Recent adoption of conversational information systems has expanded the scope of user queries to include complex tasks such as personal advice-seeking. However, we identify a specific type of sought advice—a request for a moral judgment (i.e. “who was wrong?”) in a social conflict—as an implicitly humanizing query which carries potentially harmful anthropomorphic projections. In this study, we examine the reinforcement of these assumptions in the responses of four major general-purpose LLMs through the use of linguistic, behavioral, and cognitive anthropomorphic cues. We also contribute a novel dataset of simulated user queries for moral judgments. We find current LLM system responses reinforce implicit humanization in queries, potentially exacerbating risks like overreliance or misplaced trust. We call for future work to expand the understanding of anthropomorphism to include implicit user-side humanization and to design solutions that address user needs while correcting misaligned expectations of model capabilities.

Large Language Models (LLMs) and generative search systems are increasingly used for information seeking by diverse populations with varying preferences for knowledge sourcing and presentation. While users can customize LLM behavior through custom instructions and behavioral prompts, no mechanism exists to evaluate whether these instructions are being followed effectively. We present Offscript, an agent-based automated auditing tool that efficiently identifies potential instruction-following failures in LLMs. In a pilot study analyzing custom instructions sourced from Reddit, Offscript detected potential deviations from instructed behavior in \(84.6\%\) of conversations, \(22.2\%\) of which were confirmed as material violations through human review. Our findings suggest that agentic auditing serves as a viable approach for evaluating compliance to behavioral instructions related to information seeking.

Understanding the prevalence of misinformation in health topics online can inform public health policies and interventions.However, measuring such misinformation at scale remains a challenge, particularly for high-stakes but understudied topics like opioid-use disorder (OUD)-a leading cause of death in the U.S. We present the first large-scale study of OUDrelated myths on YouTube, a widely-used platform for health information.With clinical experts, we validate 8 pervasive myths and release an expert-labeled video dataset.To scale labeling, we introduce MYTHTRIAGE, an efficient triage pipeline that uses a lightweight model for routine cases and defers harder ones to a high-performing, but costlier, large language model (LLM).MYTHTRIAGE achieves up to 0.86 macro F1-score while estimated to reduce annotation time and financial cost by over 76% compared to experts and full LLM labeling.We analyze 2.9K search results and 343K recommendations, uncovering how myths persist on YouTube and offering actionable insights for public health and platform moderation. 1 Warning: Some content of this paper, included to contextualize our data, is misleading.

Existing research assesses LLMs’ values by analyzing their stated inclinations, overlooking potential discrepancies between stated values and actions—termed the “Value-Action Gap.” This study introduces ValueActionLens, a framework to evaluate the alignment between LLMs’ stated values and their value-informed actions. The framework includes a dataset of 14.8k value-informed actions across 12 cultures and 11 social topics, along with two tasks measuring alignment through three metrics. Experiments show substantial misalignment between LLM-generated value statements and their actions, with significant variations across scenarios and models. Misalignments reveal potential harms, highlighting risks in relying solely on stated values to predict behavior. The findings stress the need for context-aware evaluations of LLM values and the value-action gaps.

The fragmentation of social media challenges how we might efficiently and effectively identify, understand, and counter harmful content. Prior work establishes frameworks for measuring problematic narratives, evaluating harms, and leveraging interdisciplinary theories and findings to design mitigating solutions. However, there is little understanding of these phenomena outside of mainstream platforms. This is particularly concerning given that alt-tech users have been observed to include insurrectionists, active shooters, and other extremists – often driven from mainstream platforms due to deplatforming and content moderation . Our work aims to characterize online narratives across alt-tech platforms. In particular, we highlight how rumoring and conspiracy theory narratives in the context of the 2022 U.S. elections impact social dynamics and inspire collective action. We gather a unique dataset of over 7,000 social media posts from Gab, Gettr, Parler, and Truth Social from which we derive prevalent narratives using natural language processing techniques. We then examine how the platform, affect, and engagement differ across context through the lens of narrative, social identity, and mobilization potential using mixed methods. Findings from our analyses show variation between how narratives support social identity conceptions of power and mobilization potential.

Despite being an integral tool for finding health-related information online, YouTube has faced criticism for disseminating COVID-19 misinformation globally to its users. Yet, prior audit studies have predominantly investigated YouTube within the Global North contexts, often overlooking the Global South. To address this gap, we conducted a comprehensive 10-day geolocation-based audit on YouTube to compare the prevalence of COVID-19 misinformation in search results between the United States (US) and South Africa (SA), the countries heavily affected by the pandemic in the Global North and the Global South, respectively. For each country, we selected 3 geolocations and placed sock-puppets, or bots emulating "real" users, that collected search results for 48 search queries sorted by 4 search filters for 10 days, yielding a dataset of 915K results. We found that 31.55% of the top-10 search results contained COVID-19 misinformation. Among the top-10 search results, bots in SA faced significantly more misinformative search results than their US counterparts. Overall, our study highlights the contrasting algorithmic behaviors of YouTube search between two countries, underscoring the need for the platform to regulate algorithmic behavior consistently across different regions of the Globe. Warning: We caution the readers that some examples provided to better contextualize our data can be offensive.

Online communities on Reddit are a popular choice among people with opioid use disorder (OUD) to seek information on drug use, withdrawal symptoms, and recovery. LLM-powered chatbots (e.g., ChatGPT) are widely being adopted as question-answer systems for health-related queries. However, such online health information seeking could potentially be hindered by myths and misinformation on OUD, misleading or causing genuine harm to people with OUD. In this work, we examine the prevalence of 5 OUD-related myths, on treatment models and patient characteristics, within human- (taken from Reddit) and LLM-generated responses to queries on OUD. We further explore the framing strategies used within responses (both human- and LLM-generated) promoting and countering the myths. We found that all 5 myths were more widespread within human-generated responses. In addition, myth-promoting responses adopted trustworthy and authoritative framings, compared to knowledge-imparting linguistic cues within those countering the myths. Our work offers recommendations to reduce online OUD misinformation.

As conspiracy theories gain traction, it has become crucial to research effective intervention strategies that can foster evidence and science-based discussions in conspiracy theory communities online. This study presents a novel framework using insider language to contest conspiracy theory ideology in climate change denialism on Reddit. Focusing on discussions in two Reddit communities, our research investigates reactions to pro-social and evidence-based intervention messages for two cohorts of users: climate change deniers and climate change supporters. Specifically, we combine manual and generative AI-based methods to craft intervention messages and deploy the interventions as replies on Reddit posts and comments through transparently labeled bot accounts. On the one hand, we find that evidence-based interventions with neutral language foster positive engagement, encouraging open discussions among believers of climate change denialism. On the other, climate change supporters respond positively, actively participating and presenting additional evidence. Our study contributes valuable insights into the process and challenges of automatically delivering interventions in conspiracy theory communities on social media, and helps inform future research on social media interventions.

Calls to use open generative language models in academic research have highlighted the need for reproducibility and transparency in scientific research. However, the impact of generative AI extends well beyond academia, as corporations and public interest organizations have begun integrating these models into their data science pipelines. We expand this lens to include the impact of open models on organizations, focusing specifically on fact-checking organizations, which use AI to observe and analyze large volumes of circulating misinformation, yet must also ensure the reproducibility and impartiality of their work. We wanted to understand where fact-checking organizations use open models in their data science pipelines; what motivates their use of open models or proprietary models; and how their use of open or proprietary models can inform research on the societal impact of generative AI. To answer these questions, we conducted an interview study with N=24 professionals at 20 fact-checking organizations on six continents. Based on these interviews, we offer a five-component conceptual model of where fact-checking organizations employ generative AI to support or automate parts of their data science pipeline, including Data Ingestion, Data Analysis, Data Retrieval, Data Delivery, and Data Sharing. We then provide taxonomies of fact-checking organizations' motivations for using open models and the limitations that prevent them for further adopting open models, finding that they prefer open models for Organizational Autonomy, Data Privacy and Ownership, Application Specificity, and Capability Transparency. However, they nonetheless use proprietary models due to perceived advantages in Performance, Usability, and Safety, as well as Opportunity Costs related to participation in emerging generative AI ecosystems. Finally, we propose a research agenda to address limitations of both open and proprietary models. Our research provides novel perspective on open models in data-driven organizations.

As more users turn to video-sharing platforms like YouTube as an information source, they may consume misinformation despite their best efforts. In this work, we investigate ways that users can better assess the credibility of videos by first exploring how users currently determine credibility using existing signals on platforms and then by introducing and evaluating new credibility-based signals. We conducted 12 contextual inquiry interviews with YouTube users, determining that participants used a combination of existing signals, such as the channel name, the production quality, and prior knowledge, to evaluate credibility, yet sometimes stumbled in their efforts to do so. We then developed Viblio, a prototype system that enables YouTube users to view and add citations and related information while watching a video based on our participants’ needs. From an evaluation with 12 people, all participants found Viblio to be intuitive and useful in the process of evaluating a video’s credibility and could see themselves using Viblio in the future.

Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as an integral part of modern societies, powering user-facing applications such as personal assistants and enterprise applications like recruitment tools.Despite their utility, research indicates that LLMs perpetuate systemic biases.Yet, prior works on LLM harms predominantly focus on Western concepts like race and gender, often overlooking cultural concepts from other parts of the world.Additionally, these studies typically investigate "harm" as a singular dimension, ignoring the various and subtle forms in which harms manifest.To address this gap, we introduce the Covert Harms and Social Threats (CHAST), a set of seven metrics grounded in social science literature.We utilize evaluation models aligned with human assessments to examine the presence of covert harms in LLM-generated conversations, particularly in the context of recruitment.Our experiments reveal that seven out of the eight LLMs included in this study generated conversations riddled with CHAST, characterized by malign views expressed in seemingly neutral language unlikely to be detected by existing methods.Notably, these LLMs manifested more extreme views and opinions when dealing with non-Western concepts like caste, compared to Western ones such as race.Warning: This paper has instances of offensive language to serve as examples.

Increasingly online platforms are becoming popular arenas of political amplification in India. With known instances of pre-organized coordinated operations, researchers are questioning the legitimacy of political expression and its consequences on the democratic processes in India. In this paper, we study an evolved form of political amplification by first identifying and then characterizing political campaigns with lexical mutations. By lexical mutation, we mean content that is reframed, paraphrased, or altered while preserving the same underlying message. Using multilingual embeddings and network analysis, we detect over 3.8K political campaigns with text mutations spanning multiple languages and social media platforms in India. By further assessing the political leanings of accounts repeatedly involved in such amplification campaigns, we contribute a broader understanding of how political amplification is used across various political parties in India. Moreover, our temporal analysis of the largest amplification campaigns suggests that political campaigning can evolve as temporally ordered arguments and counter-arguments between groups with competing political interests. Overall, our work contributes insights into how lexical mutations can be leveraged to bypass the platform manipulation policies and how such competing campaigning can provide an exaggerated sense of political divide on Indian social media.

Despite the existence of search-based recommender systems like Google, Netflix, and Spotify, online users sometimes may turn to crowdsourced recommendations in places like the r/ifyoulikeblank subreddit. In this exploratory study, we probe why users go to r/ifyoulikeblank, how they look for recommendation, and how the subreddit users respond to recommendation requests. To answer, we collected sample posts from r/ifyoulikeblank and analyzed them using a qualitative approach. Our analysis reveals that users come to this subreddit for various reasons, such as exhausting popular search systems, not knowing what or how to search for an item, and thinking crowd have better knowledge than search systems. Examining users query and their description, we found novel information users provide during recommendation seeking using r/ifyoulikeblank. For example, sometimes they ask for artifacts recommendation based on the tools used to create them. Or, sometimes indicating a recommendation seeker's time constraints can help better suit recommendations to their needs. Finally, recommendation responses and interactions revealed patterns of how requesters and responders refine queries and recommendations. Our work informs future intelligent recommender systems design.

Recommender systems are the algorithms which select, filter, and personalize content across many of the world's largest platforms and apps. As such, their positive and negative effects on individuals and on societies have been extensively theorized and studied. Our overarching question is how to ensure that recommender systems enact the values of the individuals and societies that they serve. Addressing this question in a principled fashion requires technical knowledge of recommender design and operation, and also critically depends on insights from diverse fields including social science, ethics, economics, psychology, policy, and law. This article is a multidisciplinary effort to synthesize theory and practice from different perspectives, with the goal of providing a shared language, articulating current design approaches, and identifying open problems. We collect a set of values that seem most relevant to recommender systems operating across different domains, and then examine them from the perspectives of current industry practice, measurement, product design, and policy approaches. Important open problems include multi-stakeholder processes for defining values and resolving trade-offs, better values-driven measurements, recommender controls that people use, non-behavioral algorithmic feedback, optimization for long-term outcomes, causal inference of recommender effects, academic-industry research collaborations, and interdisciplinary policy-making.

To support efficient, balanced news consumption, merging articles from diverse sources into one, potentially through crowdsourcing, could alleviate some hurdles. However, the merging process could also impact annotators’ attitudes towards the content. To test this theory, we propose comparative news annotation; that is, annotating similarities and differences between a pair of articles. By developing and deploying NewsComp—a prototype system—we conducted a between-subjects experiment (N = 109) to examine how users’ annotations compare to experts’, and how comparative annotation affects users’ perceptions of article credibility and quality. We found that comparative annotation can marginally impact users’ credibility perceptions in certain cases; it did not impact perceptions of quality. While users’ annotations were not on par with experts’, they showed greater precision in finding similarities than in identifying disparate important statements. The comparison process also led users to notice differences in information placement and depth, degree of factuality/opinion, and empathetic/inflammatory language use. We discuss implications for the design of future comparative annotation tasks.

With the 2022 US midterm elections approaching, conspiratorial claims about the 2020 presidential elections continue to threaten users’ trust in the electoral process. To regulate election misinformation, YouTube introduced policies to remove such content from its searches and recommendations. In this paper, we conduct a 9-day crowd-sourced audit on YouTube to assess the extent of enactment of such policies. We recruited 99 users who installed a browser extension that enabled us to collect up-next recommendation trails and search results for 45 videos and 88 search queries about the 2020 elections. We find that YouTube’s search results, irrespective of search query bias, contain more videos that oppose rather than support election misinformation. However, watching misinformative election videos still lead users to a small number of misinformative videos in the up-next trails. Our results imply that while YouTube largely seems successful in regulating election misinformation, there is still room for improvement.

Narrative sensemaking is an essential part of understanding sequential data. Narrative maps are a visual representation model that can assist analysts to understand narratives. In this work, we present a semantic interaction (SI) framework for narrative maps that can support analysts through their sensemaking process. In contrast to traditional SI systems which rely on dimensionality reduction and work on a projection space, our approach has an additional abstraction layer—the structure space—that builds upon the projection space and encodes the narrative in a discrete structure. This extra layer introduces additional challenges that must be addressed when integrating SI with the narrative extraction pipeline. We address these challenges by presenting the general concept of Mixed Multi-Model Semantic Interaction (3MSI)—an SI pipeline, where the highest-level model corresponds to an abstract discrete structure and the lower-level models are continuous. To evaluate the performance of our 3MSI models for narrative maps, we present a quantitative simulation-based evaluation and a qualitative evaluation with case studies and expert feedback. We find that our SI system can model the analysts’ intent and support incremental formalism for narrative maps.

Conspiracy theories in online spaces, such as anti-vaccination or QAnon, present a unique amalgamation of misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda disguised in entertaining, attention-grabbing content that may appeal to peoples' cultural, moral, or social identities. Studies aiming to understand how people may engage with conspiracy theory content online, or how they may lose belief in conspiracy theories often approach research from a purely theoretical or empirical point of view. In this work, through in-depth interviews with former believers of more than 12 conspiracy theories, with experiences across almost two decades and numerous online platforms, we aim to contribute an understanding of how various online and offline factors synergize to shape a user's engagement, tenure, and disengagement in online conspiracy theorizing. We further investigate how some users recover from conspiracy theorizing with the help of online recovery communities. We find how pre-existing biases and predispositions towards conspiracy theorizing often carry over in online spaces where a user's conspiracy theory worldviews further evolve through content recommendations, interactions in online communities, and socially-primed self-reflections. We also find reasons, such as exposure to inconsistencies in theories or toxicity and anti-social attitudes in online spaces, through which users get disillusioned from conspiracy theories. Our work has implications in bringing forward often unobserved impacts of internet-mediated conspiracy theorizing on the believers---the resulting mental health issues such as depression, distrust and anxiety, and social isolation---which is comparable to the indoctrination trauma. Moreover, our interviews reveal an important role played by online communities in helping users recover from conspiracy theory beliefs by finding empathy and solidarity in fellow former believers. We conclude by providing a path forward for how social computing researchers can contribute online community designs that aid existing issues surrounding safety, inclusivity, and lack of resources in existing online conspiracy theory recovery communities.

To promote engagement, recommendation algorithms on platforms like YouTube increasingly personalize users’ feeds, limiting users’ exposure to diverse content and depriving them of opportunities to reflect on their interests compared to others’. In this work, we investigate how exchanging recommendations with strangers can help users discover new content and reflect. We tested this idea by developing OtherTube—a browser extension for YouTube that displays strangers’ personalized YouTube recommendations. OtherTube allows users to (i) create an anonymized profile for social comparison, (ii) share their recommended videos with others, and (iii) browse strangers’ YouTube recommendations. We conducted a 10-day-long user study (n = 41) followed by a post-study interview (n = 11). Our results reveal that users discovered and developed new interests from seeing OtherTube recommendations. We identified user and content characteristics that affect interaction and engagement with exchanged recommendations; for example, younger users interacted more with OtherTube, while the perceived irrelevance of some content discouraged users from watching certain videos. Users reflected on their interests as well as others’, recognizing similarities and differences. Our work shows promise for designs leveraging the exchange of personalized recommendations with strangers.

Increasing demands for fact-checking have led to a growing interest in developing systems and tools to automate the fact-checking process. However, such systems are limited in practice because their system design often does not take into account how fact-checking is done in the real world and ignores the insights and needs of various stakeholder groups core to the fact-checking process. This paper unpacks the fact-checking process by revealing the infrastructures---both human and technological---that support and shape fact-checking work. We interviewed 26 participants belonging to 16 fact-checking teams and organizations with representation from 4 continents. Through these interviews, we describe the human infrastructure of fact-checking by identifying and presenting, in-depth, the roles of six primary stakeholder groups, 1) Editors, 2) External fact-checkers, 3) In-house fact-checkers, 4) Investigators and researchers, 5) Social media managers, and 6) Advocators. Our findings highlight that the fact-checking process is a collaborative effort among various stakeholder groups and associated technological and informational infrastructures. By rendering visibility to the infrastructures, we reveal how fact-checking has evolved to include both short-term claims centric and long-term advocacy centric fact-checking. Our work also identifies key social and technical needs and challenges faced by each stakeholder group. Based on our findings, we suggest that improving the quality of fact-checking requires systematic changes in the civic, informational, and technological contexts.

There is a growing concern that e-commerce platforms are amplifying vaccine-misinformation. To investigate, we conduct two-sets of algorithmic audits for vaccine misinformation on the search and recommendation algorithms of Amazon—world’s leading e-retailer. First, we systematically audit search-results belonging to vaccine-related search-queries without logging into the platform—unpersonalized audits. We find 10.47% of search-results promote misinformative health products. We also observe ranking-bias, with Amazon ranking misinformative search-results higher than debunking search-results. Next, we analyze the effects of personalization due to account-history, where history is built progressively by performing various real-world user-actions, such as clicking a product. We find evidence of filter-bubble effect in Amazon’s recommendations; accounts performing actions on misinformative products are presented with more misinformation compared to accounts performing actions on neutral and debunking products. Interestingly, once user clicks on a misinformative product, homepage recommendations become more contaminated compared to when user shows an intention to buy that product.

Struggling to curb misinformation, social media platforms are experimenting with design interventions to enhance consumption of credible news on their platforms. Some of these interventions, such as the use of warning messages, are examples of nudges---a choice-preserving technique to steer behavior. Despite their application, we do not know whether nudges could steer people into making conscious news credibility judgments online and if they do, under what constraints. To answer, we combine nudge techniques with heuristic based information processing to design NudgeCred--a browser extension for Twitter. NudgeCred directs users' attention to two design cues: authority of a source and other users' collective opinion on a report by activating three design nudges---Reliable, Questionable, and Unreliable, each denoting particular levels of credibility for news tweets. In a controlled experiment, we found that NudgeCred significantly helped users (n=430) distinguish news tweets' credibility, unrestricted by three behavioral confounds---political ideology, political cynicism, and media skepticism. A five-day field deployment with twelve participants revealed that NudgeCred improved their recognition of news items and attention towards all of our nudges, particularly towards Questionable. Among other considerations, participants proposed that designers should incorporate heuristics that users' would trust. Our work informs nudge-based system design approaches for online media.

As news organizations embrace transparency practices on their websites to distinguish themselves from those spreading misinformation, HCI designers have the opportunity to help them effectively utilize the ideals of transparency to build trust. How can we utilize transparency to promote trust in news? We examine this question through a qualitative lens by interviewing journalists and news consumers---the two stakeholders in a news system. We designed a scenario to demonstrate transparency features using two fundamental news attributes that convey the trustworthiness of a news article: source and message. In the interviews, our news consumers expressed the idea that news transparency could be best shown by providing indicators of objectivity in two areas (news selection and framing) and by providing indicators of evidence in four areas (presence of source materials, anonymous sourcing, verification, and corrections upon erroneous reporting). While our journalists agreed with news consumers' suggestions of using evidence indicators, they also suggested additional transparency indicators in areas such as the news reporting process and personal/organizational conflicts of interest. Prompted by our scenario, participants offered new design considerations for building trustworthy news platforms, such as designing for easy comprehension, presenting appropriate details in news articles (e.g., showing the number and nature of corrections made to an article), and comparing attributes across news organizations to highlight diverging practices. Comparing the responses from our two stakeholder groups reveals conflicting suggestions with trade-offs between them. Our study has implications for HCI designers in building trustworthy news systems.

Social media provides the means by which extremist social movements, such as white supremacy and anti-LGBTQ, thrive online. Yet, we know little about the roles played by the participants of such movements. In this paper, we investigate these participants to characterize their roles, their role dynamics, and their influence in spreading online extremism. Our participants-online extremist accounts-are 4,876 public Facebook pages or groups that have shared information from the websites of 289 Southern Poverty LawCenter (SPLC) designated extremist groups. Guided by theories of participatory activism, we map the information sharing features of these extremists accounts. By clustering the quantitative features followed by qualitative expert validation, we identify five roles surrounding extremist activism-educators, solicitors, flamers, motivators, sympathizers. For example, solicitors use links from extremist websites to attract donations and participation in extremist issues, whereas flamers share inflammatory extremist content inciting anger. We further investigate role dynamics such as, how stable these roles are over time and how likely will extremist accounts transition from one role into another. We find that roles core to the movement-educators and solicitors-are more stable, while flamers and motivators can transition to sympathizers with high probability. Finally, using a Hawkes process model, we test which roles are more influential in spreading various types of information. We find that educators and solicitors exert the most influence in triggering extremist link posts, whereas flamers are influential in triggering the spread of information from fake news sources. Our results help in situating various roles on the trajectory of deeper engagement into the extremist movements and understanding the potential effect of various counter-extremism interventions. Our findings have implications for understanding how online extremist movements flourish through participatory activism and how they gain a spectrum of allies for mobilizing extremism online.

Online discussion platforms provide a forum to strengthen and propagate belief in misinformed conspiracy theories. Yet, they also offer avenues for conspiracy theorists to express their doubts and experiences of cognitive dissonance. Such expressions of dissonance may shed light on who abandons misguided beliefs and under what circumstances. This paper characterizes self-disclosures of dissonance about QAnon-a conspiracy theory initiated by a mysterious leader "Q" and popularized by their followers ?anons"-in conspiratorial subreddits. To understand what dissonance and disbelief mean within conspiracy communities, we first characterize their social imaginaries-a broad understanding of how people collectively imagine their social existence. Focusing on 2K posts from two image boards, 4chan and 8chan, and 1.2 M comments and posts from 12 subreddits dedicated to QAnon, we adopt a mixed-methods approach to uncover the symbolic language representing the movement,expectations,practices,heroes and foes of the QAnon community. We use these social imaginaries to create a computational framework for distinguishing belief and dissonance from general discussion about QAnon, surfacing in the 1.2M comments. We investigate the dissonant comments to characterize the dissonance expressed along QAnon social imaginaries. Further, analyzing user engagement with QAnon conspiracy subreddits, we find that self-disclosures of dissonance correlate with a significant decrease in user contributions and ultimately with their departure from the community. Our work offers a systematic framework for uncovering the dimensions and coded language related to QAnon social imaginaries and can serve as a toolbox for studying other conspiracy theories across different platforms. We also contribute a computational framework for identifying dissonance self-disclosures and measuring the changes in user engagement surrounding dissonance. Our work provide insights into designing dissonance based interventions that can potentially dissuade conspiracists from engaging in online conspiracy discussion communities.

Hate groups are increasingly using multiple social media platforms to promote extremist ideologies. Yet we know little about their communication practices across platforms. How do hate groups (or "in-groups"), frame their hateful agenda against the targeted group or the "out-group?" How do they share information? Utilizing "framing" theory from social movement research and analyzing domains in the shared links, we juxtapose the Facebook and Twitter communication of 72 Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) designated hate groups spanning five hate ideologies. Our findings show that hate groups use Twitter for educating the audience about problems with the out-group, maintaining positive self-image by emphasizing in-group's high social status, and for demanding policy changes to negatively affect the out-group. On Facebook, they use fear appeals, call for active participation in group events (membership requests), all while portraying themselves as being oppressed by the out-group and failed by the system. Our study unravels the ecosystem of cross-platform communication by hate groups, suggesting that they use Facebook for group radicalization and recruitment, while Twitter for reaching a diverse follower base.

Misinformation about critical issues such as climate change and vaccine safety is oftentimes amplified on online social and search platforms. The crowdsourcing of content credibility assessment by laypeople has been proposed as one strategy to combat misinformation by attempting to replicate the assessments of experts at scale. In this work, we investigate news credibility assessments by crowds versus experts to understand when and how ratings between them differ. We gather a dataset of over 4,000 credibility assessments taken from 2 crowd groups---journalism students and Upwork workers---as well as 2 expert groups---journalists and scientists---on a varied set of 50 news articles related to climate science, a topic with widespread disconnect between public opinion and expert consensus. Examining the ratings, we find differences in performance due to the makeup of the crowd, such as rater demographics and political leaning, as well as the scope of the tasks that the crowd is assigned to rate, such as the genre of the article and partisanship of the publication. Finally, we find differences between expert assessments due to differing expert criteria that journalism versus science experts use---differences that may contribute to crowd discrepancies, but that also suggest a way to reduce the gap by designing crowd tasks tailored to specific expert criteria. From these findings, we outline future research directions to better design crowd processes that are tailored to specific crowds and types of content.

Search engines are the primary gateways of information. Yet, they do not take into account the credibility of search results. There is a growing concern that YouTube, the second largest search engine and the most popular video-sharing platform, has been promoting and recommending misinformative content for certain search topics. In this study, we audit YouTube to verify those claims. Our audit experiments investigate whether personalization (based on age, gender, geolocation, or watch history) contributes to amplifying misinformation. After shortlisting five popular topics known to contain misinformative content and compiling associated search queries representing them, we conduct two sets of audits-Search-and Watch-misinformative audits. Our audits resulted in a dataset of more than 56K videos compiled to link stance (whether promoting misinformation or not) with the personalization attribute audited. Our videos correspond to three major YouTube components: search results, Up-Next, and Top 5 recommendations. We find that demographics, such as, gender, age, and geolocation do not have a significant effect on amplifying misinformation in returned search results for users with brand new accounts. On the other hand, once a user develops a watch history, these attributes do affect the extent of misinformation recommended to them. Further analyses reveal a filter bubble effect, both in the Top 5 and Up-Next recommendations for all topics, except vaccine controversies; for these topics, watching videos that promote misinformation leads to more misinformative video recommendations. In conclusion, YouTube still has a long way to go to mitigate misinformation on its platform.

Transparency in moderation practices is crucial to the success of an online community. To meet the growing demands of transparency and accountability, several academics came together and proposed the Santa Clara Principles on Transparency and Accountability in Content Moderation (SCP). In 2018, Reddit, home to uniquely moderated communities called subreddits, announced in its transparency report that the company is aligning its content moderation practices with the SCP. But do the moderators of subreddit communities follow these guidelines too? In this paper, we answer this question by employing a mixed-methods approach on public moderation logs collected from 204 subreddits over a period of five months, containing more than 0.5M instances of removals by both human moderators and AutoModerator. Our results reveal a lack of transparency in moderation practices. We find that while subreddits often rely on AutoModerator to sanction newcomer posts based on karma requirements and moderate uncivil content based on automated keyword lists, users are neither notified of these sanctions, nor are these practices formally stated in any of the subreddits' rules. We interviewed 13 Reddit moderators to hear their views on different facets of transparency and to determine why a lack of transparency is a widespread phenomenon. The interviews reveal that moderators' stance on transparency is divided, there is a lack of standardized process to appeal against content removal and Reddit's app and platform design often impede moderators' ability to be transparent in their moderation practices.

Narratives are fundamental to our perception of the world and are pervasive in all activities that involve the representation of events in time. Yet, modern online information systems do not incorporate narratives in their representation of events occurring over time. This article aims to bridge this gap, combining the theory of narrative representations with the data from modern online systems. We make three key contributions: a theory-driven computational representation of narratives, a novel extraction algorithm to obtain these representations from data, and an evaluation of our approach. In particular, given the effectiveness of visual metaphors, we employ a route map metaphor to design a narrative map representation. The narrative map representation illustrates the events and stories in the narrative as a series of landmarks and routes on the map. Each element of our representation is backed by a corresponding element from formal narrative theory, thus providing a solid theoretical background to our method. Our approach extracts the underlying graph structure of the narrative map using a novel optimization technique focused on maximizing coherence while respecting structural and coverage constraints. We showcase the effectiveness of our approach by performing a user evaluation to assess the quality of the representation, metaphor, and visualization. Evaluation results indicate that the Narrative Map representation is a powerful method to communicate complex narratives to individuals. Our findings have implications for intelligence analysts, computational journalists, and misinformation researchers.

Widespread conspiracy theories, like those motivating anti-vaccination attitudes or climate change denial, propel collective action, and bear society-wide consequences. Yet, empirical research has largely studied conspiracy theory adoption as an individual pursuit, rather than as a socially mediated process. What makes users join communities endorsing and spreading conspiracy theories? We leverage longitudinal data from 56 conspiracy communities on Reddit to compare individual and social factors determining which users join the communities. Using a quasi-experimental approach, we first identify 30K future conspiracists?(FC) and30K matched non-conspiracists?(NC). We then provide empirical evidence of the importance of social factors across six dimensions relative to the individual factors by analyzing 6 million Reddit comments and posts. Specifically, in social factors, we find that dyadic interactions with members of the conspiracy communities and marginalization outside of the conspiracy communities are the most important social precursors to conspiracy joining-even outperforming individual factor baselines. Our results offer quantitative backing to understand social processes and echo chamber effects in conspiratorial engagement, with important implications for democratic institutions and online communities.

When employees participate in organizational crowdfunding, they seek partial funding from their existing social networks. Among proposers of projects, teams with larger social networks tend to be more successful in reaching their funding goals. However, little is known about the consequences of participation on employees' social networks, during and after the crowdfunding campaign. In a study of activity logs and social networks from a very large scale organizational crowdfunding campaign, we found that people in different crowdfunding roles experienced different degrees of growth in their social networks, during and after the crowdfunding campaign, as compared with baseline nonparticipants. These findings contribute to previous work on the strongly social nature of crowdfunding. Organizations can use these results to increase the density of their internal social networks. Employees can use these results to strategize their participation in workplace social networks and in organizational innovation.

Conspiracy theories are omnipresent in online discussions---whether to explain a late-breaking event that still lacks official report or to give voice to political dissent. Conspiracy theories evolve, multiply, and interconnect, further complicating efforts to understand them and to limit their propagation. It is therefore crucial to develop scalable methods to examine the nature of conspiratorial discussions in online communities. What do users talk about when they discuss conspiracy theories online? What are the recurring elements in their discussions? What do these elements tell us about the way users think? This work answers these questions by analyzing over ten years of discussions in r/conspiracy---an online community on Reddit dedicated to conspiratorial discussions. We focus on the key elements of a conspiracy theory: the conspiratorial agents, the actions they perform, and their targets. By computationally detecting agent?action?target triplets in conspiratorial statements, and grouping them into semantically coherent clusters, we develop a notion of narrative-motif to detect recurring patterns of triplets. For example, a narrative-motif such as "governmental agency-controls-communications" represents the various ways in which multiple conspiratorial statements denote how governmental agencies control information. Thus, narrative-motifs expose commonalities between multiple conspiracy theories even when they refer to different events or circumstances. In the process, these representations help us understand how users talk about conspiracy theories and offer us a means to interpret what they talk about. Our approach enables a population-scale study of conspiracy theories in alternative news and social media with implications for understanding their adoption and combating their spread.

Social media has increasingly become central to the way billions of people experience news and events, often bypassing journalists---the traditional gatekeepers of breaking news. Naturally, this casts doubt on the credibility of information found on social media. Here we ask: Can the language captured in unfolding Twitter events provide information about the event's credibility? By examining the first large-scale, systematically-tracked credibility corpus of public Twitter messages (66M messages corresponding to 1,377 real-world events over a span of three months), and identifying 15 theoretically grounded linguistic dimensions, we present a parsimonious model that maps language cues to perceived levels of credibility. While not deployable as a standalone model for credibility assessment at present, our results show that certain linguistic categories and their associated phrases are strong predictors surrounding disparate social media events. In other words, the language used by millions of people on Twitter has considerable information about an event's credibility. For example, hedge words and positive emotion words are associated with lower credibility.

Behavioral statescan be transferred to others, leading people to behave in ways similar to those around them. Can this phenomenon of behavioral contagion be seen in the workplace? Using employees' organizational social media data and their workplace hierarchical network structure, we studied contagion across a large multinational corporation, focusing on an important workplace behavior - employee engagement. We measured employees' engagement based on their word choice in organizational social media, and we applied a longitudinal statistical technique which controls for homophily, employees' traits and prior expressions of engagement. We found that engagement and disengagement spread from one employee to another with direct peers exerting the strongest influence. While engagement-spread was more powerful laterally among people at the same organizational level, disengagement-spread followed the vertical managerial chain. Further, we found that disengaged co-workers exerted a stronger influence on employee's future engagement compared to the engaged co-workers. Our results suggest the need for organizations to sense and address workplace disengagement promptly. Moreover, our findings offer opportunities for using workplace interventions to promote engagement and mitigate disengagement.

Today, social media provide the means by which billions of people experience news and events happening around the world. However, the absence of traditional journalistic gatekeeping allows information to flow unencumbered through these platforms, often raising questions of veracity and credibility of the reported information. Here we ask: How do the dynamics of collective attention directed toward an event reported on social media vary with its perceived credibility? By examining the first large-scale, systematically tracked credibility database of public Twitter messages (47M messages corresponding to 1,138 real-world events over a period of three months), we established a relationship between the temporal dynamics of events reported on social media and their associated level of credibility judgments. Representing collective attention by the aggregate temporal signatures of an event's reportage, we found that the amount of continued attention focused on an event provides information about its associated levels of perceived credibility. Events exhibiting sustained, intermittent bursts of attention were found to be associated with lower levels of perceived credibility. In other words, as more people showed interest during moments of transient collective attention, the associated uncertainty surrounding these events also increased.

Online communities can promote illness recovery and improve well-being in the cases of many kinds of illnesses. However, for challenging mental health condition like anorexia, social media harbor both recovery communities as well as those that encourage dangerous behaviors. The effectiveness of such platforms in promoting recovery despite housing both communities is underexplored. Our work begins to fill this gap by developing a statistical framework using survival analysis and situating our results within the cognitive behavioral theory of anorexia. This model identifies content and participation measures that predict the likelihood of recovery. From our dataset of over 68M posts and 10K users that self-identify with anorexia, we find that recovery on Tumblr is protracted - only half of the population is estimated to exhibit signs of recovery after four years. We discuss the effectiveness of social media in improving well-being around anorexia, a unique health challenge, and emergent questions from this line of work.

In the past half-decade, Amazon Mechanical Turk has radically changed the way many scholars do research. The availability of a massive, distributed, anonymous crowd of individuals willing to perform general human-intelligence micro-tasks for micro-payments is a valuable resource for researchers and practitioners. This paper addresses the challenges of obtaining quality annotations for subjective judgment oriented tasks of varying difficulty. We design and conduct a large, controlled experiment (N=68,000) to measure the efficacy of selected strategies for obtaining high quality data annotations from non-experts. Our results point to the advantages of person-oriented strategies over process-oriented strategies. Specifically, we find that screening workers for requisite cognitive aptitudes and providing training in qualitative coding techniques is quite effective, significantly outperforming control and baseline conditions. Interestingly, such strategies can improve coder annotation accuracy above and beyond common benchmark strategies such as Bayesian Truth Serum (BTS).

Crowdfunding sites like Kickstarter--where entrepreneurs and artists look to the internet for funding--have quickly risen to prominence. However, we know very little about the factors driving the 'crowd' to take projects to their funding goal. In this paper we explore the factors which lead to successfully funding a crowdfunding project. We study a corpus of 45K crowdfunded projects, analyzing 9M phrases and 59 other variables commonly present on crowdfunding sites. The language used in the project has surprising predictive power accounting for 58.56% of the variance around successful funding. A closer look at the phrases shows they exhibit general persuasion principles. For example, also receive two reflects the principle of Reciprocity and is one of the top predictors of successful funding. We conclude this paper by announcing the release of the predictive phrases along with the control variables as a public dataset, hoping that our work can enable new features on crowdfunding sites--tools to help both backers and project creators make the best use of their time and money.