• Corpus ID: 34888433

Designing for Civil Conversations: Lessons Learned from ChangeMyView

@inproceedings{Jhaver2017DesigningFC,
  title={Designing for Civil Conversations: Lessons Learned from ChangeMyView},
  author={Shagun Jhaver and Pranil Vora and Amy Bruckman},
  year={2017}
}
Research has shown that people all over the world, and particularly Americans, are divided over many issues – from immigration and gun control to economic and foreign policy. Information bubbles further contribute to these divisions: People prefer to consume content they feel familiar with and see views they agree with. Yet, pluralism and viewpoint diversity are necessary for a well-functioning democracy. In this paper, we explore how we can design interfaces that dial down partisan antipathy… 

Tables from this paper

Shame on Who? Experimentally Reducing Shame During Political Arguments on Twitter

Online political arguments have a reputation for being futile exchanges, partially because people often respond more punitively to those who do not share their views, a phenomenon called ingroup

SIG on Designing for Constructive Conflict

Online arguments are an increasingly important and controversial part of modern life. From the spread of political conspiracies to managing relationships while socially distanced, the past several

Thread With Caution: Proactively Helping Users Assess and Deescalate Tension in Their Online Discussions

This work proposes a complementary paradigm that directly empowers users by proactively enhancing their awareness about existing tension in the conversation they are engaging in and actively guides them as they are drafting their replies to avoid further escalation.

Subreddit R/unpopularopinion: Against the Spiral of Silence

This study introduces a descriptive study to show how the subreddit r/unpopularopinion helps its users to get over the spiral of silence.

Inclusion, equality and bias in designing online mass deliberative platforms

This work reviews the transdisciplinary literature on the design of digital mass-deliberation platforms and examines the commonly featured design aspects, finding that the literature is heavily focused on developing technical fixes for scaling up deliberation, with a heavy western influence on design and test users skew young and highly educated.

Help Me #DebunkThis: Unpacking Individual and Community's Collaborative Work in Information Credibility Assessment

  • Lu HeChangyang He
  • Computer Science
    Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
  • 2022
It is found that online information debunking rarely followed a linear and straightforward path, and community members, including the debunkers and the original posters, constantly negotiated, and interacted with each other to determine what to debunk and how to debunk.

A I ] 2 7 Ju l 2 02 1 I NCLUSION , EQUALITY AND BIAS IN DESIGNING ONLINE MASS DELIBERATIVE PLATFORMS

This work reviews the transdisciplinary literature on the design of digital mass-deliberation platforms and examines the commonly featured design aspects, finding that the literature is heavily focused on developing technical fixes for scaling up deliberation, with a heavy western influence on design and test users skew young and highly educated.

Making Online Communities 'Better': A Taxonomy of Community Values on Reddit

It is found that members value a broad range of topics ranging from technical features to the diversity of the community, and most frequently prioritize content quality, which identifies important understudied topics such as content quality and community size.

Leveraging Focus Theory of Normative Conduct to Shape User Behavior

Position Paper for the Workshop “Managing and Designing for Norms in Online Communities” at The International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM) 2019 Abstract This paper argues that

Does Transparency in Moderation Really Matter?

It is suggested that removal explanations may be under-utilized in moderation practices, and it is potentially worthwhile for community managers to invest time and resources into providing them.

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 45 REFERENCES

The Law of Group Polarization

In a striking empirical regularity, deliberation tends to move groups, and the individuals who compose them, toward a more extreme point in the direction indicated by their own predeliberation

Managing political differences in social media

Investigating political disagreements on Facebook to explore the conditions under which diverse opinions can coexist online found that participants who perceived more differences with their friends engaged less on Facebook than those who perceived less homogeneity.

Winning Arguments: Interaction Dynamics and Persuasion Strategies in Good-faith Online Discussions

It is shown that persuasive arguments are characterized by interesting patterns of interaction dynamics, such as participant entry-order and degree of back-and-forth exchange, and that stylistic choices in how the opinion is expressed carry predictive power.

Supporting reflective public thought with considerit

We present a novel platform for supporting public deliberation on difficult decisions. ConsiderIt guides people to reflect on tradeoffs and the perspectives of others by framing interactions around

Political Communication and Deliberation

This book is intended as a textbook in introductory political communication courses, especially those that focus on public deliberation. Like any textbook, it does more to survey than investigate its

Facilitating Communication across Lines of Political Difference: The Role of Mass Media

We use national survey data to examine the extent to which various sources of political information expose people to dissimilar political views. We hypothesize that the individual’s ability and

Cyberville: Clicks, Culture, and the Creation of an Online Town

From the Publisher: Drawing on her own firsthand experiences with Echo and other online services she's visited, Stacy Horn will take you into the heart of today's global cybervillage by illuminating

Presenting diverse political opinions: how and how much

This work examines the relationship between the numbers of supporting and challenging items in a collection of political opinion items and readers' satisfaction, and evaluates whether simple presentation techniques such as highlighting agreeable items or showing them first can increase satisfaction when fewer agreeable items are present.

Real and perceived attitude agreement in social networks.

Although considerable attitude similarity exists among friends, the results show that friends disagree more than they think they do, and the resulting gap between real and perceived agreement may have implications for the dynamics of political polarization and theories of social influence in general.

Competing or aiming to be average?: normification as a means of engaging digital volunteers

This paper provides a systematic review of existing crowdsourcing and citizen science literature and categorise the ways that theories of norms have been incorporated to date, and investigates normification as an alternative approach to engagement, to be used alongside or instead of competitive strategies.