From Perils to Possibilities: Understanding how Human (and AI) Biases affect Online Fora

Social media platforms are online fora where users engage in discussions, share content, and build connections. This review explores the dynamics of social interactions, user-generated contents, and biases within the context of social media analysis (analyzing works that use the tools offered by complex network analysis and natural language processing) through the lens of three key points of view: online debates, online support, and human-AI interactions. On the one hand, we delineate the phenomenon of online debates, where polarization, misinformation, and echo chamber formation often proliferate, driven by algorithmic biases and extreme mechanisms of homophily. On the other hand, we explore the emergence of online support groups through users' self-disclosure and social support mechanisms. Online debates and support mechanisms present a duality of both perils and possibilities within social media; perils of segregated communities and polarized debates, and possibilities of empathy narratives and self-help groups. This dichotomy also extends to a third perspective: users' reliance on AI-generated content, such as the ones produced by Large Language Models, which can manifest both human biases hidden in training sets and non-human biases that emerge from their artificial neural architectures. Analyzing interdisciplinary approaches, we aim to deepen the understanding of the complex interplay between social interactions, user-generated content, and biases within the realm of social media ecosystems.

Redefining Event Types and Group Evolution in Temporal Data

Groups -- such as clusters of points or communities of nodes -- are fundamental when addressing various data mining tasks. In temporal data, the predominant approach for characterizing group evolution has been through the identification of ``events". However, the events usually described in the literature, e.g., shrinks/growths, splits/merges, are often arbitrarily defined, creating a gap between such theoretical/predefined types and real-data group observations. Moving beyond existing taxonomies, we think of events as ``archetypes" characterized by a unique combination of quantitative dimensions that we call ``facets". Group dynamics are defined by their position within the facet space, where archetypal events occupy extremities. Thus, rather than enforcing strict event types, our approach can allow for hybrid descriptions of dynamics involving group proximity to multiple archetypes. We apply our framework to evolving groups from several face-to-face interaction datasets, showing it enables richer, more reliable characterization of group dynamics with respect to state-of-the-art methods, especially when the groups are subject to complex relationships. Our approach also offers intuitive solutions to common tasks related to dynamic group analysis, such as choosing an appropriate aggregation scale, quantifying partition stability, and evaluating event quality.