Trend of Narratives in the Age of Misinformation

Social media enabled a direct path from producer to consumer of contents changing the way users get informed, debate, and shape their worldviews. Such a disintermediation might weaken consensus on social relevant issues in favor of rumors, mistrust, or conspiracy thinking—e.g., chem-trails inducing global warming, the link between vaccines and autism, or the New World Order conspiracy. Previous studies pointed out that consumers of conspiracy-like content are likely to aggregate in homophile clusters—i.e., echo-chambers. Along this path we study, by means of a thorough quantitative analysis, how different topics are consumed inside the conspiracy echo-chamber in the Italian Facebook. Through a semi-automatic topic extraction strategy, we show that the most consumed contents semantically refer to four specific categories: environment, diet, health, and geopolitics. We find similar consumption patterns by comparing users activity (likes and comments) on posts belonging to these different semantic categories. Finally, we model users mobility across the distinct topics finding that the more a user is active, the more he is likely to span on all categories. Once inside a conspiracy narrative users tend to embrace the overall corpus.

[1]  R. Rich,et al.  Misinformation and the Currency of Democratic Citizenship , 2000, The Journal of Politics.

[2]  Mario Paolucci,et al.  On the effects of informational cheating on social evaluations: image and reputation through gossip , 2009, Int. J. Knowl. Learn..

[3]  Marián Boguñá,et al.  Extracting the multiscale backbone of complex weighted networks , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[4]  L.J. Butler,et al.  Resistance to New Technology: Nuclear Power, Information Technology, and Biotechnology [book review] , 1996, IEEE Spectrum.

[5]  S. Barnett,et al.  Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A : Mathematical , 2017 .

[6]  Pietro Perona,et al.  The Multidimensional Wisdom of Crowds , 2010, NIPS.

[7]  Antonio Scala,et al.  The economy of attention in the age of (mis)information , 2014, Journal of Trust Management.

[8]  C. Sunstein,et al.  Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures* , 2009 .

[9]  Bin Gu,et al.  Research Note - The Allure of Homophily in Social Media: Evidence from Investor Responses on Virtual Communities , 2014, Inf. Syst. Res..

[10]  J. Byford Conspiracy Theories: A Critical Introduction , 2011 .

[11]  Rossano Schifanella,et al.  Friendship prediction and homophily in social media , 2012, TWEB.

[12]  Martin Bauer Resistance to New Technology: Nuclear Power, Information Technology, Biotechnology , 1995 .

[13]  Michela Del Vicario,et al.  Viral Misinformation: The Role of Homophily and Polarization , 2014, WWW.

[14]  Qian Zhang,et al.  Collective attention in the age of (mis)information , 2014, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[15]  Guido Caldarelli,et al.  Opinion dynamics on interacting networks: media competition and social influence , 2014, Scientific Reports.

[16]  Lynne M. Reder,et al.  A theoretical review of the misinformation effect: Predictions from an activation-based memory model , 1998 .

[17]  Guido Caldarelli,et al.  Science vs Conspiracy: Collective Narratives in the Age of Misinformation , 2014, PloS one.

[18]  B. Nyhan,et al.  When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions , 2010 .

[19]  熊谷 ユリヤ,et al.  James Surowiecki, 『The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations』, Random House, 5,2004, $24.95 , 2005 .

[20]  N. Lee,et al.  Word of mouth communication within online communities: Conceptualizing the online social network , 2007 .

[21]  Dalia Štreimikienė,et al.  World Economic Forum 2012 , 2012 .

[22]  Jon Kleinberg,et al.  Analysis of large-scale social and information networks , 2013, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[23]  Kevin Lewis,et al.  Social selection and peer influence in an online social network , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[24]  G. Fine,et al.  Rumor Mills: The Social Impact of Rumor and Legend , 2017 .

[25]  Jukka-Pekka Onnela,et al.  Spontaneous emergence of social influence in online systems , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[26]  Matthieu Latapy,et al.  Computing Communities in Large Networks Using Random Walks , 2004, J. Graph Algorithms Appl..

[27]  Herbert E. Huppert,et al.  Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , 2006 .

[28]  Jean-Loup Guillaume,et al.  Fast unfolding of communities in large networks , 2008, 0803.0476.

[29]  R. Kelly Garrett,et al.  The promise and peril of real-time corrections to political misperceptions , 2013, CSCW.

[30]  Lars Backstrom,et al.  Structural diversity in social contagion , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[31]  Ravi Kumar,et al.  Dynamics of conversations , 2010, KDD.

[32]  A. Adam Whatever happened to information systems ethics? Caught between the devil and the deep blue sea , 2004 .

[33]  Walter Quattrociocchi,et al.  Opinions Manipulation: Media, Power and Gossip , 2011, Adv. Complex Syst..

[34]  Damon Centola,et al.  The Spread of Behavior in an Online Social Network Experiment , 2010, Science.

[35]  E. Loftus,et al.  Individual differences in false memory from misinformation: personality characteristics and their interactions with cognitive abilities , 2022 .

[36]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Memory and cognition , 1977 .

[37]  Elizabeth F. Loftus,et al.  Current Issues and Advances in Misinformation Research , 2011 .

[38]  M. Hogg,et al.  Extremism and the psychology of uncertainty. , 2012 .

[39]  Janet L. Langlois Fine, Gary Alan; Campion-Vincent, Véronique; Heath, Chip (Eds.). Rumor Mills: The Social Impact of Rumor and Legend. Aldine Transaction, Nuevo Brunswick/Londres: 2005 , 2009 .

[40]  Torsten Eymann,et al.  Social knowledge for eGovernance: Theory and technology of reputation , 2009 .

[41]  James Surowiecki The wisdom of crowds: Why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies, and nations Doubleday Books. , 2004 .

[42]  Cameron Marlow,et al.  A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization , 2012, Nature.

[43]  N. Stanietsky,et al.  The interaction of TIGIT with PVR and PVRL2 inhibits human NK cell cytotoxicity , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[44]  A. Koriat,et al.  Toward a psychology of memory accuracy. , 2000, Annual review of psychology.

[45]  E. Kaplan,et al.  Nonparametric Estimation from Incomplete Observations , 1958 .

[46]  Douglas Kellner,et al.  New Media and Internet Activism: From the ‘Battle of Seattle’ to Blogging , 2004, New Media Soc..

[47]  M. Newman,et al.  Finding community structure in very large networks. , 2004, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[48]  Guido Caldarelli,et al.  Social Determinants of Content Selection in the Age of (Mis)Information , 2014, SocInfo.

[49]  Simon Locke,et al.  Conspiracy Culture, Blame Culture, and Rationalisation 1 , 2009 .

[50]  Cliff Lampe,et al.  The Benefits of Facebook "Friends: " Social Capital and College Students' Use of Online Social Network Sites , 2007, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[51]  Henry L Roediger,et al.  Explorations in the social contagion of memory , 2002, Memory & cognition.