阴谋与谣言纠正:社交媒体用户评论分析

Gilang Maulana Majid, Anjan Pal
{"title":"阴谋与谣言纠正:社交媒体用户评论分析","authors":"Gilang Maulana Majid, Anjan Pal","doi":"10.1109/ICICT50521.2020.00058","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study explores online users' comments in response to rumor corrections. Specifically, it considers a video rumor correction that was posted on YouTube and debunked a rumor in the wake of Indonesia's post-election protests and riots. Content analysis was employed on 500 comments that were posted in response to the rumor-corrections. This study finds that the volume of anti-correction comments (53.60%) was approximately five times greater than the volume of the pro-correction comments (10.80%). In-depth analysis of anti-correction comments revealed different voices, including rejection of evidence, distrust in authorities, critical inspection of evidence, and lack of sufficient evidence. Essentially, this study shows that rumor corrections must be followed-up in order to gain public trust.","PeriodicalId":445000,"journal":{"name":"2020 3rd International Conference on Information and Computer Technologies (ICICT)","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Conspiracy and Rumor Correction: Analysis of Social Media Users' Comments\",\"authors\":\"Gilang Maulana Majid, Anjan Pal\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/ICICT50521.2020.00058\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study explores online users' comments in response to rumor corrections. Specifically, it considers a video rumor correction that was posted on YouTube and debunked a rumor in the wake of Indonesia's post-election protests and riots. Content analysis was employed on 500 comments that were posted in response to the rumor-corrections. This study finds that the volume of anti-correction comments (53.60%) was approximately five times greater than the volume of the pro-correction comments (10.80%). In-depth analysis of anti-correction comments revealed different voices, including rejection of evidence, distrust in authorities, critical inspection of evidence, and lack of sufficient evidence. Essentially, this study shows that rumor corrections must be followed-up in order to gain public trust.\",\"PeriodicalId\":445000,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2020 3rd International Conference on Information and Computer Technologies (ICICT)\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2020 3rd International Conference on Information and Computer Technologies (ICICT)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/ICICT50521.2020.00058\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2020 3rd International Conference on Information and Computer Technologies (ICICT)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ICICT50521.2020.00058","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

本研究探讨网络用户对谣言更正的回应。具体来说,它考虑了YouTube上发布的一段视频谣言更正,并揭穿了印度尼西亚选举后抗议和骚乱后的谣言。内容分析对500条回复谣言更正的评论进行了分析。本研究发现,反对纠正的评论数量(53.60%)大约是支持纠正的评论数量(10.80%)的5倍。对反纠正言论进行深入分析,可以发现否定证据、不信任权威、批判证据、证据不足等不同声音。从本质上讲,本研究表明,为了获得公众的信任,谣言的纠正必须得到跟进。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Conspiracy and Rumor Correction: Analysis of Social Media Users' Comments
This study explores online users' comments in response to rumor corrections. Specifically, it considers a video rumor correction that was posted on YouTube and debunked a rumor in the wake of Indonesia's post-election protests and riots. Content analysis was employed on 500 comments that were posted in response to the rumor-corrections. This study finds that the volume of anti-correction comments (53.60%) was approximately five times greater than the volume of the pro-correction comments (10.80%). In-depth analysis of anti-correction comments revealed different voices, including rejection of evidence, distrust in authorities, critical inspection of evidence, and lack of sufficient evidence. Essentially, this study shows that rumor corrections must be followed-up in order to gain public trust.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信