further: we query four major search engines (Google Search, Google News, Google Video, and YouTube), and we are able to vary our search terms over the duration of the project. Like the earlier project, we also ask users to provide some basic demographic information (in order to link any systemic personalisation patterns we may encounter with those demographics), but never access any of our participants’ own search histories. Our browser plugin is available for the desktop versions of Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, and Microsoft Edge, and I’m pleased to say that more than 1,000 citizen scientists have now installed the plugin.

If you’re based in Australia, and you’d like to contribute to the project, please go to the project Website to install the browser plugin. We’d love to get to 1,500 citizen scientists before the end of 2021.

For more background, I spoke to QUT’s Real World News earlier this year to explain the approach we’ve taken in developing this project:

I’ve mentioned some of these here before, but I’m very happy to say that my QUT Digital Media Research Centre colleagues Edward Hurcombe, Stephen Harrington, and I have now completed our trilogy of articles that investigated the dissemination of the baseless and nonsensical conspiracy theory that the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic was somehow related to 5G mobile telephony technology from its origins in obscure conspiracist sites and groups through social and fringe media to mainstream coverage. For a while, such dissemination was so widespread that it even resulted in physical attacks against mobile phone towers and technicians in the UK and elsewhere, in April 2020, and was covered in an episode of the investigative TV programme Four Corners on Australian television (though the eventual episode provide far too much of a platform for the conspiracy theorists themselves to spread their disinformation, unfortunately).

We divided our work on this topic into three segments: our first article, published in Media International Australia in August 2020, examined the dissemination of the conspiracy theory in its constantly evolving forms through public pages and groups on Facebook; here, we observed a number of phase shifts in the transmission of these ideas as they were amplified by increasingly visible and influential participants and communities. A second article, published in Digital Journalism in September 2021, complemented this analysis by examining the fringe and mainstream media coverage of the conspiracy theory, and showed the parallel evolution of that coverage from minor conspiracy-friendly sites through uncritical entertainment and tabloid media coverage to mainstream media reporting. Finally, our book chapter in the excellent new collection Communicating COVID-19, edited by Monique Lewis, Eliza Govender, and Kate Holland, has just been released, and examines these parallels between the social, fringe, and mainstream media coverage. It points especially to the weak spots in journalistic coverage – uncritical entertainment and tabloid reporting that treats celebrities as ready sources of clickbait without considering the damage that such coverage can do – that enable conspiracy theories to travel beyond their obscure communities of true believers, and makes a number of critical observations that should be considered by the journalists, platform operators, and authorities forced to engage with such mis- and disinformation.

Here are those three articles, then – click on each title for a pre-print version, or on the publications for the final published result: