Abstract: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.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The problem that this paper attempts to solve is: How do users' emotional responses to misleading posts change after community fact - checks are presented on social media? Specifically, the author hopes to analyze, through a quasi - experimental method, whether and how community fact - checks change the emotions and moral emotions expressed by users when replying to misleading posts.
### Research Background
With the popularization of social media platforms such as X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, and TikTok, these platforms have become important sources of news consumption and social interaction, especially among the younger generation. However, due to the lack of a strict fact - checking mechanism, the quality of information on social media varies greatly, and misleading information can easily spread rapidly, becoming an important problem in the digital age.
To address this challenge, some social media platforms have introduced community fact - checking mechanisms, such as "Community Notes" on the X platform. This mechanism allows users to add context or corrective information to misleading posts and display these annotations directly below the original post through a community scoring system. Although the effectiveness of community fact - checking has been verified, users' emotional responses to fact - checked posts are still unclear.
### Research Questions
This research mainly focuses on two aspects:
1. **RQ1.1**: Does community fact - checking trigger emotional changes in users' replies to misleading posts? Specifically, which emotions (such as positive and negative emotions) and basic emotions (such as anger, disgust, etc.) are triggered?
2. **RQ1.2**: Are there differences in the impact of community fact - checking on emotions between political and non - political misleading posts?
In addition, the research also explores the following two questions related to moral emotions:
3. **RQ2.1**: Does community fact - checking trigger moral outrage in users' replies?
4. **RQ2.2**: Are there differences in the impact of community fact - checking on moral outrage between political and non - political misleading posts?
### Research Findings
Through the analysis of a large - scale data set, the author found that:
- Community fact - checking significantly increased negative emotions (by 7.3%), anger (by 13.2%), disgust (by 4.7%), and moral outrage (by 16.0%) in users' replies.
- These effects are more significant in political posts.
- Users perceive the spread of misleading information as a behavior that violates social norms, so they will have a negative reaction to users who post misleading content.
### Significance
This research reveals that although community fact - checking helps to reduce the spread of misleading information, it may also trigger stronger emotional confrontations among users, especially moral outrage. This suggests that when designing a community fact - checking system, we need to balance the relationship between information accuracy and users' emotional responses in order to maintain a healthy online conversation environment.
### Formula Example
Suppose \( R \) represents the number of replies, \( E \) represents the amount of emotional change, and \( C \) represents the presence or absence of community fact - checking, then it can be expressed as:
\[ E = f(C, R) \]
where \( f \) is a function that describes the impact of community fact - checking on emotional change.
I hope this summary can help you understand the core problems and findings of the paper. If you have more questions, please feel free to continue asking!