skip to main content
research-article

Measuring Misinformation in Video Search Platforms: An Audit Study on YouTube

Published:29 May 2020Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Search engines are the primary gateways of information. Yet, they do not take into account the credibility of search results. There is a growing concern that YouTube, the second largest search engine and the most popular video-sharing platform, has been promoting and recommending misinformative content for certain search topics. In this study, we audit YouTube to verify those claims. Our audit experiments investigate whether personalization (based on age, gender, geolocation, or watch history) contributes to amplifying misinformation. After shortlisting five popular topics known to contain misinformative content and compiling associated search queries representing them, we conduct two sets of audits-Search-and Watch-misinformative audits. Our audits resulted in a dataset of more than 56K videos compiled to link stance (whether promoting misinformation or not) with the personalization attribute audited. Our videos correspond to three major YouTube components: search results, Up-Next, and Top 5 recommendations. We find that demographics, such as, gender, age, and geolocation do not have a significant effect on amplifying misinformation in returned search results for users with brand new accounts. On the other hand, once a user develops a watch history, these attributes do affect the extent of misinformation recommended to them. Further analyses reveal a filter bubble effect, both in the Top 5 and Up-Next recommendations for all topics, except vaccine controversies; for these topics, watching videos that promote misinformation leads to more misinformative video recommendations. In conclusion, YouTube still has a long way to go to mitigate misinformation on its platform.

References

  1. Jonathan Albright. 2018. UnTrue Tube - hspace1mm YouTube's Conspiracy Ecosystem. https://datajournalismawards.org/projects/untrue-tube-youtubes-conspiracy-ecosystem/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Hunt Allcott and Matthew Gentzkow. 2017. Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 31, 2 (2017), 211--36. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.2.211Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Gordon W. Allport and Leo Postman. 1946. An Analysis of Rumor. Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 10, 4 (1946), 501--517. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/10.4.501Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Rebecca Lee Armstrong. 2019. New Survey Suggests 10% of Americans Believe the Moon Landing Was Fake. (2019). https://www.satelliteinternet.com/resources/moon-landing-real-survey/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Woodrow Bellamy. 2019. Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 Final Report Inconclusive. (2019). https://www.aviationtoday.com/2018/08/02/malaysia-airlines-flight-370-final-report-inconclusive/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Alessandro Bessi, Mauro Coletto, George Alexandru Davidescu, Antonio Scala, Guido Caldarelli, and Walter Quattrociocchi. 2015. Science vs conspiracy: Collective narratives in the age of misinformation. PloS one, Vol. 10, 2 (2015), e0118093. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118093Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Thomas DG Burgess II and Stephen M Sales. 1971. Attitudinal effects of ?mere exposure": A reevaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 7, 4 (1971), 461--472. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022--1031(71)90078--3Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Nick Carne. 2019. textquotesingle Conspiraciestextquotesinglehspace0.5mmdominate YouTube climate modification videos. (2019). https://cosmosmagazine.com/social-sciences/conspiracies-dominate-youtube-climate-modification-videosGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Carlos Castillo, Marcelo Mendoza, and Barbara Poblete. 2011. Information credibility on twitter. In Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World wide web. ACM, 675--684. https://doi.org/10.1145/1963405.1963500Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Le Chen, Ruijun Ma, Anikó Hannák, and Christo Wilson. 2018. Investigating the Impact of Gender on Rank in Resume Search Engines. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '18). ACM, Article 651, 651:1--651:14 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174225Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Le Chen, Alan Mislove, and Christo Wilson. 2015a. Peeking beneath the hood of uber. In Proceedings of the 2015 internet measurement conference. 495--508. https://doi.org/10.1145/2815675.2815681Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Le Chen, Alan Mislove, and Christo Wilson. 2016. An empirical analysis of algorithmic pricing on amazon marketplace. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on World Wide Web. 1339--1349. https://doi.org/10.1145/2872427.2883089Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Xinran Chen, Sei-Ching Joanna Sin, Yin-Leng Theng, and Chei Sian Lee. 2015b. Why students share misinformation on social media: Motivation, gender, and study-level differences. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 41, 5 (2015), 583--592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.07.003Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Cisco. 2019. Cisco Visual Networking Index: Forecast and Trends, 2017--2022 White Paper. (2019). https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/visual-networking-index-vni/white-paper-c11--741490.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Paul Covington, Jay Adams, and Emre Sargin. 2016. Deep Neural Networks for YouTube Recommendations. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/2959100.2959190Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Munmun De Choudhury, Meredith Ringel Morris, and Ryen W White. 2014. Seeking and sharing health information online: comparing search engines and social media. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1365--1376. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557214Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Nicholas Diakopoulos, Daniel Trielli, Jennifer Stark, and Sean Mussenden. 2018. I Vote Fortextendash hspace1mmHow Search Informs Our Choice of Candidate. Digital Dominance: The Power of Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple, M. Moore and D. Tambini (Eds.), Vol. 22 (2018). https://www.academia.edu/37432634/I_Vote_For_How_Search_Informs_Our_Choice_of_CandidateGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Renee Diresta. 2018. The Complexity of Simply Searching for Medical Advice. https://www.wired.com/story/the-complexity-of-simply-searching-for-medical-advice/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. James N Druckman and Michael Parkin. 2005. The impact of media bias: How editorial slant affects voters. The Journal of Politics, Vol. 67, 4 (2005), 1030--1049. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468--2508.2005.00349.xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Andrea Freyer Dugas, Yu-Hsiang Hsieh, Scott R Levin, Jesse M Pines, Darren P Mareiniss, Amir Mohareb, Charlotte A Gaydos, Trish M Perl, and Richard E Rothman. 2012. Google Flu Trends: correlation with emergency department influenza rates and crowding metrics. Clinical infectious diseases, Vol. 54, 4 (2012), 463--469. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cir883Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Robert Epstein, Ronald E Robertson, David Lazer, and Christo Wilson. 2017. Suppressing the search engine manipulation effect (SEME). Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 1, CSCW (2017), 1--22. https://doi.org/10.1145/3134677Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Adrien Friggeri, Lada Adamic, Dean Eckles, and Justin Cheng. 2014. Rumor cascades. In Eighth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM14/paper/viewFile/8122/8110Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Eric Gaillard. 2019. Facebook Under Fire for Permitting Anti-Vax Groups. (2019). https://www.thedailybeast.com/facebook-under-fire-for-permitting-anti-vaccination-groupsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Tarleton Gillespie. 2014. The relevance of algorithms. Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society, Vol. 167 (2014). https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Gillespie_2014_The-Relevance-of-Algorithms.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Andrew Guess, Jonathan Nagler, and Joshua Tucker. 2019. Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook. Science advances, Vol. 5, 1 (2019), eaau4586. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau4586Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Aditi Gupta, Hemank Lamba, Ponnurangam Kumaraguru, and Anupam Joshi. 2013. Faking sandy: characterizing and identifying fake images on twitter during hurricane sandy. In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on World Wide Web. ACM, 729--736. https://doi.org/10.1145/2487788.2488033Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. James Hale. 2019. More Than 500 Hours Of Content Are Now Being Uploaded To YouTube Every Minute. (2019). https://www.tubefilter.com/2019/05/07/number-hours-video-uploaded-to-youtube-per-minute/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Aniko Hannak, Piotr Sapiezynski, Arash Molavi Kakhki, Balachander Krishnamurthy, David Lazer, Alan Mislove, and Christo Wilson. 2013. Measuring Personalization of Web Search. In Proceedings of the 22Nd International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW '13). ACM, 527--538. https://doi.org/10.1145/2488388.2488435Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Aniko Hannak, Gary Soeller, David Lazer, Alan Mislove, and Christo Wilson. 2014. Measuring price discrimination and steering on e-commerce web sites. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on internet measurement conference. 305--318. https://doi.org/10.1145/2663716.2663744Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Anikó Hannák, Claudia Wagner, David Garcia, Alan Mislove, Markus Strohmaier, and Christo Wilson. 2017. Bias in Online Freelance Marketplaces: Evidence from TaskRabbit and Fiverr. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW '17). ACM, 1914--1933. https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998327Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Google Trends Help. 2020. Explore results by region. (2020). https://support.google.com/trends/answer/4355212?hl=enGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Benjamin D Horne and Sibel Adali. 2017. This just in: Fake news packs a lot in title, uses simpler, repetitive content in text body, more similar to satire than real news. In Eleventh International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media .Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Desheng Hu, Shan Jiang, Ronald E. Robertson, and Christo Wilson. 2019. Auditing the Partisanship of Google Search Snippets. In The World Wide Web Conference (WWW '19). ACM, 693--704. https://doi.org/10.1145/3308558.3313654Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Shan Jiang, Ronald E Robertson, and Christo Wilson. 2019. Bias Misperceived: The Role of Partisanship and Misinformation in YouTube Comment Moderation. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Vol. 13. 278--289.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Chloe Kliman-Silver, Aniko Hannak, David Lazer, Christo Wilson, and Alan Mislove. 2015a. Location, Location, Location: The Impact of Geolocation on Web Search Personalization. In Proceedings of the 2015 Internet Measurement Conference (IMC '15). ACM, 121--127.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Chloe Kliman-Silver, Aniko Hannak, David Lazer, Christo Wilson, and Alan Mislove. 2015b. Location, location, location: The impact of geolocation on web search personalization. In Proceedings of the 2015 Internet Measurement Conference. ACM, 121--127. https://doi.org/10.1145/2815675.2815714Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Peter Knight. 2008. Outrageous conspiracy theories: Popular and official responses to 9/11 in Germany and the United States. New German Critique 103 (2008), 165--193. https://doi.org/10.1215/0094033X-2007-024Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Srijan Kumar and Neil Shah. 2018. False information on web and social media: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.08559 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Srijan Kumar, Robert West, and Jure Leskovec. 2016. Disinformation on the web: Impact, characteristics, and detection of wikipedia hoaxes. In Proceedings of the 25th international conference on World Wide Web. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, 591--602. https://doi.org/10.1145/2872427.2883085Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. William Langewiesche. 2019. What Really Happened to Malaysia's Missing Airplane. (2019). https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/07/mh370-malaysia-airlines/590653/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar. 2013. Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts .Princeton University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Paul Lewis and Erin McCormick. 2018. How an ex-YouTube insider investigated its secret algorithm. (2018). https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/02/youtube-algorithm-election-clinton-trump-guillaume-chaslotGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Ramona Ludolph, Ahmed Allam, and Peter Schulz. 2016. Manipulating Googletextquotesingle s Knowledge Graph Box to Counter Biased Information Processing During an Online Search on Vaccination: Application of a Technological Debiasing Strategy. Journal of Medical Internet Research, Vol. 18 (2016), e137. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.5430Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Logan McDonald and Caroline O'Donovan. 2019. YouTube Continues To Promote Anti-Vax Videos As Facebook Prepares To Fight Medical Misinformation. (2019). https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolineodonovan/youtube-anti-vaccination-video-recommendationsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Annalisa Merelli. 2015. The average anti-vaxxer is probably not who you think she is. (2015). https://qz.com/355398/the-average-anti-vaxxer-is-probably-not-who-you-think-she-is/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Danaë Metaxa, Joon Sung Park, James A Landay, and Jeff Hancock. 2019. Search Media and Elections: A Longitudinal Investigation of Political Search Results. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 3, CSCW (2019), 1--17. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359231Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. P Takis Metaxas and Yada Pruksachatkun. 2017. Manipulation of search engine results during the 2016 US congressional elections. (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Tanushree Mitra and Eric Gilbert. 2015. Credbank: A large-scale social media corpus with associated credibility annotations. In Ninth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media. https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM15/paper/download/10582/10509Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. NASA. 2001. NASA Facts. (2001). https://web.archive.org/web/20151213100852/ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/media/2001/lunar_landing.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. BBC News. 2011. 9/11 conspiracy theories: How they've evolved. (2011). https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-14665953Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. BBC News. 2019. Measles: Four European nations lose eradication status. (2019). https://www.bbc.com/news/health-49507253Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2016. Do Contrails Affect Conditions on the Surface? (2016). https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/content/do-contrails-affect-conditions-surfaceGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Alex Olshansky. 2018. Conspiracy Theorizing and Religious Motivated Reasoning: Why the Earth textquotesingle Musttextquotesinglehspace0.5mm Be Flat. (2018). https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/handle/2346/82666Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. World Health Organization. 2019 a. MMR and autism. (2019). https://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/committee/topics/mmr/mmr_autism/en/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. World Health Organization. 2019 b. Six common misconceptions about immunization. (2019). https://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/initiative/detection/immunization_misconceptions/en/index3.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. World Health Organization. 2019 c. Ten threats to global health in 2019. https://www.who.int/emergencies/ten-threats-to-global-health-in-2019Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Eli Pariser. 2011. The filter bubble: How the new personalized web is changing what we read and how we think .Penguin.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Gordon Pennycook, Tyrone D Cannon, and David G Rand. 2018. Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. Journal of experimental psychology: general (2018). https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000465Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Larry Peterson, Tom Anderson, David Culler, and Timothy Roscoe. 2003. A Blueprint for Introducing Disruptive Technology into the Internet. SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, Vol. 33, 1 (2003), 59--64. https://doi.org/10.1145/774763.774772Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. K Purcell. 2011. Findings: Search and email remain the top online activities| Pew Internet & American Life Project. Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Vahed Qazvinian, Emily Rosengren, Dragomir R Radev, and Qiaozhu Mei. 2011. Rumor has it: Identifying misinformation in microblogs. In Proceedings of the conference on empirical methods in natural language processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, 1589--1599.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. M. Rajdev and K. Lee. 2015. Fake and Spam Messages: Detecting Misinformation During Natural Disasters on Social Media. In 2015 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology, Vol. 1. 17--20. https://doi.org/10.1109/WI-IAT.2015.102Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. Ronald E. Robertson, Shan Jiang, Kenneth Joseph, Lisa Friedland, David Lazer, and Christo Wilson. 2018a. Auditing Partisan Audience Bias Within Google Search. Proceedings of ACM on Human Computer Interaction, Vol. 2, CSCW (2018), 148:1--148:22. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274417Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. Ronald E. Robertson, David Lazer, and Christo Wilson. 2018b. Auditing the Personalization and Composition of Politically-Related Search Engine Results Pages. In Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference (WWW '18). International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, 955--965. https://doi.org/10.1145/3178876.3186143Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. Ashley Rodriguez. 2018. YouTube's algorithms can drag you down a rabbit hole of conspiracies, researcher finds. (2018). https://qz.com/1215937/research-youtubes-algorithms-lead-down-a-rabbit-hole-of-conspiracies/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Mattia Samory and Tanushree Mitra. 2018a. Conspiracies Online: User Discussions in a Conspiracy Community Following Dramatic Events. In ICWSM. https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM18/paper/viewFile/17907/17025Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Mattia Samory and Tanushree Mitra. 2018b. 'The Government Spies Using Our Webcams': The Language of Conspiracy Theories in Online Discussions. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 2 (2018), 1--24. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274421Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. Christian Sandvig, Kevin Hamilton, Karrie Karahalios, and Cedric Langbort. 2014a. An algorithm audit. Data and Discrimination: Collected Essays. Washington, DC: New America Foundation (2014), 6--10. http://www-personal.umich.edu/ csandvig/research/An%20Algorithm%20Audit.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  69. Christian Sandvig, Kevin Hamilton, Karrie Karahalios, and Cedric Langbort. 2014b. Auditing algorithms: Research methods for detecting discrimination on internet platforms. Data and discrimination: converting critical concerns into productive inquiry, Vol. 22 (2014). https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b722/7cbd34766655dea10d0437ab10df3a127396.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. Susan Scutti. 2019. Facebook to target vaccine misinformation with focus on pages, groups, ads. (2019). https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/07/health/facebook-anti-vax-messages-bn/index.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. Geoff Shepard. 2015. The Real Watergate Scandal: Collusion, Conspiracy, and the Plot That Brought Nixon Down .Simon and Schuster.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. Tamotsu Shibutani. 1966. Improvised news: A sociological study of rumor .Ardent Media. https://doi.org/10.2307/2574636Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  73. Natalie Jomini Stroud. 2010. Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of communication, Vol. 60, 3 (2010), 556--576. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460--2466.2010.01497.xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  74. Cass R Sunstein. 2014. Conspiracy theories and other dangerous ideas .Simon and Schuster.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. American Osteopathic Association Media Team. 2019 a. 45% of American adults doubt vaccine safety, according to survey. (2019). https://osteopathic.org/2019/06/24/45-of-american-adults-doubt-vaccine-safety-according-to-survey/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  76. The YouTube Team. 2019 b. Continuing our work to improve recommendations on YouTube. (2019). https://youtube.googleblog.com/2019/01/continuing-our-work-to-improve.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  77. Los Angeles Times. 2017. Man inspired by false 'pizzagate' rumor on Internet pleads guilty to shooting at D.C. restaurant. (2017). https://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-pizzagate-shooting-20170324-story.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  78. The New York Times. 2004. The New York Times/CBS News Poll. (2004). http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/20040429_poll/20040429_poll_results.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  79. Dustin Tingley and Gernot Wagner. 2017. Solar geoengineering and the chemtrails conspiracy on social media. Palgrave Communications, Vol. 3, 1 (2017), 12. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-017-0014--3Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  80. Daniel Trielli and Nicholas Diakopoulos. 2019. Search As News Curator: The Role of Google in Shaping Attention to News Information. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '19). ACM, Article 453, 453:1--453:15 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300683Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  81. Nicholas Vincent, Isaac Johnson, Patrick Sheehan, and Brent Hecht. 2019. Measuring the Importance of User-Generated Content to Search Engines. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Vol. 13, 01 (2019), 505--516. https://www.aaai.org/ojs/index.php/ICWSM/article/download/3248/3116/Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  82. Xuanhui Wang, Nadav Golbandi, Michael Bendersky, Donald Metzler, and Marc Najork. 2018. Position bias estimation for unbiased learning to rank in personal search. In Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. ACM, 610--618. https://doi.org/10.1145/3159652.3159732Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  83. Cale Guthrie Weissman. 2019. Despite recent crackdown, YouTube still promotes plenty of conspiracies. (2019). https://www.fastcompany.com/90307451/despite-recent-crackdown-youtube-still-promotes-plenty-of-conspiraciesGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  84. Wikipedia. 2002. Conspiracy theory. (2002). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theoryGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  85. Wikipedia. 2003. List of conspiracy theories. (2003). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theoriesGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  86. Wikipedia. 2019 a. Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. (2019). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  87. Wikipedia. 2019 b. Project MKUltra. (2019). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltraGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  88. Michael Wood. 2013. Has the internet been good for conspiracy theorising. PsyPAG Quarterly, Vol. 88 (2013), 31--34. http://www.psypag.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Issue-88.pdf#page=33Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  89. Zhijing Wu, Yiqun Liu, Qianfan Zhang, Kailu Wu, Min Zhang, and Shaoping Ma. 2019. The influence of image search intents on user behavior and satisfaction. In Proceedings of the Twelfth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. ACM, 645--653. https://doi.org/10.1145/3289600.3291013Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  90. Xiaohui Xie, Yiqun Liu, Maarten De Rijke, Jiyin He, Min Zhang, and Shaoping Ma. 2018. Why people search for images using web search engines. In Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. ACM, 655--663. https://doi.org/10.1145/3159652.3159686Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  91. YouGov. 2018. Most flat earthers consider themselves very religious. (2018). https://today.yougov.com/topics/philosophy/articles-reports/2018/04/02/most-flat-earthers-consider-themselves-religiousGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  92. YouTube. 2020. YouTube Community Guidelines. (2020). https://www.youtube.com/about/policies/#community-guidelinesGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  93. Marvin Zonis and Craig M Joseph. 1994. Conspiracy thinking in the Middle East. Political Psychology (1994), 443--459. https://doi.org/10.2307/3791566Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  94. Arkaitz Zubiaga, Ahmet Aker, Kalina Bontcheva, Maria Liakata, and Rob Procter. 2018. Detection and Resolution of Rumours in Social Media: A Survey. ACM Comput. Surv., Vol. 51, 2, Article 32 (2018), 32:1--32:36 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3161603Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Measuring Misinformation in Video Search Platforms: An Audit Study on YouTube

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in

            Full Access

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader