As the number and the diversity of news outlets on the Web grow, so does the opportunity for "alternative" sources of information to emerge. Using large social networks like Twitter and Facebook, misleading, false, or agenda-driven information can quickly and seamlessly spread online, deceiving people or influencing their opinions. Also, the increased engagement of tightly knit communities, such as Reddit and 4chan, further compounds the problem, as their users initiate and propagate alternative information, not only within their own communities, but also to different ones as well as various social media. In fact, these platforms have become an important piece of the modern information ecosystem, which, thus far, has not been studied as a whole. In this paper, we begin to fill this gap by studying mainstream and alternative news shared on Twitter, Reddit, and 4chan. By analyzing millions of posts around several axes, we measure how mainstream and alternative news flows between these platforms. Our results indicate that alt-right communities within 4chan and Reddit can have a surprising level of influence on Twitter, providing evidence that "fringe" communities often succeed in spreading alternative news to mainstream social networks and the greater Web.
Disinformation dynamics. @cite_35 study the characteristics of rumor propagation on Twitter. They analyze a corpus of 1.7B tweets, covering three and a half years of Twitter data, and extract 104 viral events, which are then annotated by human coders. They study debunked stories from false information busting sites such as Snopes and compare temporal, linguistics, and structural characteristics to legitimate information. @cite_23 also use stories that Snopes determined as false to study the propagation and the evolution of false information on Facebook, finding it to be quite bursty, and that posts containing a comment with a link to Snopes are more likely to get deleted. @cite_31 study the presence of hoaxes in Wikipedia articles. They report that while most are detected quickly and have little impact, some end up cited widely on the Web.
@cite_35 @cite_31 @cite_23
2032897813 2340254858
The problem of identifying rumors is of practical importance especially in online social networks, since information can diffuse more rapidly and widely than the offline counterpart. In this paper, we identify characteristics of rumors by examining the following three aspects of diffusion: temporal, structural, and linguistic. For the temporal characteristics, we propose a new periodic time series model that considers daily and external shock cycles, where the model demonstrates that rumor likely have fluctuations over time. We also identify key structural and linguistic differences in the spread of rumors and non-rumors. Our selected features classify rumors with high precision and recall in the range of 87 to 92 , that is higher than other states of the arts on rumor classification. Wikipedia is a major source of information for many people. However, false information on Wikipedia raises concerns about its credibility. One way in which false information may be presented on Wikipedia is in the form of hoax articles, i.e., articles containing fabricated facts about nonexistent entities or events. In this paper we study false information on Wikipedia by focusing on the hoax articles that have been created throughout its history. We make several contributions. First, we assess the real-world impact of hoax articles by measuring how long they survive before being debunked, how many pageviews they receive, and how heavily they are referred to by documents on the Web. We find that, while most hoaxes are detected quickly and have little impact on Wikipedia, a small number of hoaxes survive long and are well cited across the Web. Second, we characterize the nature of successful hoaxes by comparing them to legitimate articles and to failed hoaxes that were discovered shortly after being created. We find characteristic differences in terms of article structure and content, embeddedness into the rest of Wikipedia, and features of the editor who created the hoax. Third, we successfully apply our findings to address a series of classification tasks, most notably to determine whether a given article is a hoax. And finally, we describe and evaluate a task involving humans distinguishing hoaxes from non-hoaxes. We find that humans are not particularly good at the task and that our automated classifier outperforms them by a big margin.