Platform Affordances in the Age of Disinformation

• In Event: Networked Political Communication: Framing, Ideology, and Misinformation

Abstract

Social media allows information – and disinformation – to spread in a variety of ways. While popular accounts may reach thousands or even millions of users by simply broadcasting to their followers, the real power of social media lies in networked publics of loosely connected individuals who share, amplify, and engage with each other’s content. The deliberative ideal imagines these networked publics participating in thoughtful, cross-cutting dialogue: amplifying useful content while correcting and diminishing inaccurate content. While we may expect this ideal is rarely, if ever, met, it is notable that deliberative theory suggests a social solution to the problem of disinformation. In other words, the mere existence of disinformation isn’t necessarily inherently problematic. Rather the real democratic crises comes from the unrestrained spread of disinformation, bolstered by fervent citizens who embrace and amplify this intentionally inaccurate content. While this challenge may seem endemic to the digital world, it’s important to note that online knowledge sharing platforms, such as Wikipedia, Yahoo! Answers, and StackOverflow have all shown promise for promoting accurate information, even around politically contentious topics. Though discourse on these platforms may still fall short of the lofty ideals of deliberation, the particular affordances of these sites may affect how far disinformation can spread without being corrected and addressed.

This paper therefore takes a cross-platform view of online political conversations, examining the interplay between platform affordances and political talk with a particular eye to the spread of mis- and dis-information. Specifically, across the platforms of Twitter, Reddit, and Wikipedia talk pages, we evaluate (1) the prevalence of mis- and dis-information, (2) the spreading patterns of that mis- and dis-information, and (3) the conversations that arise in response to misleading content, including possible corrections. Across these platforms we look at a diverse set of conversations related to three topics of varied political salience: the U.S. Midterm Elections, the war in Ukraine, and childcare. In examining how each of these platform’s affordances encourage or discourage the amplification of disinformation, we find important linkages between different strategies of moderation and potential reach. That is—platforms which allow for broader reach without moderation tend to have higher rates of disinformation. Perhaps even more interesting, we find that social feedback on these platforms plays an important role in both over-amplifying and suppressing misleading content. This suggests that there may indeed be an important social aspect to correcting misinformation, and our finding point to specific technical features which may better support productive social feedback. Overall, our findings paint a rich picture of how platform affordances impact the spread of disinformation and suggest strategies for improving these online spaces.

Author

• Sarah Shugars, Rutgers University