Believability and Harmfulness Shape the Virality of Misleading Social Media Posts

Chiara Drolsbach,Nicolas Pröllochs

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3543507.3583857

2023-03-08

Abstract:Misinformation on social media presents a major threat to modern societies. While previous research has analyzed the virality across true and false social media posts, not every misleading post is necessarily equally viral. Rather, misinformation has different characteristics and varies in terms of its believability and harmfulness - which might influence its spread. In this work, we study how the perceived believability and harmfulness of misleading posts are associated with their virality on social media. Specifically, we analyze (and validate) a large sample of crowd-annotated social media posts from Twitter's Birdwatch platform, on which users can rate the believability and harmfulness of misleading tweets. To address our research questions, we implement an explanatory regression model and link the crowd ratings for believability and harmfulness to the virality of misleading posts on Twitter. Our findings imply that misinformation that is (i) easily believable and (ii) not particularly harmful is associated with more viral resharing cascades. These results offer insights into how different kinds of crowd fact-checked misinformation spreads and suggest that the most viral misleading posts are often not the ones that are particularly concerning from the perspective of public safety. From a practical view, our findings may help platforms to develop more effective strategies to curb the proliferation of misleading posts on social media.

Social and Information Networks

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The problem that this paper attempts to solve is: To what extent do misleading social media posts affect their spread speed and scope due to their perceived believability and harmfulness? Specifically, the researchers want to explore the following two research questions:

1. **(RQ1)** Are misleading posts considered believable more viral than those considered unbelievable?
2. **(RQ2)** Are misleading posts considered harmful more viral than those considered harmless?

To answer these questions, the researchers utilized a large amount of data from Twitter's community fact - checking system "Birdwatch". By analyzing users' evaluations of the believability and harmfulness of misleading tweets, as well as the actual spread of these tweets, they explored the spread mechanism of misleading information. The study adopted an explanatory regression model, which linked the evaluations of believability and harmfulness with the number of retweets of tweets (as a proxy variable for virality), and controlled for other factors that might affect the retweet rate, such as social influence, emotional tendency, etc.

The research results show that those misleading information that is easy to be believed and not particularly harmful is more likely to go viral. This finding not only provides a new perspective for understanding how different types of misleading information spread on social media, but also provides a theoretical basis for platforms to develop more effective strategies to curb the spread of misleading information.