social media – Page 2 – Michele Coscia

In his 1976 book “The Selfish Gene“, Richard Dawkins proposed a shift in the way we look at evolution: instead of considering the organisms as the center of evolution, Dawkins proposed (providing tons of evidence) to consider single genes as the fundamental evolution unit. I am not a biologist nor interested in genetics, so this idea should not concern me. However, Dawkins added one chapter to his book. He felt that it could be possible that culture, too, is made out of self-replicating units, just like genes, that can compete and/or collaborate with each other in forming “cultural organisms”. He decided to call these units “memes”.

The idea of memes was mostly in the realm of intellectual and serious researchers (not like me); you can check out some pretty serious books like “Metamagical Themas” by Hofstadter or “Thought Contagion: How Belief Spreads Through Society” by Lynch. But then something terrible was brought to the world. Then, the World Wide Web happened, bringing with itself a nexus of inside jokes, large communities, mind hives, social media, 2.0s, God knows what. Oh and cats. Have one, please:

With the WWW, studying memes became easier, because on the Internet every piece of information has to be stored somehow somewhere. This is not something I discovered by myself, there are plenty of smart guys out there doing marvelous research. I’ll give just three examples out of possibly tens or hundreds:

Studies about memes competing for the attention of people in a social network like “Clash of the contagions: Cooperation and competition in information diffusion” or “Competition among memes in a world with limited attention” ;
Studies about the adoption of conventions and behaviors by people, like “The emergence of conventions in online social networks”or “Cooperative behavior cascades in human social networks”;
Studies about how information diffuses in networks, like “Virality and susceptibility in information diffusions” or “Mining the temporal dimension of the information propagation” which, absolutely incidentally, is a paper of mine.

There is one thing that I find to be mostly missing in the current state of the research on memes. Many, if not all, of the above mentioned works are focused in understanding how memes spread from one person to another and they ask what the dynamics are, given that human minds are connected through a social network. In other words, what we have been studying is mostly the network of connections, regardless of what kinds of messages are passing through it. Now, most of the time these “messages” are about penguins that don’t know how to talk to girls:

and in that case I give you that you can fairly ignore it. But my reasoning is that if we want to really understand memes and memetics, we can’t put all of our effort in just analyzing the networks they live in. It is like trying to understand genes and animals and analyzing only the environment they inhabit. If you want to know how to behave in front of a “tiger” without ever having met one, it is possibly useful to understand something about the forest it is dwelling in, but I strongly advise you to also take a look at its claws, teeth and how fast it can run or climb.

That is exactly what I study in a paper that I got accepted at the ICWSM conference, titled “Competition and Success in the Meme Pool: a Case Study on Quickmeme.com” (click to download). What I did was fairly simple: I downloaded a bunch of memes from Quickmeme.com and I studied the patterns of their appearances and upvotes across a year worth of data. Using some boring data analysis techniques borrowed from ecology, I was able to understand which memes compete (or collaborate) with which other ones, what are the characteristics of memes that make them more likely to survive and whether there are hints as the existence of “meme organisms” (there are. One of my favorites is the small nerd-humor cluster:

One of the nicest products of my paper was a simple visualization to help us understand the effect of some of the characteristics of memes that are associated with successful memes. As characteristics I took the number of memes in competition and in collaboration with the meme, whether the meme is part of a coherent group of memes (an “organism”) and if the meme had a very large popularity peak or not. The result, in the picture below (click to enlarge), tells us an interesting story. In the picture, the odds of success are connected by arrows that represent the filters I used to group the memes, based on their characteristics.

This picture is saying: in general, memes have a 35.47% probability of being successful (given the definition of “successful” I gave in the paper). If a meme has a popularity peak that is larger than the average, then its probability of success decreases. This means that, my dear meme*, if you want to survive you have to keep a low profile. And, if you really can’t keep a low profile, then don’t make too many enemies (or your odds will go down to 6.25%). On the other hand, if you kept a low profile, then make as many enemies as you can, but only if you can count on many friends too, especially if you can be in a tightly connected meme organism (80.3%!). This is an exciting result that seems to suggest that memes are indeed collaborating together in complex cultural organisms because that’s how they can survive.

What I did was just scratching the surface of meme-centered studies, as opposed to the network-centered meme studies. I am planning to study more deeply the causal effect between a meme and its fitness to survive in the World Wild Web and to understand the mechanics of how memes evolve and mutate. Oh, and if you feel like, I am also releasing the data that I collected for my study. It is in the “Quickmeme” entry under the Datasets tab (link for the lazies).

* I deeply apologize to Dawkins, any readers (luckily they are few) and to the scientific community as a whole, for my personification of memes. I know that memes have not a mind, therefore they can’t “decide” to do anything, but it really makes it so much easier to write!

Imagine being subscribed to a service where you can read other users’ opinions about what interests you. Imagine that, for your convenience, the system allows you to tag other users as “reliable” or “unreliable”, such that the system will not bother you by signaling new opinions from users that you regard as unreliable, while highlighting the reliable ones. Imagine noticing a series of opinions, by a user you haven’t classified yet, regarding stuff you really care about. Imagine also being extremely lazy and unwilling to make up your own mind if her opinions are really worth your time or not. How is it possible to classify the user as reliable or unreliable for you without reading?

What I just described in the previous paragraph is a problem affecting only very lazy people. Computer Science is the science developed for lazy people, so you can bet that this problem definition has been tackled extensively. In fact, it has been. This problem is known as “Edge Sign Classification”, the art of classifying positive/negative relations in social media.

Computer Science is not only a science for lazy people, is also a science carried out by lazy people. For this reason, the edge sign classification problem has been mainly tackled by borrowing the social balance theory for complex networks, an approach that here I’m criticizing (while providing an alternative, I’m not a monster!). Let’s dive for a second into social balance theory, with the warning that we will stay on the surface without oxygen tanks, to get to the minimum depth that is sufficient for our purposes.

Formally, social balance theory states that in social environments there exist structures that are balanced and structures that are unbalanced. The former should be over-expressed (i.e. we are more likely to find them) while the latter should be rarer than expected. If these sentences are unclear to you, allow me to reformulate them using ancient popular wisdom. Social balance theory states mainly two sentences: “The friend of my friend is usually my friend too” and “The enemy of my enemy is usually my friend”, so social relations following these rules are more common than ones that do not follow them.

Let’s make two visual examples among the many possible. These structures in a social network are balanced:

(on the left we have the “friend of my friend” situation, while on the right we have the “enemy of my enemy” rule). On the other hand, these structures are unbalanced:

(the latter on the right is actually a bit more complicated situation, but our dive in social balance is coming to an abrupt end, therefore we have no space to deal with it).

These structures are indeed found, as expected, to be over- or under-expressed in real world social networks (see the work of Szell et al). So the state of the art of link sign classification simply takes an edge, it controls for all the triangles surrounding it and returns the expected edge (here’s the paper – to be honest there are other papers with different proposed techniques, but this one is the most successful).

Now, the critique. This approach in my opinion has two major flaws. First, it is too deterministic. By applying social balance theory we are implying that all social networks obey to the very same mechanics even if they appear in different contexts. My intuition is that this assumption is rather limiting and untrue. Second, it limits itself to simple structures, i.e. triads of three nodes and edges. It does so because triangles are easy to understand for humans, because they are described by the very intuitive sentences presented before. But a computer does not need this oversimplification: a computer is there to do the work we find too tedious to do (remember the introduction: computer scientists are lazy animals).

In the last months, I worked on this problem with a very smart undergraduate student for his master thesis (this is the resulting paper, published this year at SocialCom). Our idea was (1) to use graph mining techniques to count not only triangles but any kind of structures in signed complex networks. Then, (2) we generated graph association rules using the frequencies of the structures extracted and (3) we used the rules with highest confidence and support to classify the edge sign. Allow me to decode in human terms what I just described technically.

1) Graph mining algorithms are algorithms that, given a set of small graphs, count in how many of the graphs a particular substructure is present. The first problem is that these algorithms are not really well defined if we have a single graph for which we want to count how many times the structure is present*. Unfortunately, what we have is indeed not a collection of small graphs, but a single large graph, like this:

So, the first step is to split this structure in many small graphs. Our idea was to extract the ego network for each node in the network, i.e. the collection of all the neighbors of this node, and the edges among them. The logical explanation is that we count how many users “see” the given structure around them in the network:

(these are only 4 ego networks out of a total of 20 from the above example).

2) Now we can count how many times, for example, a triangle with three green edges is “seen” by the nodes of the network. Now we need to construct the “graph association rule”. Suppose that we “see” the following graph 20 times:

and the following graph, which is the same graph but with one additional negative edge, 16 times:

In this case we can create a rule stating: whenever we see the former graph, then we know with 80% confidence (16 / 20 = 0.8) that this graph is actually part of the latter one. The former graph is called premise and the latter is the consequence. We create rules in such a way that the consequence is an expansion of just one edge of the premise.

3) Whenever we want to know if we can trust the new guy (i.e. we have a mysterious edge without the sign), we can check around what premises match. The consequences of these premises give us a hunch at the sign of our mysterious edge and the consequence with highest confidence is the one we will use to guess the sign.

In the paper you can find the details of the performance of this approach. Long story short: we are not always better than the approach based on social balance theory (the “triangle theory”, as you will remember). We are better in general, but worse when there are already a lot of friends with an expressed opinion about the new guy**. However, this is something that I give away very happily, as usually they don’t know, because social networks are sparse and there is a high chance that the new person does not share any friends with you. So, here’s the catch. If you want to answer the initial question the first thing you have to do is to calculate how many friends of yours have an opinion. If few do (and that happens most of the time) you use our method, otherwise you just rely on them and you trust the social balance theory.

With our approach we overcome the problems of determinism and oversimplification I stated before, as we generate different sets of rules for different networks and we can generate rules with an arbitrary number of nodes. Well, we could, as for now this is only a proof of principle. We are working very hard to provide some usable code, so you can test yourself the long blabbering present in this post.

* Note for experts in graph mining: I know that there are algorithms defined on the single-graph setting, but I am explicitly choosing an alternative, more intuitive way.

** Another boring formal explanation. The results are provided in function of a measure called “embeddedness” of an edge (E(u,v) for the edge connecting nodes u and v). E(u,v) is a measure returning the number of common neighbors of the two nodes connected by the mysterious edge. For all the edges with minimum embeddedness larger than zero (E(u,v) > 0, i.e. all the edges in the network) we outperform the social balance, with accuracy close to 90%. However, for larger minimum embeddedness (like E(u,v) > 25), social balance wins. This happens because there is a lot of information around the edge. It is important to note that the number of edges with E(u,v) > 25 is usually way lower than half of the network (from 4% to 25%).