ArticleScientific reports2024
On the impossibility of breaking the echo chamber effect in social media using regulation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Double-Edged Role of Social Media in Modern Healthcare: Awareness, Impact, and Misinformation.Journal of immunotherapy and precision oncology · 2026Review
- Type of information source and healthcare avoidance: insights from two population-based studies during the COVID-19 pandemic.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Psychopathological Correlates of Dysfunctional Smartphone and Social Media Use: The Role of Personality Disorders in Technological Addiction and Digital Life Balance.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2025Article
- Descriptive analysis of TikTok content on vaccination in Arabic.AIMS public health · 2025Article
- Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As scientists, we are proud of our role in developing the current digital age that enables billions of people to communicate rapidly with others via social media. However, when things go wrong, we are also responsible for taking an ethical stand and trying to solve problems, and this work aims to take a step in this direction. Our goal is to set the foundation for a mathematically formal study of how we might regulate social media and, in particular, address the problem of the echo chamber effect. An echo chamber is a closed system where other voices are excluded by omission, causing your beliefs to become amplified or reinforced. In turn, these bubbles can boost social polarization and extreme political views, and, unfortunately, there is strong evidence that echo chambers exist in social media. The fundamental question we try to answer is: how and can a regulation "break" or reduce the echo chamber effect in social media? Sadly, the paper's main result is an impossibility result: a general regulation function that achieves this goal (on our social media model) while obeying the core values of democratic societies (freedom of expression and user privacy) does not exist. This result leaves us with hard future choices to make.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.