The said affiliation is all part of the company’s enduring prolonged game for social significance. regardless of the fact that it lost 1 million users, the company updated of $100 million profit in last week’s earnings. But the fact that Twitter needs to improvise itself remains unchanged since people’s way of using social media and what Twitter offers its users are totally different.
To further investigate the solutions that might help to resolve the analytical issue of measuring the types and mannerisms of conversation happening on its platform, Twitter called for suggestions from analysts in March. Twitter employees from all the departments including Data Science, Legal and Research, Machine Learning, Trust and Safety and Engineering meticulously reviewed the proposals.
This step was taken to incorporate diverse representatives from the group across the company. The last few months were busy months for those representatives as Twitter consists of less than ten percent diverse employees.
However, the reviewing process has ended, and Twitter has zeroed down on two research teams that will target two dissimilar matters.
The first team is headed by intellectuals from Leiden University. The team will scrutinize the formation of echo chambers and their consecutive effects. It will also study the divergence between intolerance and incivility within Twitter conversations.
The panel includes Dr. Michael Meffert at Leiden, Dr. Rebekah Tromble, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Leiden University, Dr. Jennifer Stromer-Galley at Syracuse University, Dr. Dirk Hovy at Bocconi University, Dr. Nava Tintarev at the Delft University of Technology, and Dr. Patricia Rossini. It has been discovered that echo chambers can promote resentment towards those not having the same conversation and can cause hostility.
The team will be divided into two sets of metrics and will accomplish its target in two stages. However, the first set of metrics will examine the degree to which people accept and connect with varied outlooks on Twitter. Whereas, the second set of metrics will pore over the difference between intolerance and incivility.
The previous researches by the group suggest that although not prodding its own problems, incivility can be used to assist with significant functions in diplomatic dialogues. On the contrary, racism, hate speech, xenophobia, or intolerant speech pose a threat to our democracy. The squad further plans to develop algorithms distinguishing between the very useless intolerance encounter and more useful incivility that we encounter daily on Twitter.
The second team will be led by Marc Heerdink at the University of Amsterdam, in partnership with Professor Miles Hewstone and John Gallacher at The University of Oxford. The work will continue the long-standing work of Hewstone’s to study intergroup conflict.
The recent verdicts from the report indicate towards the fact that when talks contain cooperative emotions, reasoning from multiple perspectives, more positive sentiments, and more complex thinking, the bias and narrow-mindedness will automatically go down while stepping up the quality of relationships.
The Twitter blog stated that “As part of the project, text classifiers for language commonly associated with positive sentiment, cooperative emotionality, and integrative complexity will be adapted to the structure of communication on Twitter.”
Twitter too, provides a platform like any other social networking platform. However, it depends on the users how they construct buildings of dialogue. Inviting the academic community is an outstanding initiative taken by Twitter. But up to what extent will the social media biggie fine-tune the scaffolding to produce more empathetic and useful conversations, still remains unclear.