Alessandro Galeazzi’s research while affiliated with Ca' Foscari University of Venice and other places

Music has always been central to human culture, reflecting and shaping traditions, emotions, and societal changes. Technological advancements have transformed how music is created and consumed, influencing tastes and the music itself. In this study, we use Network Science to analyze musical complexity. Drawing on $\approx20,000$ MIDI files across six macro-genres spanning nearly four centuries, we represent each composition as a weighted directed network to study its structural properties. Our results show that Classical and Jazz compositions have higher complexity and melodic diversity than recently developed genres. However, a temporal analysis reveals a trend toward simplification, with even Classical and Jazz nearing the complexity levels of modern genres. This study highlights how digital tools and streaming platforms shape musical evolution, fostering new genres while driving homogenization and simplicity.

The abundance of information on social media has reshaped public discussions, shifting attention to the mechanisms that drive online discourse. This study analyzes large-scale Twitter (now X) data from three global debates -- Climate Change, COVID-19, and the Russo-Ukrainian War -- to investigate the structural dynamics of engagement. Our findings reveal that discussions are not primarily shaped by specific categories of actors, such as media or activists, but by shared ideological alignment. Users consistently form polarized communities, where their ideological stance in one debate predicts their positions in others. This polarization transcends individual topics, reflecting a broader pattern of ideological divides. Furthermore, the influence of individual actors within these communities appears secondary to the reinforcing effects of selective exposure and shared narratives. Overall, our results underscore that ideological alignment, rather than actor prominence, plays a central role in structuring online discourse and shaping the spread of information in polarized environments.

The entertainment-driven dynamics of social media platforms encourage users to engage with like-minded individuals and consume content aligned with their beliefs. These dynamics may amplify polarization by reinforcing shared perspectives and reducing exposure to diverse viewpoints. Simultaneously, users migrate from one platform to another, either forced by moderation policies, such as de-platforming, or spontaneously seeking environments more aligned with their preferences. These migrations foster the specialization and differentiation of the social media ecosystem, with platforms increasingly organized around specific user communities and shared content preferences. This shift marks an evolution from echo chambers enclosed within platforms to "echo platforms", i.e., entire platforms functioning as ideologically homogeneous niches. This study introduces an operational framework to systematically analyze these dynamics, by examining three key dimensions: platform centrality (central vs. peripheral), news consumption (reliable vs questionable), and user base composition (uniform vs diverse). To this aim, we leverage a dataset of 126M URLs posted by nearly 6M users on nine social media platforms, namely Facebook, Reddit, Twitter (now X), YouTube, BitChute, Gab, Parler, Scored, and Voat. We find a clear separation between mainstream and alt-tech platforms, with the second category being characterized by a peripheral role in the social media ecosystem, a greater prevalence of unreliable content, and a heightened ideological uniformity. These findings outline the main dimensions defining the fragmentation and polarization of the social media ecosystem.

Recognizing the presence and impact of news outlets’ biases on public discourse is a crucial challenge. Biased news significantly shapes how individuals perceive events, potentially jeopardizing public and individual well-being. In assessing news outlet reliability, the focus has predominantly centered on narrative bias, sidelining other biases such as selecting events favoring specific perspectives (selection bias). Leveraging machine learning techniques, we have compiled a six-year dataset of articles related to vaccines, categorizing them based on narrative and event types. Employing a Bayesian latent space model, we quantify both selection and narrative biases in news outlets. Results show third-party assessments align with narrative bias but struggle to identify selection bias accurately. Moreover, extreme and negative perspectives attract more attention, and consumption analysis unveils shared audiences among ideologically similar outlets, suggesting an echo chamber structure. Quantifying news outlets’ selection bias is crucial for ensuring a comprehensive representation of global events in online debates.

Online social media platforms significantly influence public debates by shaping the information users encounter. Content visibility on these platforms is regulated by recommendation algorithms designed to maximize user engagement using individual-level data, including personal preferences and interactions. These algorithms play a crucial role in information dissemination, yet their inner workings are often undisclosed, raising concerns about potential manipulation of visibility. While algorithms may be intended to limit the spread of harmful content, they can also be exploited to suppress dissenting voices without users' awareness. The suspicion that platforms deliberately reduce the visibility of certain users or content - commonly known as shadow banning - has garnered significant public attention, with numerous figures advocating for greater transparency around this practice. In this study, we perform a quantitative study geared to identify suspicious changes in content visibility on Twitter (now known as X). We build and study a dataset of over 13 million tweets from more than 5 million users discussing the Ukraine conflict, including each tweet's number of views and metadata, aiming to detect reduced or inflated visibility patterns. We investigate how visibility correlates with factors such as authors' stance, role, interaction networks, and content narratives. Our findings reveal significant variations in visibility, likely driven by algorithmic interventions. These results highlight the need for greater transparency in regulating online information ecosystems to prevent algorithmic manipulation that could undermine public discourse and the fairness of debates.

Misinformation poses a significant challenge studied extensively by researchers, yet acquiring data to identify primary sharers is costly and challenging. To address this, we propose a low-barrier approach to differentiate social media users who are more likely to share misinformation from those who are less likely. Leveraging insights from previous studies, we demonstrate that easy-access online social network metrics -- average daily tweet count, and account age -- can be leveraged to help identify potential low factuality content spreaders on X (previously known as Twitter). We find that higher tweet frequency is positively associated with low factuality in shared content, while account age is negatively associated with it. We also find that some of the effects, namely the effect of the number of accounts followed and the number of tweets produced, differ depending on the number of followers a user has. Our findings show that relying on these easy-access social network metrics could serve as a low-barrier approach for initial identification of users who are more likely to spread misinformation, and therefore contribute to combating misinformation effectively on social media platforms.

Following recent policy changes by X (Twitter) and other social media platforms, user interaction data has become increasingly difficult to access. These restrictions are impeding robust research pertaining to social and political phenomena online, which is critical due to the profound impact social media platforms may have on our societies. Here, we investigate the reliability of polarization measures obtained from different samples of social media data by studying the structural polarization of the Polish political debate on Twitter over a 24-hour period. First, we show that the political discussion on Twitter is only a small subset of the wider Twitter discussion. Second, we find that large samples can be representative of the whole political discussion on a platform, but small samples consistently fail to accurately reflect the true structure of polarization online. Finally, we demonstrate that keyword-based samples can be representative if keywords are selected with great care, but that poorly selected keywords can result in substantial political bias in the sampled data. Our findings demonstrate that it is not possible to measure polarization in a reliable way with small, sampled datasets, highlighting why the current lack of research data is so problematic, and providing insight into the practical implementation of the European Union's Digital Service Act which aims to improve researchers' access to social media data.

The Internet and social media have transformed the information landscape, democratizing content access and production. While making information easily accessible, these platforms can also act as channels for spreading misinformation, posing crucial societal challenges. To address this, understanding news consumption patterns and unraveling the complexities of the online information environment are essential. Previous studies highlight polarization and misinformation in online discussions, but many focus on specific topics or contexts, often overlooking comprehensive cross-country and cross-topic analyses. However, the dynamics of debates, misinformation prevalence, and the efficacy of countermeasures are intrinsically tied to socio-cultural contexts. This work aims to bridge this gap by exploring information consumption patterns across four European countries over three years. Analyzing the Twitter activity of news outlets in France, Germany, Italy, and the UK, this study seeks to shed light on how topics of European significance resonate across these nations and the role played by misinformation sources. The results spotlight that while reliable sources predominantly shape the information landscape, unreliable content persists across all countries and topics. Though most users favor trustworthy sources, a small percentage predominantly consumes content from questionable sources, with even fewer maintaining a mixed information diet. The cross-country comparison unravels disparities in audience overlap among news sources, the prevalence of misinformation, and the proportion of users relying on questionable sources. Such distinctions surface not only across countries but also within various topics. These insights underscore the pressing need for tailored studies, crucial in designing targeted and effective countermeasures against misinformation and extreme polarization in the digital space.

The role of social media in information dissemination and agenda-setting has significantly expanded in recent years. By offering real-time interactions, online platforms have become invaluable tools for studying societal responses to significant events as they unfold. However, online reactions to external developments are influenced by various factors, including the nature of the event and the online environment. This study examines the dynamics of public discourse on digital platforms to shed light on this issue. We analyzed over 12 million posts and news articles related to two significant events: the release of ChatGPT in 2022 and the global discussions about COVID-19 vaccines in 2021. Data was collected from multiple platforms, including Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, YouTube, and GDELT. We employed topic modeling techniques to uncover the distinct thematic emphases on each platform, which reflect their specific features and target audiences. Additionally, sentiment analysis revealed various public perceptions regarding the topics studied. Lastly, we compared the evolution of engagement across platforms, unveiling unique patterns for the same topic. Notably, discussions about COVID-19 vaccines spread more rapidly due to the immediacy of the subject, while discussions about ChatGPT, despite its technological importance, propagated more gradually.

The public understanding of climate change plays a critical role in translating climate science into climate action. In the public discourse, climate impacts are often discussed in the context of extreme weather events. Here, we analyse 65 million Twitter posts and 240 thousand news media articles related to 18 major hurricanes from 2010 to 2022 to clarify how hurricanes impact the public discussion around climate change. First, we analyse news content and show that climate change is the most prominent non hurricane-specific topic discussed by the news media in relation to hurricanes. Second, we perform a comparative analysis between reliable and questionable news media outlets, finding that unreliable outlets frequently refer to climate-related conspiracies and preferentially use the term “global warming” over “climate change”. Finally, using geolocated data, we show that accounts in regions affected by hurricanes discuss climate change at a significantly higher rate than accounts in unaffected areas, with references to climate change increasing by, on average, 80% after impact, and up to 200% for the largest hurricanes. Our findings demonstrate how hurricanes have a key impact on the public awareness of climate change.