Tanushree Mitra

Chan Young Park, Shuyue Stella Li, Hayoung Jung et al. · cmu, uw

This study introduces ValueScope, a framework leveraging language models to quantify social norms and values within online communities, grounded in social science perspectives on normative structures. We employ ValueScope to dissect and analyze linguistic and stylistic expressions across 13 Reddit communities categorized under gender, politics, science, and finance. Our analysis provides a quantitative foundation showing that even closely related communities exhibit remarkably diverse norms. This diversity supports existing theories and adds a new dimension--community preference--to understanding community interactions. ValueScope not only delineates differing social norms among communities but also effectively traces their evolution and the influence of significant external events like the U.S. presidential elections and the emergence of new sub-communities. The framework thus highlights the pivotal role of social norms in shaping online interactions, presenting a substantial advance in both the theory and application of social norm studies in digital spaces.

Brian Keith Norambuena, Tanushree Mitra, Chris North

Narratives are fundamental to our understanding of the world, providing us with a natural structure for knowledge representation over time. Computational narrative extraction is a subfield of artificial intelligence that makes heavy use of information retrieval and natural language processing techniques. Despite the importance of computational narrative extraction, relatively little scholarly work exists on synthesizing previous research and strategizing future research in the area. In particular, this article focuses on extracting news narratives from an event-centric perspective. Extracting narratives from news data has multiple applications in understanding the evolving information landscape. This survey presents an extensive study of research in the area of event-based news narrative extraction. In particular, we screened over 900 articles that yielded 54 relevant articles. These articles are synthesized and organized by representation model, extraction criteria, and evaluation approaches. Based on the reviewed studies, we identify recent trends, open challenges, and potential research lines.

Brian Keith Norambuena, Tanushree Mitra, Chris North

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.

Shruti Phadke, Mattia Samory, Tanushree Mitra

The disruptive offline mobilization of participants in online conspiracy theory (CT) discussions has highlighted the importance of understanding how online users may form radicalized conspiracy beliefs. While prior work researched the factors leading up to joining online CT discussions and provided theories of how conspiracy beliefs form, we have little understanding of how conspiracy radicalization evolves after users join CT discussion communities. In this paper, we provide the empirical modeling of various radicalization phases in online CT discussion participants. To unpack how conspiracy engagement is related to radicalization, we first characterize the users' journey through CT discussions via conspiracy engagement pathways. Specifically, by studying 36K Reddit users through their 169M contributions, we uncover four distinct pathways of conspiracy engagement: steady high, increasing, decreasing, and steady low. We further model three successive stages of radicalization guided by prior theoretical works. Specific sub-populations of users, namely those on steady high and increasing conspiracy engagement pathways, progress successively through various radicalization stages. In contrast, users on the decreasing engagement pathway show distinct behavior: they limit their CT discussions to specialized topics, participate in diverse discussion groups, and show reduced conformity with conspiracy subreddits. By examining users who disengage from online CT discussions, this paper provides promising insights about conspiracy recovery process.

Shravika Mittal, Erin Kasson, Layna Paraboschi et al. · gatech

Generative AI (GenAI) is increasingly being integrated into the online ecosystem, including online health communities (OHCs), where people with diverse health conditions exchange social support. For example, in OHCs, support providers are beginning to share content generated, directly or indirectly, by popular GenAI-based tools. OHCs are governed by norms that define appropriate behavior when providing support. Ways in which AI-generated support interacts with these norms remain underexplored. Inappropriate conformance or outright violation can erode seekers' trust, distort decision-making, and threaten community sustenance. In this work, we examine whether (and how) AI-generated support conforms to norms, using popular opioid-use recovery subreddits as our testbed. First, we provide an inventory of norms regulating text-based support provision in OHCs. Next, using human-validated LLM judges, we assess the prevalence of AI's conformity to these norms. Finally, through an expert review, we identify risks to seekers (and OHCs) resulting from norm (non)conformity. Our analysis revealed that, while AI-generated support conforms to norms, such conformity may be inappropriate or insufficient, for example, by over- or under-validating seekers in distress. Moreover, we observed instances of outright norm violation. This work provides insights that can help moderators and OHC designers adapt existing and develop new norms to regulate AI integration, protecting both seekers and communities they rely on.

Hayoung Jung, Prerna Juneja, Tanushree Mitra · uw

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.

Hua Shen, Tiffany Knearem, Reshmi Ghosh et al.

As AI systems become more advanced, ensuring their alignment with a diverse range of individuals and societal values becomes increasingly critical. But how can we capture fundamental human values and assess the degree to which AI systems align with them? We introduce ValueCompass, a framework of fundamental values, grounded in psychological theory and a systematic review, to identify and evaluate human-AI alignment. We apply ValueCompass to measure the value alignment of humans and large language models (LLMs) across four real-world scenarios: collaborative writing, education, public sectors, and healthcare. Our findings reveal concerning misalignments between humans and LLMs, such as humans frequently endorse values like "National Security" which were largely rejected by LLMs. We also observe that values differ across scenarios, highlighting the need for context-aware AI alignment strategies. This work provides valuable insights into the design space of human-AI alignment, laying the foundations for developing AI systems that responsibly reflect societal values and ethics.

Jiawen Stefanie Zhu, Katharina Reinecke, Tanushree Mitra

While multilingual users often switch between languages when seeking information, this process remains undersupported by current systems where information is typically siloed by language. Our formative study reveals that users' cross-language transitions are guided by their perceived value of switching to a language, a concept we formalize as language scent. Language scent extends Pirolli and Card's theory of information scent to multilingual scenarios by considering meta-level strategy formation when navigating between different languages. To support language scent, we designed Niffler, a search system that augments language scent and supports cross-language information navigation through contextual cues, in-situ tools, and reflection support. A lab study with 16 multilingual speakers showed that Niffler facilitated the formation and execution of exploratory and granular search strategies and leads to diverse information being gathered. Our findings establish language scent as a valuable lens on cross-language information seeking, highlighting language's role in enabling access to broader information and offering concrete implications for the design of multilingual search systems.

Robert Wolfe, Tanushree Mitra

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. Our work provides novel perspective on open models in data-driven organizations.

Robert Wolfe, Tanushree Mitra

Generative AI appears poised to transform white collar professions, with more than 90% of Fortune 500 companies using OpenAI's flagship GPT models, which have been characterized as "general purpose technologies" capable of effecting epochal changes in the economy. But how will such technologies impact organizations whose job is to verify and report factual information, and to ensure the health of the information ecosystem? To investigate this question, we conducted 30 interviews with N=38 participants working at 29 fact-checking organizations across six continents, asking about how they use generative AI and the opportunities and challenges they see in the technology. We found that uses of generative AI envisioned by fact-checkers differ based on organizational infrastructure, with applications for quality assurance in Editing, for trend analysis in Investigation, and for information literacy in Advocacy. We used the TOE framework to describe participant concerns ranging from the Technological (lack of transparency), to the Organizational (resource constraints), to the Environmental (uncertain and evolving policy). Building on the insights of our participants, we describe value tensions between fact-checking and generative AI, and propose a novel Verification dimension to the design space of generative models for information verification work. Finally, we outline an agenda for fairness, accountability, and transparency research to support the responsible use of generative AI in fact-checking. Throughout, we highlight the importance of human infrastructure and labor in producing verified information in collaboration with AI. We expect that this work will inform not only the scientific literature on fact-checking, but also contribute to understanding of organizational adaptation to a powerful but unreliable new technology.

Preetam Prabhu Srikar Dammu, Hayoung Jung, Anjali Singh et al. · uw

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.

Hua Shen, Nicholas Clark, Tanushree Mitra

Existing research primarily evaluates the values of LLMs by examining their stated inclinations towards specific values. However, the "Value-Action Gap," a phenomenon rooted in environmental and social psychology, reveals discrepancies between individuals' stated values and their actions in real-world contexts. To what extent do LLMs exhibit a similar gap between their stated values and their actions informed by those values? This study introduces ValueActionLens, an evaluation framework to assess the alignment between LLMs' stated values and their value-informed actions. The framework encompasses the generation of a dataset comprising 14.8k value-informed actions across twelve cultures and eleven social topics, and two tasks to evaluate how well LLMs' stated value inclinations and value-informed actions align across three different alignment measures. Extensive experiments reveal that the alignment between LLMs' stated values and actions is sub-optimal, varying significantly across scenarios and models. Analysis of misaligned results identifies potential harms from certain value-action gaps. To predict the value-action gaps, we also uncover that leveraging reasoned explanations improves performance. These findings underscore the risks of relying solely on the LLMs' stated values to predict their behaviors and emphasize the importance of context-aware evaluations of LLM values and value-action gaps.

Nicholas Clark, Hua Shen, Bill Howe et al.

LLMs increasingly serve as tools for knowledge acquisition, yet users cannot effectively specify how they want information presented. When users request that LLMs "cite reputable sources," "express appropriate uncertainty," or "include multiple perspectives," they discover that current interfaces provide no structured way to articulate these preferences. The result is prompt sharing folklore: community-specific copied prompts passed through trust relationships rather than based on measured efficacy. We propose the Epistemic Alignment Framework, a set of ten challenges in knowledge transmission derived from the philosophical literature of epistemology, concerning issues such as evidence quality assessment and calibration of testimonial reliance. The framework serves as a structured intermediary between user needs and system capabilities, creating a common vocabulary to bridge the gap between what users want and what systems deliver. Through a thematic analysis of custom prompts and personalization strategies shared on online communities where these issues are actively discussed, we find users develop elaborate workarounds to address each of the challenges. We then apply our framework to two prominent model providers, OpenAI and Anthropic, through content analysis of their documented policies and product features. Our analysis shows that while these providers have partially addressed the challenges we identified, they fail to establish adequate mechanisms for specifying epistemic preferences, lack transparency about how preferences are implemented, and offer no verification tools to confirm whether preferences were followed. For AI developers, the Epistemic Alignment Framework offers concrete guidance for supporting diverse approaches to knowledge; for users, it works toward information delivery that aligns with their specific needs rather than defaulting to one-size-fits-all approaches.

Shayan Alipour, Indira Sen, Mattia Samory et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are known to exhibit demographic biases, yet few studies systematically evaluate these biases across multiple datasets or account for confounding factors. In this work, we examine LLM alignment with human annotations in five offensive language datasets, comprising approximately 220K annotations. Our findings reveal that while demographic traits, particularly race, influence alignment, these effects are inconsistent across datasets and often entangled with other factors. Confounders -- such as document difficulty, annotator sensitivity, and within-group agreement -- account for more variation in alignment patterns than demographic traits alone. Specifically, alignment increases with higher annotator sensitivity and group agreement, while greater document difficulty corresponds to reduced alignment. Our results underscore the importance of multi-dataset analyses and confounder-aware methodologies in developing robust measures of demographic bias in LLMs.

Hayoung Jung, Shravika Mittal, Ananya Aatreya et al. · gatech, uw

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 OUD-related 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.

Navreet Kaur, Hoda Ayad, Hayoung Jung et al. · gatech, uw

Language model users often embed personal and social context in their questions. The asker's role -- implicit in how the question is framed -- creates specific needs for an appropriate response. However, most evaluations, while capturing the model's capability to respond, often ignore who is asking. This gap is especially critical in stigmatized domains such as opioid use disorder (OUD), where accounting for users' contexts is essential to provide accessible, stigma-free responses. We propose CoRUS (COmmunity-driven Roles for User-centric Question Simulation), a framework for simulating role-based questions. Drawing on role theory and posts from an online OUD recovery community (r/OpiatesRecovery), we first build a taxonomy of asker roles -- patients, caregivers, practitioners. Next, we use it to simulate 15,321 questions that embed each role's goals, behaviors, and experiences. Our evaluations show that these questions are both highly believable and comparable to real-world data. When used to evaluate five LLMs, for the same question but differing roles, we find systematic differences: vulnerable roles, such as patients and caregivers, elicit more supportive responses (+17%) and reduced knowledge content (-19%) in comparison to practitioners. Our work demonstrates how implicitly signaling a user's role shapes model responses, and provides a methodology for role-informed evaluation of conversational AI.

Mahika Phutane, Hayoung Jung, Matthew Kim et al. · uw

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly under scrutiny for perpetuating identity-based discrimination in high-stakes domains such as hiring, particularly against people with disabilities (PwD). However, existing research remains largely Western-centric, overlooking how intersecting forms of marginalization--such as gender and caste--shape experiences of PwD in the Global South. We conduct a comprehensive audit of six LLMs across 2,820 hiring scenarios spanning diverse disability, gender, nationality, and caste profiles. To capture subtle intersectional harms and biases, we introduce ABLEIST (Ableism, Inspiration, Superhumanization, and Tokenism), a set of five ableism-specific and three intersectional harm metrics grounded in disability studies literature. Our results reveal significant increases in ABLEIST harms towards disabled candidates--harms that many state-of-the-art models failed to detect. These harms were further amplified by sharp increases in intersectional harms (e.g., Tokenism) for gender and caste-marginalized disabled candidates, highlighting critical blind spots in current safety tools and the need for intersectional safety evaluations of frontier models in high-stakes domains like hiring.

Shravika Mittal, Darshi Shah, Shin Won Do et al. · gatech

Widespread stigma, both in the offline and online spaces, acts as a barrier to harm reduction efforts in the context of opioid use disorder (OUD). This stigma is prominently directed towards clinically approved medications for addiction treatment (MAT), people with the condition, and the condition itself. Given the potential of artificial intelligence based technologies in promoting health equity, and facilitating empathic conversations, this work examines whether large language models (LLMs) can help abate OUD-related stigma in online communities. To answer this, we conducted a series of pre-registered randomized controlled experiments, where participants read LLM-generated, human-written, or no responses to help seeking OUD-related content in online communities. The experiment was conducted under two setups, i.e., participants read the responses either once (N = 2,141), or repeatedly for 14 days (N = 107). We found that participants reported the least stigmatized attitudes toward MAT after consuming LLM-generated responses under both the setups. This study offers insights into strategies that can foster inclusive online discourse on OUD, e.g., based on our findings LLMs can be used as an education-based intervention to promote positive attitudes and increase people's propensity toward MAT.

Prerna Juneja, Tanushree Mitra

In this position paper, we propose the use of existing XAI frameworks to design interventions in scenarios where algorithms expose users to problematic content (e.g. anti vaccine videos). Our intervention design includes facts (to indicate algorithmic justification of what happened) accompanied with either fore warnings or counterfactual explanations. While fore warnings indicate potential risks of an action to users, the counterfactual explanations will indicate what actions user should perform to change the algorithmic outcome. We envision the use of such interventions as `decision aids' to users which will help them make informed choices.

Md Momen Bhuiyan, Carlos Augusto Bautista Isaza, Tanushree Mitra et al.

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.

Brian Felipe Keith Norambuena, Tanushree Mitra, Chris North

Narrative sensemaking is a fundamental process to understand sequential information. Narrative maps are a visual representation framework that can aid analysts in their narrative sensemaking process. Narrative maps allow analysts to understand the big picture of a narrative, uncover new relationships between events, and model the connection between storylines. We seek to understand how analysts create and use narrative maps in order to obtain design guidelines for an interactive visualization tool for narrative maps that can aid analysts in narrative sensemaking. We perform two experiments with a data set of news articles. The insights extracted from our studies can be used to design narrative maps, extraction algorithms, and visual analytics tools to support the narrative sensemaking process. The contributions of this paper are three-fold: (1) an analysis of how analysts construct narrative maps; (2) a user evaluation of specific narrative map features; and (3) design guidelines for narrative maps. Our findings suggest ways for designing narrative maps and extraction algorithms, as well as providing insights towards useful interactions. We discuss these insights and design guidelines and reflect on the potential challenges involved. As key highlights, we find that narrative maps should avoid redundant connections that can be inferred by using the transitive property of event connections, reducing the overall complexity of the map. Moreover, narrative maps should use multiple types of cognitive connections between events such as topical and causal connections, as this emulates the strategies that analysts use in the narrative sensemaking process.

Brian Felipe Keith Norambuena, Tanushree Mitra, Chris North

Narrative sensemaking is a fundamental process to understand sequential information. Narrative maps are a visual representation framework that can aid analysts in this process. They allow analysts to understand the big picture of a narrative, uncover new relationships between events, and model connections between storylines. As a sensemaking tool, narrative maps have applications in intelligence analysis, misinformation modeling, and computational journalism. In this work, we seek to understand how analysts construct narrative maps in order to improve narrative map representation and extraction methods. We perform an experiment with a data set of news articles. Our main contribution is an analysis of how analysts construct narrative maps. The insights extracted from our study can be used to design narrative map visualizations, extraction algorithms, and visual analytics tools to support the sensemaking process.

Md Momen Bhuiyan, Hayden Whitley, Michael Horning et al.

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.

Md Momen Bhuiyan, Michael Horning, Sang Won Lee et al.

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.

Shruti Phadke, Mattia Samory, Tanushree Mitra

Online discussion platforms offer 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 which 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 conspiracy theory 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. 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. We contribute a computational framework for identifying dissonance self-disclosures and measuring the changes in user engagement surrounding dissonance. Our work can provide insights into designing dissonance-based interventions that can potentially dissuade conspiracists from online conspiracy discussion communities.

Shruti Phadke, Tanushree Mitra

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 Law Center designated extremist groups. 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. We further 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.

Prerna Juneja, Tanushree Mitra

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.

Brian Keith, Tanushree Mitra

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.

Md Momen Bhuiyan, Amy X. Zhang, Connie Moon Sehat et al.

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.

Zhen Guo, Jin-Hee Cho, Ing-Ray Chen et al.

We are living in an era when online communication over social network services (SNSs) have become an indispensable part of people's everyday lives. As a consequence, online social deception (OSD) in SNSs has emerged as a serious threat in cyberspace, particularly for users vulnerable to such cyberattacks. Cyber attackers have exploited the sophisticated features of SNSs to carry out harmful OSD activities, such as financial fraud, privacy threat, or sexual/labor exploitation. Therefore, it is critical to understand OSD and develop effective countermeasures against OSD for building a trustworthy SNSs. In this paper, we conducted an extensive survey, covering (i) the multidisciplinary concepts of social deception; (ii) types of OSD attacks and their unique characteristics compared to other social network attacks and cybercrimes; (iii) comprehensive defense mechanisms embracing prevention, detection, and response (or mitigation) against OSD attacks along with their pros and cons; (iv) datasets/metrics used for validation and verification; and (v) legal and ethical concerns related to OSD research. Based on this survey, we provide insights into the effectiveness of countermeasures and the lessons from existing literature. We conclude this survey paper with an in-depth discussions on the limitations of the state-of-the-art and recommend future research directions in this area.

Tanushree Mitra, Graham Wright, Eric Gilbert

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 span 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 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.