跳到正文
原文
Stanford HAI News（网页）·· 2 小时前AI 评分51

斯坦福研究：X 的 For You 算法把愤怒互动误当用户兴趣

Your ‘For You’ Algorithm Disagrees With You

AI 导读

斯坦福团队发表于 PNAS 的研究发现，X 的 For You 算法以互动量为兴趣代理，用户更易与价值观不符的内容互动，导致信息流偏离其真实价值观。

正文

Skip to content

[](https://hai.stanford.edu/)

[](https://hai.stanford.edu/search)

  • [](https://twitter.com/StanfordHAI)
  • [](https://www.facebook.com/StanfordHAI)
  • [](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChugFTK0KyrES9terTid8vA)
  • [](https://www.linkedin.com/company/stanfordhai)
  • [](https://www.instagram.com/stanfordhai)

[](https://hai.stanford.edu/search)

news
# Your ‘For You’ Algorithm Disagrees With You

Date

August 18, 2026

Topics

Design, Human-Computer Interaction

Image 1: illustration of a woman staring at her phone that's filled with unhappy and angry emojis

A new Stanford-led study finds that X’s “For You” algorithm mistakes outrage for interest – and fills your feed accordingly.

In their “For You” pages, social media algorithms purport to find you exactly the kinds of content you want to see and gather it together in one easy-to-peruse section. That is, if you click on and watch enough political videos, you should expect lots of politics in your algorithmically curated feed. But a new study finds a curious phenomenon: The smarter the algorithm gets at reading your behavior, the further it drifts from what you actually care about.

In a new paper, Stanford scholars studied the For You feed of X (formerly Twitter) users to find that there is a fundamental _value misalignment_ of content with the user’s stated personal values.

It all has to do with how the algorithm ranks and amplifies content based on a metric known as engagement. The algorithm measures and heavily weights how likely you are to engage with content – following creators and time spent reading, reposting, and especially replying to the content in your feed. It then uses that measurement as a proxy for your interests and serves you more of the same.

Rapt But Wrong

“Engagement is easy to measure, so the platforms use it as the primary metric to assess user interest in the content,” says the paper’s first author, Ziv Epstein, who was a postdoc in the lab of senior author Michael Bernstein, a Stanford professor of computer science and senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered AI, when he did the work. Epstein is now a SERC Postdoctoral Associate at the Schwarzman College of Computing at MIT. “They are saying, in effect, engagement equals values, but it’s not that simple,” he added.

The study, published in _Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences_ (PNAS) and partially supported by the Stanford HAI, finds users are more likely to engage with content they disagree with than with content they find more palatable. That means the emphasis on engagement produces feeds steered toward outrage-inducing content. While it is effective at keeping users rapt, it does little to amplify what they actually care about. The algorithm goes astray and the For You page quickly grows misaligned with the user’s values.

“The message we take away is that the values that we hold – what we really care about – should be just as informative to the platforms as engagement,” Bernstein explains. “Right now, we engage with all sorts of content – sometimes because we agree with it, and sometimes because we’re angry at it –but the platforms misinterpret it all as a kind of desire for more of that kind of content.”

Elegant Insights

To elucidate their hypothesis, the researchers designed a simple study. First, they randomly selected 715 X users and asked them to complete a survey. They plotted each user’s answers against a long-accepted scale known as Schwartz’s Hierarchy of Basic Human Values. Schwartz’s list includes 19 values ranging from humility to hedonism.

The researchers then examined two distinct feeds in each user’s X account. The first was the “Following” feed, which is composed of content from accounts the users have voluntarily tracked. The second stream was the “For You” page that serves up algorithmically selected content. The team then evaluated the content in each feed against the Schwartz scale and compared those scores against the user’s value profile.

They found that posts misaligned with the user’s values are more likely to be amplified into the For You page feed than posts aligned with their values.

Future Research and Remedies

The PNAS article, Epstein says, is not a finger-pointing exercise but an encouragement for dialogue on new research and remedies. The findings highlight a natural tension within the users themselves: We seek content that aligns with our values but react to content that provokes or offends us.

As for remedies, the team has produced a Google Chrome browser extension that reviews and re-ranks feeds based on self-stated values. Epstein says it is not a cure-all and could potentially lead to feeds that do little more than echo personal tastes. Other possibilities, the scholars say, might include pro-social algorithms that surface content based on shared values that bridge philosophical divides or tools that give users more control over their feeds.

“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,” Bernstein concludes. “This work shows we can measure the space between what people value and what the algorithms are amplifying and, in doing that, we can use science to narrow the gaps that divide us.”

Share

[](https://x.com/intent/post?url=)[](https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=)[](https://www.linkedin.com/sharing/share-offsite/?url=)

Link copied to clipboard!

Contributor(s)

###### Andrew Myers

Related News

##### Stanford Study: AI Experts Are Optimistic About AI. The Rest of Us… Not So Much

KQED

Apr 13, 2026

Media Mention

Sha Sajadieh, AI Index Lead, comments on HAI's 2026 AI Index findings.

Media Mention

Video 1

Stanford Study: AI Experts Are Optimistic About AI. The Rest of Us… Not So Much

KQED

Workforce, LaborSciences (Social, Health, Biological, Physical)Design, Human-Computer InteractionEthics, Equity, InclusionApr 13

Sha Sajadieh, AI Index Lead, comments on HAI's 2026 AI Index findings.

##### Market Design in the Age of AI: Key Insights from the Conference

Mar 13, 2026

News

Image 2

News

Image 3

Market Design in the Age of AI: Key Insights from the Conference

Design, Human-Computer InteractionMar 13

##### How AI Shook The World In 2025 And What Comes Next

CNN Business

Dec 30, 2025

Media Mention

HAI Co-Director James Landay and HAI Senior Fellow Erik Brynjolfsson discuss the impacts of AI in 2025 and the future of AI in 2026.

Media Mention

Video 2

How AI Shook The World In 2025 And What Comes Next

CNN Business

Industry, InnovationHuman ReasoningEnergy, EnvironmentDesign, Human-Computer InteractionGenerative AIWorkforce, LaborEconomy, MarketsDec 30

HAI Co-Director James Landay and HAI Senior Fellow Erik Brynjolfsson discuss the impacts of AI in 2025 and the future of AI in 2026.

[](https://hai.stanford.edu/)

###### Navigate

###### Participate

Stay Up To Date

Get the latest news, advances in research, policy work, and education program updates from HAI in your inbox weekly.

Sign Up For Latest News
* [](https://twitter.com/StanfordHAI)
* [](https://www.facebook.com/StanfordHAI)
* [](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChugFTK0KyrES9terTid8vA)
* [](https://www.linkedin.com/company/stanfordhai)
* [](https://www.instagram.com/stanfordhai)

Stanford University

  • [Terms of Use](https://www.stanford.edu/site/terms/ "Terms of use for sites")
  • [Privacy](https://www.stanford.edu/site/privacy/ "Privacy and cookie policy")
  • [Copyright](https://uit.stanford.edu/security/copyright-infringement "Report alleged copyright infringement")
  • [Trademarks](https://adminguide.stanford.edu/chapter-1/subchapter-5/policy-1-5-4 "Ownership and use of Stanford trademarks and images")
  • [Non-Discrimination](http://exploredegrees.stanford.edu/nonacademicregulations/nondiscrimination/ "Non-discrimination policy")
  • [Accessibility](https://www.stanford.edu/site/accessibility "Report web accessibility issues")

© Stanford University. Stanford, California 94305.

Pause Media

Your ‘For You’ Algorithm Disagrees With You | Stanford HAI

来源：Stanford HAI News（网页） · hai.stanford.edu

#论文/研究#安全/对齐