Fact-checking messages are shared or ignored subjectively. Users tend to seek like-minded information and ignore information that conflicts with their preexisting beliefs, leaving like-minded misinformation uncontrolled on the Internet. To understand the factors that distract fact-checking engagement, we investigated the psychological characteristics associated with users’ selective avoidance of clicking uncongenial facts. In a pre-registered experiment, we measured participants’ (N = 506) preexisting beliefs about COVID-19-related news stimuli. We then examined whether they clicked on fact-checking links to false news that they believed to be accurate. We proposed an index that divided participants into fact-avoidance and fact-exposure groups using a mathematical baseline. The results indicated that 43% of participants selectively avoided clicking on uncongenial facts, keeping 93% of their false beliefs intact. Reflexiveness is the psychological characteristic that predicts selective avoidance. We discuss susceptibility to click bias that prevents users from utilizing fact-checking websites and the implications for future design.

This study analyzes the value conflict of a paper on fan fiction writing that used online fan fiction novels as a source to extract and filter sexual expressions from text. The boundaries of public and private information are ambiguous because users are not always aware of or have agreed to the fact that their content is to be used openly. The case was complicated by the fact that the use of these data by researchers violated an unconsciously infringed upon right of a vulnerable community with a weak legal position. This paper describes the debate on this topic among researchers from engineering and humanities fields on whether the purpose of the research was ethically acceptable; how the systems can be embedded in ethical values; and what ethical, legal, social, and educational lessons are appropriate for governance of artificial intelligence (AI). Our analysis aimed not only to clarify the abstract concept of privacy but also to make changes to the submission guidelines for authors. We hope that our analysis contributes to the governance of ethical AIs and AI ethics on handling sensitive aspects of online activities.