It is an online platform and not the real world, I don't care much: Investigating Twitter Profile Credibility With an Online Machine Learning-Based Tool
Abstract
Social media is now an important source of everyday information. Given the plethora of scandals concerning the rapid spread of misinformation and disinformation on social media, the credibility of the content on these platforms is now a pivotal research area. Much of the existing work on social media credibility focuses on content credibility. In this study, however, we focus on the credibility of the profile as the virtual representation of the content author. We developed a real-time machine-learning-based online tool that assesses the credibility of profiles on Twitter, one of the most common and versatile social media platforms. To investigate user perceptions on credibility-related issues, we used our tool as a stimulus for people to reflect on their profile's credibility and collected 100 responses. The combination of our quantitative and qualitative analysis reveals that the latest tweets and retweet behavior are two of the most critical factors for profile credibility. It is also observed that people demonstrate a limited interest in their profile credibility but agree that the author's credibility is of paramount importance. With an open-source tool to assess user credibility on Twitter and a user study to establish its utility, we contribute a timely piece of research on the topic of online credibility.
Study specs
- Authors
- J Li,V Paananen,SA Suryanarayana
- Institution
- University of Oulu,University of Helsinki
- Discipline
- Computational Social Science
- Year
- 2023
- Human Data Platform
- Prolific
- Source
- View Source DOI Google Scholar
Peer Review & Critical Discussion
Potential Selection Bias in 2023 Cohort
The participant pool shows a concerning overrepresentation of users from high-income demographics. Looking at Table 3, we can see that 78% of respondents had annual incomes above $75k, which significantly limits the generalizability of these findings to broader populations.
Non-naive Participants Issue
I've noticed a methodological concern regarding participant naivety. Given that Prolific users often complete multiple studies, there's a real risk that participants had prior exposure to similar experimental paradigms, which could confound the results.
RLHF Applicability to This Study Design
The implications for RLHF training pipelines are understated. If we accept the authors' conclusions about preference stability, this has direct consequences for how we should structure reward model training. The temporal decay effect described in Section 4.2 is particularly relevant.
Verify your expertise to join discussion
Create an account and verify your credentials to participate in peer discussions.