The 2016 U.S. presidential election has witnessed the major role of Twitter in the year's most important political event. Candidates used this social media platform extensively for online campaigns. Meanwhile, social media has been filled with rumors, which might have had huge impacts on voters' decisions. In this paper, we present a thorough analysis of rumor tweets from the followers of two presidential candidates: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. To overcome the difficulty of labeling a large amount of tweets as training data, we detect rumor tweets by matching them with verified rumor articles. We analyze over 8 million tweets collected from the followers of the two candidates. Our results provide answers to several primary concerns about rumors in this election, including: which side of the followers posted the most rumors, who posted these rumors, what rumors they posted, and when they posted these rumors. The insights of this paper can help us understand the online rumor behaviors in American politics.
Although machine learning approaches are very effective under some circumstances, they also have drawbacks. The supervised learning process requires a large amount of labeled training data which are expensive to obtain for the rumor detection problem. They derive features in a black box" and the classification results are difficult to interpret. In @cite_8 , a lexicon-based method is proposed for detecting rumors in a huge tweet stream. They extracted some words and phrases, like rumor", is it true", unconfirmed", for matching rumor tweets. Their lexicon is relatively small, thus the detection results tend to have high precision but low recall of rumors.
@cite_8
1638051351
Many previous techniques identify trending topics in social media, even topics that are not pre-defined. We present a technique to identify trending rumors, which we define as topics that include disputed factual claims. Putting aside any attempt to assess whether the rumors are true or false, it is valuable to identify trending rumors as early as possible. It is extremely difficult to accurately classify whether every individual post is or is not making a disputed factual claim. We are able to identify trending rumors by recasting the problem as finding entire clusters of posts whose topic is a disputed factual claim. The key insight is that when there is a rumor, even though most posts do not raise questions about it, there may be a few that do. If we can find signature text phrases that are used by a few people to express skepticism about factual claims and are rarely used to express anything else, we can use those as detectors for rumor clusters. Indeed, we have found a few phrases that seem to be used exactly that way, including: "Is this true?", "Really?", and "What?". Relatively few posts related to any particular rumor use any of these enquiry phrases, but lots of rumor diffusion processes have some posts that do and have them quite early in the diffusion. We have developed a technique based on searching for the enquiry phrases, clustering similar posts together, and then collecting related posts that do not contain these simple phrases. We then rank the clusters by their likelihood of really containing a disputed factual claim. The detector, which searches for the very rare but very informative phrases, combined with clustering and a classifier on the clusters, yields surprisingly good performance. On a typical day of Twitter, about a third of the top 50 clusters were judged to be rumors, a high enough precision that human analysts might be willing to sift through them.