Hubbry Logo
Social graphSocial graphMain
Open search
Social graph
Community hub
Social graph
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Social graph
Social graph
Social graph
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
A drawing of a graph in which each person is represented by a dot called a node and the friendship relationship is represented by a line called an edge
This animation shows the different types of relations between social objects. User Eva is a friend of Adam and Kate, though Adam and Kate are not friends themselves. Peter's photo was "liked" by many users, including Eva. Also Eva listened to the Last.fm radio and watched the video from YouTube.

A social graph is a graph that represents social relations between entities. It is a model or representation of a social network. The social graph has been referred to as "the global mapping of everybody and how they're related".[1]

The term was used as early as 1964, albeit in the context of isoglosses.[2] Leo Apostel uses the term in the context here in 1978.[3] The concept was originally called sociogram.

The term was popularized at the Facebook F8 conference on May 24, 2007, when it was used to explain how the newly introduced Facebook Platform would take advantage of the relationships between individuals to offer a richer online experience.[4] The definition has been expanded to refer to a social graph of all Internet users.

Since explaining the concept of the social graph, Mark Zuckerberg, one of the founders of Facebook, has often touted Facebook's goal of offering the website's social graph to other websites so that a user's relationships can be put to use on websites outside Facebook's control.[5]

Facebook's social graph

[edit]

As of 2010, Facebook's social graph is the largest social network dataset in the world,[6] and it contains the largest number of defined relationships between the largest number of people among all websites because it is the most widely used social networking service in the world.[7]

Impact

[edit]

Facebook's social graph played a crucial role in the rapid growth of the company by increasing the engagement of its users, optimizing what each user sees in their feed and enabling an extremely efficient advertising policy. With their social graph, Facebook created a huge network of their platform's users which enabled them to grow exponentially.[8]

One of the stars features of Facebook is its feed – what each user sees in their app. Facebook's feed is mainly distributed using its Social Graph. Instead of displaying random publication from random users, the graph allows the app to display personalized content based on each user's previous interactions. This individualized approach enhances the experience that the app offers which increase users' engagement towards the social media application. Likes, shares and comments also play a key role in the social graph's layout, by reinforcing interactions and visibility between two users who enjoy the same classes of entertainment.[9]

Analysis

[edit]

Facebook's social graph has been analyzed by multiple papers. In 2011, a study[10] confirmed the six degrees of separation phenomenon on the scale of the graph.

Data storing

[edit]

Social graphs are typically stored using graph databases, which utilize graph query languages to manage and query relationships efficiently.

For the storing of its social graph, Facebook relies on TAO (The Associations and Objects), a custom-built, distributed system optimized for fast read operations at a massive scale.[11]

Issues

[edit]

Several issues have come forward regarding the existing implementation of the social graph owned by Facebook. For example, currently, a social networking service is unaware of the relationships forged between individuals on a different service. This creates an online experience that is not seamless, and instead provides for a fragmented experience due to the lack of an openly available graph between services. In addition, existing services define relationships differently.

Concern has also focused on the fact that Facebook's social graph is owned by the company and is not shared with other services, giving it a major advantage over other services and preventing its users from taking their graph with them to other services when they wish to do so, such as when a user is dissatisfied with Facebook.

Google has attempted to offer a solution to this problem by creating the Social Graph API, released in January 2008,[12] which allows websites to draw publicly available information about a person to form a portable identity of the individual, in order to represent a user's online identity.[13] This did not, however, experience Google's desired uptake and was thus retired in 2012.[14]

Facebook introduced its own Graph API at the 2010 f8 conference. Both companies monetise collected data sets through direct marketing and social commerce.[15] In December 2016, Microsoft acquired LinkedIn for $26.2 billion.[16]

Lastly, massive use of Social Graph raised ethical questions and confidentiality problems. The Cambridge Analytica scandal in 2018[17] displayed to the open world how other apps had used data of the social graph to do political profiling, which sparked global outrage. Moreover, extreme personalization algorithms caused another problematic effect – the creation of filter bubble and echo chambers, reinforcing user's existing beliefs which influenced public debates.[18] These concerns led to the adoption of stricter regulations on data protection, like the California Consumer Privacy Act, forcing Facebook to change its way of using data.[19]

Twitter's social graph

[edit]

As of 2012, Twitter is the most popular micro-blogging service in the world. Unlike classical social networks (e.g., Facebook), the relation between Twitter users is unidirectional, which makes information propagation in Twitter much closer to how information propagates in real life.

In 2012, Twitter's social graph consisted of 537 million Twitter accounts connected by 23.95 billion links.[20]

Open Graph

[edit]
Further information: Facebook Platform § Open Graph protocol

Facebook's Graph API allows websites to draw information about more objects than simply people, including photos, events, and pages, and their relationships between each other. This expands the social graph concept to more than just relationships between individuals and instead applies it to virtual non-human objects between individuals, as well.[21]

Other uses of Social Graph

[edit]

The concept of the social graph can be extended to other uses than online social networks. It finds uses in multiple fields where interconnected relationships can be found. For companies, the idea of an Enterprise social graph has been explored.[22]

In sports, most commonly in team's sports, interactions between players and teams can be studied to enhance performances, such as the amount of passes between two specific players in football, proximity and distance between players in basketball.[23] Those interactions can be modeled through a social graph and can lead to strategy optimization. In statistical studies, social graphs can map the spread of diseases in a society.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Social graph

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The social graph is a graph-theoretic model representing social relations between entities, where nodes denote individuals, groups, or organizations and edges signify interpersonal connections such as friendships, follows, or interactions. This , drawn from foundational in applied to , captures the of relationships in both offline and digital contexts. Popularized by CEO in , the term "social graph" initially described the platform's internal mapping of user relationships, which was later opened to third-party developers via APIs to enable personalized applications across the web. This underpinned features like friend recommendations, content feeds, and by leveraging algorithms such as shortest-path computations and detection to infer and predict connections. Beyond , the social graph has influenced recommendation systems in platforms like and , facilitating scalable of vast through metrics like degree and clustering coefficients. While enabling unprecedented connectivity and -driven insights, the social graph has sparked controversies over and exploitation, as expansive user profiling enables surveillance-like applications and vulnerabilities to breaches, exemplified by the 2018 Cambridge incident where relational was harvested for political targeting . Empirical studies highlight how dense social graphs amplify cascades but also spread, underscoring causal between network and behavioral outcomes in digital ecosystems.

Definition and Conceptual Foundations

Core Definition

A social graph is a mathematical model derived from graph theory that depicts social networks as consisting of nodes representing entities—such as individuals, organizations, or groups—and edges representing the relationships or interactions between those entities, such as friendships, follows, or collaborations. This structure captures the topology of connections within a population, enabling quantitative analysis of properties like centrality, clustering, and path lengths between nodes. The formalizes real-world social structures by abstracting into a directed or undirected graph, where edge weights may quantify interaction strength or , as seen in datasets from platforms tracking user behaviors like messaging or endorsements. In computational terms, social graphs facilitate algorithms for tasks such as detection or influence , grounded in the that correlates with network position rather than isolated attributes. The term "social graph" gained prominence in 2007 when Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg described it as the underlying network of user connections powering platform features and third-party applications, emphasizing its role in distributing content through interpersonal links. This usage highlighted the graph's scalability to billions of nodes, though empirical studies confirm that real social graphs exhibit small-world properties, with average path lengths around 4-6 in large-scale networks like early Facebook data.

Historical Origins and Evolution

![Sociogram representing social network analysis][float-right]
The application of to social relationships originated in early 20th-century , building on mathematical laid by Leonhard Euler's 1736 solution to the Seven Bridges of problem, which formalized the study of networks as nodes and edges. Sociologist Georg Simmel's 1908 of dyads and triads provided conceptual by examining how social structures emerge from , influencing later network thinking. Jacob L. Moreno advanced this in 1934 with , introducing sociograms—visual diagrams mapping individuals as nodes and their relations as directed edges based on empirical choices, such as preferences in group settings. These tools quantified , revealing isolates, cliques, and , and were applied in clinical and educational contexts to diagnose group structures. By the mid-20th century, anthropologists like and sociologists like extended these methods, incorporating concepts like weak ties in 1973 to explain information and opportunity structures. The specific term "social graph" appeared in academic contexts by the late but gained prominence in through Facebook's 2007 F8 , where CEO described it as a universal of connections stored digitally for scalable querying and . This marked a shift from manual, small-scale sociograms to vast, algorithmically processed ; by , Facebook's graph encompassed over 1 billion users and trillions of edges, enabling features like friend recommendations via metrics such as common neighbors. Evolution continued with decentralized protocols and semantic extensions, but the core digital social graph retained graph-theoretic principles for modeling persistent relations amid transient interactions.

Technical Foundations

Graph Theory Basics

In graph theory, a graph G=(V,E)G = (V, E) is formally defined as a pair consisting of a set VV of vertices, also known as nodes, and a set EE of edges, which represent connections between pairs of vertices. Vertices typically model discrete entities, such as individuals in a social network, while edges capture pairwise relationships, like friendships or communications. This structure abstracts relational data without regard to geometric embedding, focusing solely on incidence relations between elements. Graphs are classified as undirected or directed based on edge symmetry. In an undirected graph, edges form unordered pairs {u,v}\{u, v\}, implying bidirectional relations, as in mutual acquaintances where the connection lacks inherent direction. Directed graphs, or digraphs, use ordered pairs (u,v)(u, v), suitable for asymmetric ties like follower relationships in social platforms, where gij≠gjig_{ij} \neq g_{ji}. Simple graphs prohibit self-loops (edges from a vertex to itself) and multiple edges between the same pair, though multigraphs and weighted variants extend these for richer modeling, assigning numerical values to edges to quantify interaction strength. Fundamental properties include the degree of a vertex, defined as the number of edges incident to it—in undirected graphs, this counts neighbors directly; in directed graphs, in-degree and out-degree distinguish incoming and outgoing ties. A path is a sequence of distinct vertices connected by consecutive edges, enabling measures of reachability; a graph is connected if a path exists between every pair of vertices, otherwise comprising disconnected components. Cycles, closed paths returning to the starting vertex, underpin analyses of redundancy and structure, while adjacency—whether vertices share an edge—forms the basis for matrix representations like the adjacency matrix, where entry aij=1a_{ij} = 1 if an edge exists from ii to jj, facilitating computational traversal and analysis. These elements provide the foundational toolkit for modeling social graphs, where vertices represent users and edges denote interactions.

Modeling Relationships and Properties

In social graph modeling, entities such as individuals, organizations, or content items are represented as nodes (or vertices), while the connections between them—such as friendships, follows, collaborations, or endorsements—are modeled as edges (or ). This draws from , where a graph G=(V,E)G = (V, E) consists of a vertex set VV and an edge set EE, enabling the quantification of relational patterns like connectivity and influence. Edges in social graphs can be undirected, indicating symmetric relationships where the connection is mutual and bidirectional, as in traditional friendships where if A knows B, then B knows A. In contrast, directed edges (or ) capture asymmetric ties, such as one-way follows on platforms like Twitter, where the direction from source to target matters and reciprocity is not assumed. Directed graphs are particularly suited to modeling influence flows or citations, whereas undirected graphs simplify analysis of cohesive groups but may overlook directional asymmetries in real-world interactions. Properties and attributes enhance the expressiveness of these models by attaching metadata to nodes and edges. Node might include demographic like age, , or , allowing for segmentation in analyses such as detection. Edge can specify attributes like relationship strength (via weights, e.g., of interaction), timestamps of formation, or types (e.g., familial versus ), which support weighted graph algorithms for measuring tie robustness. In labeled graph models, both nodes and edges carry labels for categorization, facilitating queries over multifaceted relationships, though this increases storage compared to simple graphs. Advanced modeling accommodates beyond basic graphs, such as multigraphs that permit multiple edges between the same node pair to represent diverse relation types (e.g., colleague and friend simultaneously). Hypergraphs extend this by allowing edges to connect multiple nodes, capturing group interactions like authorship or shared that pairwise edges cannot fully represent. These extensions preserve causal insights into network dynamics, such as how edge weights correlate with , but require careful validation against empirical to avoid overparameterization.

Key Implementations in Centralized Platforms

Facebook's Social Graph

Facebook's social graph constitutes a structure modeling its users as nodes and interpersonal connections—primarily friendships, but extending to follows, , and other associations—as edges, enabling the platform's core functionality of surfacing relevant content and recommendations. introduced the term publicly on , , at the inaugural f8 developer , framing the social graph as the underlying network of relationships that developers could access via the newly launched to build interconnected applications. This conceptualization positioned the graph not merely as but as a foundational layer for interoperability, allowing apps to query and incorporate users' social contexts without rebuilding relational mappings from scratch. Early implementations relied on a MySQL-based augmented by memcache for caching frequent reads, treating the graph as a "lookaside" where edge data was fetched on demand during PHP queries. As user growth accelerated—reaching 50 million active users by 2008—the proved inadequate for the graph's dynamism, prompting shifts toward specialized graph stores. In 2013, Facebook introduced TAO (The Associations and Objects), a distributed datastore tailored for social graph workloads, which separates storage into persistent MySQL shards for objects (nodes like users or pages) and associations (typed edges with metadata such as timestamps or visibility settings). TAO employs a multi-tier caching strategy—leader-follower replicas in memcache for hot , backed by durable storage—to achieve sub-millisecond latencies on reads while ensuring atomic writes via leader election and versioning, thus accommodating the graph's high-velocity updates from billions of daily interactions. The graph's edges are typed and directed, supporting operations like traversal for friend-of-friend suggestions or aggregation for Feed ranking, with APIs exposing subsets via the Graph API for external access under user permissions. This structure scaled to handle workloads exceeding 10 billion queries per second by the early 2020s, leveraging sharding by node ID and geographic distribution to manage partition tolerance. Evolving from unidirectional friendships to multifaceted associations—including likes, shares, and event RSVPs—the social graph has underpinned revenue-generating features like social , launched November 6, 2007, which targets users via inferred interests derived from edge traversals. Despite its efficacy in personalization, the centralized control has drawn scrutiny for enabling unchecked data aggregation, though empirical analyses confirm its causal role in user retention through network effects rather than mere convenience.

Twitter's Follow Graph

Twitter's follow graph is a directed graph in which nodes represent users and edges denote unidirectional "follow" relationships, with an edge from user A to user B indicating that A follows B and thereby receives B's posts in their timeline. This model prioritizes asymmetric information flow, enabling one-way content consumption without requiring mutual approval, which distinguishes it from bidirectional friendship graphs on platforms like Facebook. The graph's structure exhibits power-law degree distributions, with a small number of high-degree nodes (celebrities or influencers) attracting disproportionate followers, while most users have few outgoing edges. To manage the graph's scale—historically encompassing of millions of nodes and billions of edges by the early —Twitter developed FlockDB, a distributed, fault-tolerant optimized for storing and querying adjacency rather than full traversals. Introduced on , , FlockDB supports efficient operations like followers or checking mutual follows but avoids complex path-finding to maintain at high volumes, such as billions of edges. It integrates with MySQL for storage and uses a web service interface for reads and writes, facilitating fan-out mechanisms where a user's tweet is pushed to followers' timelines in real-time. The follow graph underpins key features, including timeline via writes and personalized recommendations through the "Who to Follow" (WTF) service, which leverages graph-based to suggest connections. For instance, WTF employs over the graph's , analyzing paths and similarities in follow patterns to predict relevant follows, with models trained on historical to rank candidates by predicted . Later enhancements, such as RealGraph introduced around , refine these predictions by user-tweet interactions into denser representations for real-time scoring. Despite its , the graph's directed contributes to low reciprocity—typically 22-30% of follows are mutual—reflecting its more as an or network than a purely social one.

Implementations in Other Platforms

LinkedIn employs a distributed named to model professional relationships as a social graph, handling tens of terabytes of and supporting up to half a million for features like connection recommendations and network analysis. This implementation emphasizes directed edges representing endorsements, follows, and collaborations, differing from consumer platforms by prioritizing economic and career-oriented ties over casual friendships. Google+ utilized a directed social graph structured around "circles," allowing users to categorize connections into asymmetric groups for selective , which facilitated ego-centric network in datasets comprising millions of edges from public circle exports. Launched in , this aimed to integrate social across Google's but faced challenges in user , leading to its discontinuation in ; empirical studies of its graph revealed denser clusters among celebrities and IT professionals compared to broader populations. Other platforms, such as , integrate social graph elements inherited from Meta's infrastructure to infer relationships via mutual follows and interactions, powering feed algorithms that prioritize content from strong ties, though increasingly augmented by interest-based signals. In contrast, largely eschews a traditional connection-focused social graph in favor of an interest graph, recommending videos based on user engagement patterns rather than explicit follower links, which enabled rapid scaling to over 1 billion users by 2021 without relying on imported social networks.

Extensions and Advanced Protocols

Open Graph Protocol

The Open Graph Protocol (OGP), introduced by Facebook on April 21, 2010, is a framework of standardized meta tags embedded in HTML documents to describe the properties of web pages, enabling them to function as rich objects within social networks. It allows platforms to generate preview cards with titles, descriptions, images, and other media when links are shared, thereby integrating external web content into the social graph by associating it with user interactions such as likes, shares, and comments. This protocol extends the social graph beyond platform-specific data by mapping web resources to graph entities, facilitating richer connections between users, content, and external sites. Technically, OGP employs namespace-prefixed meta elements in the <head> section of HTML, such as og:title for the page's title, og:image for a representative image (recommended at least 200x200 pixels), og:description for a brief summary, and og:type to specify object types like "website," "article," or "video.other" from a predefined set. Additional properties support advanced features, including audio (og:audio), video (og:video), and determiners for locale (og:locale), with the protocol drawing inspiration from established standards like Dublin Core, RDFa, and Microformats to ensure semantic interoperability. When a link is shared, social platforms parse these tags via web crawlers to construct interactive previews, which users can then engage with, effectively incorporating third-party content into the graph's relational structure without requiring direct API integration. In the context of social graphs, OGP's primary impact has been to democratize content representation across networks, with adoption extending to platforms like (now ), , and , though implementations vary— favors its own cards protocol alongside OGP for compatibility. By , Facebook's rollout coincided with the "Like" button's launch, enabling over 1 million websites to integrate within months, amplifying graph density through viral sharing mechanics. However, reliance on self-declared metadata introduces risks of manipulation, as sites can alter tags without verification, potentially disseminating misleading previews that propagate through the graph. Despite these vulnerabilities, OGP remains a foundational extension for scalable, web-wide social connectivity, powering billions of daily shares while underscoring the tension between openness and control in graph architectures.

Semantic and Interest Graphs

Semantic graphs extend traditional social graphs by incorporating structured semantic relations, often using Resource Description Framework (RDF) triples or ontologies to represent not just connections between users but also the meaning, context, and inferable properties of those relationships. In this model, nodes may denote users, content, or concepts, while edges encode predicates like "shares interest in" or "authored," enabling machine-readable inferences such as transitive relationships or entity disambiguation. This approach draws from semantic web principles, allowing social data to integrate with broader knowledge graphs for enhanced queryability and analysis, as explored in efforts to evolve social network analysis into knowledge graph frameworks. In practice, semantic graphs address limitations of raw social graphs by adding layers of explicit semantics, facilitating applications like personalized recommendation systems that infer user preferences from relational ontologies rather than solely from direct links. For instance, semantic leverages these structures to merge user interactions with domain-specific , improving metrics like community detection through weighted, context-aware edges. Empirical studies demonstrate that such embeddings preserve textual semantics in graph representations, yielding up to 10-15% improvements in downstream tasks like node over purely topological models. However, implementation requires robust triple stores for , as seen in platforms like , where predicates define across heterogeneous sources. Interest graphs, in contrast, model connections based on shared topics, hobbies, or behavioral signals rather than , forming a complementary extension to social graphs by prioritizing content affinity over relational proximity. Originating as a conceptual around 2010, graphs aggregate user engagements—such as , follows on hashtags, or search histories—to create dynamic edges linking individuals to thematic clusters, serendipitous discovery beyond one's immediate network. Platforms like TikTok exemplify this through their For You Page algorithm, launched in 2018, which uses interest-based signals to curate feeds, achieving 150% higher engagement rates compared to social-graph-dominant models by surfacing content from non-followed creators aligned with inferred preferences. The integration of interest graphs into social platforms has accelerated since the mid-2010s, driven by algorithmic shifts toward predictive personalization; for example, Instagram's Reels and Twitter's (now X) topic follows operationalize interest edges to expand reach, with data showing interest-driven feeds outperforming friend-centric ones in retention metrics by focusing on explicit and implicit signals like dwell time on content. This extension mitigates echo chambers in pure social graphs by introducing cross-community links via topical similarity, though it raises concerns over opaque inference accuracy, as platforms derive interests from aggregated behaviors without user-verified ontologies. When combined with semantic elements, interest graphs evolve into hybrid structures, such as those embedding topical similarity measures for resource recommendation, enhancing precision in heterogeneous networks.

Data Management and Computational Aspects

Storage and Scalability Challenges

Storing large-scale social graphs presents formidable challenges due to their immense , with platforms like managing graphs comprising over 1 billion nodes and up to 1 edges as of recent analyses. These structures generate petabytes of , characterized by high sparsity—where edges represent connections among users—and irregular access patterns favoring traversals over scans, rendering traditional adjacency matrices inefficient in both and query . To mitigate storage demands, systems employ distributed architectures with denormalized representations, such as , which separates objects (nodes) and associations (edges) into sharded tables for persistence while leveraging in-memory caches with LRU eviction for frequently accessed "hot" , enabling efficient single-hop traversals critical for social feeds and recommendations. handles many petabytes across logical , embedding IDs to facilitate locality, but contends with high-degree vertices—like celebrities with millions of followers—that skew storage and amplify cross-shard dependencies if partitioning is imbalanced. Scalability intensifies these issues through , with social graphs enduring billions of reads and millions of writes per second from user interactions, compounded by geographic distribution requiring low-latency replication across centers. TAO achieves this via read-optimized (99.8% reads), leader-follower tiers, and cloning for hotspots, yielding 96.4% cache hit rates and read latencies of 1-3 ms on , though misses can extend to 75 ms and replication lags occasionally exceed 10 seconds for 0.2% of operations. Broader challenges include graph partitioning to minimize edge cuts—potentially disrupting traversals—and accommodating dynamic updates without full recomputation, often necessitating to prioritize over strict transactions in high-throughput environments. Emerging solutions explore hybrid storage like LSM-trees combined with compressed sparse row formats for write-heavy dynamic graphs, but persistent hurdles remain in balancing for analytics on billion-scale datasets against real-time , where and variety—encompassing diverse edge types like friendships, , and follows—exacerbate load imbalances and query during deep traversals such as friend-of-friend computations.

Analysis Techniques and Algorithms

Centrality measures quantify the structural importance of nodes within social graphs, identifying key influencers or brokers in . Degree centrality counts the number of direct connections a node has, serving as a basic indicator of local popularity, as demonstrated in analyses of collaboration where high-degree nodes correlate with prolific contributors. Betweenness centrality assesses a node's control over information flow by calculating the proportion of shortest paths passing through it, proven effective for detecting bottlenecks in communication graphs with computational complexity O(n m) for sparse using Brandes' algorithm. Closeness centrality measures average shortest path distance to all other nodes, highlighting efficient communicators, while eigenvector centrality weights connections by the centrality of neighbors, capturing global influence as in Google's PageRank adaptation for social influence scoring. These metrics, rooted in graph theory, enable empirical assessment of power dynamics, with studies showing betweenness outperforming degree in predicting leadership in organizational . Community detection algorithms partition social graphs into densely connected subgroups, revealing emergent social structures. The Louvain method optimizes modularity—a measure of intra-community edge density versus random expectation—through hierarchical agglomeration, achieving scalability on million-node graphs like Facebook's friendship network with resolutions up to 1,000 communities in seconds. Girvan-Newman employs edge-betweenness to iteratively remove bridges, excelling in small-world topologies but scaling poorly at O(n^3) due to repeated centrality computations. Spectral clustering leverages eigenvectors of the Laplacian matrix for partitioning, effective for stochastic block models underlying social data, with normalized cuts minimizing disconnection costs. Infomap uses information theory to minimize the description length of random walks, outperforming modularity-based methods in benchmark tests on real-world networks like email exchanges. Empirical evaluations on datasets such as SNAP's social circles confirm Louvain's balance of accuracy and speed, though overlapping communities require extensions like clique percolation. Link prediction algorithms forecast potential edges in evolving social graphs, aiding friend recommendations and . Topology-based methods like common neighbors score pairs by shared connections, assuming , while Adamic-Adar weights rare neighbors higher, improving precision in heterogeneous by up to 20% over scoring in citation graphs adaptable to social ties. posits new links favor high-degree nodes, mirroring scale-free growth observed in co-authorship since Barabási–Albert's 1999 model. Matrix factorization decomposes adjacency matrices into latent factors, with Netflix Prize techniques extended to social data yielding AUC scores above 0.9 in sparse regimes. Graph neural networks (GNNs) advance analysis by learning node embeddings that encode structural and semantic features for downstream tasks. GraphSAGE aggregates neighbor features via sampling and aggregation functions, enabling inductive learning on unseen nodes, as applied to Pinterest's user-item graphs for recommendation with 15% lift in engagement. Node2Vec employs biased random walks to generate sequences for Skip-Gram training, balancing local and global views to outperform DeepWalk in link prediction on BlogCatalog by 10-15% AUC. GNN variants like Graph Attention Networks weigh neighbor contributions dynamically, enhancing anomaly detection in financial transaction graphs akin to fraud in social lending platforms. These methods, trained on labeled subsets, reveal causal pathways in influence propagation, with causal GNNs incorporating interventions to disentangle correlation from causation in viral spread models. Scalable implementations handle billion-edge graphs via distributed frameworks like GraphX, though overfitting risks necessitate rigorous validation against held-out dynamics.

Privacy, Security, and Ethical Issues

Privacy Risks and Data Exposure

Social graphs, which map interpersonal connections and interactions within platforms, inherently facilitate risks by enabling the aggregation and of relational that can reveal sensitive personal beyond explicitly shared content. For instance, connections in a social graph can indicate political affiliations, conditions, or through homophily—tendency for similar individuals to link—allowing inferences even when direct disclosures are absent or protected. Empirical studies confirm that graph alone supports attribute attacks, where adversaries predict user traits like occupation or interests with accuracies exceeding 70% in controlled datasets by modeling patterns and network neighborhoods. A key vector for data exposure involves platform APIs designed to access social graph elements, as exemplified by the Facebook Graph API's role in the incident. In 2014–2015, the personality quiz app "thisisyourdigitallife" collected data from approximately 270,000 users who consented, but via API permissions, it harvested public profiles, likes, and social connections from their friends, ultimately affecting data from up to 87 million users worldwide. This exposure stemmed from lax consent mechanisms, where friends' data was accessed without their knowledge, enabling micro-targeted political advertising by for campaigns including the 2016 U.S. presidential election. 's subsequent audit revealed the data included identifiers, demographics, and inferred psychometrics derived from graph traversals, highlighting systemic vulnerabilities in friend-permission models that prioritized developer access over granular privacy controls. Further risks arise from shadow profiles, where platforms compile dossiers on non-users by cross-referencing uploaded contact lists, email hashes, and incidental mentions in posts or graphs. Facebook has amassed such profiles containing phone numbers, emails, and inferred connections for billions of individuals never registered on the service, as contacts shared by users inadvertently link non-members into the broader graph. This practice evades direct consent, exposing non-users to re-identification and targeted tracking; for example, hashed phone numbers from address books can match against graph data to build behavioral profiles for advertising, with limited opt-out options and no deletion guarantees. Regulatory scrutiny, including EU investigations, has noted that shadow profiling amplifies exposure risks during breaches, as leaked graph data can deanonymize outsiders via linkage to known users' networks. Data breaches compound these issues by dumping raw graph elements, such as friend lists and interaction histories, into public domains. In social engineering attacks, which accounted for 28% of 2025 breaches with confirmed disclosures, attackers exploit graph data to phish extended networks or mount inference-based extortion. Peer-reviewed analyses underscore that once exposed, social graph data resists anonymization due to unique structural signatures—like degree centrality or clustering coefficients—that enable node re-identification with over 90% precision in large networks. Platforms' reliance on centralized storage exacerbates this, as evidenced by recurring incidents where API misconfigurations or insider leaks have surfaced terabytes of relational data, underscoring the causal link between graph scale and exposure magnitude without robust differential privacy implementations.

Security Vulnerabilities and Responses

Social graphs, representing user connections in platforms like Twitter's follow graph, are susceptible to Sybil attacks, where adversaries create numerous fake identities to manipulate network influence, such as amplifying or evading bans. These attacks exploit the difficulty in verifying identities in large-scale, trust-based systems, potentially allowing a single to control disproportionate voting power or recommendation outcomes. For instance, in social overlays, Sybil nodes can form dense clusters mimicking legitimate subgraphs, undermining trust . Privacy inference attacks pose another core vulnerability, enabling adversaries to deduce sensitive user attributes or hidden links from partially observed graph data. Link prediction models, often powered by graph neural networks (GNNs), can infer private relationships with high accuracy, as demonstrated in studies where attackers reconstruct edges from embeddings, revealing associations like undisclosed friendships. Disparate impacts arise, with minority groups facing elevated risks; for example, structural signals in anonymized graphs can infer sexual orientation more readily for LGBT users due to homophily patterns. Membership inference attacks further exploit GNN outputs to determine if a user's data contributed to training sets, breaching anonymity in federated learning scenarios. Responses include trust-based defense protocols like SybilLimit, which accept edges from low-degree nodes preferentially to limit attacker infiltration, achieving near-optimal guarantees against random Sybil generation. Machine learning detectors analyze graph motifs or behavioral anomalies, such as rapid friend additions, to flag Sybil clusters with reported precision exceeding 90% in controlled evaluations. For inference attacks, adversarial training perturbs embeddings to minimize attribute leakage while preserving utility, as in methods that add noise calibrated to epsilon-differential privacy bounds. Graph anonymization techniques, including edge perturbation or degree-preserving randomization, mitigate link inference, though trade-offs in utility persist; empirical tests show up to 30% accuracy drops for attackers at minimal structural distortion. Platforms implement hybrid measures, combining these with identity verification (e.g., phone linking) and anomaly monitoring, reducing Sybil prevalence in networks like early Facebook implementations.

Ethical and Regulatory Debates

Control over proprietary social graphs by dominant platforms has prompted antitrust challenges, with regulators contending that exclusive access to users' connections and interactions creates insurmountable barriers to competition. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission sued Meta (formerly Facebook) in December 2020, alleging the company unlawfully maintained monopoly power in personal social networking markets by acquiring Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014—acquisitions that neutralized threats—and by denying rivals access to its social graph APIs, thereby preventing interoperability. European regulators have similarly pursued cases; the European Commission fined Meta €1.06 billion in 2023 for violating the General Data Protection Regulation through unlawful data transfers, highlighting how social graph data fuels cross-border dominance. Critics of these actions, including legal scholars, argue that antitrust enforcement risks infringing First Amendment protections by compelling platforms to share expressive or relational data, potentially chilling innovation without proven consumer harm. Data portability mandates represent another regulatory flashpoint, aiming to erode social graph lock-in by requiring platforms to enable user data transfers, yet sparking debates over feasibility and . The EU's GDPR, effective May 2018, users the right to receive , including social connections, in a structured format for transfer to competitors, though implementation has been limited by technical challenges like dynamic graph updates and lack of standardized formats. In the U.S., Utah's Digital Act, enacted in 2023 and amended in 2024, mandates real-time portability of social graphs and content from social media firms, positioning it as a tool to foster competition but drawing opposition for compelling disclosure of sensitive relational data without affirmative user consent for each connection. Proponents cite empirical evidence from limited pilots, such as Facebook's Download Your Information tool, showing portability boosts switching rates by up to 20% in experimental settings, while detractors warn of privacy erosion, as exporting graphs could expose non-consenting contacts to new platforms' risks. Ethically, debates center on the moral allocation of social graph ownership and the societal costs of centralized control, with first principles questioning whether users or platforms hold rightful claim to relational data generated through voluntary interactions. Platforms assert proprietary rights derived from network investments, as evidenced by Meta's 2018 policy restricting third-party graph access post-Cambridge Analytica, which harvested data from 87 million users without full consent in 2014-2015, underscoring risks of commodifying human ties for surveillance-driven revenue. Ethicists argue that monopoly over graphs enables unchecked power, such as algorithmic amplification of polarizing content—studies from 2018-2020 linked Facebook's graph-based feeds to increased polarization in 56 countries—yet attribute this less to inherent structure than to profit-maximizing incentives absent competition. Counterarguments emphasize causal realism: decentralized alternatives like Mastodon, with 10 million users by 2023, demonstrate graphs can thrive without monopoly harms, but adoption lags due to network effects, raising ethical questions about subsidizing portability at the expense of platform autonomy. Overall, these tensions reflect unresolved trade-offs between innovation from scale and harms from concentration, with empirical antitrust outcomes pending trials as of 2025.

Societal and Economic Impacts

Achievements in Connectivity and

Social graphs have enabled unprecedented scale in human connectivity by modeling relationships as traversable data structures, allowing platforms to connect billions of individuals across geographic divides. Facebook's social graph, introduced in , underpins a network serving 3.07 billion monthly as of Q4 2023, equating to roughly 38% of the global and facilitating trillions of daily interactions such as messaging, , and group formations. This supports real-time communication that sustains personal relationships, , and , with from connectivity metrics showing reduced effective distances in social interactions via shortest-path algorithms. Innovations in graph-based technologies have leveraged social graphs to develop advanced recommendation systems and personalization engines, enhancing user experiences through precise matching of content and connections. For example, graph algorithms power "people you may know" features by analyzing mutual connections and interaction patterns, which studies attribute to increased platform stickiness and viral growth. The exposure of social graph data via APIs has further catalyzed third-party innovations, such as social plugins on external sites that integrate login, sharing, and endorsement functionalities, expanding the web's social layer and enabling hybrid applications like social commerce interfaces. Economically, social graphs have driven value creation through network effects that amplify , job matching, and , with quantifying contributions to gains via faster knowledge . Platforms monetize these graphs primarily through , generating over $130 billion in for Meta in 2023 by utilizing relational for precision delivery. Additionally, graph-enabled have supported enterprise tools for and extraction, fostering innovations in sectors like and dependent on relational .

Criticisms and Empirical Assessments of Harms

Critics argue that social graphs, by mapping and leveraging interpersonal connections, exacerbate societal polarization through mechanisms like homophily—where users predominantly link with ideologically similar individuals—and algorithmic amplification of content along these edges, fostering chambers that reinforce biases and limit exposure to diverse . Empirical assessments, however, yield mixed results; a 2020 experiment deactivating accounts for U.S. users during an period found no significant reduction in or affective divides, suggesting that while graphs may facilitate polarized interactions, they do not solely drive them. Similarly, a 2024 analysis of 's algorithm changes aimed at reducing divisive content showed minimal impact on overall polarization metrics, with critics questioning the study's failure to adequately account for misinformation persistence in network structures. The structure of social graphs enables rapid diffusion of misinformation, as dense clusters and high-degree nodes (influencers) act as super-spreaders, with theoretical models demonstrating how fake news propagates faster in modular networks compared to accurate information due to novelty bias and emotional contagion along ties. Causal evidence from field experiments supports this: during the 2020 U.S. election, exposure to fact-checks via social ties reduced belief in false claims by 0.07 standard deviations, but untreated network effects sustained misinformation in echo chambers. A systematic review of 52 studies links social media disinformation, amplified by graph-based sharing, to heightened polarization, though many findings are correlational and confounded by user self-selection into homogeneous groups. Social graphs contribute to mental health harms by enabling social comparison, cyberbullying within cliques, and addictive engagement loops that exploit relational data for personalized feeds, correlating with increased depressive symptoms and anxiety. Longitudinal data from over 12,000 U.S. adolescents tracked from 2018–2021 shows that each additional hour of daily social media use predicts a 13% rise in depressive episodes over two years, mediated by disrupted sleep and interpersonal stress amplified through networked interactions. Meta-analyses of 83 studies confirm problematic social media use—often graph-driven via notifications from connections—positively associates with depression (r=0.25), anxiety (r=0.22), and stress, with experimental reductions in platform access yielding small but significant improvements in well-being. However, causation remains debated, as twin studies indicate genetic predispositions to both heavy use and mental distress explain up to 50% of the variance, rather than graphs unilaterally causing harm. Addiction-like behaviors emerge from graph-optimized algorithms prioritizing high-engagement content from ties, leading to compulsive checking; surveys of 1,787 young adults found problematic use predicts compromised , with network density correlating to FOMO () and subsequent distress. Empirical interventions, such as app limits reducing access by 20%, decreased addiction scores by 15–20% in randomized trials, underscoring how relational data fuels habitual loops. Critics, including platform executives, contend these designs intentionally exploit responses tied to social validation within graphs, though regulatory bodies like the U.S. General's 2023 advisory emphasizes correlational risks over proven for . Overall, while graphs undeniably scale harms through connectivity, rigorous assessments reveal effects moderated by traits and platform policies, with no consensus on net societal detriment.

Future Developments

Decentralized and Web3 Social Graphs

Decentralized social graphs in utilize infrastructure to represent user connections, identities, and interactions in a manner that individuals and portability of their , contrasting with the centralized silos of Web2 platforms where companies like Meta control proprietary graphs. These graphs employ cryptographic primitives such as wallet addresses, decentralized identifiers (DIDs), and non-fungible tokens (NFTs) to encode relationships on-chain, across applications without reliance on a single intermediary. This structure aims to mitigate risks of data monopolization and censorship by distributing control via consensus mechanisms, though implementation often involves layer-2 scaling solutions to address blockchain's inherent throughput limitations. Pioneering efforts in Web3 social graphs emerged around 2016 with platforms like Steemit, which integrated blockchain rewards for content creation and curation, establishing early models of token-incentivized networks. Subsequent advancements include the Lens Protocol, introduced in February 2022 by the team behind Aave on the Polygon blockchain, which functions as a permissionless social graph where user profiles are NFTs, follows are on-chain actions, and content is modular for developer composability. Similarly, Farcaster, launched in 2020 by former Coinbase engineers Dan Romero and Varun Srinivasan, operates as an Ethereum-based protocol on Optimism Layer 2, supporting multiple client applications with user identities (fIDs), registration, and storage managed on-chain via smart contracts like the Id Registry and Storage Registry, the latter enforcing periodic storage rent payments to allocate units for actions while pruning expired data in Hubs for efficiency. User data such as casts, reactions, follows, and channels is stored off-chain in a decentralized network of Hubs that synchronize via gossip protocol and Merkle trees for validation and integrity, anchoring critical ownership to the blockchain for verifiability and enabling true portability of social graphs across clients like Warpcast without losing connections or content. Key features include Frames, launched in 2024 and evolved into Frames v2 and Mini Apps for interactive embeds enabling NFT minting, polls, and transactions within feeds, and Snapchain introduced in 2025, a high-performance data layer using Malachite BFT consensus for over 10,000 transactions per second with sub-second finality optimized for social workloads. The fully open-source, permissionless protocol promotes interoperability, censorship resistance via on-chain identities and economic costs, and composability with Web3 tools. By October 2024, Farcaster had attracted over 500,000 active users, driven partly by integrations like frame-based mini-apps that embed interactive experiences directly in feeds. Proponents argue that Web3 social graphs foster causal resilience against platform failures or policy shifts, as users retain sovereign control over their connections—evidenced by features like cross-app profile migration in Lens, where a single NFT profile can underpin experiences in disparate decentralized applications (dApps). Empirical benefits include enhanced data portability, reducing lock-in effects observed in Web2, where switching platforms erases social capital; for instance, Lens enables shared network effects across 100+ integrated apps by mid-2024. However, these systems have not displaced centralized incumbents, with adoption constrained by network effects: Web2 platforms command billions of users, while leading Web3 protocols like Farcaster report daily actives in the low hundreds of thousands as of late 2024. Key challenges include scalability bottlenecks, where on-chain transactions incur fees averaging $0.01–$0.10 on but higher on base layers, exacerbating latency for real-time interactions compared to Web2's sub-second responses. User experience hurdles, such as and gas fees, deter non-technical audiences, with surveys indicating that over 70% of potential users cite as a barrier to entry in social tools. poses structural dilemmas, as precludes centralized takedowns, leading to persistent illicit material risks without effective on-chain ; protocols like Farcaster rely on voluntary hub operators for filtering, but this introduces partial centralization vulnerabilities. Despite these, ongoing developments, such as Farcaster's $DEGEN token tips distributing over $10 million in rewards by 2024, demonstrate viable economic models for incentivizing participation, though long-term sustainability depends on resolving interoperability standards amid fragmented ecosystems.

Integration with AI and Emerging Technologies

Graph neural networks (GNNs) represent a primary mechanism for integrating with social graphs, the of relational through iterative between nodes to capture dependencies and embeddings. Developed as an extension of convolutional neural networks for non-Euclidean , GNNs facilitate tasks such as node , , and graph in social contexts, where users form nodes and connections denote relationships like friendships or follows. This approach outperforms traditional on graph-structured by explicitly modeling neighborhood influences, with variants like GraphSAGE and GAT achieving state-of-the-art results in benchmarks as of 2021. In recommendation systems, GNNs fuse social graphs with user-item interactions to enhance ; for example, models aggregating signals from user-user social ties alongside consumption improve prediction accuracy by 5-10% over matrix baselines in datasets like and Epinions, as demonstrated in 2019 frameworks. Similarly, GNNs support in social by identifying outliers in embedding spaces, aiding fraud detection where relational patterns reveal coordinated behaviors, with applications processing millions of nodes in real-time via scalable implementations. Beyond core analysis, AI integration extends to predictive modeling in social network analysis, where GNNs forecast information diffusion or community evolution; studies from 2023 show these models reducing error rates in virality prediction by leveraging temporal graph snapshots. Emerging applications include AI agents constructing dynamic social graphs for multi-agent coordination, as surveyed in 2025 works on graph-empowered agents, enabling autonomous decision-making in simulated societies. Integration with large language models further augments this by injecting graph-derived relational context into prompts, improving tasks like entity resolution across networks, though scalability remains constrained by computational demands on billion-scale graphs. For broader emerging technologies, social graphs inform AI-driven spatial computing in virtual environments, where GNNs model user interactions in metaverses to predict engagement; prototypes as of use graph embeddings to simulate social dynamics in VR platforms, enhancing immersion without direct hardware citations. However, challenges persist in handling heterogeneous data from IoT-linked social feeds, where federated GNN variants preserve privacy during training across distributed nodes. These advancements underscore AI's role in evolving social graphs from static maps to adaptive, predictive structures, contingent on robust edge representations to mitigate biases in sparse connections.

References

  1. http://infolab.stanford.edu/~ullman/mmds/ch10.pdf
  2. https://wjarr.com/sites/default/files/WJARR-2024-0249.pdf
  3. https://www.economist.com/business/2007/10/18/social-graph-iti
  4. https://www.puppygraph.com/blog/social-network-graphs
  5. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jan/23/facebook-graph-search-privacy-concerns
  6. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/cambridge-analytica-controversy/
  7. https://hbr.org/2015/02/the-rise-of-social-graphs-for-businesses
  8. https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/14-15-networks-spring-2022/mit14_15s22_lec2.pdf
  9. https://www.irisa.fr/kerdata/people/Alexandru.Costan/bigdata/CM7.pdf
  10. https://towardsdatascience.com/social-network-analysis-community-detection-2b19e836c76c
  11. https://about.fb.com/news/2007/05/facebook-unveils-platform-for-developers-of-social-applications/
  12. https://hal.usc.edu/chugg/docs/social_networks/EE599_Chugg_Graphs_SocNets_part1.pdf
  13. https://visiblenetworklabs.com/guides/social-network-analysis-101/
  14. https://visiblenetworklabs.com/2024/05/07/uncover-the-fascinating-history-of-social-network-analysis-sna/
  15. https://psychodrama.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/MorenosSociometry-AnnEHale.pdf
  16. https://www.cmu.edu/joss/content/articles/volume1/freeman.pdf
  17. https://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/what-your-business-needs-to-know-about-social-graphs/
  18. https://math.gordon.edu/courses/mat230/handouts/graphs.pdf
  19. https://web.math.princeton.edu/math_alive/5/Lab1/Defs.html
  20. https://mathbooks.unl.edu/Contemporary/sec-graph-intro.html
  21. https://stanford.edu/~rezab/discrete/Notes/2.pdf
  22. https://economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/inline-files/Lecture%25202%2520-%2520Graph%2520Theory%2520and%2520Social%2520Networks.pdf
  23. https://trotter.math.gatech.edu/math-3012/5-Graph_Theory_Basics.pdf
  24. https://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~snijders/D1pm_Graph_theory_basics.pdf
  25. https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/70477/6-042j-fall-2002/contents/readings/ln4.pdf
  26. https://brilliant.org/wiki/social-networks/
  27. https://cs.brown.edu/courses/cs100/lectures/lecture25.pdf
  28. https://olizardo.github.io/networks-textbook/lesson-graphs-ties.html
  29. https://graph.build/resources/graph-models
  30. https://hypermode.com/blog/edges-properties-node-graph-databases
  31. https://www.cmu.edu/joss/content/articles/volume16/Shafie.pdf
  32. https://www.zdnet.com/article/facebooks-zuckerberg-uncorks-the-social-graph/
  33. https://engineering.fb.com/2013/03/06/core-infra/under-the-hood-building-out-the-infrastructure-for-graph-search/
  34. https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/atc13/atc13-bronson.pdf
  35. https://engineering.fb.com/2013/06/25/core-infra/tao-the-power-of-the-graph/
  36. https://developers.facebook.com/docs/graph-api/overview/
  37. https://medium.com/swlh/an-introduction-to-facebooks-system-architecture-47cfcf597101
  38. https://about.fb.com/news/2007/11/facebook-unveils-facebook-ads/
  39. https://stanford.edu/~rezab/papers/wtf_overview.pdf
  40. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2567948.2576939
  41. https://archives.iw3c2.org/www2014/proceedings/companion/p493.pdf
  42. https://blog.x.com/engineering/en_us/a/2010/introducing-flockdb
  43. https://medium.com/%40lazygeek78/design-of-x-twitter-7233483b5d31
  44. https://blog.x.com/engineering/en_us/topics/open-source/2023/twitter-recommendation-algorithm
  45. https://www.news.aakashg.com/p/the-real-twitter-files-the-algorithm
  46. https://engineering.linkedin.com/teams/data/data-infrastructure/graph
  47. https://www.cdotrends.com/story/18142/linkedin-shares-more-about-its-graph-database
  48. https://snap.stanford.edu/data/ego-Gplus.html
  49. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263005450_New_Kid_on_the_Block_Exploring_the_Google_Social_Graph
  50. https://blog.squarelovin.com/influencer-marketing/content-graph-vs-social-social-graph/
  51. https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/tiktok-and-the-fall-of-the-social-media-giants
  52. https://www.pushgroup.co.uk/blog/how-tiktok-leveraged-the-interest-graph-to-redefine-social-media
  53. https://ogp.me/
  54. http://computationalculture.net/divide-and-share/
  55. https://getstream.io/glossary/open-graph-protocol/
  56. https://www.opengraph.xyz/blog/the-ultimate-guide-to-open-graph-images
  57. https://www.zerofox.com/blog/open-graph-protocol-abuse/
  58. https://docs.progress.com/bundle/marklogic-server-develop-with-semantic-graphs-10/page/topics/intro.html
  59. https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/knowledge-graph
  60. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590291122000912
  61. https://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.3701
  62. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590005623000012
  63. https://anonyome.com/resources/blog/what-are-social-graphs-and-interest-graphs-and-do-i-have-them/
  64. https://www.singlegrain.com/blog/ms/social-media-algorithm/
  65. https://madgicx.com/blog/social-graph-vs-interest-graph
  66. https://www.theshelf.com/the-blog/social-media-algorithms-interest-graph-vs-social-graph/
  67. https://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2022/09/12/the-shift-from-social-graphs-to-socio-interest-graphs-within-social-media-algorithms/
  68. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2851613.2852007
  69. https://research.facebook.com/publications/one-trillion-edges-graph-processing-at-facebook-scale/
  70. https://inria.hal.science/hal-01444505/document
  71. https://research.facebook.com/publications/tao-facebooks-distributed-data-store-for-the-social-graph/
  72. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2968216
  73. https://vldb.org/pvldb/vol11/p420-sahu.pdf
  74. https://arxiv.org/html/2411.06392v1
  75. https://www.vldb.org/pvldb/vol15/p3782-fan.pdf
  76. https://ddu.ext.unb.ca/6634/Lecture_notes/Lecture_4_centrality_measure.pdf
  77. https://memgraph.com/blog/betweenness-centrality-and-other-centrality-measures-network-analysis
  78. https://visiblenetworklabs.com/2021/04/16/understanding-network-centrality/
  79. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020025520302395
  80. https://arxiv.org/html/2502.04341v1
  81. https://www.analyticsvidhya.com/blog/2020/04/community-detection-graphs-networks/
  82. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7508227/
  83. https://cs.carleton.edu/faculty/dlibenno/papers/link-prediction/link.pdf
  84. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-28922-9
  85. https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.04481
  86. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220618582_A_Critical_Review_of_Centrality_Measures_in_Social_Networks
  87. https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.08613
  88. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1084804520301909
  89. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.10824
  90. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1526709.1526899
  91. https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity16/technical-sessions/presentation/gong
  92. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-analytica-facebook-influence-us-election
  93. https://internetpolicy.mit.edu/blog-2018-fb-cambridgeanalytica/
  94. https://medium.com/tow-center/the-graph-api-key-points-in-the-facebook-and-cambridge-analytica-debacle-b69fe692d747
  95. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5544396/
  96. https://techxplore.com/news/2023-09-shadow-profiles.html
  97. https://epic.org/issues/consumer-privacy/social-media-privacy/
  98. https://secureframe.com/blog/data-breach-statistics
  99. https://arxiv.org/html/2507.15124
  100. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3720553.3746686
  101. https://www.cs.wm.edu/~liqun/paper/infocom12_1.pdf
  102. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4531141/
  103. https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.13072
  104. https://www.usenix.org/system/files/sec22summer_zhang-zhikun.pdf
  105. https://petsymposium.org/popets/2023/popets-2023-0103.pdf
  106. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3627106.3627115
  107. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11227-023-05677-3
  108. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9756746/
  109. https://omidyar.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Roadmap-for-an-Antitrust-Case-Against-Facebook.pdf
  110. https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/first-amendment-problems-with-using-antitrust-law-against-social-media-platforms-content-decisions/
  111. https://stratechery.com/2017/the-gdpr-and-facebook-and-google-intelligent-tracking-prevention-data-portability-and-social-graphs/
  112. https://ash.harvard.edu/resources/utah-digital-choice-act-reshaping-social-media/
  113. https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/Data%2520Portability%2520and%2520Platform%2520Competition%2520-%2520Is%2520User%2520Data%2520Exported%2520From%2520Facebook%2520Actually%2520Useful%2520to%2520Competitors.pdf
  114. https://www.aei.org/op-eds/why-utahs-simple-social-media-reform-could-set-a-dangerous-privacy-precedent/
  115. https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/the-antitrust-duty-to-deal-in-the-age-of-big-tech
  116. https://stratechery.com/2017/facebook-and-the-cost-of-monopoly/
  117. https://scholarship.law.uc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1068&context=ipclj
  118. https://datareportal.com/social-media-users
  119. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1107549108
  120. https://professional.mit.edu/news/articles/5-top-ai-applications-graph-algorithms
  121. https://www.nber.org/reporter/2021number1/economic-effects-social-networks
  122. https://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~jstroebe/PDF/BCKS_Networks.pdf
  123. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0176268022000623
  124. https://siepr.stanford.edu/news/facebook-went-away-political-divides-didnt-budge
  125. https://www.science.org/content/article/study-found-facebook-algorithm-didnt-promote-political-polarization-critics-doubt
  126. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23808985.2021.1976070
  127. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2834349
  128. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11469-024-01283-3
  129. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9893026/
  130. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11594359/
  131. https://mental.jmir.org/2022/4/e33450
  132. https://www.gate.com/learn/course/introduction-to-web3-social-graphs-farcaster-lens/foundations-of-web3-social-graphs
  133. https://webisoft.com/articles/web3-social-graph/
  134. https://onchain.org/magazine/what-is-a-social-graph-in-web3-desoc/
  135. https://www.binance.com/en/square/post/982501
  136. https://zenmedia.com/blog/what-is-lens-protocol/
  137. https://dappradar.com/blog/lens-protocol-bringing-social-media-to-the-blockchain
  138. https://www.coinbase.com/learn/crypto-basics/what-is-the-decentralized-social-media-platform-farcaster
  139. https://docs.farcaster.xyz/learn/
  140. https://docs.farcaster.xyz/
  141. https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2024/11/04/from-control-to-community-farcaster-and-the-future-of-social-media/
  142. https://github.com/farcasterxyz/protocol
  143. https://medium.com/%40barrymartinjr/the-power-of-web3-social-graphs-revolutionizing-social-media-for-businesses-6880d59e80be
  144. https://www.coinbase.com/web3/dapps/lens-protocol
  145. https://onchain.org/magazine/decentralized-social-media-is-desoc-ready-for-prime-time/
  146. https://dappradar.com/blog/farcaster-beginners-guide-exploring-the-decentralized-socialfi-protocol
  147. https://chainstack.com/decentralized-social-networks/
  148. https://medium.com/%40BingVentures/status-quo-challenges-and-prospect-of-decentralized-social-networks-18f9584f2e8d
  149. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364924001250
  150. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666651021000012
  151. https://distill.pub/2021/gnn-intro
  152. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.07243
  153. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-17903-4
  154. https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4893/16/11/515
  155. https://arxiv.org/html/2506.18019v1
  156. https://jaxon.ai/the-confluence-of-social-network-graphs-and-large-language-models/
  157. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10892106
  158. https://www.acejournal.org/machine%2520learning/data%2520science/2025/06/09/graph-neural-networks-for-social-data.html
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.