Social Media COVID-19 Misinformation Interventions Viewed Positively, But Have Limited Impact

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2012.11055v1
• Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2020 00:02:04 GMT
• Title: Social Media COVID-19 Misinformation Interventions Viewed Positively, But Have Limited Impact
• Authors: Christine Geeng, Tiona Francisco, Jevin West, Franziska Roesner
• Abstract summary: Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter rolled out design interventions, including banners linking to authoritative resources and more specific "false information" labels. We found that most participants indicated a positive attitude towards interventions, particularly post-specific labels for misinformation. Still, the majority of participants discovered or corrected misinformation through other means, most commonly web searches, suggesting room for platforms to do more to stem the spread of COVID-19 misinformation.
• Score: 16.484676698355884
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Amidst COVID-19 misinformation spreading, social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter rolled out design interventions, including banners linking to authoritative resources and more specific "false information" labels. In late March 2020, shortly after these interventions began to appear, we conducted an exploratory mixed-methods survey (N = 311) to learn: what are social media users' attitudes towards these interventions, and to what extent do they self-report effectiveness? We found that most participants indicated a positive attitude towards interventions, particularly post-specific labels for misinformation. Still, the majority of participants discovered or corrected misinformation through other means, most commonly web searches, suggesting room for platforms to do more to stem the spread of COVID-19 misinformation.

Related papers

• MisinfoEval: Generative AI in the Era of "Alternative Facts" [50.069577397751175]
  We introduce a framework for generating and evaluating large language model (LLM) based misinformation interventions. We present (1) an experiment with a simulated social media environment to measure effectiveness of misinformation interventions, and (2) a second experiment with personalized explanations tailored to the demographics and beliefs of users. Our findings confirm that LLM-based interventions are highly effective at correcting user behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-13T18:16:50Z)
• Unveiling the Hidden Agenda: Biases in News Reporting and Consumption [59.55900146668931]
  We build a six-year dataset on the Italian vaccine debate and adopt a Bayesian latent space model to identify narrative and selection biases. We found a nonlinear relationship between biases and engagement, with higher engagement for extreme positions. Analysis of news consumption on Twitter reveals common audiences among news outlets with similar ideological positions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-14T18:58:42Z)
• The Morbid Realities of Social Media: An Investigation into the Misinformation Shared by the Deceased Victims of COVID-19 [0.4995343972237368]
  We study a unique dataset of Facebook posts by users who shared and believed in Covid-19 misinformation before succumbing to Covid-19 often resulting in death. Our analysis reveals the overwhelming politicization of Covid-19 through the prevalence of anti-government themes. Results from this study bring insights into the responsibility of political elites in shaping public discourse and the platform's role in dampening the reach of harmful misinformation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-20T19:47:27Z)
• Adherence to Misinformation on Social Media Through Socio-Cognitive and Group-Based Processes [79.79659145328856]
  We argue that when misinformation proliferates, this happens because the social media environment enables adherence to misinformation. We make the case that polarization and misinformation adherence are closely tied.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-30T12:34:24Z)
• Characterizing User Susceptibility to COVID-19 Misinformation on Twitter [40.0762273487125]
  This study attempts to answer it who constitutes the population vulnerable to the online misinformation in the pandemic. We distinguish different types of users, ranging from social bots to humans with various level of engagement with COVID-related misinformation. We then identify users' online features and situational predictors that correlate with their susceptibility to COVID-19 misinformation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-20T13:31:15Z)
• News consumption and social media regulations policy [70.31753171707005]
  We analyze two social media that enforced opposite moderation methods, Twitter and Gab, to assess the interplay between news consumption and content regulation. Our results show that the presence of moderation pursued by Twitter produces a significant reduction of questionable content. The lack of clear regulation on Gab results in the tendency of the user to engage with both types of content, showing a slight preference for the questionable ones which may account for a dissing/endorsement behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-07T19:26:32Z)
• Misinfo Belief Frames: A Case Study on Covid & Climate News [49.979419711713795]
  We propose a formalism for understanding how readers perceive the reliability of news and the impact of misinformation. We introduce the Misinfo Belief Frames (MBF) corpus, a dataset of 66k inferences over 23.5k headlines. Our results using large-scale language modeling to predict misinformation frames show that machine-generated inferences can influence readers' trust in news headlines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-18T09:50:11Z)
• "Thought I'd Share First" and Other Conspiracy Theory Tweets from the COVID-19 Infodemic: Exploratory Study [0.0]
  Health-related misinformation threatens adherence to public health messaging. Monitoring misinformation on social media is critical to understanding the evolution of ideas that have potentially negative public health impacts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-14T17:24:59Z)
• Predicting Misinformation and Engagement in COVID-19 Twitter Discourse in the First Months of the Outbreak [1.2059055685264957]
  We examine nearly 505K COVID-19-related tweets from the initial months of the pandemic to understand misinformation as a function of bot-behavior and engagement. We found that real users tweet both facts and misinformation, while bots tweet proportionally more misinformation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-03T18:47:34Z)
• Causal Understanding of Fake News Dissemination on Social Media [50.4854427067898]
  We argue that it is critical to understand what user attributes potentially cause users to share fake news. In fake news dissemination, confounders can be characterized by fake news sharing behavior that inherently relates to user attributes and online activities. We propose a principled approach to alleviating selection bias in fake news dissemination.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-20T19:37:04Z)
• Characterizing COVID-19 Misinformation Communities Using a Novel Twitter Dataset [9.60966128833701]
  We present a methodology and analyses to characterize the two competing COVID-19 misinformation communities online. Our analyses show that COVID-19 misinformed communities are denser, and more organized than informed communities. Our sociolinguistic analyses suggest that COVID-19 informed users tend to use more narratives than misinformed users.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-03T11:44:22Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.