Abstract
Fake news, doubtful statements and other unreliable content not only differ with regard to the level of misinformation but also with respect to the underlying intents. Prior work on algorithmic truth assessment has mostly pursued binary classifiers—factual versus fake—and disregarded these finer shades of untruth. In manual analyses of questionable content, in contrast, more fine-grained distinctions have been proposed, such as distinguishing between hoaxes, irony and propaganda or the six-way truthfulness ratings by the PolitiFact community. In this paper, we present a principled automated approach to distinguish these different cases while assessing and classifying news articles and claims. Our method is based on a hierarchy of five different kinds of fakeness and systematically explores a variety of signals from social media, capturing both the content and language of posts and the sharing and dissemination among users. The paper provides experimental results on the performance of our fine-grained classifier and a detailed analysis of the underlying features.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
References
Berghel H (2017a) Alt-news and post-truths in the “fake news” era. Computer 50(4):110–114
Berghel H (2017b) Lies, damn lies, and fake news. Computer 50(2):80–85
Bourgonje P, Schneider JM, Rehm G (2017) From clickbait to fake news detection: an approach based on detecting the stance of headlines to articles. In: EMNLP workshop: natural language processing meets journalism, pp 84–89
Campan A, Cuzzocrea A, Truta TM (2017) Fighting fake news spread in online social networks: actual trends and future research directions. In: IEEE international conference on big data, IEEE
Conroy NJ, Rubin VL, Chen Y (2015) Automatic deception detection: methods for finding fake news. JASIST 51(1):1–4
Dai AM, Olah C, Le QV (2015) Document embedding with paragraph vectors. arXiv preprint arXiv:150707998
Del Vicario M, Quattrociocchi W, Scala A, Zollo F (2018) Polarization and fake news: early warning of potential misinformation targets. arXiv preprint arXiv:180201400
DiFranzo D, Gloria-Garcia K (2017) Filter bubbles and fake news. XRDS: Crossroads. ACM Mag Stud 23(3):32–35
Fan RE, Chang KW, Hsieh CJ, Wang XR, Lin CJ (2008) Liblinear: a library for large linear classification. J Mach Learn Res 9(Aug):1871–1874
Farajtabar M, Yang J, Ye X, Xu H, Trivedi R, Khalil E, Li S, Song L, Zha H (2017) Fake news mitigation via point process based intervention. arXiv preprint arXiv:170307823
Finkel JR, Grenager T, Manning C (2005) Incorporating non-local information into information extraction systems by gibbs sampling. In: ACL, pp 363–370
Fourney A, Racz MZ, Ranade G, Mobius M, Horvitz E (2017) Geographic and temporal trends in fake news consumption during the 2016 US presidential election. In: CIKM, ACM, pp 2071–2074
Hoffart J, Milchevski D, Weikum G (2014) STICS: searching with strings, things, and cats. In: SIGIR, pp 1247–1248
Jang SM, Kim JK (2018) Third person effects of fake news: fake news regulation and media literacy interventions. Comput Hum Behav 80:295–302
Jin Z, Cao J, Zhang Y, Luo J (2016) News verification by exploiting conflicting social viewpoints in microblogs. AAAI
Kim J, Tabibian B, Oh A, Schölkopf B, Gomez-Rodriguez M (2017) Leveraging the crowd to detect and reduce the spread of fake news and misinformation. arXiv preprint arXiv:171109918
Le Q, Mikolov T (2014) Distributed representations of sentences and documents. In: International conference on machine learning, pp 1188–1196
Li Y, Gao J, Meng C, Li Q, Su L, Zhao B, Fan W, Han J (2015) A survey on truth discovery. SIGKDD Explor 17(2):1–16
Pennington J, Socher R, Manning C (2014) Glove: global vectors for word representation. In: Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP), pp 1532–1543
Popat K, Mukherjee S, Strötgen J, Weikum G (2017) Where the truth lies: explaining the credibility of emerging claims on the web and social media. In: WWW, pp 1003–1012
Potthast M, Kiesel J, Reinartz K, Bevendorff J, Stein B (2017) A stylometric inquiry into hyperpartisan and fake news. arXiv preprint arXiv:170205638
Rashkin H, Choi E, Jang JY, Volkova S, Choi Y (2017) Truth of varying shades: analyzing language in fake news and political fact-checking. In: EMNLP, pp 2931–2937
Rath B, Gao W, Ma J, Srivastava J (2017) From retweet to believability: Utilizing trust to identify rumor spreaders on twitter. In: ASONAM, ACM, pp 179–186
Riedel B, Augenstein I, Spithourakis GP, Riedel S (2017) A simple but tough-to-beat baseline for the fake news challenge stance detection task. arXiv preprint arXiv:170703264
Rony MMU, Hassan N, Yousuf M (2017) Diving deep into clickbaits: who use them to what extents in which topics with what effects? In: ASONAM, ACM, pp 232–239
Rubin VL, Chen Y, Conroy NJ (2015) Deception detection for news: three types of fakes. JAIST 52(1):1–4
Ruchansky N, Seo S, Liu Y (2017) CSI: a hybrid deep model for fake news detection. In: CIKM, ACM, pp 797–806
Shu K, Sliva A, Wang S, Tang J, Liu H (2017a) Fake news detection on social media: a data mining perspective. ACM SIGKDD Explor Newslett 19(1):22–36
Shu K, Wang S, Liu H (2017b) Exploiting tri-relationship for fake news detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:171207709
Singhania S, Fernandez N, Rao S (2017) 3HAN: a deep neural network for fake news detection. In: ICONIP, Springer, pp 572–581
Spivey MJ (2017) Fake news and false corroboration: interactivity in rumor networks. In: COGSCI, pp 3229–3234
Vosoughi S, Roy D, Aral S (2018) The spread of true and false news online. Science 359(6380):1146–1151
Wang L, Wang Y, de Melo G, Weikum G (2018) Five shades of untruth: finer-grained classification of fake news. In: ASONAM, IEEE, pp 593–594
Wang WY (2017) “Liar, liar pants on fire”: a new benchmark dataset for fake news detection. ACL. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P17-2067
Warriner AB, Kuperman V, Brysbaert M (2013) Norms of valence, arousal, and dominance for 13,915 english lemmas. Behav Res Methods 45(4):1191–1207
Wilson T, Wiebe J, Hoffmann P (2005) Recognizing contextual polarity in phrase-level sentiment analysis. In: EMNLP, pp 347–354
Wu L, Liu H (2018) Tracing fake-news footprints: characterizing social media messages by how they propagate. In: ICWSDM, ACM, pp 637–645
Yin W, Kann K, Yu M, Schütze H (2017) Comparative study of CNN and RNN for natural language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:170201923
Yu PD, Tan CW, Fu HL (2017) Rumor source detection in finite graphs with boundary effects by message-passing algorithms. In: ASONAM, ACM, pp 86–90
Zhou C, Sun C, Liu Z, Lau F (2015) A C-LSTM neural network for text classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:151108630
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the support provided by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (61503217) and China Scholarship Council (2016062-20187). Gerard de Melo’s research is in part supported by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Army Research Office (ARO) under Contract No. W911NF-17-C-0098. Gerhard Weikum’s work is partly supported by the ERC Synergy Grant 610150 (imPACT). Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agencies.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wang, L., Wang, Y., de Melo, G. et al. Understanding archetypes of fake news via fine-grained classification. Soc. Netw. Anal. Min. 9, 37 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-019-0580-z
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-019-0580-z