隔离环境下的信息消费与社会反应--以Gab为例
Information Consumption and Social Response in a Segregated Environment: the Case of Gab
摘要：
大多数信息操作都涉及用户，他们可能会助长对科学和主流新闻的两极分化和不信任，而这些用户没有意识到自己的角色。Gab是一个众所周知的对用户友好的平台，对发布的内容几乎没有控制。因此，它代表了一个理想的基准研究现象可能与两极分化，如错误信息传播。这些因素的结合可能导致仇恨以及在现实世界中的伤害事件。在这项工作中，我们提供了Gab内部围绕COVID-19主题的交互模式的表征。为了评估不同内容类型的传播，我们分析了消费模式的基础上的互动类型和源的可靠性。总的来说，我们发现，有问题的和可靠的内容的社会反应没有很强的统计差异，都遵循幂律分布。然而，可疑和可靠的来源显示在使用标签的结构和主题的差异。用户在生命周期和情感方面的评论行为表明，可疑和可靠的帖子以相同的方式被感知。我们可以得出结论，尽管可疑和可靠的帖子之间存在明显的差异，但Gab用户并没有进行这样的区分，因此将它们作为一个整体对待。我们的研究结果提供了见解，对协调的不真实行为的理解和信息操作的预警。
英文摘要：
Most of the information operations involve users who may foster polarization and distrust toward science and mainstream journalism, without these users being conscious of their role. Gab is well known to be an extremist-friendly platform that performs little control on the posted content. Thus it represents an ideal benchmark for studying phenomena potentially related to polarization such as misinformation spreading. The combination of these factors may lead to hate as well as to episodes of harm in the real world. In this work we provide a characterization of the interaction patterns within Gab around the COVID-19 topic. To assess the spreading of different content type, we analyze consumption patterns based on both interaction type and source reliability. Overall we find that there are no strong statistical differences in the social response to questionable and reliable content, both following a power law distribution. However, questionable and reliable sources display structural and topical differences in the use of hashtags. The commenting behaviour of users in terms of both lifetime and sentiment reveals that questionable and reliable posts are perceived in the same manner. We can conclude that despite evident differences between questionable and reliable posts Gab users do not perform such a differentiation thus treating them as a whole. Our results provide insights toward the understanding of coordinated inauthentic behavior and on the early-warning of information operation.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
