In the age of social news, it is important to understand the types of reactions that are evoked from news sources with various levels of credibility. In the present work we seek to better understand how users react to trusted and deceptive news sources across two popular, and very different, social media platforms. To that end, (1) we develop a model to classify user reactions into one of nine types, such as answer, elaboration, and question, etc, and (2) we measure the speed and the type of reaction for trusted and deceptive news sources for 10.8M Twitter posts and 6.2M Reddit comments. We show that there are significant differences in the speed and the type of reactions between trusted and deceptive news sources on Twitter, but far smaller differences on Reddit.
As we noted above, most studies that examine misinformation spread focus on individual events such as natural disasters @cite_15 , political elections @cite_11 , or crises @cite_16 and examine the response to the event on social media. A recent study by Vosoughi al found that news stories that were fact-checked and found to be false spread faster and to more people than news items found to be true. In contrast, our methodology considers immediate reactions to news of varying credibility, so we can determine whether certain reactions or reactions to trusted or deceptive news sources evoke more or faster responses from social media users.
@cite_15 @cite_16 @cite_11
2295893477 2164082612 2724523750
We investigated the differential diffusion of all of the verified true and false news stories distributed on Twitter from 2006 to 2017. The data comprise 126,000 stories tweeted by 3 million people more than 4.5 million times. We classified news as true or false using information from six independent fact-checking organizations that exhibited 95 to 98 agreement on the classifications. Falsehood diffused significantly farther, faster, deeper, and more broadly than the truth in all categories of information, and the effects were more pronounced for false political news than for false news about terrorism, natural disasters, science, urban legends, or financial information. We found that false news was more novel than true news, which suggests that people were more likely to share novel information. Whereas false stories inspired fear, disgust, and surprise in replies, true stories inspired anticipation, sadness, joy, and trust. Contrary to conventional wisdom, robots accelerated the spread of true and false news at the same rate, implying that false news spreads more than the truth because humans, not robots, are more likely to spread it. The prevalence of misinformation within social media and online communities can undermine public security and distract attention from important issues. Fact-checking interventions, in which users cite fact-checking websites such as Snopes.com and FactCheck.org, are a strategy users can employ to refute false claims made by their peers. While laboratory research suggests such interventions are not effective in persuading people to abandon false ideas, little work considers how such interventions are actually deployed in real-world conversations. Using approximately 1,600 interventions observed on Twitter between 2012 and 2013, we examine the contexts and consequences of fact-checking interventions.W e focus in particular on the social relationship between the individual who issues the fact-check and the individual whose facts are challenged. Our results indicate that though fact-checking interventions are most commonly issued by strangers, they are more likely to draw user attention and responses when they come from friends. Finally, we discuss implications for designing more effective interventions against misinformation. The computer science research community has became increasingly interested in the study of social media due to their pervasiveness in the everyday life of millions of individuals. Methodological questions and technical challenges abound as more and more data from social platforms become available for analysis. This data deluge not only yields the unprecedented opportunity to unravel questions about online individuals' behavior at scale, but also allows to explore the potential perils that the massive adoption of social media brings to our society. These communication channels provide plenty of incentives (both economical and social) and opportunities for abuse. As social media activity became increasingly intertwined with the events in the offline world, individuals and organizations have found ways to exploit these platforms to spread misinformation, to attack and smear others, or to deceive and manipulate. During crises, social media have been effectively used for emergency response, but fear-mongering actions have also triggered mass hysteria and panic. Criminal gangs and terrorist organizations like ISIS adopt social media for propaganda and recruitment. Synthetic activity and social bots have been used to coordinate orchestrated astroturf campaigns, to manipulate political elections and the stock market. The lack of effective content verification systems on many of these platforms, including Twitter and Facebook, rises concerns when younger users become exposed to cyber-bulling, harassment, or hate speech, inducing risks like depression and suicide. This article illustrates some of the recent advances facing these issues and discusses what it remains to be done, including the chal