社区事实核查引发道德愤怒,回应社交媒体上的误导性帖子

Yuwei Chuai, Anastasia Sergeeva, Gabriele Lenzini, Nicolas Pröllochs
{"title":"社区事实核查引发道德愤怒,回应社交媒体上的误导性帖子","authors":"Yuwei Chuai, Anastasia Sergeeva, Gabriele Lenzini, Nicolas Pröllochs","doi":"arxiv-2409.08829","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Displaying community fact-checks is a promising approach to reduce engagement\nwith misinformation on social media. However, how users respond to misleading\ncontent emotionally after community fact-checks are displayed on posts is\nunclear. Here, we employ quasi-experimental methods to causally analyze changes\nin sentiments and (moral) emotions in replies to misleading posts following the\ndisplay of community fact-checks. Our evaluation is based on a large-scale\npanel dataset comprising N=2,225,260 replies across 1841 source posts from X's\nCommunity Notes platform. We find that informing users about falsehoods through\ncommunity fact-checks significantly increases negativity (by 7.3%), anger (by\n13.2%), disgust (by 4.7%), and moral outrage (by 16.0%) in the corresponding\nreplies. These results indicate that users perceive spreading misinformation as\na violation of social norms and that those who spread misinformation should\nexpect negative reactions once their content is debunked. We derive important\nimplications for the design of community-based fact-checking systems.","PeriodicalId":501032,"journal":{"name":"arXiv - CS - Social and Information Networks","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Community Fact-Checks Trigger Moral Outrage in Replies to Misleading Posts on Social Media\",\"authors\":\"Yuwei Chuai, Anastasia Sergeeva, Gabriele Lenzini, Nicolas Pröllochs\",\"doi\":\"arxiv-2409.08829\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Displaying community fact-checks is a promising approach to reduce engagement\\nwith misinformation on social media. However, how users respond to misleading\\ncontent emotionally after community fact-checks are displayed on posts is\\nunclear. Here, we employ quasi-experimental methods to causally analyze changes\\nin sentiments and (moral) emotions in replies to misleading posts following the\\ndisplay of community fact-checks. Our evaluation is based on a large-scale\\npanel dataset comprising N=2,225,260 replies across 1841 source posts from X's\\nCommunity Notes platform. We find that informing users about falsehoods through\\ncommunity fact-checks significantly increases negativity (by 7.3%), anger (by\\n13.2%), disgust (by 4.7%), and moral outrage (by 16.0%) in the corresponding\\nreplies. These results indicate that users perceive spreading misinformation as\\na violation of social norms and that those who spread misinformation should\\nexpect negative reactions once their content is debunked. We derive important\\nimplications for the design of community-based fact-checking systems.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501032,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"arXiv - CS - Social and Information Networks\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"arXiv - CS - Social and Information Networks\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/arxiv-2409.08829\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv - CS - Social and Information Networks","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/arxiv-2409.08829","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在社交媒体上显示社区事实核查是减少参与错误信息的一种有前途的方法。然而,在帖子上显示社区事实核查后,用户如何对误导性内容做出情绪反应还不清楚。在此,我们采用准实验方法对社区事实核查显示后误导性帖子回复中的情绪和(道德)情感变化进行因果分析。我们的评估基于一个大型面板数据集,该数据集包含来自 X's 社区笔记平台的 1841 个源帖子的 N=2,225,260 条回复。我们发现,通过社区事实核查告知用户虚假信息会显著增加相应回复中的负面情绪(7.3%)、愤怒(13.2%)、厌恶(4.7%)和道德愤怒(16.0%)。这些结果表明,用户认为传播错误信息违反了社会规范,而那些传播错误信息的人应该预料到一旦他们的内容被揭穿后会出现负面反应。我们得出了设计基于社区的事实核查系统的重要启示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Community Fact-Checks Trigger Moral Outrage in Replies to Misleading Posts on Social Media
Displaying community fact-checks is a promising approach to reduce engagement with misinformation on social media. However, how users respond to misleading content emotionally after community fact-checks are displayed on posts is unclear. Here, we employ quasi-experimental methods to causally analyze changes in sentiments and (moral) emotions in replies to misleading posts following the display of community fact-checks. Our evaluation is based on a large-scale panel dataset comprising N=2,225,260 replies across 1841 source posts from X's Community Notes platform. We find that informing users about falsehoods through community fact-checks significantly increases negativity (by 7.3%), anger (by 13.2%), disgust (by 4.7%), and moral outrage (by 16.0%) in the corresponding replies. These results indicate that users perceive spreading misinformation as a violation of social norms and that those who spread misinformation should expect negative reactions once their content is debunked. We derive important implications for the design of community-based fact-checking systems.
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