Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3485447.3512126acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesthewebconfConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open access

The Impact of Twitter Labels on Misinformation Spread and User Engagement: Lessons from Trump’s Election Tweets

Published: 25 April 2022 Publication History

Abstract

Social media platforms are performing “soft moderation” by attaching warning labels to misinformation to reduce dissemination of, and engagement with, such content. This study investigates the warning labels that Twitter placed on Donald Trump’s false tweets about the 2020 US Presidential election. It specifically studies their relation to misinformation spread, and the magnitude and nature of user engagement. We categorize the warning labels by type –“veracity labels” calling out falsity and “contextual labels” providing more information. In addition, we categorize labels by their rebuttal strength and textual overlap (linguistic, topical) with the underlying tweet. We look at user interactions (liking, retweeting, quote tweeting, and replying), the content of user replies, and the type of user involved (partisanship and Twitter activity level) according to various standard metrics. Using appropriate statistical tools, we find that, overall, label placement did not change the propensity of users to share and engage with labeled content, but the falsity of content did. However, we show that the presence of textual overlap in labels did reduce user interactions, while stronger rebuttals reduced the toxicity in comments. We also find that users were more likely to discuss their positions on the underlying tweets in replies when the labels contained rebuttals. When false content was labeled, results show that liberals engaged more than conservatives. Labels also increased the engagement of more passive Twitter users. This case study has direct implications for the design of effective soft moderation and related policies.

References

[1]
2020. Additional steps we’re taking ahead of the 2020 US Election. https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/2020-election-changes
[2]
2020. COVID-19 misleading information policy. https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/medical-misinformation-policy
[3]
2020. An Update on Our Work to Keep People Informed and Limit Misinformation About COVID-19. https://about.fb.com/news/2020/04/covid-19-misinfo-update/
[4]
2021. Shadow bans, fact-checks, info hubs: The big guide to how platforms are handling misinformation in 2021. https://www.niemanlab.org/2021/06/shadow-bans-fact-checks-info-hubs-the-big-guide-to-how-platforms-are-handling-misinformation-in-2021/?utm_source=Daily Lab email list&utm_campaign=75be0d870a-dailylabemail3&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d68264fd5e-75be0d870a-365017293
[5]
2021. Using machine learning to reduce toxicity online. https://perspectiveapi.com/
[6]
Donald WK Andrews. 1991. Heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent covariance matrix estimation. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society (1991), 817–858.
[7]
Mihai Avram, Nicholas Micallef, Sameer Patil, and Filippo Menczer. 2020. Exposure to social engagement metrics increases vulnerability to misinformation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.04682(2020).
[8]
Pablo Barberá. 2015. Birds of the same feather tweet together: Bayesian ideal point estimation using Twitter data. Political analysis 23, 1 (2015), 76–91.
[9]
Yochai Benkler, Robert Faris, and Hal Roberts. 2018. Network propaganda: Manipulation, disinformation, and radicalization in American politics. Oxford University Press.
[10]
Nadia M Brashier, Emmaline Drew Eliseev, and Elizabeth J Marsh. 2020. An initial accuracy focus prevents illusory truth. Cognition 194(2020), 104054.
[11]
Man-pui Sally Chan, Christopher R Jones, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, and Dolores Albarracín. 2017. Debunking: A meta-analysis of the psychological efficacy of messages countering misinformation. Psychological science 28, 11 (2017), 1531–1546.
[12]
Chris Cillizza. 2021. Analysis: 1 in 3 Americans believe the ’Big Lie’. https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/21/politics/biden-voter-fraud-big-lie-monmouth-poll/index.html
[13]
Geoffrey L Cohen. 2003. Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs.Journal of personality and social psychology 85, 5(2003), 808.
[14]
Ullrich KH Ecker, Stephan Lewandowsky, and Joe Apai. 2011. Terrorists brought down the plane!—No, actually it was a technical fault: Processing corrections of emotive information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 64, 2(2011), 283–310.
[15]
Ziv Epstein, Adam J Berinsky, Rocky Cole, Andrew Gully, Gordon Pennycook, and David G Rand. 2021. Developing an accuracy-prompt toolkit to reduce COVID-19 misinformation online. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review (2021).
[16]
Don Fallis. 2015. What is disinformation?Library trends 63, 3 (2015), 401–426.
[17]
Luciano Floridi. 2008. Semantic Conceptions of Information. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy(2008).
[18]
Aline Shakti Franzke, Anja Bechmann, Michael Zimmer, and Charles Ess. [n. d.]. the Association of Internet Researchers (2020). Internet research: Ethical guidelines 3 ([n. d.]).
[19]
Kim Fridkin, Patrick J Kenney, and Amanda Wintersieck. 2015. Liar, liar, pants on fire: How fact-checking influences citizens’ reactions to negative advertising. Political Communication 32, 1 (2015), 127–151.
[20]
Robert Gorwa, Reuben Binns, and Christian Katzenbach. 2020. Algorithmic content moderation: Technical and political challenges in the automation of platform governance. Big Data & Society 7, 1 (2020), 2053951719897945.
[21]
Thomas T Hills. 2019. The dark side of information proliferation. Perspectives on Psychological Science 14, 3 (2019), 323–330.
[22]
Hollyn M Johnson and Colleen M Seifert. 1994. Sources of the continued influence effect: When misinformation in memory affects later inferences.Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, memory, and cognition 20, 6(1994), 1420.
[23]
Ben Kaiser, Jerry Wei, Eli Lucherini, Kevin Lee, J. Nathan Matias, and Jonathan Mayer. 2021. Adapting Security Warnings to Counter Online Disinformation. In 30th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 21). USENIX Association, 1163–1180. https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity21/presentation/kaiser
[24]
TaeYoung Kang and Jaeung Sim. 2021. Partisan Responses to Fact-Checking in Online News Platforms: Evidence from a Political Rumor about the North Korean Leader. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Vol. 15. 266–277.
[25]
Kornraphop Kawintiranon and Lisa Singh. 2021. Knowledge Enhanced Masked Language Model for Stance Detection. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. 4725–4735.
[26]
Stephan Lewandowsky, John Cook, Nicolas Fay, and Gilles E Gignac. 2019. Science by social media: Attitudes towards climate change are mediated by perceived social consensus. Memory & cognition 47, 8 (2019), 1445–1456.
[27]
Stephan Lewandowsky, Ullrich KH Ecker, Colleen M Seifert, Norbert Schwarz, and John Cook. 2012. Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological science in the public interest 13, 3 (2012), 106–131.
[28]
Tony Liu, Lyle Ungar, and Konrad Kording. 2021. Quantifying causality in data science with quasi-experiments. Nature Computational Science 1, 1 (2021), 24–32.
[29]
Ian Lundberg, Rebecca Johnson, and Brandon M Stewart. 2021. What is your estimand? Defining the target quantity connects statistical evidence to theory. American Sociological Review 86, 3 (2021), 532–565.
[30]
Patricia L Moravec, Antino Kim, and Alan R Dennis. 2020. Appealing to sense and sensibility: System 1 and system 2 interventions for fake news on social media. Information Systems Research 31, 3 (2020), 987–1006.
[31]
Mohsen Mosleh, Cameron Martel, Dean Eckles, and David Rand. 2021. Perverse Downstream Consequences of Debunking: Being Corrected by Another User for Posting False Political News Increases Subsequent Sharing of Low Quality, Partisan, and Toxic Content in a Twitter Field Experiment. In proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–13.
[32]
Brendan Nyhan. 2021. Why the backfire effect does not explain the durability of political misperceptions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, 15(2021).
[33]
Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler. 2010. When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior 32, 2 (2010), 303–330.
[34]
Orestis Papakyriakopoulos, Juan Carlos Medina Serrano, and Simon Hegelich. 2020. Political communication on social media: A tale of hyperactive users and bias in recommender systems. Online Social Networks and Media 15 (2020), 100058.
[35]
Jessica Paynter, Sarah Luskin-Saxby, Deb Keen, Kathryn Fordyce, Grace Frost, Christine Imms, Scott Miller, David Trembath, Madonna Tucker, and Ullrich Ecker. 2019. Evaluation of a template for countering misinformation—Real-world Autism treatment myth debunking. PloS one 14, 1 (2019), e0210746.
[36]
Gordon Pennycook, Ziv Epstein, Mohsen Mosleh, Antonio A Arechar, Dean Eckles, and David G Rand. 2021. Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online. Nature 592, 7855 (2021), 590–595.
[37]
Gordon Pennycook and David G Rand. 2017. Assessing the effect of “disputed” warnings and source salience on perceptions of fake news accuracy. Social Science Research Network. https://papers. ssrn. com/sol3/papers. cfm (2017).
[38]
Charles S Reichardt. 2009. Quasi-experimental design. The SAGE handbook of quantitative methods in psychology 46, 71(2009), 490–500.
[39]
Michael D Rich 2018. Truth decay: An initial exploration of the diminishing role of facts and analysis in American public life. Rand Corporation.
[40]
Margaret E Roberts, Brandon M Stewart, and Dustin Tingley. 2019. Stm: An R package for structural topic models. Journal of Statistical Software 91, 1 (2019), 1–40.
[41]
Emily Saltz, Claire R Leibowicz, and Claire Wardle. 2021. Encounters with Visual Misinformation and Labels Across Platforms: An Interview and Diary Study to Inform Ecosystem Approaches to Misinformation Interventions. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–6.
[42]
Zeve Sanderson, Megan A Brown, Richard Bonneau, Jonathan Nagler, and Joshua A Tucker. 2021. Twitter flagged Donald Trump’s tweets with election misinformation: They continued to spread both on and off the platform. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review (2021).
[43]
David Schkade, Cass R Sunstein, and Reid Hastie. 2010. When deliberation produces extremism. Critical Review 22, 2-3 (2010), 227–252.
[44]
Filipo Sharevski, Raniem Alsaadi, Peter Jachim, and Emma Pieroni. 2021. Misinformation Warning Labels: Twitter’s Soft Moderation Effects on COVID-19 Vaccine Belief Echoes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.00779(2021).
[45]
Todd Spangler. 2020. TikTok Will Tag Election-Related Videos With Link to 2020 U.S. Voters Guide. https://variety.com/2020/digital/news/tiktok-elections-voting-guide-misinformation-trump-1234786313/
[46]
Christina Steindl, Eva Jonas, Sandra Sittenthaler, Eva Traut-Mattausch, and Jeff Greenberg. 2015. Understanding psychological reactance. Zeitschrift für Psychologie(2015).
[47]
Briony Swire-Thompson, Joseph DeGutis, and David Lazer. 2020. Searching for the backfire effect: Measurement and design considerations. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition (2020).
[48]
Emily Thorson. 2016. Belief echoes: The persistent effects of corrected misinformation. Political Communication 33, 3 (2016), 460–480.
[49]
Kerrie L Unsworth and Kelly S Fielding. 2014. It’s political: How the salience of one’s political identity changes climate change beliefs and policy support. Global Environmental Change 27 (2014), 131–137.
[50]
Trevor Van Mierlo. 2014. The 1% rule in four digital health social networks: an observational study. Journal of medical Internet research 16, 2 (2014), e2966.
[51]
Nathan Walter, Jonathan Cohen, R Lance Holbert, and Yasmin Morag. 2020. Fact-checking: A meta-analysis of what works and for whom. Political Communication 37, 3 (2020), 350–375.
[52]
Claire Wardle and Hossein Derakhshan. 2017. Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making. Council of Europe 27(2017).
[53]
Chloe Wittenberg, Adam J Berinsky, Nathaniel Persily, and Joshua A Tucker. 2020. Misinformation and its correction. Social Media and Democracy: The State of the Field, Prospects for Reform 163 (2020).
[54]
Stefan Wojcik and Adam Hughes. 2021. How Twitter Users Compare to the General Public. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/04/24/sizing-up-twitter-users/
[55]
Waheeb Yaqub, Otari Kakhidze, Morgan L Brockman, Nasir Memon, and Sameer Patil. 2020. Effects of credibility indicators on social media news sharing intent. In Proceedings of the 2020 chi conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–14.
[56]
Chun Yu and Weixin Yao. 2017. Robust linear regression: A review and comparison. Communications in Statistics-Simulation and Computation 46, 8(2017), 6261–6282.
[57]
Savvas Zannettou. 2021. ” I Won the Election!”: An Empirical Analysis of Soft Moderation Interventions on Twitter. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Vol. 15. 865–876.
[58]
Yanmengqian Zhou and Lijiang Shen. 2021. Confirmation Bias and the Persistence of Misinformation on Climate Change. Communication Research(2021), 00936502211028049.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Journalistic interventions matter: Understanding how Americans perceive fact-checking labelsHarvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review10.37016/mr-2020-139Online publication date: 11-Apr-2024
  • (2024)Journalistic interventions matter: Understanding how Americans perceive fact-checking labelsHarvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review10.37016/mr-2020-138Online publication date: 11-Apr-2024
  • (2024)The fight against disinformation and its consequences: measuring the impact of “Russia state-affiliated media” on TwitterCrime Science10.1186/s40163-024-00215-913:1Online publication date: 15-Jun-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. The Impact of Twitter Labels on Misinformation Spread and User Engagement: Lessons from Trump’s Election Tweets
        Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Information & Contributors

        Information

        Published In

        cover image ACM Conferences
        WWW '22: Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022
        April 2022
        3764 pages
        ISBN:9781450390965
        DOI:10.1145/3485447
        This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

        Sponsors

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        Published: 25 April 2022

        Check for updates

        Author Tags

        1. Trump
        2. content moderation
        3. misinformation
        4. political discourse
        5. warning labels

        Qualifiers

        • Research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Conference

        WWW '22
        Sponsor:
        WWW '22: The ACM Web Conference 2022
        April 25 - 29, 2022
        Virtual Event, Lyon, France

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate 1,899 of 8,196 submissions, 23%

        Contributors

        Other Metrics

        Bibliometrics & Citations

        Bibliometrics

        Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)1,440
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)244
        Reflects downloads up to 30 Aug 2024

        Other Metrics

        Citations

        Cited By

        View all
        • (2024)Journalistic interventions matter: Understanding how Americans perceive fact-checking labelsHarvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review10.37016/mr-2020-139Online publication date: 11-Apr-2024
        • (2024)Journalistic interventions matter: Understanding how Americans perceive fact-checking labelsHarvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review10.37016/mr-2020-138Online publication date: 11-Apr-2024
        • (2024)The fight against disinformation and its consequences: measuring the impact of “Russia state-affiliated media” on TwitterCrime Science10.1186/s40163-024-00215-913:1Online publication date: 15-Jun-2024
        • (2024)The Role of Content Labeling and Discrete Emotions in User Participation in a COVID-19 U.S. Reddit CommunityJournalism & Mass Communication Quarterly10.1177/10776990241257588Online publication date: 24-Jul-2024
        • (2024)The Landscape of User-centered Misinformation Interventions - A Systematic Literature ReviewACM Computing Surveys10.1145/367472456:11(1-36)Online publication date: 25-Jun-2024
        • (2024)“Who Knows? Maybe it Really Works”: Analysing Users' Perceptions of Health Misinformation on Social MediaProceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference10.1145/3643834.3661510(1499-1517)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
        • (2024)Targets of Weaponized Islamophobia: The Impact of Misinformation on the Online Practices of Muslims in the United StatesProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36374038:CSCW1(1-38)Online publication date: 26-Apr-2024
        • (2024)The Great Ban: Efficacy and Unintended Consequences of a Massive Deplatforming Operation on RedditCompanion Publication of the 16th ACM Web Science Conference10.1145/3630744.3663608(85-93)Online publication date: 21-May-2024
        • (2024)"Yeah, this graph doesn't show that": Analysis of Online Engagement with Misleading Data VisualizationsProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642448(1-14)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
        • (2024)Digital Democracy at Crossroads: A Meta-Analysis of Web and AI Influence on Global ElectionsCompanion Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 202410.1145/3589335.3652003(1126-1129)Online publication date: 13-May-2024
        • Show More Cited By

        View Options

        View options

        PDF

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format.

        HTML Format

        Get Access

        Login options

        Media

        Figures

        Other

        Tables

        Share

        Share

        Share this Publication link

        Share on social media