Society's reliance on social media as a primary source of news has spawned a renewed focus on the spread of misinformation. In this work, we identify the differences in how social media accounts identified as bots react to news sources of varying credibility, regardless of the veracity of the content those sources have shared. We analyze bot and human responses annotated using a fine-grained model that labels responses as being an answer, appreciation, agreement, disagreement, an elaboration, humor, or a negative reaction. We present key findings of our analysis into the prevalence of bots, the variety and speed of bot and human reactions, and the disparity in authorship of reaction tweets between these two sub-populations. We observe that bots are responsible for 9-15 of the reactions to sources of any given type but comprise only 7-10 of accounts responsible for reaction-tweets; trusted news sources have the highest proportion of humans who reacted; bots respond with significantly shorter delays than humans when posting answer-reactions in response to sources identified as propaganda. Finally, we report significantly different inequality levels in reaction rates for accounts identified as bots vs not.
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. This study determines the major difference between rumors and non-rumors and explores rumor classification performance levels over varying time windows—from the first three days to nearly two months. A comprehensive set of user, structural, linguistic, and temporal features was examined and their relative strength was compared from near-complete date of Twitter. Our contribution is at providing deep insight into the cumulative spreading patterns of rumors over time as well as at tracking the precise changes in predictive powers across rumor features. Statistical analysis finds that structural and temporal features distinguish rumors from non-rumors over a long-term window, yet they are not available during the initial propagation phase. In contrast, user and linguistic features are readily available and act as a good indicator during the initial propagation phase. Based on these findings, we suggest a new rumor classification algorithm that achieves competitive accuracy over both short and long time windows. These findings provide new insights for explaining rumor mechanism theories and for identifying features of early rumor detection. 