Feed Recommender & Bridging Content Simulator

Research Grounding: “Our feeds shouldn't value confrontational engagement over complementary content, nor should they obsequiously feed us only content we agree with. They should strike a balance and mend social disagreements rather than make them worse.” — Prof. Michael Bernstein, Stanford HAI

Ranking Objective Tuner Σ = 1.00

RESEARCH PRESETS

Confrontational Engagement (w₁) 0.70

Prioritizes high reply friction, furious debate, and quote-dunks.

Echo-Chamber Affinity (w₂) 0.20

Prioritizes content strictly affirming user's existing group stance.

Complementary & Bridging (w₃) 0.10

Rewards cross-cluster validation and mutually informative discourse.

Recommendation: Increase bridging weight ≥ 0.45 to incentivize cross-cluster mutual validation

Community Graph & Information Flow (N=30 agents)

Cluster A

Cluster B

Centrist

Toxicity

Bridge Edge

Timestep: 0 / 100

Polarization Index 0.42 Proj: 0.88 (Critical)

Confrontation Rate 64% Toxicity in interactions

Cross-Group Cohesion Low 12 bridging ties

Perspective Diversity 0.31 Shannon entropy norm

Opinion Stance Distribution Across Population Bimodal Split

Inspected Agent Feed Agent #12 (Cluster A)

RANKED FEED ITEMS (TOP 4)