Social computing

Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Social computing is an interdisciplinary domain within computer science that investigates the interplay between human social behaviors and computational systems, encompassing the design of technologies to support social interactions, the modeling of collective dynamics, and the extraction of insights from social data.^[1]^[2] It leverages algorithms, networks, and interfaces to facilitate collaboration, communication, and influence propagation among users, often drawing on principles from sociology and economics to predict and shape outcomes in digital environments.^[3] Emerging from early networked systems like ARPANET in the 1960s and Usenet in the 1970s, the field gained prominence with the rise of Web 2.0 platforms in the early 2000s, which enabled user-generated content and scalable online communities.^[4] Key applications include social networking services, wikis, and crowdsourcing platforms that harness collective intelligence for tasks ranging from knowledge aggregation to real-time decision-making, demonstrating empirical efficiencies in distributed problem-solving over centralized models.^[1]^[5] Notable achievements encompass advancements in social network analysis for epidemic modeling and recommendation systems, which have optimized information flow and resource allocation in both commercial and scientific contexts.^[6] However, the field has sparked controversies over unintended consequences, such as privacy erosions from pervasive data collection and algorithmic amplification of polarization, where empirical studies reveal how feedback loops in engagement-driven systems exacerbate divisions rather than neutral facilitation.^[7] These dynamics underscore causal mechanisms wherein computational incentives prioritize virality over veracity, prompting ongoing research into robust governance frameworks.^[8]

Definition and Scope

Core Concepts and Principles

Social computing encompasses the development and analysis of computational systems that facilitate social interactions by modeling and leveraging dependencies among autonomous actors, such as individuals or software agents, through their relationships and joint activities.^[9] This field integrates techniques from computer science to study social behaviors empirically, including the use of recommender algorithms that infer preferences from collective user data and human-computation hybrids that combine human judgment with automated processes for tasks like data annotation or problem decomposition.^[10] Unlike isolated computation, social computing prioritizes decentralized interactions where outcomes emerge from interdependent contributions, supported by platforms that aggregate social signals without requiring explicit coordination.^[11] Central principles include harnessing collective intelligence, whereby distributed human inputs are computationally synthesized to produce knowledge or solutions exceeding individual capacities, as observed in mechanisms for aggregating diverse perspectives in decision-making systems.^[9] This relies on modeling social dependence, which formalizes how actors' goals and actions interlink—such as in supply chains or peer reviews—enabling predictions of emergent behaviors from interaction data rather than assuming rational isolation.^[9] Empirical validation draws from logged interactions, revealing patterns like cascading influences in networks, which inform system designs grounded in causal links between participation incentives and output quality.^[12] Designing for scalable social interactions constitutes another core principle, emphasizing architectures that sustain utility across participant scales through modular abstractions and lightweight protocols, avoiding bottlenecks in centralized processing.^[9] Concepts from early groupware, which supported small-group collaboration via shared tools, underpin these approaches by providing foundational models for synchronizing actions that extend to larger networks without proportional resource demands.^[13] Such scalability manifests in systems capable of coordinating vast numbers of actors, as demonstrated by the exponential growth in collaborative contributions enabled by dependency-aware algorithms since the 1980s.^[13] Social computing differs from social informatics in its progression toward computational modeling of social behaviors and intelligence, whereas social informatics primarily investigates the social dimensions of information technologies, including their design, implementation, and societal consequences without equivalent emphasis on predictive analytics or simulation.^[14] This evolution is marked by social computing's focus on capturing and replicating human social dynamics through algorithms, contrasting with social informatics' observational and contextual analysis of technology's interplay with social structures.^[15] In contrast to human-computer interaction (HCI), which prioritizes individual user interfaces, ergonomics, and usability metrics such as task efficiency and error rates, social computing emphasizes the modeling of emergent group behaviors and networked interactions enabled by digital platforms.^[16] For instance, HCI studies often center on single-user experiences like interface navigation, excluding the relational and collective phenomena—such as influence propagation or community formation—that social computing quantifies via computational methods.^[17] Unlike traditional sociology, which relies on qualitative methods, surveys, and theoretical frameworks to describe social structures, social computing applies algorithmic simulations to forecast behavioral patterns, such as opinion diffusion or collaboration incentives, grounded in empirical data from digital traces.^[18] It diverges from artificial intelligence by centering human-generated social inputs and relational data over autonomous agent decision-making; AI systems may optimize isolated tasks without modeling interpersonal dependencies, while social computing integrates these to predict outcomes like network resilience or misinformation spread.^[12] A core empirical distinction lies in social computing's requisite use of graph theory to represent social networks as nodes and edges, facilitating metrics like centrality or clustering coefficients for causal analysis of connectivity effects, which standalone data science approaches often overlook in favor of non-relational pattern mining.^[19] This structural modeling avoids conflation with broader HCI usability evaluations, instead targeting predictive validity in social contexts through verifiable relational computations.^[1]

Historical Development

Early Foundations (Pre-1990s)

The ARPANET, initiated by the U.S. Department of Defense's Advanced Research Projects Agency, transmitted its first message on October 29, 1969, between the University of California, Los Angeles, and the Stanford Research Institute, marking the inception of packet-switched networking for resource sharing and communication among research institutions.^[20]^[21] This system enabled rudimentary collective discourse through protocols like the Network Control Program, facilitating remote login and file transfer by 1971, though initially limited to about 37 host computers by 1972 due to the era's minicomputer architectures, such as the PDP-10, which supported only time-shared access for dozens of users amid constraints in processing power and memory.^[22] Early email capabilities emerged on ARPANET in the early 1970s, with the SNDMSG program supporting the first mailing lists for distributing messages to groups, exemplified by the MsgGroup list for discussing message systems, which demonstrated asynchronous communication among distributed participants but operated at small scales constrained by dial-up connections and host resource limits.^[23] Usenet, developed in 1979 by Duke University graduate students Tom Truscott and Jim Ellis, extended this by creating a decentralized news system using UUCP protocols over phone lines to propagate discussions across Unix machines, fostering threaded conversations in newsgroups that enabled broader, albeit still modest, collective exchange independent of central hosts.^[24] Multi-User Dungeons (MUDs), originating with the 1978 implementation by Roy Trubshaw at the University of Essex on a PDP-10, introduced programmable virtual environments where multiple users interacted in real-time via text commands, simulating social spaces with roles, movement, and communication that prefigured collaborative online communities, though participation was capped at low concurrent users due to single-machine hosting and bandwidth bottlenecks typical of pre-1980s networking hardware.^[25] These systems collectively laid groundwork for social computing by evidencing causal mechanisms of networked interaction—such as propagation delays and user coordination—while empirical limits in hardware scalability, including kilobaud speeds and megabyte-scale storage, underscored persistent challenges in achieving fluid group dynamics beyond elite research circles.^[26]

Emergence of Web-Based Systems (1990s-2000s)

The proliferation of broadband internet access in the late 1990s and early 2000s provided the infrastructural foundation for richer online interactions, shifting social computing from dial-up-limited bulletin boards to multimedia-enabled platforms that supported persistent user communities.^[27] By 2000, U.S. broadband subscriptions had begun scaling via DSL and cable modems, enabling higher-bandwidth activities like file sharing and real-time chat that amplified social connectivity beyond text-only exchanges.^[27] This causal enabler complemented emerging web technologies, fostering empirical observations of network effects where platform value increased nonlinearly with user adoption, as each participant expanded opportunities for interaction and content discovery.^[28] Key milestones included the launch of blogging platforms in the late 1990s, such as Blogger in 1999, which democratized personal publishing and laid groundwork for user-driven content ecosystems.^[29] Wikipedia's debut in January 2001 exemplified collaborative editing at scale, amassing volunteer contributions to create a dynamic knowledge base that grew to over 1 million articles by 2004.^[30] Social networking sites followed, with MySpace launching in 2003 and achieving 100 million accounts by August 2006, driven by customizable profiles, music integration, and viral invitations that evidenced exponential growth patterns typical of positive feedback loops in network effects.^[31] ^[32] Facebook, introduced in 2004 initially for Harvard students, similarly leveraged exclusivity and friend connections to scale rapidly, reaching 1 million users within months through mechanisms that rewarded denser social graphs.^[30] ^[31] Technological advances like AJAX, which gained traction around 2005 by allowing asynchronous data updates without page reloads, further enabled real-time features such as live feeds and auto-saves, reducing friction in social exchanges.^[33] This facilitated folksonomies—user-generated tagging systems—as in del.icio.us, launched in 2003 by Joshua Schachter to organize personal bookmarks, which evolved into shared, emergent categorization schemes reflecting collective vocabularies rather than top-down ontologies.^[34] The Web 2.0 paradigm, articulated by Tim O'Reilly in a 2004 conference and essay, crystallized these developments, emphasizing "architectures of participation" where user-generated content and harnessing collective intelligence supplanted passive consumption.^[35] Early analyses confirmed network effects' potency, with platforms like MySpace showing that augmented online ties supplemented offline ones, yielding net increases in communication volume for heavy users without displacing face-to-face contacts.^[28]

Modern Expansion and Integration (2010s-Present)

The proliferation of smartphones in the 2010s transformed social computing into a mobile-centric paradigm, enabling ubiquitous, real-time interactions beyond desktop constraints. By 2015, mobile devices accounted for over 50% of social media traffic, escalating to 63% of global website visits by 2025, driven by app ecosystems on iOS and Android that facilitated location-based sharing, live streaming, and ephemeral content.^[36] Platforms like Twitter, which gained prominence during events such as the 2011 Arab Spring for coordinating decentralized activism, optimized for mobile with push notifications and threaded conversations, peaking at over 300 million monthly active users by 2013.^[37] This shift empowered users with direct, unmediated communication, eroding traditional media gatekeepers' control over information flow by prioritizing peer-to-peer dissemination over editorial curation.^[38] Integration of artificial intelligence and big data further expanded social computing's scope, with machine learning algorithms deployed for content recommendation and personalization starting in the mid-2010s. Facebook's 2016 pivot to algorithmic feeds over chronological timelines, informed by vast user data analytics, increased engagement but also amplified echo chambers through predictive modeling of preferences. TikTok, launched internationally in 2016, exemplified this with its AI-powered "For You" page, leveraging edge computing and multimodal analysis of videos to achieve viral growth, reaching 1.5 billion users by 2023 via hyper-personalized short-form content.^[39] Big data processing enabled scalable moderation and trend detection, though empirical analyses reveal biases in training datasets that skew toward institutional narratives, underscoring the need for causal scrutiny of algorithmic causality over correlative outputs.^[40] In the 2020s, social computing integrated with emerging paradigms like decentralized networks and social IoT, addressing centralization's vulnerabilities while extending interactions to physical-digital hybrids. Decentralized platforms such as Bluesky, built on the AT Protocol, surged from 14.5 million to 25 million users between October and December 2024, fueled by migrations from centralized sites amid content policy disputes and data privacy concerns.^[41] These fediverse-compatible systems, including Mastodon, promote user-owned data sovereignty via blockchain and peer-to-peer architectures, growing searches for "decentralized social media" by 145% over five years to 2025.^[42] Concurrently, social IoT emerged, linking devices like smart wearables and home assistants for collective behaviors—e.g., community health monitoring via shared sensor data in IoT ecosystems projected to exceed 31 billion connected devices by 2030—enhancing social coordination through real-time, context-aware exchanges.^[43] Empirical metrics underscore this expansion's scale: global social media users reached 4.89 billion in 2023, comprising 59% of the world population, with average daily engagement at 2 hours and 21 minutes, predominantly mobile-driven.^[44] ^[45] By July 2025, this approached 5.41 billion, reflecting compounded growth from AI-enhanced retention and multimedia formats like hyperscale video platforms.^[37] This democratization disrupted legacy media's monopolies, as user-generated content and algorithmic amplification enabled bottom-up narratives, verifiable in surges of grassroots mobilization during events like the 2020 U.S. elections, where platforms bypassed filtered reporting for raw, distributed discourse.^[46]

Technological Foundations

Enabling Infrastructure

Cloud computing platforms, such as Amazon Web Services launched in 2006, provide on-demand scalable resources including virtual servers and storage, enabling social computing systems to handle variable loads from millions of users without proprietary hardware investments.^[47] This infrastructure supports the storage and processing of vast datasets, such as the petabyte-scale social graphs in platforms like Facebook, where distributed stores manage billions of entities and associations.^[48] Content delivery networks (CDNs) distribute static assets like images and videos across edge servers worldwide, minimizing latency for global user access in social platforms by caching content proximate to end-users.^[49] For instance, CDNs reduce the physical distance data travels, ensuring faster loading of user-generated media that constitutes a significant portion of social interactions.^[50] Advancements in network bandwidth, evolving from dial-up connections limited to 56 kbps in the 1990s to fiber-optic lines offering gigabit-per-second speeds, have facilitated the transfer of petabyte-scale data volumes inherent in social graphs and real-time feeds.^[51] Insufficient early infrastructure, as seen in Friendster's 2003 overload from unscaled relational databases unable to manage rapid user growth, underscores how bandwidth and server constraints directly limited platform viability.^[52] Post-2020 deployments of 5G networks and edge computing integrate high-bandwidth, low-latency connectivity with localized processing, enabling real-time social features like live video and augmented interactions by reducing round-trip data delays to milliseconds.^[53] This combination supports immersive, instantaneous data flows critical for dynamic social computing applications.^[54]

Algorithms and Computational Mechanisms

Centrality measures in graph theory form a foundational computational mechanism for identifying influential nodes in social networks, where nodes represent individuals and edges denote relationships. Degree centrality, defined as the number of direct connections to a node k_i = \sum_{j} A_{ij} (with A as the adjacency matrix), quantifies local popularity, while betweenness centrality, C_B(v) = \sum_{s \neq v \neq t} \frac{\sigma_{st}(v)}{\sigma_{st}} (where \sigma_{st} is the number of shortest paths from s to t and \sigma_{st}(v) passes through v), captures control over information flow. These metrics enable prioritization of users in social analysis, with empirical studies showing betweenness correlating with brokerage roles in real networks.^[55]^[56] PageRank, introduced by Brin and Page in 1998 as PR(p_i) = \frac{1-d}{N} + d \sum_{p_j \in M(p_i)} \frac{PR(p_j)}{L(p_j)} (with damping factor d and L(p_j) outgoing links), ranks web pages by recursive endorsement but adapts to social computing by weighting edges with interaction frequency or trust to measure user influence. Extensions incorporate temporal dynamics or signed networks for distrust propagation, improving accuracy in identifying opinion leaders over static rankings.^[57]^[58] Collaborative filtering underpins recommendation algorithms in social platforms, predicting preferences via user-item matrices decomposed into latent factors, such as in matrix factorization where \hat{R} = U \Sigma V^T approximates ratings R. User-based variants compute similarity (e.g., cosine) between profiles to suggest content from like-minded peers, driving engagement in systems like Netflix or Twitter feeds, though susceptible to cold-start issues without diverse data.^[59]^[60] Information diffusion models, such as the independent cascade where activation probability p propagates along edges independently, simulate virality; empirical fits to Twitter data validate parameters around 0.01-0.1 for retweets. Duncan Watts and Steven Strogatz's 1998 small-world model, rewiring lattices to balance clustering and path lengths, explains rapid spread in feeds by enabling short paths amid dense local ties, informing algorithmic prioritization of viral content.^[61] Agent-based simulations predict emergent behaviors by assigning rules to autonomous agents interacting in networks, as in multi-agent systems forecasting opinion cascades via threshold models where adoption occurs if sufficient neighbors agree. Validated against real epidemics or elections, these outperform aggregate models for heterogeneous populations, with recent LLM integrations enhancing behavioral realism.^[62]^[63]

Theoretical Foundations

Social sciences provide foundational insights into the behavioral dynamics underpinning social computing systems, emphasizing how human tendencies toward similarity, influence, and strategic interaction shape online collective outcomes. Sociological theories highlight homophily, the principle that individuals form connections disproportionately with those sharing similar attributes such as demographics, beliefs, or behaviors, which structures network ties and constrains information diversity. This process, empirically observed across marriage, friendship, and advice networks, induces localized information flows that limit exposure to dissenting views, fostering clustered rather than broadly integrative structures in digital environments. Psychological and sociological analyses of collective intelligence, as in Surowiecki's 2004 framework, argue that diverse, independent aggregations of judgments can yield superior accuracy over elite expertise, provided conditions like cognitive diversity and minimal herding are met. Empirical tests support this in controlled settings, where even groups of 30 participants achieve expert-level performance on estimation tasks through averaging.^[64] However, adaptations to social computing reveal vulnerabilities: social influence, even mild, erodes independence by prompting conformity, as demonstrated in experiments where observed peer estimates reduced group accuracy by up to 30% in judgment tasks.^[65] Game-theoretic models from social psychology illuminate cooperation challenges in decentralized online systems, where repeated interactions resemble iterated prisoner's dilemmas. Studies of network-based cooperation show that strategies emphasizing reciprocity, such as tit-for-tat, sustain contributions in simulations mirroring peer-to-peer or crowdsourced platforms, but defection rates rise without reputation mechanisms or punishment, leading to suboptimal equilibria.^[66] Empirical analyses confirm that indirect reciprocity—rewards based on observed third-party behavior—bolsters long-term collaboration, yet free-riding persists in anonymous settings, undermining assumed group rationality.^[66] Critiques grounded in empirical data challenge optimistic assumptions of inherent collective rationality in social computing, revealing systemic failures from unchecked group dynamics. Echo chambers, amplified by homophily-driven algorithms, confine users to reinforcing content loops, as evidenced by platform analyses showing polarized clusters with 20-40% reduced cross-ideological exposure on sites like Twitter and Facebook.^[67] Systematic reviews of 55 studies affirm echo chambers' prevalence in ideological and health domains, correlating with belief entrenchment and misinformation persistence, contrary to narratives minimizing their epistemic harms.^[68] These patterns underscore causal risks from interdependent signaling over independent aggregation, where overconfidence in crowds ignores herding's distortion of signals, as validated in large-scale behavioral data.^[65]

Computational and Mathematical Models

Computational models in social computing employ graph theory to represent social networks as nodes connected by edges denoting relationships, enabling analysis of structural properties such as degree distribution and assortativity that influence information flow and influence propagation.^[69] These models facilitate causal predictions by simulating perturbations, like node removal, to forecast network resilience or cascade effects, with empirical validation showing power-law degree distributions in platforms like Twitter aligning with simulated random graphs adjusted for preferential attachment.^[70] Multi-agent systems model social phenomena through autonomous agents following local rules of interaction, yielding emergent behaviors such as consensus formation or polarization without centralized control.^[71] In these frameworks, agent decisions incorporate probabilistic strategies, allowing simulations to predict macroscopic patterns like opinion dynamics from micro-level rules, tested via computational experiments that match observed coordination in simulated versus real-world coordination games.^[72] Stochastic processes, including Markov chains and branching processes, underpin models of dynamic social interactions, such as rumor spreading or information diffusion, where states transition probabilistically based on contact rates and recovery probabilities.^[69] Adapted epidemic models like SIR (Susceptible-Infected-Recovered) variants simulate virality on networks, predicting peak diffusion times and decay rates; for instance, 2011 analyses of Twitter news cascades demonstrated that SEIZ (Susceptible-Exposed-Infected-Zombie) models accurately reproduced observed spread patterns by incorporating skepticism states, outperforming deterministic alternatives in fitting empirical retweet data.^[73] ^[74] Game-theoretic approaches integrate Nash equilibria into reputation and trust systems, where agents select strategies to maximize utility amid uncertainty, converging to equilibria that stabilize cooperation in repeated interactions.^[75] These models predict defection thresholds under varying network topologies, with simulations revealing that dense graphs foster equilibria favoring honest signaling, validated against data from online marketplaces showing reputation scores correlating with equilibrium-predicted trust levels.^[76] Such models prioritize falsifiable predictions by generating testable hypotheses—e.g., comparing simulated diffusion curves to logged platform data—enabling causal inference on mechanisms like homophily's role in amplification, distinct from correlational analyses in offering interventions like targeted seeding for controlled spread.^[77] This rigor stems from iterative refinement against datasets, ensuring predictions hold under parameter variations reflecting real-world heterogeneity.^[78]

Major Applications

Social media and networking platforms exemplify social computing by leveraging graph structures to model user relationships and facilitate content dissemination among vast user bases. These systems prioritize scalable representations of social ties, such as directed or undirected graphs, to enable features like personalized feeds and recommendation engines. Core mechanics include friend connection graphs, content propagation cascades, and matching algorithms tailored to user profiles, driving engagement through algorithmic curation rather than chronological display. Facebook, operational since February 2004, maintains a social graph with over 3 billion nodes representing users and billions of edges denoting friendships, enabling computations of metrics like average path lengths of approximately 4-5 degrees of separation and clustering coefficients exceeding 0.1 in sampled subgraphs.^[79] Its news feed algorithm processes an inventory of potential posts, evaluates signals including author affinity and content type, generates predictions of user reactions via machine learning models, and scores items for relevance to determine display order, with over 3.07 billion monthly active users as of early 2024.^[80]^[81] This edge-ranking approach, evolved from earlier systems like EdgeRank introduced in 2009, weights interactions to prioritize meaningful connections over sheer volume. Twitter, launched in 2006 and rebranded as X in 2023, employs retweet functionality to form cascades representing information diffusion, where each retweet branches to the retweeter's followers, often following power-law distributions in cascade sizes with predictability enhanced by early infectivity estimates.^[82] These cascades, analyzable as branching processes, exhibit temporal patterns where size growth plateaus after initial bursts, supporting virality metrics like retweet velocity measured in retweets per minute. Platform daily active users hovered around 250 million monetizable ones in mid-2023, underscoring sustained microblogging utility despite ownership changes.^[83] LinkedIn, founded in 2002, specializes in professional networking with algorithms that match users via vector embeddings of skills, job histories, and endorsements, incorporating machine learning to recommend connections and opportunities based on similarity scores and network proximity.^[84] As of 2024, it reports over 1 billion members, with search relevance boosted by factors like profile completeness and mutual connections, facilitating targeted job postings viewed by recruiters through keyword and behavioral signals.^[85] Empirically, these platforms' growth adheres to network effects formalized by Metcalfe's law, positing that network value scales quadratically with connected users (n²), as each additional user amplifies pairwise interactions exponentially, evidenced in early adoption phases where user retention correlated with squared community size.^[86] This dynamic underpins virality, quantified by metrics such as reproduction numbers in cascade models exceeding 1 for viral content, without reliance on external collaborative editing tools.

Collaborative and Crowdsourced Systems

Collaborative systems in social computing harness distributed human contributions to create shared knowledge bases, often through iterative editing and dispute resolution mechanisms. In Wikipedia, editors engage in collaborative content production, where conflicts termed "edit wars"—involving repeated reversions over disputed additions— are typically resolved through community-driven consensus processes that favor discussion on talk pages over prolonged reverting. Empirical analyses of edit histories indicate that such consensus emerges in most cases within reasonable durations, even for contentious topics, though a minority of articles experience extended disputes requiring administrative intervention.^[87]^[88] Crowdsourced systems complement this by enabling requesters to delegate discrete tasks to large, anonymous pools of workers, frequently for minimal compensation, to accomplish goals unattainable by individuals or algorithms alone. Amazon Mechanical Turk, introduced on November 2, 2005, operates as a pioneering marketplace for such microtasks, including image labeling, sentiment analysis, and data validation, which demand human perceptual or judgmental capabilities beyond current AI thresholds.^[89] This model has facilitated scalable human computation, with requesters posting Human Intelligence Tasks (HITs) that workers complete remotely, yielding outputs aggregated for broader applications like training machine learning datasets. Key concepts underpinning these systems include folksonomies, which emerge from user-applied tags to collaboratively classify digital content without predefined hierarchies, as exemplified in early social bookmarking platforms where tags like those on Del.icio.us formed organic taxonomies for resource discovery. Open innovation extends crowdsourcing to corporate problem-solving, with firms such as General Electric issuing public challenges for prototypes or designs, drawing on external expertise to accelerate R&D.^[90] Human-AI hybrids integrate crowd inputs with algorithmic processing, such as using worker judgments to refine large language model outputs for tasks like misinformation flagging, where hybrid strategies outperform pure AI or human baselines in accuracy and speed.^[91] The global crowdsourcing software market, supporting these platforms, reached $8.3 billion in value by 2023, reflecting widespread adoption for efficiency gains in data-intensive workflows.^[92] Despite efficiencies in task decomposition and parallelization, crowdsourced outputs exhibit quality variance due to heterogeneous worker skills, motivations, and potential for superficial efforts, often necessitating redundancy or validation layers to filter errors. Critiques emphasize that uncurated submissions frequently yield low-value ideas, overwhelming evaluators and undermining ROI without structured incentives or pre-screening, as observed in innovation contests where volume trumps viability absent rigorous triage.^[93]^[94] Such limitations underscore the causal role of platform design in mitigating exploitation risks and ensuring reliable aggregation, though empirical evidence affirms net productivity boosts for well-defined, verifiable microtasks.

Virtual Worlds and Gaming Environments

Virtual worlds and gaming environments exemplify social computing through persistent, algorithmically mediated simulations where participants, represented by avatars, engage in emergent social behaviors decoupled from physical constraints. These platforms compute interactions such as proximity-based communication, resource allocation, and conflict resolution in real-time, often scaling to millions of concurrent users. Second Life, developed by Linden Lab and publicly launched on June 23, 2003, pioneered user-generated content and avatar-driven economies, allowing residents to build, trade, and socialize in a shared 3D space.^[95] Massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs) extend this by incorporating guild structures that algorithmically enforce cooperative mechanics, such as shared quests and reputation systems, to simulate group dynamics.^[96] In these environments, avatar interactions drive social dynamics via computational proxies for nonverbal cues, including gaze direction and gesture synchronization, which studies show influence attention allocation and interpersonal perceptions.^[97] For instance, realistic motion-captured avatars enhance feelings of social presence, approximating face-to-face vitality in virtual exchanges.^[98] Fortnite's live events, beginning with the Rocket Launch (Blast-Off) on June 30, 2018, illustrate synchronized, server-orchestrated social spectacles where millions participate in narrative-driven phenomena, computed to handle global latency and player agency.^[99] By 2023, over 3.3 billion individuals engaged in video gaming worldwide, underscoring the scale of these computed social systems.^[100] Player-driven economies in MMORPGs and virtual worlds further highlight social computing, with in-game currencies like Second Life's Linden Dollars or EVE Online's ISK functioning as proxies for social capital through trade, alliances, and status hierarchies managed by algorithmic marketplaces.^[101] Research links players' social orientations to avatar capital accumulation, where social facets—gained via interactions and group affiliations—correlate with immersion and community ties, distinct from mere economic metrics.^[102] Empirical analyses of guild performance reveal that internal communication structures and inter-clan networks boost cooperative outcomes, with clans outperforming solo players in resource coordination and conflict resolution.^[103] These mechanisms computationally model real-world social incentives, such as reciprocity and loyalty, without direct physical enforcement.^[104]

Societal Impacts

Achievements and Positive Outcomes

Social computing has facilitated rapid global information diffusion, enabling coordinated collective action on scales previously unattainable through traditional media. During the Arab Spring uprisings from late 2010 to 2011, social media platforms amplified protest organization and awareness, with spikes in online revolutionary discussions preceding major events like the Tunisian and Egyptian mobilizations, allowing decentralized groups to share real-time strategies and evade state censorship.^[105] ^[106] This scaled coordination demonstrated how distributed networks outperform centralized hierarchies in aggregating diverse inputs for emergent problem-solving, as participants leveraged peer-to-peer sharing to achieve synchronized actions across borders. Economically, social computing underpins a vast marketplace for targeted advertising and commerce, generating substantial value through enhanced connectivity. Global social media advertising revenue reached approximately $200 billion in 2023, reflecting the productivity gains from data-driven matching of consumers and providers, which traditional broadcast models could not replicate at similar efficiency.^[107] Empirical studies further show that information-rich social networks boost workplace performance and job security by facilitating knowledge exchange and collaboration, with users in such systems reporting higher output due to access to specialized insights beyond formal hierarchies.^[108] Key achievements include crowdsourced scientific breakthroughs, where non-experts contribute to complex computations via gamified interfaces. In the Foldit platform, launched in 2008, players solved protein structures that stumped algorithms, such as redesigning a monkey retroviral enzyme in 2011 to aid AIDS research, achieving in days what took computational methods years and yielding insights published in peer-reviewed journals.^[109] ^[110] This democratizes expertise, shifting from elite-controlled research to inclusive models where collective human intuition refines machine predictions, enhancing overall innovation velocity.

Criticisms and Negative Consequences

Social computing systems, particularly social media platforms, have facilitated large-scale privacy breaches, exemplified by the 2018 Cambridge Analytica scandal, where data from up to 87 million Facebook users was harvested via a third-party app without adequate consent and exploited for targeted political advertising during the 2016 U.S. election.^[111] ^[112] This incident highlighted vulnerabilities in platform data-sharing practices, leading to regulatory scrutiny and fines totaling billions for Meta, though empirical analyses indicate that user trust in data privacy remained unevenly affected, with many continuing usage despite awareness.^[113] Empirical studies from the 2020s link heavy social media engagement to elevated risks of depression and anxiety among adolescents, with a 2023 systematic review finding associations between smartphone and social networking site use and increased mental distress, self-harm, and suicidality.^[114] For instance, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data correlate a spike in teen depression rates—from 8.6% in 2009 to 15.7% by 2019—with the proliferation of platforms like Instagram and TikTok, supported by longitudinal evidence showing pre-teen initiation of use predicts later depressive symptoms.^[115] Problematic usage patterns, affecting 11% of adolescents per 2024 World Health Organization surveys, manifest as addiction-like behaviors driven by algorithmic feeds optimizing for prolonged engagement via variable rewards.^[116] Peer-reviewed estimates place social media addiction prevalence among teens at 5-20%, with causal mechanisms tied to disrupted sleep, social comparison, and dopamine reinforcement loops.^[117] Economically, the dominance of social computing platforms has contributed to substantial job losses in traditional media sectors, with over 21,400 U.S. media positions eliminated in 2023 alone amid declining print and broadcast audiences shifting to algorithm-curated feeds.^[118] This disruption stems from platforms capturing advertising revenue—Meta and Alphabet alone garnered over $200 billion in U.S. digital ad spend in 2023—while reducing traffic referrals to news outlets, exacerbating closures and a 25% drop in journalism employment since 2008.^[119] Antitrust analyses underscore how network effects in these systems foster monopolistic structures, with Meta facing ongoing U.S. Federal Trade Commission suits for acquiring competitors like Instagram to maintain over 70% market share in social networking, stifling innovation and entry by smaller firms.^[120] Content recommendation algorithms in social computing often exhibit empirical political asymmetries, with studies showing preferential amplification of left-leaning material; for example, a 2023 audit of YouTube's system found default recommendations skewing toward progressive videos in the U.S. context, potentially marginalizing conservative viewpoints despite user intent.^[121] Pre-2022 Twitter analyses revealed algorithmic boosts for right-leaning accounts in some metrics but overall moderation practices disproportionately limiting conservative reach, as documented in platform transparency reports and independent audits, reflecting institutional hiring biases in Silicon Valley tech firms where over 80% of employees self-identify as left-of-center.^[122] These patterns, derived from network propagation models, undermine platform neutrality claims and contribute to user disillusionment, though causal attribution remains debated due to self-reinforcing user behaviors.^[123]

Controversies

Privacy, Surveillance, and Data Ethics

In social computing systems, extensive user data collection enables features like personalized feeds and recommendations but raises empirical risks of unauthorized surveillance and misuse. The 2013 revelations by Edward Snowden exposed the U.S. National Security Agency's (NSA) PRISM program, which granted access to user data from major platforms including Facebook, Microsoft, and Google, encompassing emails, chats, and social media interactions under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.^[124] These disclosures highlighted how social computing infrastructure facilitates bulk data acquisition by state actors, with the NSA collecting over 97 billion pieces of intelligence globally by March 2013, often without individual warrants.^[125] Regulatory efforts, such as the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) effective May 25, 2018, sought to mitigate these risks by mandating explicit consent for data processing and imposing fines exceeding €293 million by 2023 for violations.^[126] However, empirical analyses indicate limited efficacy in curbing opacity; GDPR reduced third-party trackers on websites by approximately 14.79%, yet user consent mechanisms often default to acceptance, with surveys showing 87% of individuals supporting bans on data sales without consent but low engagement with privacy policies.^[127]^[128] Data breaches reported under GDPR numbered over 281,000 by 2021, underscoring persistent vulnerabilities in social platforms' data handling.^[129] Surveillance in social computing induces measurable behavioral changes, known as chilling effects, where users self-censor to avoid profiling. A study of Wikipedia traffic post-PRISM found significant declines in views of privacy-sensitive articles, such as those on "al-Qaeda" (down 10-30% immediately and persisting long-term), attributing this to fears of NSA monitoring.^[130] Similar patterns emerged in broader online activity, with empirical models linking perceived dataveillance to reduced expression on contentious topics across social media.^[131] Debates center on the trade-offs between personalization's utility—enhancing user engagement through tailored content—and privacy erosion via pervasive tracking. Research grounded in privacy calculus theory demonstrates that users weigh disclosure benefits against risks, often disclosing more for customized experiences despite awareness of surveillance, leading to unintended profiling.^[132] Libertarian critiques emphasize privacy as an inherent right against state and corporate overreach, arguing that utilitarian justifications for aggregated data enable abuse without proportional security gains, as seen in post-Snowden expansions of surveillance targets from 89,138 in 2013 to higher figures by 2021.^[133]^[134] In contrast, utilitarian defenses posit that data-driven insights yield societal benefits, such as threat detection, provided risks are managed through anonymization, though empirical evidence of chilling effects challenges claims of net welfare gains.^[135]

Algorithmic Bias and Content Moderation

Algorithmic bias in social computing arises when machine learning models, used for content recommendation and moderation, produce outcomes that systematically favor or disfavor certain viewpoints due to flaws in training data, model design, or enforcement criteria. These biases often stem from datasets reflecting the ideological skew of data labelers or curators, who in tech firms tend to hold left-leaning views, leading to disparate treatment of conservative content. For instance, opaque recommendation algorithms can amplify left-leaning narratives while demoting right-leaning ones through mechanisms like reduced visibility in feeds or search results.^[136]^[137] Content moderation on platforms like Twitter (now X) has exemplified inconsistent enforcement, with internal documents revealing deliberate suppression of right-leaning voices. The Twitter Files, released starting December 8, 2022, exposed practices such as "visibility filtering" and "search suggestion bans" applied to conservative accounts, including those of prominent Republicans, without user notification—commonly termed shadowbanning. Journalist Bari Weiss, in analyzing these files, documented how Twitter throttled the reach of right-wing journalists and politicians, such as limiting replies and search visibility for figures like Dan Bongino and Charlie Kirk, while left-leaning equivalents faced no such measures. This contradicted public claims of viewpoint neutrality, as moderation decisions were influenced by internal pressures to align with progressive sensitivities on topics like COVID-19 policies and election integrity.^[138]^[139] Further evidence from platform audits underscores algorithmic favoritism toward left-leaning content. A 2023 study of YouTube's recommendation system in the United States found it exhibited a left-leaning bias, pulling users away from far-right content more aggressively than from far-left equivalents, resulting in asymmetric deradicalization effects. On Twitter, pre-2022 analyses revealed that while some amplification occurred for right-leaning posts in aggregate, moderation layers—human and algorithmic—overrode this by deprioritizing conservative queries in searches, as confirmed by internal tools like the "Trends Blacklist." These patterns arise from machine learning models trained on historically moderated datasets, where left-leaning institutional biases in academia and media sources embed preferences into labeling, perpetuating cycles of skewed outputs.^[121]^[122] Critics of platform neutrality, bolstered by these disclosures, argue that algorithmic opacity exacerbates the issue, as companies resist audits that could quantify disparate impacts. For example, shadowbanning's stealth nature—reducing engagement metrics without alerts—has been empirically linked to suppressed conservative discourse, with 2022 investigations confirming its use against right-leaning users amid claims of algorithmic fairness. Addressing this requires transparent training data audits and diversified labeling pools, though platforms' resistance, often citing proprietary concerns, sustains the bias. Empirical data thus debunks assertions of ideological balance, highlighting how social computing systems, absent rigorous causal scrutiny, reinforce prevailing cultural hegemonies.^[140]^[141] Social computing platforms facilitate the rapid dissemination of misinformation, which empirical analyses indicate propagates more virally than accurate information. A 2018 study analyzing over 126,000 rumor cascades on Twitter from 2006 to 2017 found that false news diffused "significantly farther, faster, deeper, more broadly, and more routinely" than true news, reaching 1,500 individuals six times faster on average, primarily driven by human users rather than bots.^[142] This virality stems from novelty and emotional arousal in false content, which prompts greater sharing independent of platform algorithms in some models.^[143] Echo chambers emerge from users' selective exposure to ideologically congruent content, reinforced by social homophily and recommendation systems, exacerbating polarization. Network analyses of platforms like Twitter and Facebook reveal clustered communities where exposure to opposing views is limited, with studies estimating that politically homogeneous ties constitute 70-80% of users' connections in polarized environments.^[67] However, causal evidence linking social media to polarization growth is mixed; a 2017 analysis of U.S. survey data from 2000-2012 showed that polarization accelerated most among demographics with low internet penetration, suggesting traditional media and offline factors play larger roles than online echo chambers alone.^[144] Pew Research Center surveys in the 2010s documented rising affective polarization, with unfavorable views of the opposing party doubling from 17% in 1994 to 43% of Republicans viewing Democrats as a "threat to the nation's well-being" by 2014, coinciding with increased partisan media silos including social platforms.^[145] Real-world harms from misinformation include heightened public health risks and eroded institutional trust. During the COVID-19 pandemic, false claims about vaccines propagated on platforms like Facebook, contributing to hesitancy that U.S. government estimates linked to 200,000-300,000 preventable deaths by mid-2021 through reduced uptake among reachable populations.^[146] In elections, foreign actors exploited social media for interference; a 2021 U.S. intelligence assessment concluded Russia conducted influence operations to denigrate Joe Biden, while Iran targeted Donald Trump supporters, though these efforts did not alter vote outcomes per available data.^[147] Domestically, suppression of the 2020 New York Post story on Hunter Biden's laptop—flagged as misinformation by platforms and federal agencies despite later corroboration—fueled perceptions of censorship, with internal Twitter communications revealing preemptive coordination with government entities.^[148] Debates over platform liability center on Section 230 protections, which shield companies from responsibility for user-generated content while enabling moderation, versus free speech advocates arguing that overreach stifles discourse. Critics from conservative perspectives contend fact-checking organizations exhibit partisan skew, with analyses of PolitiFact and similar outlets showing 3:1 ratios of false ratings against Republican claims compared to Democrats from 2007-2016, potentially amplifying left-leaning biases in academia and media that dominate these entities.^[149] Proponents of stricter liability cite interference evidence to justify algorithmic demotion, yet causal attribution remains contested, as randomized deactivations of Facebook feeds during the 2020 election cycle showed minimal shifts in users' polarization or beliefs.^[150] Social fragmentation manifests in declining cross-partisan trust, with 2010s data indicating only 20-30% of Americans viewing the opposing party favorably, a trend platforms may accelerate through personalized feeds but not originate.^[145]

Current Research and Future Directions

Emerging Technologies and Trends

Integration of artificial intelligence into social computing platforms has accelerated since 2023, with generative AI enabling social agents capable of simulating human-like interactions in collaborative environments. For instance, large language models have been deployed to enhance content recommendation and user engagement on social networks, as evidenced by advancements in hybrid human-AI systems that process multimodal data including text, images, and video for sentiment analysis and emotion recognition.^[151]^[152] Research papers from 2023-2025 highlight multimodal frameworks for detecting hate speech and social signals, fusing convolutional neural networks with recurrent models to achieve higher accuracy in real-time social interactions.^[153] However, empirical adoption remains limited by challenges in trust and ethical integration, with studies noting that while AI improves efficiency, over-reliance can amplify biases in social dynamics.^[154] Decentralized social networks have gained traction post-2022, driven by user migrations from centralized platforms amid concerns over content moderation and data control. Mastodon, a federated protocol-based network, reported 313,000 new sign-ups on its primary server in 2022 alone, expanding from 31,000 to 191,000 monthly active users, with total active users peaking above 1 million during the influx following Twitter's ownership change.^[155] By February 2025, Mastodon users aged 25-34 constituted 25% of its base, reflecting appeal to tech-savvy demographics, though overall retention has lagged, with active users stabilizing around 500,000-1 million amid competition from newer protocols like Bluesky.^[41] Blockchain-enabled Web3 social experiments, such as token-incentivized communities, have shown mixed results; while some platforms achieved niche engagement through decentralized governance, widespread adoption has faltered due to low trust, scalability issues, and failure rates exceeding 90% for startups, as many prioritize early adopters over mainstream usability.^[156]^[157] Metaverse pilots integrating social computing elements, such as virtual collaborative spaces, have progressed through national initiatives but faced adoption hurdles. China's 2023-2025 Metaverse Action Plan targeted industry development with focus on immersive social interactions, yet global investments skewed toward IT sectors without proportional user growth, as virtual worlds struggled with interoperability and engagement beyond gaming.^[158] Projections for social IoT, where connected devices facilitate community-based data sharing (e.g., smart city networks enabling social coordination), anticipate 18.8 billion devices by end-2024, rising to over 40 billion by 2035, though social applications remain nascent amid privacy constraints.^[159] Gartner identifies spatial computing and agentic AI as 2025 trends poised to blend physical-digital social experiences, but empirical data underscores slow mainstream uptake due to hardware limitations and unproven economic models.^[160]

Methodological and Ethical Challenges

Social computing research frequently encounters methodological challenges stemming from data collection techniques that introduce systematic biases. Snowball sampling, commonly employed in social network analysis to reach hidden or hard-to-access populations, relies on referrals from initial participants, which can overrepresent densely connected individuals and homogenize samples by propagating similar characteristics through networks.^[161] This non-probability approach preserves network structure but exacerbates selection bias, as estimates of network properties deviate from true population parameters without corrective estimators.^[162] Ethical dilemmas arise particularly in experimental designs involving large-scale manipulation of online environments. The 2014 Facebook emotional contagion study, which altered news feeds for approximately 689,000 users to test mood influence without explicit informed consent, drew widespread criticism for violating human subjects protections, including the Common Rule's requirements for institutional review board oversight.^[163] Researchers argued that the experiment's scale amplified risks of psychological harm, highlighting tensions between platform data access and participant autonomy, even as defenders noted users' implicit consent via terms of service.^[164] A core methodological shortfall lies in overreliance on correlational analyses from observational data, which conflate association with causation amid confounding variables like user self-selection in social platforms. Studies in social computing must prioritize causal inference methods, such as instrumental variables or natural experiments, to isolate effects beyond spurious correlations, as demonstrated in analyses of affect dynamics on social media where interventions reveal directional impacts absent in passive data.^[165] Misaligned incentives in academic and industry research—favoring novel deployments over rigorous validation—further undermine epistemic rigor, with evaluation standards often applying double criteria to systems versus baselines.^[166] Addressing these issues demands diverse datasets that transcend platform-specific or WEIRD-centric samples to mitigate representational biases. Incorporating global, multicultural data sources enables robust generalization, countering echo-chamber effects in research norms where homogeneous inputs perpetuate algorithmic and interpretive skews.^[167] Future directions emphasize proactive diversity in data pipelines to enhance validity, ensuring findings withstand scrutiny across varied social contexts.^[168]

References

[1]
Social Computing - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
Social computing is defined as a paradigm for analyzing and modeling social behaviors of users on media and platforms to extract valuable information and ...
[2]
Social Computing and Computational Social Science | cis.mpg.de
Social computing refers to human interactions via and with computing technologies, where humans actively provide inputs to influence computations and where ...
[3]
Social computing: the state of the art - ResearchGate
Aug 6, 2025 · Social computing can be broadly defined as computational facilitation of social studies and human social dynamics as well as design and use of information and ...
[4]
7.2: Social Computing - Workforce LibreTexts
Aug 9, 2024 · Page ID. Social computing is defined as the intersection of human social behavior and computational systems that reconstruct social conventions ...What is Social Computing? · Types of Social Computing
[5]
[PDF] Mathematical Foundations for Social Computing
Mar 3, 2016 · Social computing encompasses the mechanisms through which people interact with computational systems: crowdsourcing.
[6]
Building social computing system in big data - ScienceDirect.com
This study develops social computing algorithms based on social network analysis. These algorithms can be applied for real-time analysis and big data analysis.
[7]
Social Computing and Privacy
Feb 9, 2021 · The article discusses the role and place of social computing in the modern information society, including by highlighting the main forms of conduct, features, ...Missing: peer | Show results with:peer
[8]
Social Computing Unhinged - SciOpen
Oct 28, 2020 · Social computing is ubiquitous and intensifying in the 21st Century. Originally used to reference computational augmentation of social interaction.<|separator|>
[9]
[PDF] Social Computing: Principles, Platforms, and Applications
Abstract—We present a conceptualization of social computing as the computation of social dependence among autonomous actors. Our conceptualization unifies ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[10]
[PDF] Mathematical Foundations for Social Computing - Tim Roughgarden
Social computing encompasses the mechanisms through which people interact with computational systems: crowd- sourcing systems, ranking and recommendation ...<|separator|>
[11]
Theory & Applications of Social Computing - Harvard CRCS
Social computing is a broad research area situated at the intersection of computer science, economics, and other social sciences.
[12]
[PDF] A Survey of Hybrid Human-Artificial Intelligence for Social Computing
Mar 17, 2021 · It is about how to use computing systems to help people communicate and collaborate, how to use computing technology to study the law of social ...
[13]
Social Computing: A Classification of Existing Paradigms
Oct 19, 2016 · In less than three decades, several paradigms of social computing have emerged. Among them, groupware, social software and mobile social ...
[14]
Social Computing: From Social Informatics to Social Intelligence
Apr 30, 2007 · Social computing represents a new computing paradigm and an interdisciplinary research and application field.
[15]
(PDF) Social Computing: From Social Informatics to Social Intelligence
Aug 7, 2025 · PDF | Social computing represents a new computing paradigm and an interdisciplinary research and application field.Missing: collective | Show results with:collective
[16]
(PDF) HCI and Social Computing - ResearchGate
Aug 6, 2025 · HCI and Social Computing. Taylor & Francis. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction ... differences between the users' social ...
[17]
What's in a Social Computing Course - ACM Digital Library
Jun 5, 2024 · We find that social computing courses require diverse skill sets both within HCI and CS, as well as inter-disciplinary concepts from Sociology, Economics, ...
[18]
[PDF] Social Computing: From Social Informatics to Social Intelligence
The move from social informatics to social intelligence is achieved by modeling and analyzing social behavior, by capturing human social dynamics, ...
[19]
[PDF] Social Computing: An Intersection of Recommender Systems, Trust ...
Graph theo- ry has been widely used to analyze social networks due to its representational capacity and simplicity [5]. In general, the properties of social ...
[20]
The First Message Transmission - icann
Oct 29, 2019 · 50 years ago, on October 29, 1969, the first message was successfully sent over the ARPANET, which eventually evolved into the Internet.
[21]
Milestones:Birthplace of the Internet, 1969
Nov 28, 2023 · At 10:30 p.m., 29 October 1969, the first ARPANET message was sent from this UCLA site to the Stanford Research Institute.
[22]
ARPANET - SRI International
The very first transmission on the ARPANET was on October 29, 1969. The event was the logon from UCLA to SRI. By 1972, the ARPANET comprised 37 computers. In ...
[23]
Mailing List History - Living Internet
The first mailing lists carried on the ARPANET were based on the first email program SNDMSG. Some of the early and most popular mailing lists included the ...
[24]
The Evolution of Usenet: The Poor Man's Arpanet
Usenet was born in 1979 when Tom Truscott and Jim Ellis, graduate students at Duke University, conceived of creating a computer network to link together those ...
[25]
Early MUD History - Richard A. Bartle
Date-wise, it was Autumn 1978. The game was originally little more than a series of inter-connected locations where you could move and chat. I don't think it ...
[26]
Summary MUD History - Living Internet
MUD. The first Multi-User Dungeon was usually just called MUD, and was written in 1978 by Roy Trubshaw, a student at Essex University in England, originally ...
[27]
How was internet culture like in the 90s? How does it ... - Quora
May 28, 2023 · Mostly it was the rise of connectivity where phone modems were being obviated for higher-bandwidth protocols such as DSL and cable.
[28]
Social Affordances of the Internet for Networked Individualism
Heavy Internet users have a greater overall volume of contact with community members because Internet use suppplements telephone and face-to-face contact. It ...
[29]
History of Social Media (It's Younger Than You Think)
Sep 19, 2025 · The concept traces back to the early 1990s with the rise of blogs, where people could publish ideas without going through traditional media. But ...
[30]
The history and evolution of social media explained - TechTarget
Jul 11, 2023 · This history of social media spans the earliest internet technology to the latest digital platforms, now counting billions of global users.
[31]
The rise of social media - Our World in Data
Sep 18, 2019 · MySpace was the first social media site to reach a million monthly active users – it achieved this milestone around 2004. This is arguably the ...
[32]
Echoes of MySpace: How the First Social Media Titan Lost Its Crown
Aug 12, 2024 · The platform's growth was staggering, reaching 100 million users by 2006. It became a cultural phenomenon, influencing everything from music ...Missing: statistics | Show results with:statistics
[33]
AJAX: The Technology that Changed Web Interactions - StatusCode
Apr 16, 2025 · AJAX techniques paved the way for applications that could update in real-time: Chat applications that display messages as they arrive ...
[34]
Folksonomies, findability, and the evolution of information organization
As Joshua Schachter, inventor of Del.icio.us, expressed in an interview, he developed the tagging system as a means to keep track of his own bookmarks: “I tend ...
[35]
What Is Web 2.0 - O'Reilly Media
Sep 30, 2005 · The concept of "Web 2.0" began with a conference brainstorming session between O'Reilly and MediaLive International.Missing: history generated
[36]
Mobile's Dominance: Surprising Internet Growth Trends - BrowserCat
Feb 19, 2025 · 63% of global website traffic now comes from mobile devices, up from just 6% in 2011. 4.32 billion people (92% of internet users) access the ...
[37]
Social Network Usage & Growth Statistics (2025) - Backlinko
Sep 19, 2025 · Social network platforms' total user base in the last decade grew from 970 million in 2010 to 5.41 billion users in July 2025. The ...
[38]
10 tech-related trends that shaped the decade - Pew Research Center
Dec 20, 2019 · The 2010s, meanwhile, were also the decade that saw the advent of tablet computers, which are now used by around half (52%) of U.S. adults.
[39]
Social Networking App Revenue and Usage Statistics (2025)
Sep 2, 2025 · The average smartphone user spends 2 hours and 20 minutes a day or 70 hours on social media apps every month and 55% of the population, or 4.88 billion people, ...Missing: expansion | Show results with:expansion
[40]
Convergence of artificial intelligence with social media
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and social media has provided numerous benefits to businesses, including improved audience analysis and ...
[41]
https://www.statista.com/topics/13332/decentralized-social-media/
[42]
https://explodingtopics.com/blog/decentralized-social-media
[43]
https://www.statista.com/topics/2637/internet-of-things/
[44]
https://www.statista.com/topics/1164/social-networks/
[45]
Global social media statistics research summary - Smart Insights
Feb 14, 2025 · 5.07 billion people around the world now use social media, 259 million new users have come online within the last year. The average daily time ...
[46]
Digital 2025: The essential guide to the global state of digital
Feb 5, 2025 · 2025 looks set to be another bumper year in digital, with rapid advances in AI, the evolving social media landscape, and broadening online behaviours.
[47]
About AWS
Since launching in 2006, Amazon Web Services has been providing industry-leading cloud capabilities and expertise that have helped customers transform ...Our Origins · Global Infrastructure · Our Values · Our People
[48]
[PDF] TAO: Facebook's Distributed Data Store for the Social Graph - USENIX
Jun 26, 2013 · TAO is a geographically distributed, read-optimized data store for Facebook's social graph, providing efficient access and handling a billion ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[49]
What Is a Content Delivery Network (CDN)? - IBM
Social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram cater to different material for different users, and CDNs support content segmentation.<|separator|>
[50]
What is a content delivery network (CDN)? | How do CDNs work?
A content delivery network is a distributed group of servers that caches content near end users. Learn how CDNs improve load times and reduce costs.
[51]
The Evolution of Internet Speeds: From Dial-Up to Fiber | actcorp
Sep 12, 2024 · What is Dial Up Internet: With speeds ranging from 56 kbps to 128 kbps, high speed dial up internet is incredibly slow compared to fiber optic ...
[52]
Friendster Lost Lead Because of a Failure to Scale - High Scalability -
we had millions of Friendster members begging us to get the site ...Missing: 2003 | Show results with:2003
[53]
Edge Computing and 5G: Emerging Technology Shaping the Future ...
Aug 20, 2024 · Edge computing for data processing and 5G networks for data transmission enable richer communications of real-time data across more stable, ...
[54]
5G and edge computing: why does 5G need edge? - STL Partners
5G and edge computing are symbiotic technologies: they are both poised to significantly improve the performance of applications and enable huge amounts of data ...
[55]
Network Centrality: Understanding Degree, Closeness ...
Apr 16, 2021 · Network centrality is among the most well-known social network analysis metrics, measuring the degree to which a person or organization is central to a network.
[56]
Social Network Analysis: Understanding Centrality Measures
Jan 2, 2020 · Centrality measures are a vital tool for understanding networks, often also known as graphs. These algorithms use graph theory to calculate the importance of ...
[57]
An Influence Propagation View of PageRank - ACM Digital Library
This article provides a focused study on understanding PageRank as well as the relationship between PageRank and social influence analysis.Missing: adaptations | Show results with:adaptations
[58]
[PDF] A New PageRank-Based Method for Influence Maximization in ...
Jul 5, 2023 · In this study, a new PageRank-based method, which adopts scheme (b) to model the distrust-based influence propagation in signed social networks ...
[59]
What is collaborative filtering? - IBM
Collaborative filtering is a type of recommender system. It groups users based on similar behavior, recommending new items according to group characteristics.Overview · How collaborative filtering works
[60]
A collaborative filtering recommendation framework utilizing social ...
Dec 15, 2023 · Collaborative filtering (CF) is a widely used technique in recommendation systems that aims to provide users with personalized recommendations ...
[61]
Modeling Information Diffusion in Online Social Networks ... - arXiv
Oct 1, 2013 · In a number of recent papers, the authors propose to use partial differential equations(PDEs) to characterize temporal and spatial patterns of ...
[62]
Large language models empowered agent-based modeling and ...
Sep 27, 2024 · Agent-based modeling and simulation focuses on modeling complex systems by simulating individual agents and their interactions within an ...
[63]
LLM-Augmented Agent-Based Modelling for Social Simulations - arXiv
May 8, 2024 · These simulations aim to understand, predict, or examine hypothetical scenarios within social systems. In that sense, a technique used for ...
[64]
[PDF] evaluating the wisdom of crowds
An empirical test demonstrates that even a relatively small crowd of 30 subjects can demonstrate expert- like performance. A further investigation through.
[65]
How social influence can undermine the wisdom of crowd effect
May 16, 2011 · We demonstrate by experimental evidence (N = 144) that even mild social influence can undermine the wisdom of crowd effect in simple estimation tasks.
[66]
An Empirical Game-Theoretic Analysis of the Dynamics of ... - JASSS
Many models of the evolution of cooperation have shown the importance of direct reciprocity (for example “tit for tat” strategies) or alternatively indirect ...
[67]
The echo chamber effect on social media - PNAS
Feb 23, 2021 · This paper explores the key differences between the main social media platforms and how they are likely to influence information spreading and echo chambers' ...Missing: failures | Show results with:failures
[68]
(PDF) Echo Chambers on Social Media: a Systematic Review of the ...
It presents the results of a systematic review of 55 studies investigating the existence of echo chambers on social media.
[69]
Stochastic graph as a model for social networks - ScienceDirect.com
In this paper, we propose that stochastic graphs, in which weights associated with edges are random variables, may be a better candidate as a graph model for ...
[70]
[PDF] The Application of Graph Theory to Modeling, Simulation, Analysis ...
By taking the ACT perspective, we can build mathematical and computational tools for analyzing systems across diverse domains. The unified framework of ...
[71]
[PDF] Agent-Based Modeling: The Right Mathematics for the Social ...
Abstract: This study provides a basic introduction to agent-based modeling (ABM) as a powerful blend of classical and constructive mathematics, ...Missing: stochastic | Show results with:stochastic
[72]
[cs/0404002] Mathematical Analysis of Multi-Agent Systems - arXiv
Apr 2, 2004 · This paper reviews mathematical modeling of multi-agent systems, where collective behavior arises from local interactions, and models can be ...Missing: computational social computing graph theory processes
[73]
Epidemiological modeling of news and rumors on Twitter
This paper uses epidemiological models, specifically the SEIZ model, to characterize information cascades on Twitter from news and rumors.Missing: simulations | Show results with:simulations
[74]
An Epidemic Model for News Spreading on Twitter - IEEE Xplore
In this paper, we describe a novel approach to understand and explain news spreading dynamics on Twitter by using well-known epidemic models.Missing: simulations | Show results with:simulations
[75]
Nash equilibrium learning in non-cooperative reputation game in ...
This paper aims to solve this kind of competition through a game theoretic approach; we formulate the said competition as a non-cooperative game, demonstrate ...Missing: systems | Show results with:systems<|separator|>
[76]
Nash equilibrium learning in non-cooperative reputation game in ...
PDF | Recently, people became more dependent on online social networks with the increasing use and the rapid development of information technology.
[77]
On the usage of epidemiological models for information diffusion ...
Oct 16, 2023 · In this work, we study the suitability of using epidemiological models to model the spread of hashtags over Twitter by analyzing the nature of the spread.
[78]
COVID‐19 pandemic and information diffusion analysis on Twitter
In this study, we explore whether there are similarities in the simulated SIR model (SIRsim), observed SIR model based on actual COVID‐19 cases (SIRemp), and ...
[79]
[1111.4503] The Anatomy of the Facebook Social Graph - arXiv
Nov 18, 2011 · We compute numerous features of the graph including the number of users and friendships, the degree distribution, path lengths, clustering, and ...Missing: mechanics | Show results with:mechanics
[80]
How Facebook Distributes Content | Meta Business Help Center
Every time you open Facebook, our algorithm goes through a set of 4 steps to answer the question: What content is likely to matter most to your readers?
[81]
Global Social Media Statistics - DataReportal
Facebook has 3.07 billion monthly active users (see more Facebook stats here) · WhatsApp has 3 billion monthly active users · Instagram has 3 billion monthly ...
[82]
Prediction of retweet cascade size over time - ACM Digital Library
Retweet cascades play an essential role in information diffusion in Twitter. Popular tweets reflect the current trends in Twitter, while Twitter itself is ...
[83]
Infectivity enhances prediction of viral cascades in Twitter - PMC
Using simulations and data from real-world Twitter retweets, we demonstrate that these estimated infectivities can be used to improve predictions about the ...
[84]
LinkedIn's AI Matching Algorithms Are Revolutionizing Talent Hiring
Oct 7, 2025 · AI models analyze millions of interactions, job descriptions, and career paths to understand how specific skills, experiences, and ...
[85]
LinkedIn relevance - Optimizing the member experience
By using machine learning algorithms, LinkedIn is able to assess many signals that help us understand a member's preferences, and it enables us to provide a ...
[86]
Beyond Metcalfe's Law for Network Effects - Andreessen Horowitz
Nov 22, 2021 · A core pillar in the study of network effects is Metcalfe's Law, where “the systemic value of compatibly communicating devices grows as a square of their ...
[87]
Wikipedia 'edit wars' show dynamics of conflict emergence and ...
Jun 20, 2012 · However, they also found that consensus is generally reached in a reasonable time, even for controversial articles. There are a small number of ...
[88]
[PDF] Edit wars in Wikipedia - arXiv
Abstract—We present a new, efficient method for automatically detecting severe conflicts, 'edit wars' in Wikipedia and evaluate.
[89]
Celebrating 11 years of Artificial, Artificial Intelligence
Nov 4, 2016 · This week Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) celebrated our 11th year in operation. MTurk launched on November 2nd, 2005.
[90]
18 Companies that Use Crowdsourcing for New Product Design ...
Nov 5, 2024 · Crowdsourced innovation · 1. Fisher-Price · 2. IKEA · 3. General Electric · 4. Intel Corporation · 5. Disney · 6. Nestlé · 7. PepsiCo · 8. Hyundai, KIA, ...
[91]
Combining Large Language Models and Crowdsourcing for Hybrid ...
Jul 11, 2024 · This paper studies hybrid human-AI approaches for misinformation detection, combining large language models and crowdsourcing, using strategies ...
[92]
Crowdsourcing Software Market Size, Growth, Share, & Analysis ...
Jan 20, 2025 · The global crowdsourcing software market was valued at USD 8.3 billion in 2023 and is anticipated to reach USD 32.5 billion by 2033, expanding at a compound ...<|separator|>
[93]
Why Crowdsourcing Often Leads to Bad Ideas
Dec 13, 2019 · Most crowdsourcing initiatives end up with an overwhelming amount of useless ideas. Dealing with a full submission box is not only extremely time consuming and ...
[94]
Crowdsourcing as a strategic IS sourcing phenomenon: Critical ...
This paper thoroughly reviews the literature to identify both areas of saturation and gaps, with a focus on the strategic organizational context.
[95]
Second Life (Video Game 2003) - IMDb
Details · Release date · June 23, 2003 (United States) · Country of origin. United States · Official sites. Second Life [Official site] · Second Life Wikia.
[96]
Role of Guilds in Massively Multiplayer Online Games - ResearchGate
Apr 21, 2016 · Players who join guilds are generally rewarded with tighter social cohesion, loyalty and a sense of group identity [42, 49], all of which are ...
[97]
Avatar-mediated communication in collaborative virtual environments
This study investigates the impact of avatars' gaze behaviours on users' attention allocation and perceptions during AMC in CVEs.
[98]
Realistic Motion Avatars are the Future for Social Interaction in ...
Our findings suggest that harnessing full face and body motion capture can make social interaction in VR very similar to face-to-face interaction.
[99]
All Fortnite Live Events So Far - GameSpot
Jul 1, 2022 · All Fortnite Live Events So Far · Blast Off · The Butterfly · Ice Storm · Showtime featuring Marshmello · The Unvaulting · The Final Showdown · The End.
[100]
How Many Gamers Are There? (New 2025 Statistics)
Jul 18, 2025 · Globally, there are approximately 3.32 billion active video game players. The US has over 3,000 esports players. Asia is home to almost 1.5 ...How Many Gamers Were... · Gamers By Region · Gamer Demographics
[101]
How In-Game Markets Reflect Real Financial Systems
Oct 9, 2025 · Most games feature an internal currency (gold, credits, gil, etc.) that acts as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and a store of value.
[102]
[PDF] Avatar capital: The relationships between player orientation and ...
Social capital is associated with players' orientation towards immersion and social parts of games, and in-game interests of the player. Symbolic capital is ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[103]
Communication, Opponents, and Clan Performance in Online Games
In this study, we compared the effects of communication structure inside a clan, and battle networks among clans, with the performance of the clans.
[104]
Exploring clan culture: social enclaves and cooperation in online ...
Apr 21, 2025 · Abstract. Virtual online gaming clan organizations are used to ana- lyze social grouping and cooperation within competitive gaming communities.
[105]
What Was the Role of Social Media During the Arab Spring?
Aug 7, 2025 · Social media played a central role in shaping political debates in the Arab Spring. A spike in online revolutionary conversations often preceded major events ...
[106]
Social Media and Social Mobilisation in the Middle East: - jstor
Our survey of research suggests that social media played a multi-pronged role in the wave of protests that came to be known as the Arab Spring. First, and ...
[107]
https://www.statista.com/outlook/amo/advertising/social-media-advertising/worldwide
[108]
Social Network Effects on Productivity and Job Security - PubsOnLine
Mar 1, 2013 · Information-rich networks enabled through the use of social media can drive both work performance and job security.
[109]
Predicting protein structures with a multiplayer online game - PMC
The top scoring Foldit prediction was able to correctly bury these exposed hydrophobic residues. (e) Another successful Foldit helix rotation that correctly ...Missing: empirical | Show results with:empirical
[110]
Gaming for a cure: Computer gamers tackle protein folding | UW News
Aug 4, 2010 · Results published Thursday (Aug. 5) in the journal Nature show that Foldit is a success. It turns out that people can, indeed, compete with ...Missing: achievements empirical
[111]
Revealed: 50 million Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge ...
Mar 17, 2018 · Cambridge Analytica spent nearly $1m on data collection, which yielded more than 50 million individual profiles that could be matched to electoral rolls.
[112]
'The Great Hack': Cambridge Analytica is just the tip of the iceberg
Jul 24, 2019 · Via a third-party app, Cambridge Analytica improperly obtained data from up to 87 million Facebook profiles – including status updates, likes ...<|separator|>
[113]
“It wouldn't happen to me”: Privacy concerns and perspectives ...
People did not delete their Facebook accounts due to the Cambridge Analytica scandal. · Online privacy is confusing and people lack knowledge of risks relating ...
[114]
The Impact of Social Media on the Mental Health of Adolescents and ...
Aug 5, 2023 · Smartphone and social media use among teenagers relates to an increase in mental distress, self-harming behaviors, and suicidality.
[115]
New study finds link between pre-teen use of social media ... - PBS
May 24, 2025 · Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco have found a link between use of social media by pre-teens and future depression.
[116]
Teens, screens and mental health - World Health Organization (WHO)
Sep 25, 2024 · More than 1 in 10 adolescents (11%) showed signs of problematic social media behaviour, struggling to control their use and experiencing ...
[117]
Understanding Social Media Addiction: A Deep Dive - PMC - NIH
Oct 27, 2024 · There is a range of prevalence rates of social media addiction among teenagers ranging from 5% to 20% [2,3]. These variations can depend on the ...
[118]
News and media layoffs 2024: List of journalism job losses is growing
Feb 23, 2024 · And for 2023 as a whole, more than 21,400 media jobs were lost, the highest (excluding 2020) since 2009, when more than 22,300 jobs were cut, ...Missing: economic | Show results with:economic
[119]
Audiences are declining for traditional news media in the U.S.
Nov 28, 2023 · A declining share of U.S. adults are following the news closely, and audiences are shrinking for several older types of news media.
[120]
Using Antitrust Law To Address the Market Power of Platform ...
Jul 28, 2020 · Evidence suggests that large digital service platforms with market power deserve much closer antitrust scrutiny.
[121]
YouTube's recommendation algorithm is left-leaning in the United ...
Our results reveal that, in the US political context, YouTube tends to recommend left-leaning videos by default, while also enabling a user to fall into a left ...Abstract · Methods · Results · Discussion
[122]
Algorithmic amplification of politics on Twitter - PNAS
This study carries out the most comprehensive audit of an algorithmic recommender system and its effects on political content.
[123]
Neutral bots probe political bias on social media - PMC - NIH
Despite the lack of evidence of political bias in the news feed, drifters that start with Left-leaning sources shift toward the Right during the course of the ...
[124]
NSA Prism program taps in to user data of Apple, Google and others
Jun 6, 2013 · Top-secret Prism program claims direct access to servers of firms including Google, Apple and Facebook.
[125]
15 Top NSA Spy Secrets Revealed by Edward Snowden - Spyscape
The Prism program that allowed the NSA to access emails, documents, photos ... By March 2013, the NSA had collected 97bn pieces of intel from global computer ...
[126]
The GDPR Impact Five Years Of Data Privacy Compliance For ...
Jun 30, 2025 · GDPR Impact: Key Stats The GDPR has had a profound impact on data protection and privacy. Key statistics include: - €293 million in fines ...
[127]
The impact of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) on ...
Mar 11, 2025 · Specifically, the GDPR reduced about four trackers per publisher, equating to a 14.79 % decrease compared to the control group. The GDPR was ...
[128]
110+ Data Privacy Statistics: The Facts You Need To Know In 2025
Jan 1, 2025 · 87% support banning the sale of data to third parties without users' consent. 86% support requiring companies to minimize the types of user data ...
[129]
The GDPR Impact: Three Years On - CookieYes
Jun 23, 2025 · More than 281,000 data breaches have been reported since the GDPR came into effect, with Germany (77,747) The Netherlands (66,527) and the UK ( ...
[130]
[PDF] CHILLING EFFECTS: ONLINE SURVEILLANCE AND WIKIPEDIA USE
This Article discusses the results of the first empirical study providing evidence of regulatory “chilling effects” of Wikipedia users associated with ...
[131]
The Chilling Effects of Digital Dataveillance: A Theoretical Model ...
Jan 6, 2022 · This article combines the existing theoretical and limited empirical work on surveillance and chilling effects across fields with an analysis of novel data ...
[132]
Understanding the Effects of Personalization as a Privacy Calculus
Oct 22, 2018 · Abstract. The privacy calculus suggests that online self-disclosure is based on a cost–benefit trade-off.
[133]
Privacy as a Kantian-Misesian a priori condition for the preservation ...
Apr 19, 2024 · First, it is shown that utilitarian approaches do not work because they let the government define privacy, thus corrupting its practical ...
[134]
Five Things to Know About NSA Mass Surveillance and the Coming ...
Apr 11, 2023 · When the government first began releasing statistics, after the Snowden revelations in 2013, it reported having 89,138 targets. By 2021, the ...
[135]
Government Surveillance, Privacy, and Legitimacy
Feb 5, 2022 · This article explores what is problematic about government surveillance by democracies. It proceeds by distinguishing three potential sources of concern.
[136]
Ethical and Bias Considerations in Artificial Intelligence/Machine ...
Bias in AI models often lies in the data sets used during the training phase. These data sets may inadvertently encode societal biases, reflecting historical ...
[137]
Fairness and Bias in Artificial Intelligence: A Brief Survey of Sources ...
Data bias occurs when the data used to train machine learning models are unrepresentative or incomplete, leading to biased outputs. This can happen when the ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[138]
[PDF] Latest 'Twitter Files' reveal secret suppression of right-wing ...
Dec 8, 2022 · Independent journalist Bari Weiss detailed in a series of posts how Twitter used so-called “shadow banning” to limit the visibility of tweets ...
[139]
Elon Musk shows shadow-banning of conservatives no conspiracy ...
Dec 11, 2022 · Elon Musk shows shadow-banning of conservatives no conspiracy theory. “The practice used in online moderation that consists of preventing a ...
[140]
Shadowbanning is real: Here's how you end up muted by social media
Dec 27, 2022 · ... evidence intended to show shadowbanning was being used to suppress conservative views. Two decades into the social media revolution, it's ...
[141]
The shadow banning controversy: perceived governance and ...
Mar 12, 2022 · Shadow banning reached wider public awareness in 2018, when conservatives began accusing Twitter of shadow banning 'prominent Republicans' by ...
[142]
The spread of true and false news online | Science
Mar 9, 2018 · To understand how false news spreads, Vosoughi et al. used a data set of rumor cascades on Twitter from 2006 to 2017. About 126,000 rumors were ...
[143]
Study: On Twitter, false news travels faster than true stories
Mar 8, 2018 · A new study by three MIT scholars has found that false news spreads more rapidly on the social network Twitter than real news does - and by ...
[144]
Greater Internet use is not associated with faster growth in political ...
We find that polarization has increased the most among the demographic groups least likely to use the Internet and social media.
[145]
[PDF] Political Polarization & Media Habits - Pew Research Center
Oct 21, 2014 · This report is part of a series by the Pew Research Center aimed at understanding the nature and scope of political polarization in the ...Missing: metrics | Show results with:metrics
[146]
POV: Health Misinformation Is Rampant on Social Media | BU Today
Feb 9, 2024 · Misinformation and disinformation about COVID-19 vaccines alone have cost the US economy an estimated US$50 million to $300 million per day in ...
[147]
[PDF] Foreign Threats to the 2020 US Federal Elections - DNI.gov
Mar 15, 2021 · Key Judgment 2: We assess that Russian President Putin authorized, and a range of Russian government organizations conducted, influence ...
[148]
[PDF] election interference: how the fbi “prebunked” a true story
Oct 30, 2024 · influenced the 2020 elections we can say we have been meeting for. YEARS with USG [U.S. Government] to plan for it.” —July 15, 2020, 3:17 p.m. ...
[149]
“Fact-checking” fact checkers: A data-driven approach
Oct 26, 2023 · This study examined four fact checkers (Snopes, PolitiFact, Logically, and the Australian Associated Press FactCheck) using a data-driven approach.
[150]
Facebook went away. Political divides didn't budge. | Stanford ...
May 13, 2024 · A Stanford-led study into how quitting social media affected users' political views in the runup to the 2020 presidential vote has implications for this year's ...
[151]
[PDF] AI, Ethical Concerns, and Innovations in Social Computing
Sep 4, 2025 · The review to the forefront that AI integration, in addition to delivering unprecedented enhancement in performance, function, and security, ...
[152]
A Comprehensive Review of Multimodal Emotion Recognition - NIH
This paper presents a comprehensive review of multimodal emotion recognition (MER), a process that integrates multiple data modalities such as speech, ...
[153]
A comprehensive framework for multi-modal hate speech detection ...
Apr 15, 2025 · This research proposes a novel Multi-modal Hate Speech Detection Framework (MHSDF) that combines Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) and Recurrent Neural ...
[154]
A Survey of Hybrid Human-Artificial Intelligence for Social Computing
Dec 21, 2021 · This article firstly reviews the latest research progresses of AI in social computing. Secondly, it summarizes typical challenges AI faces in social computing.
[155]
[PDF] Mastodon Annual Report 2022
From the servers operated by Mastodon gGmbH, mastodon.social had 313K new sign-ups in 2022, growing from 31K monthly active users to 191K. Out of the.
[156]
Why Most Web3 Startups Never Raise; Only 1 in 10 Make It, and ...
Jun 30, 2025 · ... failure. Crypto Case Studies: Failures and Successes. Prominent Crypto Failures. The crypto market has seen numerous high-profile failures ...
[157]
Decentralized Social Media: 15 Years in the Making - Paragraph
This essay traces the 15-year arc of decentralized social media: its failed experiments, quiet successes, and the unresolved dilemmas still haunting the vision.
[158]
China Metaverse Action Plan: Three-Year National Development ...
Sep 25, 2023 · China's new action plan provides for the comprehensive and strategic development of its metaverse industry.
[159]
Number of connected IoT devices growing 13% to 18.8 billion globally
Sep 3, 2024 · IoT Analytics expects this to grow 13% to 18.8 billion by the end of 2024. This forecast is lower than in 2023 due to continued cautious enterprise spending.
[160]
Gartner's Top 10 Strategic Technology Trends for 2025
Oct 21, 2024 · What are the top technology trends for 2025? · Agentic AI · Post-quantum Cryptography · Spatial Computing · AI Governance Platforms · Ambient ...Spatial Computing · Intelligent Agents in AI · FAQ · Information Technology<|separator|>
[161]
SNOWBALL VERSUS RESPONDENT-DRIVEN SAMPLING - PMC
Snowball sampling emerged as a nonprobability approach to sampling design and inference in hard-to-reach, or equivalently, hidden populations.
[162]
Estimating network properties from snowball sampled data
A drawback of snowball sampling is that it bears several possible sources of bias (Atkinson and Flint, 2001). Since the recruiting of new respondents is done, ...
[163]
Facebook emotion study breached ethical guidelines, researchers say
Jun 30, 2014 · Lack of 'informed consent' means that Facebook experiment on nearly 700000 news feeds broke rules on tests on human subjects, say scientists ...Missing: backlash | Show results with:backlash
[164]
Facebook's flawed emotion experiment: Antisocial research on ...
May 15, 2015 · A paper reporting the results of a study into 'emotional contagion' on Facebook was published. This research has already attracted a great deal of criticism.
[165]
Inferring Causal Factors of Core Affect Dynamics on Social ...
Cogently, causal inference requires to analyse the mapping under active intervention (do) but relying solely on data collected from the observational study. In ...<|separator|>
[166]
The trouble with social computing systems research
We analyze challenges facing social computing systems research, ranging from misaligned methodological incentives, evaluation expectations, double standards, ...
[167]
[PDF] Avoiding data and algorithm biases through diversity - arXiv
Feb 26, 2020 · To further elaborate on this premise that diverse representation could be a proactive approach to mitigating data and algorithm biases, we next ...
[168]
Social Data: Biases, Methodological Pitfalls, and Ethical Boundaries
Specific challenges are determined by the objectives and the research questions one is trying to answer. For instance, a study seeking to improve the ordering ...