Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
38 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
59 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
41 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
7 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
50 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

False Information on Web and Social Media: A Survey (1804.08559v1)

Published 23 Apr 2018 in cs.SI, cs.CL, cs.CY, and cs.DL
False Information on Web and Social Media: A Survey

Abstract: False information can be created and spread easily through the web and social media platforms, resulting in widespread real-world impact. Characterizing how false information proliferates on social platforms and why it succeeds in deceiving readers are critical to develop efficient detection algorithms and tools for early detection. A recent surge of research in this area has aimed to address the key issues using methods based on feature engineering, graph mining, and information modeling. Majority of the research has primarily focused on two broad categories of false information: opinion-based (e.g., fake reviews), and fact-based (e.g., false news and hoaxes). Therefore, in this work, we present a comprehensive survey spanning diverse aspects of false information, namely (i) the actors involved in spreading false information, (ii) rationale behind successfully deceiving readers, (iii) quantifying the impact of false information, (iv) measuring its characteristics across different dimensions, and finally, (iv) algorithms developed to detect false information. In doing so, we create a unified framework to describe these recent methods and highlight a number of important directions for future research.

Insights into the Dynamics of False Information on the Web and Social Media

The proliferation of false information on web and social platforms has emerged as a significant concern, influencing public opinion and spreading misinformation with substantial real-world repercussions. The surveyed paper entitled "False Information on Web and Social Media: A Survey" presents an articulate synthesis of existing research investigating the mechanisms by which false information propagates, the entities involved, and the emerging methodologies for its detection. The paper thoroughly examines the categorization of false information, primarily bifurcated into opinion-based (e.g., fake reviews) and fact-based (e.g., fake news and hoaxes), offering a critical framework for understanding and addressing the diffusion of misinformation.

Key Areas of Focus

The paper explores several dimensions crucial to understanding false information:

  1. Actors and Mechanisms: The survey emphasizes the role of synthetic actors like bots and sockpuppets, which are strategically employed to engineer the spread and appearance of consensus around false narratives. This underscores the technologically advanced nature of misinformation campaigns which exploit the viral nature of platforms.
  2. Vulnerabilities to Deception: A theme running through the paper highlights the susceptibility of humans to false information due, in part, to cognitive biases such as confirmation bias and the creation of echo chambers. These factors collectively impair users' ability to discern falsehoods, a concern substantiated by empirical evidence showing humans to be generally ineffective at detecting fake content consistently.
  3. Impact of False Information: The causes of concern outlined include the substantial reach and engagement that false information garners when compared to genuine content. This has been demonstrated in multiple studies, noting a pattern of false information spreading faster and deeper within networks, particularly accentuated during its nascent stages when fact-checking has not yet intervened.
  4. Detection Techniques: The review methodically categorizes current detection techniques into three broad classes: feature-based, graph-based, and propagation-modeling approaches. These methodologies leverage nuanced data features ranging from textual and user behavioral patterns to network and propagation dynamics to identify and mitigate misinformation.
  5. Evaluation Challenges and Future Directions: The survey elucidates the challenges prevalent in misinformation research, such as dataset limitations for benchmarking detection approaches and the evolving sophistication of false information generators. It prompts further investigation into semantic dissonance detection, leveraging knowledge bases for verification, innovating on multimedia false content detection, and bridging ideological echo chambers.

Implications and Future Directions

The paper underlines the necessity for integrated approaches combining insights from natural language processing, graph theory, and computational modeling to forge advancements in misinformation detection. An intriguing prospect posited involves leveraging cross-disciplinary techniques, such as adversarial training models, which could preemptively adapt to evolving deceptive tactics—a consideration vital given the participative and dynamic nature of misinformation actors.

Moreover, the paper's insight into the potential of crowdsourced verification and collaboration with extensive fact-checking networks offers a compelling pathway for scalable misinformation counteraction. This dimension parallels the envisioned application of machine learning to discern semantic dissonances between claims and credible reference points, suggesting areas ripe for technological innovation.

In conclusion, the surveyed paper offers a comprehensive and empirically backed overview into the complexities of false information dynamics on the web. It shines a light on current research hurdles while proposing an interdisciplinary trajectory for future inquiries, thus paving the way for more resilient and nuanced misinformation countermeasures on digital platforms. The depth of the synthesis it presents not only guides ongoing research but also arms practitioners with the fundamental knowledge required to contend with the pervasive issue of misinformation.

User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (2)
  1. Srijan Kumar (61 papers)
  2. Neil Shah (87 papers)
Citations (327)