![]() ![]() The answer is complicated because the existing evidence shows that the prominence of deceptive content is driven by three factors: volume, breadth, and speed. ![]() How can we mitigate the spread of disinformation and misinformation? This is one of the current burning questions in social, political and media circles across the world (Kietzmann et al., 2020). This paper is a call for more fine-grained research since these results indicate that we should not treat all misinformation equally since there are significant differences among misinformation categories that are not considered in previous studies. The results show that misinformation, on average, is easier to process in terms of cognitive effort (3% easier to read and 15% less lexically diverse) and more emotional (10 times more relying on negative sentiment and 37% more appealing to morality). These misinformation categories are compared with factual news measuring the cognitive effort needed to process the content (grammar and lexical complexity) and its emotional evocation (sentiment analysis and appeal to morality). ![]() This paper explores the characteristics of misinformation content compared to factual news-the “fingerprints of misinformation”-using 92,112 news articles classified into several categories: clickbait, conspiracy theories, fake news, hate speech, junk science, and rumors. However, most of the existing research does not account for these differences. It can adopt many different forms like conspiracy theories, fake news, junk science, or rumors among others. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |