Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Alexandria: A Library of Pluralistic Values for Realtime Re-Ranking of Social Media Feeds

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a pluralistic library of 78 values, implemented as LLM-powered classifiers in a browser extension, lets users re-rank their social media feeds more precisely than any single value system can.

desk verdict A genuinely useful value library, but the paper's central 'more precise articulation' claim is undercut by a confounded comparison that the authors should be pushed to fix. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.10839 v1 pith:O5GZ4HX3 submitted 2025-05-16 cs.HC cs.CYcs.SI

Akaash Kolluri , Renn Su , Farnaz Jahanbakhsh , Dora Zhao , Tiziano Piccardi , Michael S. Bernstein This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.CYcs.SI
keywords valuepluralismfeedre-rankingLLMclassifierssocialmediausercontrolbrowserextensionhumanvaluesrecommendersystems
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper sets out to prove that the human and societal values missing from engagement-driven social media ranking can be operationalized and deployed today, without waiting for platforms to change their algorithms. To do so it builds a library of 78 values drawn from six published value systems, translates each value into a concrete post-level definition, and turns those definitions into language-model classifiers that rate whether a post weakly or strongly expresses the value. These classifiers power a browser extension that re-ranks a user's X/Twitter feed in real time by weighting the values the user selects. Two studies, a qualitative interview study (N=12) and a quantitative experiment (N=257), support the paper's central empirical claim: users can articulate their desired values more precisely when they have the full library than when they are restricted to a single value system. If true, the claim matters because value-based ranking becomes an end-user feature today rather than a platform-level aspiration.

What carries the argument

The value library itself is the central artifact: 78 values, each with a short definition, sourced from six value systems and reduced from 111 candidates by merging any pair whose LLM-labeled co-occurrence correlation reached $r \geq 0.6$. The argument runs on an operationalization pipeline: each value definition is converted into a platform-agnostic prompt, a zero-shot LLM (GPT-4o-mini) rates each post's expression of every active value as $0$ (absent), $1$ (weak), or $2$ (strong), and each post $i$ receives score $s_i = \sum_v r_{i,v} w_v$, where $w_v$ is the user's weight for value $v$; posts sort descending by $s_i$. The browser extension collects roughly 70 posts from the user's "For You" feed, labels them on a server, and reorders the feed in five to ten seconds, repeating whenever the user scrolls or changes value settings. The classifier validation reports binary accuracy of 81.2% and mean absolute error of 0.45 against averaged human labels on 12 values, better than the average human-vote disagreement of 0.61.

What would settle it

Take the 66 unvalidated values, collect fresh human annotations on a stratified sample of posts not used in the merging step, and compare LLM labels to averaged human labels. If the mean absolute error on the full set exceeds the human disagreement baseline, or binary accuracy falls well below 81.2%, the library's ranking signal is not dependable. A second check would run a field experiment where users configure the same stated preferences in the full library and in a sham condition with only generic values, and measure whether feed composition changes as predicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that value pluralism is practically achievable: a library of 78 values, rather than any single value system, gives users enough vocabulary to say what they want from a feed. The paper constructs the library by combining six value systems, filtering to post-level constructs, adapting definitions for a zero-shot LLM labeler, and merging correlated values (Pearson $r \geq 0.6$), then re-ranks posts by the dot product of the LLM's value ratings and the user's weights. In the controlled study, participants with the full library selected more specific values and applied lower absolute weights to any one value, while 65.5% of the values that single-system users reported missing had a counterpart in the full library; 10 of 12 interview participants preferred the full library. The authors conclude that the values criticized as missing from social media ranking can be operationalized and deployed today through end-user tools.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that one fully automated language-model prompt can correctly judge, for every one of the 78 values, how strongly a post expresses that value, even though the paper checks this on only 12 values with 30 posts each and uses the same automated labels to decide which values to merge.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Value-based feed ranking can be deployed today as an end-user tool: the paper's extension re-ranks X/Twitter feeds in five to ten seconds without any platform-level change.
  • A large value library lets users express preferences that a single value system cannot: in the study, 65.5% of missing-value requests had a counterpart in the full library.
  • The operationalization pipeline is generalizable: any proposed value system with post-level constructs can be translated into ranking objectives and added to the library.
  • Platform designers can borrow the value-control interface as a complement to engagement ranking, and decentralized platforms can offer server-side value ranking.
  • The paper's governance discussion implies that an open, community-extensible value library will need moderation and merging rules to avoid incoherent or conflicting values.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The observed "value displacement" (weights on a given value shrink when more values are available) suggests users are not simply adding preferences with a bigger menu; they are substituting specific values for broad ones. A direct test would ask users to describe their ideal feed in free text and measure which condition's selected values better predict their description.
  • Because the merging step uses the same LLM labels that later do the ranking, classifier noise is baked into the library's structure; validating the 66 unvalidated values would reveal whether the 78-value set is stable under better labels or whether some merges should be undone.
  • The five-to-ten-second re-ranking latency and the dependence on a server-side LLM API mean the current deployment transfers users' feed data to a third party; a local-model variant would be the natural next deployment test, and it would also reveal how much of the perceived control depends on the stock LLM's labeling skill.
  • If value-based control spreads, the same mechanism that lets users escape engagement-driven content can let them build value-aligned filter bubbles; a testable design response is to pair value re-ranking with a diversity nudge and measure exposure diversity over weeks.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents Alexandria, an extensible library of 78 values for social media feed ranking, constructed from six published value systems (Rokeach, Maslow, Hofstede, Stray et al., Weld et al., and Ge and Gretzel). Each value is operationalized as a zero-shot GPT-4o-mini classifier that rates whether a post weakly or strongly expresses the value, and the library is instantiated as a Chrome extension that re-ranks a user's X/Twitter 'For You' feed in real time based on user-selected upranking/downranking weights. The paper reports two user studies: a qualitative interview study (N=12) and a between-subjects quantitative experiment (N=257) comparing a condition with access to the full 78-value library against conditions with access to a single source value system. The central empirical claim is that users can articulate their desired values more precisely when given access to the full library, supported by the observation that mean absolute weights for 17 of 18 significantly differing values are lower in the full-library condition, as well as by qualitative preferences (10 of 12 participants preferred the full library) and by a gap analysis in which 55 of 84 missing-value requests in the single-system conditions had counterparts in the full library.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper makes a useful contribution to value-sensitive design and end-user algorithmic control: it demonstrates that a pluralistic, extensible value library can be operationalized with LLM classifiers and deployed today as a browser extension, without requiring platform-level changes. The paper's strengths include a real deployment on X/Twitter, a between-subjects human experiment, independent human annotation for a subset of classifiers, and a transparent limitations section that concedes classifier inconsistency and onboarding influence. The coverage result (fewer than 3% of tweets contain no library value) and the 55-of-84 gap-match result are credible evidence for the breadth of the library. However, the load-bearing precision claim is currently supported by a confounded comparison and by a measure (weight displacement) that is compatible with attention spreading rather than articulation precision. The validation of the classifiers also covers only 12 of 78 values, which limits the strength of the deployability claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Quantitative User Study, Method and Results] The central claim that users 'articulate their desired values more precisely' with the full library is not supported by the current comparison because the Full and Single conditions differ in presentation and onboarding. Full participants completed a three-page onboarding flow with five seeded values ('A World at Peace', 'Knowledge, Informativeness', 'Collectivism', 'Appreciation', 'Education and Entertainment') and then received dynamic recommendations, whereas Single participants were 'directly shown the list of values'. Lower absolute weights in the Full condition (Table A.5) are exactly what would be expected if users distributed weight across more options or followed onboarding suggestions, not if they expressed preferences more precisely; Table A.4 shows that the five onboarding values are among the most-used values in the Full condition, with usage rates between 72.7% and 88.6%. To support the precision claim, the paper needs a measure of articulation precision that is independent of option count and presentation (for example, a matching task against an independently elicited preference inventory, or a within-subject crossover design), or the conclusion should be reframed as improved coverage and flexibility rather than precision.
  2. [Creating a Library of Values, Evaluating Model Performance / Table A.1] The validation of the LLM classifier covers only 12 of the 78 values, each with 30 posts, and the samples were stratified by the LLM's own labels. The same LLM pipeline is then used to compute the pairwise correlations that drive the value-merging step (r >= 0.6) and to power the re-ranking itself, so labeling error propagates into the library's construction for the 66 unvalidated values. The paper's own Limitations section concedes that zero-shot LLM classifiers 'may perform inconsistently across different values', and Table A.1 already shows a spread from MAE 0.28 to 0.75. If unvalidated classifiers are systematically unreliable, the re-ranking behavior and the merging-derived library composition could change substantially. Please validate all values or a larger representative sample, or restrict claims about deployable ranking quality to the validated subset and analyze the sensitivity of the merging step to label noise.
  3. [Quantitative User Study, Results / Table A.5] The displacement analysis reports 18 values with p<0.05 from two-sample t-tests across 78 values but does not mention any multiple-comparison correction, unlike the one-sample analysis in the same section, which uses the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure. Under the null, roughly four of 78 comparisons would be expected to reach p<0.05 by chance. Moreover, 'absolute weight decreases' is also predicted by attention spreading across a larger option set and by conservative slider use, so even a corrected significant difference would not by itself establish more precise articulation. Please report corrected p-values (for example, BH-FDR), effect sizes, and a discussion that separates the attention-spread explanation from the precision interpretation. The small Full-condition sample size (N=44) makes this separation especially important.
  4. [Qualitative User Study, Study Procedure; Results on Full Library Preference] The qualitative evidence cited for the precision claim is also confounded: every participant used the single value system first and the full library second, so the 10-of-12 preference could reflect increased familiarity, learning, or recency rather than the library itself. The 55-of-84 coverage result is evidence that the full library contains more candidate values, not that users can articulate their own preferences more precisely; coverage and precision are distinct constructs. A counterbalanced presentation order, or a measure of accuracy against an independently elicited preference set, is needed before 'more precise' can be claimed from this study.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table A.5] The opening sentence in the table caption says 'We observe significant value displacement for 17 values' but the table lists 18 rows; please align the count and the narrative.
  2. [References] In the reference for Knijnenburg et al., 'ACM onference on Recommender Systems' should read 'ACM Conference on Recommender Systems'.
  3. [Figure 2] The legend label 'ORIGINATING VALUE SYSTEM' appears above the chart with six colors, but the figure does not provide an explicit mapping from colors to the six source value systems; please add a legend key.
  4. [Ethical Considerations] The text states that the user's Twitter ID is hashed locally before sending data, but also that usage logs include value rankings and Twitter feeds; please clarify whether post content is deidentified before storage or whether only the ID is hashed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity; central claims rest on independent human data.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are the usefulness of a pluralistic value library and the benefit of the full library for articulating preferences. These claims are grounded in independent human evidence: a between-subjects experiment (N=257) comparing the Full and Single conditions, a qualitative interview study (N=12), and human annotations for 12 values (5 annotators per value) used to validate the LLM classifier. The 'value displacement' result, in which absolute weights are lower in the Full condition, is an empirical observation about user behavior, not a quantity defined by the system's equations; the phrase 'more precise' is an interpretive label attached to that observation rather than a derivation from it. The library construction does use LLM labels for merging correlated values, and the LLM-as-judge and LLM-based coverage analyses are in-family checks, but these are supplementary and do not carry the paper's main empirical claims. Self-citations such as Jia et al. (2024) are used to justify the LLM-labeling approach, but the paper independently validates the classifier against human raters, so the citations are not load-bearing. The paper's own Limitations section acknowledges that onboarding choices and zero-shot LLM variability may affect results, which are correctness concerns rather than circularity. No specific equation or fitted parameter in the derivation chain is equivalent to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central contribution rests on a chain of domain assumptions rather than a formal derivation. The most consequential are that LLM labels are valid measures of value expression, that the six chosen value systems reasonably cover user preferences, and that post-level content is the right ranking unit. The only hand-set numeric parameter that materially changes the library is the merging threshold r >= 0.6; other design choices, such as the onboarding seed set and slider range, affect user behavior but are not fitted to data.

free parameters (3)
  • Merging correlation threshold = r >= 0.6
    Chosen by hand as the upper bound of a moderate correlation. This threshold determines how many of the 111 filtered values survive into the final 78-value library, so it directly shapes the user-facing artifact.
  • Onboarding seed set = 5 values selected by K-Means centroids
    The five values shown to users during onboarding (e.g., 'A World at Peace', 'Education and Entertainment') are a design choice that the paper itself acknowledges may influence which values users explore in the short-term experiment.
  • User weight slider range = 0.1 to 1
    The allowed slider bounds for upranking and downranking strength constrain the dot-product scores and therefore the resulting feed order.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption LLM zero-shot labels are valid measures of value expression in posts.
    This is the foundation of the operationalization pipeline. It is partially validated on 12 of 78 values with 30 posts each, but assumed for the remaining values and for all live-study posts.
  • domain assumption The six selected value systems, after filtering and merging, adequately span the space of user-relevant feed values.
    The library is built only from Rokeach, Hofstede, Maslow, Stray et al., Weld et al., and Ge and Gretzel. The paper makes no completeness claim, but the coverage claim (fewer than 3% of tweets contain zero library values) underwrites the ranking universality.
  • domain assumption Post-level content is the correct unit for value ranking; feed-level values are excluded by design.
    Values such as 'diversity of content' are excluded because they apply to a feed, not a single post. This narrows the construct being measured to post-level expression.
  • domain assumption Pearson correlation on LLM-labeled co-occurrence indicates construct overlap and justifies merging.
    Values with r >= 0.6 on LLM labels are merged, so noise or systematic bias in the LLM labels propagates directly into the composition of the library.
  • domain assumption The average of five human annotations is an appropriate ground truth for value salience.
    Classifier validation compares LLM outputs to the rounded mean of five crowd ratings, treating that mean as the correct label.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Alexandria: A Library of Pluralistic Values for Realtime Re-Ranking of Social Media Feeds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O5GZ4HX3

@misc{pith2026250510839,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Alexandria: A Library of Pluralistic Values for Realtime Re-Ranking of Social Media Feeds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O5GZ4HX3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.10839}
}
abstract

Social media feed ranking algorithms fail when they too narrowly focus on engagement as their objective. The literature has asserted a wide variety of values that these algorithms should account for as well -- ranging from well-being to productive discourse -- far more than can be encapsulated by a single topic or theory. In response, we present a $\textit{library of values}$ for social media algorithms: a pluralistic set of 78 values as articulated across the literature, implemented into LLM-powered content classifiers that can be installed individually or in combination for real-time re-ranking of social media feeds. We investigate this approach by developing a browser extension, $\textit{Alexandria}$, that re-ranks the X/Twitter feed in real time based on the user's desired values. Through two user studies, both qualitative (N=12) and quantitative (N=257), we found that diverse user needs require a large library of values, enabling more nuanced preferences and greater user control. With this work, we argue that the values criticized as missing from social media ranking algorithms can be operationalized and deployed today through end-user tools.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.10839 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. After selecting the values they wish to see from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Twenty-three of the 78 values in the full library are significantly different (p [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Compass: Continuously Aligning Social Media Feeds via In-Situ Reflections

    cs.HC 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A browser extension that embeds reflection prompts into short-form video feeds and automatically re-aligns recommendations led to more preference adjustments and better feed alignment than a manual baseline in a 10-da...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Are, C. 2020. How Instagram’s algorithm is censoring women and vulnerable users but helping online abusers. Feminist media studies, 20(5): 741--744

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    P.; and Weller, A

    Babaei, M.; Kulshrestha, J.; Chakraborty, A.; Benevenuto, F.; Gummadi, K. P.; and Weller, A. 2018. Purple feed: Identifying high consensus news posts on social media. In AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES)

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Backstrom, L. 2016. Serving a billion personalized news feeds. In ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM)

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Backstrom, L.; and Mosseri, A. 2015. How News Feed Works. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-Yhpz_SKiQ

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Bail, C. 2022. Breaking the social media prism: How to make our platforms less polarizing. Princeton University Press

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Bernstein, M.; Christin, A.; Hancock, J.; Hashimoto, T.; Jia, C.; Lam, M.; Meister, N.; Persily, N.; Piccardi, T.; Saveski, M.; et al. 2023. Embedding societal values into social media algorithms. Journal of Online Trust and Safety, 2(1)

    work page 2023

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    S.; Hope, A.; Jen, D.; Rubinovitz, J.; Sald\' as-Fuentes, B.; and Zuckerman, E

    Bhargava, R.; Chung, A.; Gaikwad, N. S.; Hope, A.; Jen, D.; Rubinovitz, J.; Sald\' as-Fuentes, B.; and Zuckerman, E. 2019. Gobo: A System for Exploring User Control of Invisible Algorithms in Social Media. In ACM SIGCHI Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Soc...

    2019

  2. [10]

    Bickert, M. 2018. Publishing Our Internal Enforcement Guidelines and Expanding Our Appeals Process

    2018

  3. [11]

    Burke, M.; Cheng, J.; and de Gant, B. 2020. Social comparison and Facebook: Feedback, positivity, and opportunities for comparison. In ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI)

    2020

  4. [12]

    E.; Kapoor, S.; Salehi, F.; and Vishnoi, N

    Celis, L. E.; Kapoor, S.; Salehi, F.; and Vishnoi, N. 2019. Controlling polarization in personalization: An algorithmic framework. In ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT)

    2019

  5. [13]

    L.; Nematzadeh, A.; Menczer, F.; and Flammini, A

    Ciampaglia, G. L.; Nematzadeh, A.; Menczer, F.; and Flammini, A. 2018. How algorithmic popularity bias hinders or promotes quality. Scientific reports, 8(1): 15951

    2018

  6. [14]

    Dooms, S.; De Pessemier, T.; and Martens, L. 2014. Improving IMDb movie recommendations with interactive settings and filters. In ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys)

    2014

  7. [15]

    Eckles, D. 2021. Algorithmic transparency and assessing effects of algorithmic ranking. Testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Communications, Media, and Broadband

    2021

  8. [16]

    Eckles, D. 2022. Algorithmic transparency and assessing effects of algorithmic ranking

    2022

  9. [17]

    F.; and Bakshy, E

    Eckles, D.; Kizilcec, R. F.; and Bakshy, E. 2016. Estimating peer effects in networks with peer encouragement designs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(27): 7316--7322

    2016

  10. [18]

    D.; Kluver, D.; Harper, F

    Ekstrand, M. D.; Kluver, D.; Harper, F. M.; and Konstan, J. A. 2015. Letting users choose recommender algorithms: An experimental study. In ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys)

    2015

  11. [19]

    Eslami, M.; Karahalios, K.; Sandvig, C.; Vaccaro, K.; Rickman, A.; Hamilton, K.; and Kirlik, A. 2016. First I ``like''' it, then I hide it: Folk Theories of Social Feeds. In ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI)

    2016

  12. [20]

    Eslami, M.; Rickman, A.; Vaccaro, K.; Aleyasen, A.; Vuong, A.; Karahalios, K.; Hamilton, K.; and Sandvig, C. 2015. ``I always assumed that I wasn't really that close to [her]'' Reasoning about Invisible Algorithms in News Feeds. In ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Comput...

    2015

  13. [21]

    K.; Koo, X.; Tan, L.; Bruckman, A.; McDonald, D

    Feng, K. K.; Koo, X.; Tan, L.; Bruckman, A.; McDonald, D. W.; and Zhang, A. X. 2024. Mapping the Design Space of Teachable Social Media Feed Experiences. In ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI)

    2024

  14. [22]

    Fourcade, M.; and Healy, K. 2024. The ordinal society. Harvard University Press-T

    2024

  15. [23]

    Friedman, L.; Ahuja, S.; Allen, D.; Tan, Z.; Sidahmed, H.; Long, C.; Xie, J.; Schubiner, G.; Patel, A.; Lara, H.; et al. 2023. Leveraging large language models in conversational recommender systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.07961

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Ge, J.; and Gretzel, U. 2018. A taxonomy of value co-creation on Weibo--a communication perspective. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(4): 2075--2092

    2018

  17. [25]

    Gillespie, T. 2018. Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press

    2018

  18. [26]

    P.; and Ditto, P

    Graham, J.; Haidt, J.; Koleva, S.; Motyl, M.; Iyer, R.; Wojcik, S. P.; and Ditto, P. H. 2013. Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. In Advances in experimental social psychology, volume 47, 55--130. Elsevier

    2013

  19. [27]

    M.; Malhotra, N.; Pan, J.; Barber \'a , P.; Allcott, H.; Brown, T.; Crespo-Tenorio, A.; Dimmery, D.; Freelon, D.; Gentzkow, M.; González-Bailón, S.; Kennedy, E.; Kim, Y

    Guess, A. M.; Malhotra, N.; Pan, J.; Barber \'a , P.; Allcott, H.; Brown, T.; Crespo-Tenorio, A.; Dimmery, D.; Freelon, D.; Gentzkow, M.; González-Bailón, S.; Kennedy, E.; Kim, Y. M.; Lazer, D.; Moehler, D.; Nyhan, B.; Rivera, C. V.; Settle, J.; Thomas, D. R.; Thorson, E.; Tro...

    2023

  20. [28]

    M.; Malhotra, N.; Pan, J.; Barber \'a , P.; Allcott, H.; Brown, T.; Crespo-Tenorio, A.; Dimmery, D.; Freelon, D.; Gentzkow, M.; González-Bailón, S.; Kennedy, E.; Kim, Y

    Guess, A. M.; Malhotra, N.; Pan, J.; Barber \'a , P.; Allcott, H.; Brown, T.; Crespo-Tenorio, A.; Dimmery, D.; Freelon, D.; Gentzkow, M.; González-Bailón, S.; Kennedy, E.; Kim, Y. M.; Lazer, D.; Moehler, D.; Nyhan, B.; Rivera, C. V.; Settle, J.; Thomas, D. R.; Thorson, E.; Tro...

    2023

  21. [29]

    Hofstede, G. 1984. Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values, volume 5. sage

    1984

  22. [30]

    Jahanbakhsh, F.; and Karger, D. R. 2024. A Browser Extension for in-place Signaling and Assessment of Misinformation. In ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Jahanbakhsh, F.; Katsis, Y.; Wang, D.; Popa, L.; and Muller, M. 2023. Exploring the use of personalized AI for identifying misinformation on social media. In ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI)

    2023

  24. [32]

    X.; and Karger, D

    Jahanbakhsh, F.; Zhang, A. X.; and Karger, D. R. 2022. Leveraging structured trusted-peer assessments to combat misinformation. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 6(CSCW2)

    2022

  25. [33]

    Jannach, D.; Naveed, S.; and Jugovac, M. 2017. User control in recommender systems: Overview and interaction challenges. In E-Commerce and Web Technologies: 17th International Conference, EC-Web 2016, Porto, Portugal, September 5-8, 2016, Revised Selected Papers 17, 21--33. Springer

    2017

  26. [34]

    Q.; Chen, Q

    Jhaver, S.; Zhang, A. Q.; Chen, Q. Z.; Natarajan, N.; Wang, R.; and Zhang, A. X. 2023. Personalizing content moderation on social media: User perspectives on moderation choices, interface design, and labor. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 7(CSCW2)

    2023

  27. [35]

    S.; Mai, M

    Jia, C.; Lam, M. S.; Mai, M. C.; Hancock, J. T.; and Bernstein, M. S. 2024. Embedding democratic values into social media AIs via societal objective functions. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 8(CSCW1)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Keegan, J. 2016. Blue Feed, Red Feed

    2016

  29. [37]

    Kleppmann, M.; Frazee, P.; Gold, J.; Graber, J.; Holmgren, D.; Ivy, D.; Johnson, J.; Newbold, B.; and Volpert, J. 2024. Bluesky and the at protocol: Usable decentralized social media. In ACM Conext-2024 Workshop on the Decentralization of the Internet

    2024

  30. [38]

    Kluckhohn, C. 1951. Values and value-orientations in the theory of action: An exploration in definition and classification. In Toward a general theory of action, 388--433. Harvard university press

    1951

  31. [39]

    P.; Reijmer, N

    Knijnenburg, B. P.; Reijmer, N. J.; and Willemsen, M. C. 2011. Each to his own: how different users call for different interaction methods in recommender systems. In ACM onference on Recommender Systems (RecSys)

    2011

  32. [40]

    Liu, P.; Shivaram, K.; Culotta, A.; Shapiro, M.; and Bilgic, M. 2024. How Does Empowering Users with Greater System Control Affect News Filter Bubbles? In International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Lorenz-Spreen, P.; Oswald, L.; Lewandowsky, S.; and Hertwig, R. 2023. A systematic review of worldwide causal and correlational evidence on digital media and democracy. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(1): 74--101

    2023

  34. [42]

    Marshall, B. 2021. Algorithmic misogynoir in content moderation practice. Heinrich-B \"o ll-Stiftung European Union , 2021--06

    2021

  35. [43]

    Maslow, A.; and Lewis, K. J. 1987. Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Salenger Incorporated, 14(17): 987--990

    1987

  36. [44]

    Milli, S.; Belli, L.; and Hardt, M. 2021. From Optimizing Engagement to Measuring Value. In ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT)

    2021

  37. [45]

    P.; and Zannettou, S

    Mousavi, S.; Gummadi, K. P.; and Zannettou, S. 2024. Auditing Algorithmic Explanations of Social Media Feeds: A Case Study of TikTok Video Explanations. In International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM)

    2024

  38. [46]

    J.; and Kogan, S

    Muller, M. J.; and Kogan, S. 2012. Grounded Theory Method in Human-Computer Interaction and Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. In Human Computer Interaction Handbook, 1003--1023. CRC Press

    2012

  39. [47]

    Munn, L. 2020. Angry by design: toxic communication and technical architectures. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 7(1): 1--11

    2020

  40. [48]

    Narayanan, A. 2023. Understanding Social Media Recommendation Algorithms. https://knightcolumbia.org/content/understanding-social-media-recommendation-algorithms

    2023

  41. [49]

    Y.; Allcott, H.; Brown, T.; Crespo-Tenorio, A.; Dimmery, D.; Freelon, D.; Gentzkow, M.; González-Bailón, S.; Kennedy, E.; Kim, Y

    Nyhan, B.; Settle, J.; Thorson, E.; Wojcieszak, M.; Barber \'a , P.; Chen, A. Y.; Allcott, H.; Brown, T.; Crespo-Tenorio, A.; Dimmery, D.; Freelon, D.; Gentzkow, M.; González-Bailón, S.; Kennedy, E.; Kim, Y. M.; Lazer, D.; Moehler, D.; Nyhan, B.; Rivera, C. V.; Settle, J.; Tho...

    2023

  42. [50]

    K.; Blakemore, S.-J.; and Kievit, R

    Orben, A.; Przybylski, A. K.; Blakemore, S.-J.; and Kievit, R. A. 2022. Windows of developmental sensitivity to social media. Nature Communications, 13(1): 1649

    2022

  43. [51]

    Ovadya, A.; and Thorburn, L. 2023. Bridging Systems: Open Problems for Countering Destructive Divisiveness across Ranking, Recommenders, and Governance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.09976

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    L.; and Bernstein, M

    Piccardi, T.; Saveski, M.; Jia, C.; Hancock, J.; Tsai, J. L.; and Bernstein, M. S. 2024 a . Reranking Social Media Feeds: A Practical Guide for Field Experiments. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.19571

    2024

  45. [53]

    T.; Tsai, J

    Piccardi, T.; Saveski, M.; Jia, C.; Hancock, J. T.; Tsai, J. L.; and Bernstein, M. 2024 b . Social Media Algorithms Can Shape Affective Polarization via Exposure to Antidemocratic Attitudes and Partisan Animosity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.14652

    2024

  46. [54]

    Report, G. T. 2023. YouTube Community Guidelines enforcement

    2023

  47. [55]

    Rokeach, M. 1973. The nature of human values. Free press

    1973

  48. [56]

    Rowland, F. 2011. The filter bubble: what the internet is hiding from you. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 11(4): 1009--1011

    2011

  49. [57]

    Saveski, M.; Gillani, N.; Yuan, A.; Vijayaraghavan, P.; and Roy, D. 2022. Perspective-taking to Reduce Affective Polarization on Social Media. In International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM)

    2022

  50. [58]

    Schober, P.; Boer, C.; and Schwarte, L. A. 2018. Correlation coefficients: appropriate use and interpretation. Anesthesia & analgesia, 126(5): 1763--1768

    2018

  51. [59]

    Schwartz, S. H. 2012. An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1): 11

    2012

  52. [60]

    H.; and Bilsky, W

    Schwartz, S. H.; and Bilsky, W. 1987. Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of personality and social psychology, 53(3): 550

    1987

  53. [61]

    B.; Alford, J.; Hibbing, J

    Smith, K. B.; Alford, J.; Hibbing, J. R.; Martin, N.; and Hatemi, P. K. 2017. Intuitive Ethics and Political Orientations: Testing Moral Foundations as a Theory of Political Ideology. American Journal of Political Science, 61: 424--437

    2017

  54. [62]

    Stray, J. 2020. Aligning AI optimization to community well-being. International Journal of Community Well-Being, 3(4): 443--463

    2020

  55. [63]

    M.; Johansen, S.; Kerlin, L.; Vickrey, D.; Singh, S.; Vrijenhoek, S.; Zhang, A.; Andrus, M.; Helberger, N.; Proutskova, P.; Mitra, T.; and Vasan, N

    Stray, J.; Halevy, A.; Assar, P.; Hadfield-Menell, D.; Boutilier, C.; Ashar, A.; Beattie, L.; Ekstrand, M.; Leibowicz, C.; Sehat, C. M.; Johansen, S.; Kerlin, L.; Vickrey, D.; Singh, S.; Vrijenhoek, S.; Zhang, A.; Andrus, M.; Helberger, N.; Proutskova, P.; Mitra, T.; and Vasan...

    2022 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Sunstein, C. R. 2001. http://Republic. com

    2001

  57. [65]

    Tetlock, P. E. 1986. A value pluralism model of ideological reasoning. Journal of Personality and ocial Psychology, 50(4)

    1986

  58. [66]

    Transparency, T. 2021. Rules Enforcement

    2021

  59. [67]

    Twitter. 2023. Twitter GitHub, The Algorithm. https://github.com/twitter/the-algorithm. Accessed: 2023-10-23

    2023

  60. [68]

    Z.; and Zhang, A

    Wang, L.; Yurechko, K.; Dani, P.; Chen, Q. Z.; and Zhang, A. X. 2025. End user authoring of personalized content classifiers: Comparing example labeling, rule writing, and LLM prompting. In ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI)

    2025

  61. [69]

    X.; and Althoff, T

    Weld, G.; Zhang, A. X.; and Althoff, T. 2022. What makes online communities `better'? Measuring values, consensus, and conflict across thousands of subreddits. In International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM)

    2022

  62. [70]

    X/Twitter. 2024. How to use advanced muting options. https://help.x.com/en/using-x/advanced-x-mute-options

    2024

  63. [71]

    Zhu, H.; Yu, B.; Halfaker, A.; and Terveen, L. 2018. Value-sensitive algorithm design: Method, case study, and lessons. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer interaction, 2(CSCW)

    2018

  64. [72]

    Ziems, C.; Held, W.; Shaikh, O.; Chen, J.; Zhang, Z.; and Yang, D. 2024. Can large language models transform computational social science? Computational Linguistics, 50(1): 237--291

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.