Upgrade to Pro — share decks privately, control downloads, hide ads and more …

Antisocial Computing

Antisocial Computing

In online social networks, large information cascades can develop as people share content with one another. However, as these cascades develop through complex processes, prior work has argued that their future trajectory may be inherently unpredictable. My research introduces methods for studying the mechanisms of these cascades and predicting their spread. Analyzing billions of interactions by hundreds of millions of users on Facebook, I show how the future growth and structure of these cascades can be predicted, how cascades may resurface after lying dormant for months, and how diverse social protocols can produce large information cascades. Through revealing the mechanisms in which information diffuses in social media, this work explores a future where systems can better promote sharing behavior online.

Presented at the Stanford Human-Computer Interaction Seminar.

Justin Cheng

June 02, 2017
Tweet

More Decks by Justin Cheng

Other Decks in Research

Transcript

  1. Justin Cheng
    Stanford University
    ANTISOCIAL COMPUTING
    Explaining and Predicting Negative Behavior Online

    View Slide

  2. Vieweg, et al. (2010); Kittur, et al. (2013); Burke & Kraut (2016)

    View Slide

  3. View Slide

  4. Time (2016); The Atlantic (2016); Vanity Fair (2017)

    View Slide

  5. 47% of online users
    have been harassed
    Data & Society (2017)

    View Slide

  6. Popular Science (2013); The Verge (2015); Chicago Sun-Times (2014)

    View Slide

  7. Why is bad behavior so prevalent?

    (›°□°)›ớ ᵲᴸᵲ
    Research Question

    View Slide

  8. Understanding bad behavior helps
    us build healthier communities
    Implications
    Systems
    Guidelines Interventions

    View Slide

  9. Antisocial behavior is largely
    due to sociopaths
    Prior Work
    Donath (1999); Hardaker (2010); Buckels, et al. (2014)

    View Slide

  10. Antisocial behavior is largely
    due to ordinary people
    This Work

    View Slide

  11. Antisocial Behavior & Its Spread
    Talk Outline
    What causes antisocial behavior?
    Can such cascades be predicted?
    Does it worsen over time?
    1
    2
    3

    View Slide

  12. Data Mining + Crowdsourcing
    Research Approach
    Large-scale Analysis + Experiments

    View Slide

  13. Identifying principles of
    online behavior
    The Broader Picture
    Data + ML + Network Science + HCI

    View Slide

  14. Antisocial Behavior & Its Spread
    Talk Outline
    1
    2
    3
    What causes antisocial behavior?
    Can such cascades be predicted?
    Does it worsen over time?

    View Slide

  15. CSCW 2017 (Best Paper); ICWSM 2015 (Honorable Mention)
    with M. Bernstein, C. Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, J. Leskovec
    CAN ANYONE
    BECOME A TROLL?
    Causes of Antisocial Behavior in Online Discussions

    View Slide

  16. CONTENT WARNING!

    This talk contains depictions of trolling that use strong language.
    !

    View Slide

  17. View Slide

  18. It also shows that Islam and
    Christianity teaching women to
    dress modest could be right
    afterall.

    View Slide

  19. It also shows that Islam and
    Christianity teaching women to
    dress modest could be right
    afterall.
    Clearly that is the only logical
    conclusion to this article. Now if
    you'll excuse me, I need to iron
    my tarp. I have work on Monday,
    and I want to appear 'modest'.
    fail at life. go bomb yourself.
    Religious nut alert

    View Slide

  20. We studied multiple large comment-
    based news communities.
    470M posts 831M votes
    76M users

    View Slide

  21. What is trolling?

    View Slide

  22. What is trolling?
    Engaging in negatively marked online
    behavior
    Taking pleasure in upsetting others
    Not following the rules
    Disrupting a group while staying
    undercover
    Donath (1999); Hardaker (2010); Kirman (2012); Schwartz (2008)

    View Slide

  23. Trolling is behavior that occurs
    outside community norms.
    Defined using community guidelines
    Our Definition
    e.g., name-calling, personal attacks, profanity, threats, hate speech, ethnically/racially offensive material

    View Slide

  24. Are trolls just a vocal minority?
    Donath (1999); Hardaker (2010); Shachaf & Hara (2010); NYT (2008); Wired (2014); Vox (2014)

    View Slide

  25. How much do trolls troll?
    Proportion of Banned Users
    0
    0.1
    0.2
    0.3
    0.4
    Proportion of Deleted Posts
    0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

    View Slide

  26. The distribution of trolls is bimodal
    Proportion of Banned Users
    0
    0.1
    0.2
    0.3
    0.4
    Proportion of Deleted Posts
    0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

    View Slide

  27. Are there two types of trolls?
    Proportion of Banned Users
    0
    0.1
    0.2
    0.3
    0.4
    Proportion of Deleted Posts
    0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
    Situational trolling?
    Lifelong trolling?

    View Slide

  28. What if antisocial behavior is
    situational?

    View Slide

  29. Challenge: how to show that
    antisocial behavior is situational?
    Observational data isn’t causal

    View Slide

  30. Challenge: how to show that
    antisocial behavior is situational?
    Experiments hard to generalize

    View Slide

  31. Simulated Discussion Experiment Large-Scale Analysis
    Solution: Experiment + Observational Study

    View Slide

  32. Anyone can become a troll
    Our Hypothesis

    View Slide

  33. “Broken windows” theory
    Zimbardo (1969); Wilson (1982)

    View Slide

  34. Unpleasant stimuli increase aggression
    Jones & Bogat (1978); Rotton & Frey (1985)

    View Slide

  35. Experiment: simulated discussion forum

    View Slide

  36. N=667, 40% female
    Quiz Discussion
    Experimental method

    View Slide

  37. Quiz Discussion
    Experimental method
    ×

    View Slide

  38. Positive/Negative Mood Positive/Negative Context
    Experimental method
    ×
    Quiz Discussion

    View Slide

  39. Easy quiz (positive mood)

    View Slide

  40. Difficult quiz (negative mood)

    View Slide

  41. Positive discussion context

    View Slide

  42. Negative discussion context

    View Slide

  43. People reported being in a worse
    mood after the difficult quiz
    Easy: 12.2 Difficult: 40.8
    (POMS mood disturbance [higher scores = worse mood], p<0.01)
    Manipulation Check

    View Slide

  44. Initial seed posts in the negative
    context condition perceived worse
    Positive: 90% upvoted Negative: 36% upvoted
    (p < 0.01)
    Manipulation Check

    View Slide

  45. How did trolling differ across
    conditions?
    Two expert raters labeled posts independently

    View Slide

  46. How did trolling differ across conditions?
    Positive
    Mood
    Negative
    Mood
    Positive
    Context
    Negative
    Context
    % Troll Posts

    View Slide

  47. Trolling is lowest with positive conditions…
    Positive
    Mood
    Negative
    Mood
    Positive
    Context
    35%
    Negative
    Context
    % Troll Posts

    View Slide

  48. …increases with either negative condition…
    Positive
    Mood
    Negative
    Mood
    Positive
    Context
    35% 49%
    Negative
    Context
    47%
    % Troll Posts

    View Slide

  49. …and almost doubles in the worst case
    Positive
    Mood
    Negative
    Mood
    Positive
    Context
    35% 49%
    Negative
    Context
    47% 68%
    % Troll Posts
    (p < 0.05 using a mixed effects logistic regression model)

    View Slide

  50. Negative affect almost triples
    Positive
    Mood
    Negative
    Mood
    Positive
    Context
    1.1% 1.4%
    Negative
    Context
    2.3% 2.9%
    % Negative Affect Words (LIWC)
    (p < 0.05)

    View Slide

  51. Hilary is a solid candidate. As a woman, I
    appreciate that she's a woman, but it's not
    the only reason I think she would do well in
    office.
    Positive Mood + Context

    View Slide

  52. Anyone who votes for her is a complete
    idiot. These supporters are why this country
    is in such bad shape now. Uneducated
    people.
    Negative Mood + Context

    View Slide

  53. Bad mood and negative discussion
    context increase trolling

    View Slide

  54. Simulated Discussion Experiment Large-Scale Analysis of CNN.com
    Online Experiment + Observational Study

    View Slide

  55. Can trolling, like mood, vary with
    the time of day and day of week?
    Replicating Mood
    Golder & Macy (2011)
    Neg. Affect
    Time of Day
    ?

    View Slide

  56. How does trolling vary with time of day?
    Proportion of Flagged Posts
    0.03
    0.033
    0.036
    0.039
    0.042
    Time of Day
    0 6 12 18 24

    View Slide

  57. Trolling peaks in the evening…
    Proportion of Flagged Posts
    0.03
    0.033
    0.036
    0.039
    0.042
    Time of Day
    0 6 12 18 24
    Negative Affect
    (Golder & Macy)

    View Slide

  58. …and early in the work week.
    Proportion of Flagged Posts
    0.03
    0.032
    0.034
    0.036
    0.038
    0.04
    Day of Week
    Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun

    View Slide

  59. Trolling peaks when moods are worse
    Time of Day
    Proportion of
    Flagged Posts
    Negative Affect
    Proportion of
    Downvotes
    Day of Week

    View Slide

  60. Mood spills over from prior
    discussions
    Replicating Mood

    View Slide



  61. (Discussion)
    Mood spills over from prior
    discussions

    View Slide




  62. ?

    (Discussion)
    (Unrelated Discussions)

    ?

    Mood spills over from prior
    discussions

    View Slide





  63. (Discussion)


    Mood spills over from prior
    discussions

    View Slide

  64. A user who trolled in a previous
    discussion is twice as likely to troll
    in a later, unrelated discussion
    (p < 0.01)
    Replicating Mood

    View Slide

  65. The initial post affects subsequent
    trolling
    Replicating Context

    View Slide

  66. (Separate discussions of same article)

    ? ? ?

    ? ? ?
    The initial post affects subsequent
    trolling

    View Slide

  67. (Separate discussions of same article)


    The initial post affects subsequent
    trolling

    View Slide

  68. An initial troll post increases the
    subsequent trolling by 63%
    (p < 0.01)
    Replicating Context

    View Slide

  69. Can we predict trolling
    before it happens?
    Balanced dataset of 120K posts Logistic regression

    View Slide

  70. Mood Context The User
    What factors affect trolling?
    Trolling is situational Trolling is innate

    View Slide

  71. How predictable are troll posts?
    User-specific
    Mood
    Discussion Context
    Combined
    AUC
    0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80
    0.78
    0.74
    0.60
    0.66

    View Slide

  72. How predictable are troll posts?
    User-specific
    Mood
    Discussion Context
    Combined
    AUC
    0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80
    0.78
    0.74
    0.60
    0.66

    View Slide

  73. How predictable are troll posts?
    User-specific
    Mood
    Discussion Context
    Combined
    AUC
    0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80
    0.78
    0.74
    0.60
    0.66

    View Slide

  74. Troll or not?
    User

    View Slide

  75. Troll or not?
    User
    Mood

    View Slide

  76. Troll or not?
    User
    Mood Other users
    { }

    View Slide

  77. Because trolling is situational,
    ordinary people can end up trolling

    View Slide

  78. View Slide

  79. Can voting mitigate bad behavior?

    View Slide

  80. Downvoting causes
    negative behavior to worsen
    Our Hypothesis

    View Slide

  81. Antisocial Behavior & Its Spread
    Talk Outline
    1
    2
    3
    What causes antisocial behavior?
    Can such cascades be predicted?
    Does it worsen over time?

    View Slide

  82. How Antisocial Behavior Worsens
    ICWSM 2014
    with C. Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, J. Leskovec
    CAN ANTISOCIAL
    BEHAVIOR SPI
    R
    A
    L?

    View Slide

  83. Downvoting causes
    negative behavior to worsen
    Our Hypothesis

    View Slide

  84. What effects do evaluations have?
    Positively
    evaluated
    ?
    ?
    Negatively
    evaluated

    View Slide

  85. What is a positive or negative evaluation?

    View Slide

  86. Defining positive and negative evaluations
    :
    9 1
    2 8
    N↑

    N↑
    + N↓
    2

    2+8
    = = 0.2 p↓

    : N↑

    N↑
    + N↓
    9

    9+1
    = = 0.9 p↑

    Positive Evaluation
    Negative Evaluation
    (validated using a crowdsourcing experiment)

    View Slide

  87. What effects do evaluations have?
    Positively
    evaluated
    ?
    ?
    Negatively
    evaluated

    View Slide

  88. Does feedback encourage better behavior?
    Skinner (1938)

    View Slide

  89. Or is bad stronger than good?
    Brinko (1993); Baumeister, et al. (2001)

    View Slide

  90. Four large comment-based news
    communities

    View Slide

  91. What effects do evaluations have?
    Positively
    evaluated
    Negatively
    evaluated

    View Slide

  92. What effects do evaluations have?




    View Slide

  93. What effects do evaluations have?




    Before After
    vs.
    Before After
    vs.

    View Slide

  94. Challenge: how to compare
    different users and posts?
    Aren’t downvoted users/posts inherently worse?

    View Slide

  95. Solution: propensity score matching
    PSM: Rosenbaum (1983); CEM: Iacus, et al. (2012)
    Positively
    evaluated
    Negatively
    evaluated

    View Slide

  96. Match on text quality
    Similar text
    quality q
    }

    View Slide

  97. Computing text quality
    Learn p with bigrams

    (binomial regression)
    1 3
    lorem ipsum…
    q = ?
    Lorem…
    ? ?
    9 2
    lorem ipsum…

    Text quality q is
    predicted p

    View Slide

  98. Validating text quality
    Manually label subset (n=171) using crowdsourcing
    lorem ipsum…
    Good
    Bad
    Good
    Good
    # Good

    # Total
    q’=

    View Slide

  99. Validating text quality
    Manually label subset (n=171) using crowdsourcing
    lorem ipsum…
    Good
    Bad
    Good
    Good
    # Good

    # Total
    q’=
    ? ?
    corr(q’, p) = corr(q’, q) =

    View Slide

  100. Validating text quality
    (n.s.) (p < 0.01)
    p: actual proportion of upvotes
    q: text quality (predicted proportion)
    q’: crowd guess
    corr(q’, q) =
    corr(q’, p) = 0.11 0.25

    View Slide

  101. Validating text quality
    |Residuals|
    0
    0.2
    0.4
    0.6
    0.8
    1
    0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
    |q − q’|
    (n.s. using a Breusch-Pagan test)
    Text Quality q

    View Slide

  102. Match on text quality
    Similar text
    quality
    q(c↑
    )=q(c↓
    )
    }

    View Slide

  103. …as well as other covariates
    Similar history
    (# posts, overall
    proportion of
    upvotes, etc.)
    { ≈



    View Slide

  104. …as well as other covariates






    View Slide

  105. How are subsequent posts evaluated?






    View Slide

  106. How much are evaluations due to
    textual or community effects?

    View Slide

  107. How much are evaluations due to
    textual effects (i.e., people writing worse)?
    f***ing a******
    i.e., downvoting because of post content

    View Slide

  108. How much are evaluations due to
    community effects (i.e., inherent bias)?
    We dislike you.
    i.e., downvoting because of community dislikes author
    We dislike you.

    View Slide

  109. Do people write better/worse after
    a positive/negative evaluation?
    Textual Effects

    View Slide






  110. Better/Worse?
    Do people write better/worse after
    a positive/negative evaluation?

    View Slide

  111. Text quality drops significantly after
    a negative evaluation…
    (p < 0.05, mean effect size r = 0.18)
    … …
    Negativity bias

    View Slide

  112. …but doesn’t change after
    a positive evaluation
    … …
    (n.s.)
    Negativity bias

    View Slide

  113. How does community bias
    change after an evaluation?
    Community Effects

    View Slide

  114. … …
    … …
    How does community bias
    change after an evaluation?

    View Slide

  115. Measuring community bias
    N↑ q
    N↓
    N↑

    N↑
    + N↓
    = 0.5
    p(c) =
    = 0.8
    q(c)
    p(c) q(c) = 0.3
    Prop. Upvotes
    Text Quality
    Community Bias − −

    View Slide

  116. Community bias increase more after
    a negative than positive evaluation
    (p < 0.01, mean effect size r = 0.13)
    … …
    Halo effect

    View Slide

  117. More positive
    Negative Eval.
    Positive Eval.

    View Slide

  118. More positive
    Negative Eval.
    Positive Eval.
    Similar text quality

    q(c↑
    )=q(c↓
    )

    View Slide

  119. More positive
    Before Negative Eval.
    Positive Eval.
    Similar history Similar text quality

    q(c↑
    )=q(c↓
    )

    View Slide

  120. More positive
    Before After
    Negative Eval.
    Positive Eval.
    Similar history Similar text quality

    q(c↑
    )=q(c↓
    )
    Worse text quality

    q(c↑(1,3)
    ) > q(c↓(1,3)
    )
    *

    View Slide

  121. More positive
    Before After
    Negative Eval.
    Positive Eval.
    Similar history Similar text quality

    q(c↑
    )=q(c↓
    )
    Worse text quality

    q(c↑(1,3)
    ) > q(c↓(1,3)
    )
    Worse perception

    q(c↓(1,3)
    ) - p(c↓(1,3)
    ) >
    q(c↑(1,3)
    ) - p(c↑(1,3)
    )
    *
    *

    View Slide

  122. What happens to
    negatively-evaluated users?

    View Slide

  123. They post worse content
    Perceptions of them become worse
    They post more frequently*
    They evaluate others more negatively*
    * More details in our ICWSM 2014 paper (http://bit.ly/feedback-paper)
    What happens to
    negatively-evaluated users?

    View Slide

  124. Troll or not?
    User
    Mood Other users
    { }

    View Slide

  125. Troll or not?
    User
    Mood Other users
    { }

    View Slide

  126. Troll or not?
    User
    Mood Other users
    { }

    View Slide

  127. Trolls may start out normal, but tip
    into a spiral and never recover

    View Slide

  128. Do communities worsen over time?

    View Slide

  129. Communities may worsen over time (?)
    Proportion of Upvotes
    0.6
    0.65
    0.7
    0.75
    0.8
    Time
    December 2012 February 2013 April 2013 June 2013 August 2013

    View Slide

  130. Antisocial Behavior & Its Spread
    Talk Outline
    1
    2
    3
    What causes antisocial behavior?
    Can such cascades be predicted?
    Does it worsen over time?

    View Slide

  131. The Predictability of Information Cascades in Social Networks
    CAN C S
    BE PREDICTED?
    AS A
    C DE
    WWW 2014; WWW 2016
    with L. Adamic, P. A. Dow, J. Kleinberg, J. Leskovec

    View Slide

  132. Rumors on Facebook
    ICWSM 2014 (with A. Friggeri, L. Adamic, and D. Eckles)

    View Slide

  133. Same rumor, different popularity

    View Slide

  134. Are these cascades predictable?

    View Slide

  135. View Slide

  136. View Slide

  137. View Slide

  138. View Slide

  139. View Slide

  140. View Slide

  141. Are cascades unpredictable?

    View Slide

  142. Large cascades are rare
    Empirical CCDF
    0.00
    0.20
    0.40
    0.60
    0.80
    1.00
    Cascade size
    0 200 400 600 800 1000
    0.09
    100

    View Slide

  143. “Increasing the strength of social
    influence increased both inequality
    and unpredictability of success.”
    Salganik, Dodds & Watts (2006)

    View Slide

  144. Cascades can recur after long periods

    View Slide

  145. Cascades are predictable
    Our Hypothesis
    size, structure, content even if they recur

    View Slide

  146. How do we begin to predict
    cascade growth?

    View Slide

  147. Challenge: how to predict cascade growth?
    ?
    k=5 reshares

    observed

    View Slide

  148. Challenge: how to predict cascade growth?
    ?
    Will a cascade get 100 reshares?
    Exactly how big will a small cascade get?
    Only consider the largest cascades?

    View Slide

  149. Challenge: how to predict cascade growth?
    ?
    Will a cascade get 100 reshares?
    Exactly how big will a small cascade get?
    Only consider the largest cascades?
    class imbalance
    outliers skew results
    selection bias

    View Slide

  150. Solution: will a cascade reach the median?
    ? ≤ the median f(k)
    ≥ the median f(k)
    k=5 reshares

    observed

    View Slide

  151. Solution: will a cascade double in size?
    ? ≤ the median f(k)
    ≥ the median f(k)
    k=5 reshares

    observed

    View Slide

  152. Given that a cascade has obtained
    k reshares, will it double in size?
    balanced track growth over time
    Cascade Growth Prediction Problem

    View Slide

  153. Reshare cascades on Facebook
    70M cascades 5B reshares Activity over 28 days

    View Slide

  154. Content

    has overlaid text
    captions

    User

    friend count

    gender

    Structural

    tree depth
    outdegree

    Temporal

    time between shares
    change in time

    What factors affect predictability?

    View Slide

  155. How predictable is cascade doubling?
    All
    Temporal
    All but temporal
    Structural
    User
    Content
    AUC (k=5)
    0.00 0.23 0.45 0.68 0.90
    0.58
    0.71
    0.74
    0.79
    0.87
    0.88
    All but temporal

    View Slide

  156. Given that a cascade has obtained
    k reshares, will it double in size?
    Cascade Growth Prediction Problem

    View Slide

  157. Given that a cascade has obtained
    5 reshares, will it double in size?
    Cascade Growth Prediction Problem

    View Slide

  158. Given that a cascade has obtained
    100 reshares, will it double in size?
    Cascade Growth Prediction Problem

    View Slide

  159. How does performance change with k?
    k = 5 k > 10
    k = 10 k > 20

    View Slide

  160. How does performance change with k?
    k = 5 k > 10
    k = 10 k > 20
    Less data
    More data

    View Slide

  161. How does performance change with k?
    k = 5 k > 10
    k = 10 k > 20
    Shorter-term
    Longer-term

    View Slide

  162. Easier to predict larger cascades doubling
    Accuracy
    0.78
    0.79
    0.8
    0.81
    0.82
    Number of reshares observed, k
    0 25 50 75 100

    View Slide

  163. Cascade growth is predictable

    View Slide

  164. Cascade structure is predictable
    AUC = 0.80 for predicting structural virality
    * More details in our WWW 2014 paper (http://bit.ly/memes-paper)
    vs.

    View Slide

  165. Cascade recurrence is predictable
    AUC = 0.89 for predicting a subsequent burst
    * More details in our WWW 2016 paper (http://bit.ly/cascades-paper)
    vs.

    View Slide

  166. Troll or not?
    User
    Mood Other users
    { }

    View Slide

  167. View Slide

  168. What we now know
    What we thought
    Trolls are a
    vocal minority
    Trolls can be
    ordinary people
    Trolling is innate
    Trolling can spiral from
    a single bad post
    Cascades can be
    predicted
    Cascades are
    unpredictable
    ANTISOCIAL COMPUTING

    View Slide

  169. Predicting the demise of communities
    Proportion of Upvotes
    0.6
    0.65
    0.7
    0.75
    0.8
    Time
    December February April June August
    Future Directions

    View Slide

  170. Designing prosocial discussion platforms
    Future Directions

    View Slide

  171. Designing prosocial discussion platforms
    Future Directions

    View Slide

  172. Munger (2016)
    Introducing conversation mediators
    Future Directions
    Don’t be a n****r.
    Hey man, just remember that there
    are real people who are hurt
    when you harass them with that
    kind of language.
    (e.g., bots)

    View Slide

  173. WWW 2017 (with S. Kumar, J. Leskovec, and V.S. Subrahmanian)
    Identifying different types of trolling
    Future Directions
    Possibly the best blog I’ve ever
    read major props to you
    Thanks. I knew Marvel fans would try
    to flame me, but they have nothing
    other than “oh that’s your opinion”
    Quit talking to yourself […]
    (e.g., sockpuppets)

    View Slide

  174. Addressing polarization
    Future Directions
    Measuring algorithmic impact
    Tracking cascades at scale

    View Slide

  175. Holistic approaches for analyzing
    and building social systems
    Research Approach

    View Slide

  176. Holistic approaches for analyzing
    and building social systems
    Large-scale Analysis Experimentation
    +
    Macro-scale Micro-scale
    +
    Understand Build
    +
    Research Approach

    View Slide

  177. Multi-methods analyses identify patterns
    in data, verify hypotheses, make
    predictions, and develop social systems.
    Multi-methods analyses identify
    patterns in data, verify hypotheses,
    make predictions, and inform the
    design of better social systems.

    View Slide

  178. Jure Leskovec Michael Bernstein Jon Kleinberg Lada Adamic
    Thank you!

    View Slide

  179. James Landay Jeff Hancock
    Cristian
    Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil
    Dan Cosley
    Thank you!

    View Slide

  180. Thank you!

    View Slide

  181. Thank you!

    View Slide

  182. Thank you!

    View Slide

  183. Thank you!
    Stanford HCI Group
    SNAP Group
    Stanford VPGE
    Microsoft Research
    Facebook
    Pinterest
    Disqus

    View Slide

  184. Justin Cheng / @jcccf / clr3.com
    Stanford University
    More resources and credits: http://bit.ly/jobtalkcredits
    ANTISOCIAL COMPUTING
    Explaining and Predicting Negative Behavior Online

    View Slide