Literature DB >> 34750252

Comparing information diffusion mechanisms by matching on cascade size.

Jonas L Juul1, Johan Ugander2.   

Abstract

Do some types of information spread faster, broader, or further than others? To understand how information diffusions differ, scholars compare structural properties of the paths taken by content as it spreads through a network, studying so-called cascades. Commonly studied cascade properties include the reach, depth, breadth, and speed of propagation. Drawing conclusions from statistical differences in these properties can be challenging, as many properties are dependent. In this work, we demonstrate the essentiality of controlling for cascade sizes when studying structural differences between collections of cascades. We first revisit two datasets from notable recent studies of online diffusion that reported content-specific differences in cascade topology: an exhaustive corpus of Twitter cascades for verified true- or false-news content by Vosoughi et al. [S. Vosoughi, D. Roy, S. Aral. Science 359, 1146-1151 (2018)] and a comparison of Twitter cascades of videos, pictures, news, and petitions by Goel et al. [S. Goel, A. Anderson, J. Hofman, D. J. Watts. Manage. Sci. 62, 180-196 (2016)]. Using methods that control for joint cascade statistics, we find that for false- and true-news cascades, the reported structural differences can almost entirely be explained by false-news cascades being larger. For videos, images, news, and petitions, structural differences persist when controlling for size. Studying classical models of diffusion, we then give conditions under which differences in structural properties under different models do or do not reduce to differences in size. Our findings are consistent with the mechanisms underlying true- and false-news diffusion being quite similar, differing primarily in the basic infectiousness of their spreading process.

Entities:  

Keywords:  information diffusion; misinformation; network analysis; social media

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34750252      PMCID: PMC8609637          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2100786118

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  12 in total

1.  Emergence of scaling in random networks

Authors: 
Journal:  Science       Date:  1999-10-15       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Stochastically evolving networks.

Authors:  Derek Y C Chan; Barry D Hughes; Alex S Leong; William J Reed
Journal:  Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys       Date:  2003-12-31

3.  The unreasonable effectiveness of tree-based theory for networks with clustering.

Authors:  Sergey Melnik; Adam Hackett; Mason A Porter; Peter J Mucha; James P Gleeson
Journal:  Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys       Date:  2011-03-23

4.  Realistic modelling of information spread using peer-to-peer diffusion patterns.

Authors:  Bin Zhou; Sen Pei; Lev Muchnik; Xiangyi Meng; Xiaoke Xu; Alon Sela; Shlomo Havlin; H Eugene Stanley
Journal:  Nat Hum Behav       Date:  2020-08-28

5.  The science of fake news.

Authors:  David M J Lazer; Matthew A Baum; Yochai Benkler; Adam J Berinsky; Kelly M Greenhill; Filippo Menczer; Miriam J Metzger; Brendan Nyhan; Gordon Pennycook; David Rothschild; Michael Schudson; Steven A Sloman; Cass R Sunstein; Emily A Thorson; Duncan J Watts; Jonathan L Zittrain
Journal:  Science       Date:  2018-03-08       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  The spread of true and false news online.

Authors:  Soroush Vosoughi; Deb Roy; Sinan Aral
Journal:  Science       Date:  2018-03-09       Impact factor: 47.728

7.  Tracing information flow on a global scale using Internet chain-letter data.

Authors:  David Liben-Nowell; Jon Kleinberg
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2008-03-19       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online.

Authors:  Gordon Pennycook; Ziv Epstein; Mohsen Mosleh; Antonio A Arechar; Dean Eckles; David G Rand
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2021-03-17       Impact factor: 49.962

9.  How did Ebola information spread on twitter: broadcasting or viral spreading?

Authors:  Hai Liang; Isaac Chun-Hai Fung; Zion Tsz Ho Tse; Jingjing Yin; Chung-Hong Chan; Laura E Pechta; Belinda J Smith; Rossmary D Marquez-Lameda; Martin I Meltzer; Keri M Lubell; King-Wa Fu
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2019-04-25       Impact factor: 3.295

10.  Diffusion size and structural virality: The effects of message and network features on spreading health information on twitter.

Authors:  Jingbo Meng; Wei Peng; Pang-Ning Tan; Wuyu Liu; Ying Cheng; Arram Bae
Journal:  Comput Human Behav       Date:  2018-07-28
View more
  5 in total

1.  Combining interventions to reduce the spread of viral misinformation.

Authors:  Joseph B Bak-Coleman; Ian Kennedy; Morgan Wack; Andrew Beers; Joseph S Schafer; Emma S Spiro; Kate Starbird; Jevin D West
Journal:  Nat Hum Behav       Date:  2022-06-23

2.  Echo chambers and information transmission biases in homophilic and heterophilic networks.

Authors:  Fernando Diaz-Diaz; Maxi San Miguel; Sandro Meloni
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-06-07       Impact factor: 4.996

3.  Who spread COVID-19 (mis)information online? Differential informedness, psychological mechanisms, and intervention strategies.

Authors:  Rui Wang; Hongzhong Zhang
Journal:  Comput Human Behav       Date:  2022-09-13

4.  Topic selectivity and adaptivity promote spreading of short messages.

Authors:  Patryk A Bojarski; Krzysztof Suchecki; Janusz A Hołyst
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-09-19       Impact factor: 4.996

5.  Posts on central websites need less originality to be noticed.

Authors:  Michele Coscia; Clara Vandeweerdt
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-09-10       Impact factor: 4.996

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.