Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 94 references

'Debunk-It-Yourself': Health Professionals' Strategies for Responding to Misinformation on TikTok

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Health professionals on TikTok debunk harmful myths with a shared five-step process that pairs each science-based rebuttal directly with the original misinformation video.

desk verdict A useful first map of duet/stitch debunking by health professionals, but the sampling design guarantees the headline behavior, so the process model outruns the data. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04999 v1 pith:CKFKUCQU submitted 2024-12-06 cs.CR cs.CYcs.HCcs.SI

Filipo Sharevski , Jennifer Vander Loop , Amy Devine , Peter Jachim , Sanchari Das This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CRcs.CYcs.HCcs.SI
keywords misinformationdebunkingTikTokhealthprofessionalscontentmoderationduetstitchmental
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that when platforms fail to directly refute health misinformation, credentialed health professionals on TikTok mount their own counter-influence: they pick a trending false video, craft a science-based rebuttal, and attach it to the original as a duet or stitch. Analyzing open-ended surveys from 14 such professionals working on nutrition and mental health, the authors identify a common five-stage process — initiation, selection, creation, response, and post-debunking management — with three defining features: targets are trending claims seen as directly harmful, the rebuttal is a video-to-video response of the same format and magnitude as the original claim, and the content is grounded in scientific evidence and the debunker's clinical experience rather than third-party fact-checking services. If this model is right, it gives researchers and platforms a first formal description of a grassroots, professional-led alternative to warning labels and community notes, and a basis for testing whether such efforts actually change beliefs. The paper deliberately does not measure the effectiveness of these debunking videos on audiences, framing that as future work.

What carries the argument

The central object is the five-stage 'Debunk-It-Yourself' process model (initiation, selection, creation, response, and post-debunking management), built from inductive thematic coding of survey responses with a Cohen's kappa of 0.8334 and backed by metadata for 1,649 videos from the 14 participants. The mechanism that carries the argument is the symmetric video-to-video response made possible by TikTok's stitch and duet affordances: the debunker's video plays alongside the original, so the correction arrives in the same format, on the same feed, and with the same potential virality as the misinformation it counters.

What would settle it

Audit a random sample of credentialed health professionals' TikTok accounts in nutrition and mental health without filtering by #duet or #stitch hashtags; if a substantial fraction of their debunking videos are standalone (no stitch, no duet, no tagging of the original creator), then the claimed universal response stage and the 'symmetric content-to-content' feature would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, the discovery is that 'Debunk-It-Yourself' is not a scattering of individual reactions but a shared, repeatable process. The professionals do not actively search for misinformation; the platform's recommendation feed surfaces it to their For You Page, followers tag them, or patients, students, friends, and family ask them about a claim. They then select targets by virality, blatant falsity, and visible audience susceptibility (such as comments saying 'I didn't know this'), craft a rebuttal based on academic evidence, clinical experience, and peer consultation — explicitly avoiding fact-checking services — and respond in kind by stitching or duetting the original video, tagging its creator, or reusing its hashtags. After posting, they decide whether to report the video, monitor comments for contradictions, and appeal when TikTok wrongly labels their own debunking content as misinformation. The paper presents this as the first documentation of a symmetric, content-to-content countermeasure that follows the Debunking Handbook's prescription more literally than platform moderation does.

Load-bearing premise

The whole five-stage model rests on the assumption that the 14 survey respondents, recruited through a hashtag-based TikTok search and manual credential vetting, accurately represent the full population of health-professional debunkers on nutrition and mental health; any debunkers who never use those hashtags or never stitch or duet are invisible to the study.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The five-stage process can serve as a template for studying or building user-led debunking on other short-video platforms, such as Instagram Reels or YouTube Shorts, that offer similar pairing features.
  • Platforms could prioritize evidence-based debunking content in recommendations, prebunk before harmful claims spread, compensate debunkers, and stop mislabeling debunking videos — the concrete steps the participants themselves recommended.
  • The model exposes structural tensions: debunkers fight an algorithm that favors sensational content, risk shadowbanning and harassment, and may inadvertently send traffic to the original misinformation video when they duet it.
  • A rogue or biased debunker is a real threat in this paradigm, since individual debunkers are not accountable to any professional body or platform policy; the paper suggests professional medical associations could impose standards.
  • Because the study excluded political content and did not measure audience effects, the model's generality to other misinformation domains and its actual counter-influence effectiveness remain open questions that the paper explicitly flags as future work.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the 'symmetric response' feature is platform-dependent. On platforms without stitch or duet affordances, the same professionals would likely fall back to comments or standalone videos, so this defining feature may describe TikTok's ecology rather than a stable property of the debunkers themselves.
  • Editorial inference: the paper does not test whether DIY debunking changes viewers' beliefs; a natural next experiment would compare belief correction from stitched rebuttals versus warning labels using the same misinformation videos as stimuli.
  • Editorial inference: the recruitment pipeline (hashtags like #adhd, #anorexia, #duet, and #stitch) may under-sample debunkers who respond in other formats, so a hashtag-free audit of credentialed health accounts would reveal how universal the five stages really are.
  • Editorial inference: the duet's traffic-boosting effect cuts both ways — if the debunking video sends viewers to the original, the net effect on misinformation exposure could be positive, a tension the participants acknowledged but the study did not quantify.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents an exploratory qualitative study of 14 health professionals who debunk nutrition and mental health misinformation on TikTok by creating counter-videos. Using the TikTok API, the authors recruited participants through hashtags including #duet and #stitch, administered a survey, and applied thematic analysis. They propose a five-stage 'Debunk-It-Yourself' process: initiation, selection, creation, responding via duet/stitch, and post-debunking management. They further claim three unique aspects: targeting trending harmful misinformation, offering a symmetric content-to-content response, and grounding responses strictly in scientific evidence and claimed clinical experience. The paper contrasts this effort with platform warning labels and community notes and offers recommendations.

Significance. The topic is timely and the study is one of the first to examine the 'supply side' of grassroots, professional-led debunking on a short-video platform. The paper's strengths include a detailed codebook (Appendix B), the full survey instrument (Appendix A), explicit ethical safeguards, and a transparent recruitment and vetting procedure. The inter-rater reliability (Cohen's kappa = 0.8334) is acceptable for qualitative coding. If the central process model were established on a representative sample, this would be a meaningful contribution to the misinformation literature. However, the recruitment strategy selects on the very response format (duet/stitch) that the model claims to discover, which materially threatens the universal phrasing of the central claim. The paper is better viewed as an account of health professionals who debunk through duet/stitch affordances, and the claims need to be qualified accordingly.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1; Table 6; Abstract] The recruitment procedure in Section 4.1 states: 'To discover videos debunking misinformation, we applied the hashtags #duet and #stitch in these content areas.' This means the population frame is restricted to debunkers who have used duet or stitch for at least one debunking video. Consequently, the abstract's claim that the counterinfluence 'follows a common process of initiation, selection, creation, and "stitching" or duetting a debunking video with a misinformation video' is partly guaranteed by the inclusion criteria, not discovered from the data. Similarly, the 'symmetric content-to-content response' presented as a unique aspect (Section 6) is a consequence of sampling from duet/stitch videos. This is a selection-on-outcome problem. The authors should either reframe all conclusions as applying specifically to health professionals who debunk via duet/stitch, or broaden recruitment to include debunkers using other formats (e.g., original videos, text overlays, comments) and then test whether the five-stage process still holds.
  2. [Table 6 vs. Section 4.1] Table 6 reports only 9 of 14 participants using duets/stitches as an 'own influencing tactic,' while the recruitment in Section 4.1 implies every participant must have produced at least one duet/stitch debunking video to be in the sample. The authors need to explain this discrepancy. Possibilities include that Table 6 codes a self-reported primary tactic rather than any use of the affordance, or that the hashtag-based discovery did not strictly require the creator's own video to carry #duet/#stitch. Without clarification, the empirical support for the 'common process' claim is ambiguous: the claim may hold for a minority of the sample even though the sampling frame would predict a majority.
  3. [Section 6.5] The limitation section acknowledges sample size, English-language sampling, and lack of impact assessment, but it does not acknowledge the selection-on-outcome issue in the recruitment hashtags. This omission is load-bearing because the process model's final stage and the 'symmetric response' unique aspect are directly affected. The authors should add an explicit discussion of how the #duet/#stitch-based sampling shapes the findings and qualify the abstract's universal wording (e.g., 'among health professionals who debunk through duet/stitch').
  4. [Section 5.10; Figure 5] The quantitative analysis reports that #stitch is the third most-used hashtag among the examined debunkers and interprets this as evidence that stitching is the main affordance these users leverage. Because the population was discovered by applying #duet and #stitch as search hashtags, this observation is circular. The hashtag distribution cannot be used to infer the relative importance of duet/stitch without a sample not selected on those hashtags. The authors should either re-analyze the hashtag distribution from a non-circular sample or remove this claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.1] Typo: 'for for their participation' should be 'for their participation'.
  2. [Section 5.5] Typo: 'familiary' should be 'familiar'.
  3. [Section 5.2] Typo: 'therms' should be 'terms' in the quote from P2.
  4. [Section 5.9] The text refers to the 'Disinforamation Handbook' in the description of P6's response; this should be 'Debunking Handbook' to match reference [44].
  5. [Section 6.5] Typo: 'beleive' should be 'believe'.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 'symmetric response' contribution is defined into the term 'Debunk-It-Yourself' and selected into the sample via #duet/#stitch hashtags; the remaining process stages are data-driven.

  1. self definitional [Section 2 (Debunking – Background), final paragraph; echoed in Abstract and Section 6]
    "We call this effort ‘ Debunk-It-Yourself’ – as a new approach where expertise, credibility, and clinical experience are channeled towards symmetric-in-content refutations to false claims."

    The paper defines the object of study, 'Debunk-It-Yourself', as a symmetric-in-content refutation before any data are presented, then reports as a central finding that 'The Debunk-It-Yourself effort was underpinned by three unique aspects: ... (ii) it offers a symmetric response to the misinformation' (Abstract) and that 'This is another unique feature of the Debunk-It-Yourself model in that it offers a symmetric response' (Section 6). The 'unique aspect' is a restatement of the definition, not an empirical discovery. This is load-bearing because the symmetric content-to-content response is one of the three headline contributions.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.1 (Recruitment, Sampling, and Data Collection); used in Section 5.4 and Table 6]
    "To discover videos debunking misinformation, we applied the hashtags #duet and #stitch in these content areas."

    The sampling frame requires that every recruited debunker has produced at least one video found via #duet or #stitch. The process model then reports that the response stage is 'stitching' or 'duetting' a debunking video with a misinformation video (Abstract, Figure 1), and Table 6 lists 'Duets/Stitch' as the dominant tactic (9 of 14 codes). That outcome is guaranteed by the inclusion criterion: accounts that debunk only through original videos, comments, tags, or text were outside the recruitment frame. The later claim of a 'symmetric response elicited by both dueted videos' (Section 6) is therefore a sampling artifact rather than a comparison between debunking formats, because the alternative formats were excluded by design.

full rationale

This is a qualitative empirical study, so most of the process model is not circular: the initiation, selection, creation, and post-debunking stages are coded from open-ended survey responses and are not predetermined by the sampling design or by prior self-citations. The authors' self-citations [72]–[77] appear in background discussions of warning labels and are not load-bearing for the central claims. However, one headline contribution—the 'symmetric content-to-content response' and its duet/stitch stage—is circular in two distinct ways. First, the paper defines 'Debunk-It-Yourself' as 'symmetric-in-content refutations to false claims' before analyzing data, then presents symmetry as a finding. Second, the recruitment pipeline discovered debunkers by applying the hashtags #duet and #stitch, so the later observation that duets/stitches are the dominant tactic is an artifact of the inclusion criterion. The comparison to asymmetric labels/community notes is thus not a comparison with other debunking formats (original videos, comments, text posts), which were excluded from the population frame. Because the initiation/selection/creation stages retain independent empirical content, the circularity is partial rather than total; the abstract's universal phrasing overstates what the data can support.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Qualitative exploratory study with no fitted parameters. The results rest on self-report, voluntary participation, and hashtag-based sampling, all of which are common assumptions in survey research and are disclosed in the methodology.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Participants' self-reported survey answers accurately describe their debunking behavior.
    The entire process model in Section 5 is built from anonymous survey responses without independent observation of participants' videos.
  • domain assumption The 14 participants who volunteered are representative of the 135 identified debunkers and of health professional debunkers more broadly.
    The paper generalizes from n=14 of 135 contacted; Section 6.5 acknowledges the sample is 'balanced and representative within our research scope' but provides no evidence that non-respondents behave similarly.
  • domain assumption The hashtag-based TikTok API sampling identifies the relevant debunking population.
    Section 4.1 uses #adhd, #anorexia, #duet, #stitch and related hashtags; debunkers not using these tags may be invisible to the study.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 'Debunk-It-Yourself': Health Professionals' Strategies for Responding to Misinformation on TikTok." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CKFKUCQU

@misc{pith2026241204999,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 'Debunk-It-Yourself': Health Professionals' Strategies for Responding to Misinformation on TikTok},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CKFKUCQU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04999}
}
read the original abstract

Misinformation is "sticky" in nature, requiring a considerable effort to undo its influence. One such effort is debunking or exposing the falsity of information. As an abundance of misinformation is on social media, platforms do bear some debunking responsibility in order to preserve their trustworthiness as information providers. A subject of interpretation, platforms poorly meet this responsibility and allow dangerous health misinformation to influence many of their users. This open route to harm did not sit well with health professional users, who recently decided to take the debunking into their own hands. To study this individual debunking effort - which we call 'Debunk-It-Yourself (DIY)' - we conducted an exploratory survey n=14 health professionals who wage a misinformation counter-influence campaign through videos on TikTok. We focused on two topics, nutrition and mental health, which are the ones most often subjected to misinformation on the platform. Our thematic analysis reveals that the counterinfluence follows a common process of initiation, selection, creation, and "stitching" or duetting a debunking video with a misinformation video. The 'Debunk-It-Yourself' effort was underpinned by three unique aspects: (i) it targets trending misinformation claims perceived to be of direct harm to people's health; (ii) it offers a symmetric response to the misinformation; and (iii) it is strictly based on scientific evidence and claimed clinical experience. Contrasting the 'Debunk-It-Yourself' effort with the one TikTok and other platforms (reluctantly) put in moderation, we offer recommendations for a structured response against the misinformation's influence by the users themselves.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04999 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. ‘Debunk-It-Yourself’ process Next, the ‘Debunk-It-Yourself ’ was appended by what was also recommended to the followers of our participants. Participants indicated they initiate their debunking effort when they are “tagged in suspicious videos by people who follow [them]” (P6). This type of initiation indicates that followers trust the credibility and expertise of our participants to turn to them for debunking help.… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Total number of videos posted each day. Our analysis shows that debunkers in our population, true to their “influencer” posture, indeed attract an enormous engagement relative to views and likes on their videos, as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Distribution of hashtags used in debunking videos. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Total number of likes of debunking videos. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Arechar, Gordon Pennycook, and David G

    Jennifer Allen, Antonio A. Arechar, Gordon Pennycook, and David G. Rand. 2024. Scaling up fact-checking using the wisdom of crowds. Science Advances 7, 36 (2024), eabf4393. NSPW ’24, September 16–19, 2024, Bedford, PA, USA F. Sharevski, J. Vander Loop, A. Devine, P.Jachim, S. Das

    2024

  2. [2]

    Sacha Altay, Manon Berriche, and Alberto Acerbi. 2023. Misinformation on Misinformation: Conceptual and Methodological Challenges. Social Media + Society 9, 1 (March 2023), 20563051221150412

    2023

  3. [3]

    American Medical Assocication. 2024. Code of Medical Ethics: Professionalism in the Use of Social Media. https://code-medical-ethics.ama-assn.org/ethics- opinions/professionalism-use-social-media

    2024

  4. [4]

    Kyle Anderson. 2019. Truth, lies, and likes: Why human nature makes online misinformation a serious threat (and what we can do about it). Law & Psychol. Rev. 44 (2019), 209

    2019

  5. [5]

    Ross Anderson. 2014. Privacy versus government surveillance: where network ef- fects meet public choice. In13th Annual Workshop on the Economics of Information Security 2014

    2014

  6. [6]

    Jack Bandy and Nicholas Diakopoulos. 2020. #TulsaFlop: A Case Study of Algorithmically-Influenced Collective Action on TikTok. https://arxiv.or g/abs/2012.07716

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Basch, Zoe Meleo-Erwin, Joseph Fera, Christie Jaime, and Charles E

    Corey H. Basch, Zoe Meleo-Erwin, Joseph Fera, Christie Jaime, and Charles E. Basch. 2021. A global pandemic in the time of viral memes: COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and disinformation on TikTok. Human Vaccines & Immunothera- peutics 17, 8 (2021), 2373–2377

    2021

  8. [8]

    John Robert Bautista, Yan Zhang, and Jacek Gwizdka. 2021. Healthcare profes- sionals’acts of correcting health misinformation on social media. International Journal of Medical Informatics 148 (2021), 104375

    2021

Show all 94 references
  1. [9]

    John Robert Bautista, Yan Zhang, and Jacek Gwizdka. 2021. US physicians’ and nurses’ motivations, barriers, and recommendations to correct health misinfor- mation on social media: Qualitative interview study. JMIR Public Health and Surveillance 7 (09 2021), e27715. https://doi...

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    Sven Bernecker, Amy K Flowerree, and Thomas Grundmann. 2021. The episte- mology of fake news . Oxford University Press

    2021

  3. [11]

    Aparajita Bhandari and Sara Bimo. 2022. Why’s everyone on TikTok now? The algorithmized self and the future of self-making on social media. Social Media + Society 8, 1 (2022), 20563051221086241

    2022

  4. [12]

    Puneet Bhargava, Katie MacDonald, Christie Newton, Hause Lin, and Gordon Pennycook. 2023. How effective are tiktok misinformation debunking videos? Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review (Mar 2023). https://doi.org/10.3 7016/mr-2020-114

    2023

  5. [13]

    Maximilian Boeker and Aleksandra Urman. 2022. An Empirical Investigation of Personalization Factors on TikTok. InProceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022 (Virtual Event, Lyon, France) (WWW ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2298–2309. https://doi.o...

    2022

  6. [14]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/14 78088706qp063oa

    2006 doi

  7. [15]

    Jack Brewster, Lorenzo Arvanitis, Valerie Pavilonis, and Macrina Wang. 2022. Beware the ‘New Google:’ TikTok’s Search Engine Pumps Toxic Misinformation To Its Young Users. https://www.newsguardtech.com/misinf ormation- monitor/september-2022/

    2022

  8. [16]

    Lecia Bushak. 2023. tiktok patient influencer. https://www.mmm-online.com/h ome/channel/tiktok-patient-influencer/

    2023

  9. [17]

    Butler, Nicolas Fay, and Ullrich K

    Lucy H. Butler, Nicolas Fay, and Ullrich K. Ecker. 2023. Social endorsement influences the continued belief in corrected misinformation. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 12, 3 (2023), 364–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/ mac0000080

    2023

  10. [18]

    Plush Care. 2023. How Accurate is Mental Health Advice on TikTok? https: //plushcare.com/blog/tiktok-mental-health/

    2023

  11. [19]

    Center for Countering Hate. 2023. Deadly by Design. https://counterhate.com/ research/deadly-by-design/

    2023

  12. [20]

    Centers for Disease Control (CDC). 2023. Bust Myths and Learn the Facts about COVID-19 Vaccines. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fact s.html

    2023

  13. [21]

    Fan Chao, Xin Wang, and Guang Yu. 2021. The Influence of the Debunker’s Iden- tity and Emotional Expression on the Sharing Behavior of Debunking Information. Frontiers in Psychology 12 (Dec. 2021). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.783415 Publisher: Frontiers

    2021

  14. [22]

    Zicheng Cheng and Yanlin Li. 2024. Like, Comment, and Share on TikTok: Ex- ploring the Effect of Sentiment and Second-Person View on the User Engagement with TikTok News Videos. Social Science Computer Review 42, 1 (2024), 201–223

    2024

  15. [23]

    Shu-Chuan Chu, Tao Deng, and Juan Mundel. 2022. The impact of personal- ization on viral behavior intentions on TikTok: The role of perceived creativity, authenticity, and need for uniqueness. Journal of Marketing Communications 30, 1 (January 2022), 1–20

    2022

  16. [24]

    James W Cortada and William Aspray. 2019. Fake news nation: the long history of lies and misinterpretations in America . Rowman & Littlefield

    2019

  17. [25]

    Wes Davies. 2023. Meta is rolling back its covid-19 misinformation rules in the US. https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/17/23764429/meta-covid-misinformation- rules-facebook-instagram

    2023

  18. [26]

    M. R. X. Dentith. 2021. Debunking conspiracy theories. Synthese 198, 10 (2021), 9897–9911

    2021

  19. [27]

    Chiara Patricia Drolsbach and Nicolas Pröllochs. 2023. Diffusion of Community Fact-Checked Misinformation on Twitter. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 7, CSCW2, Article 267 (October 2023), 22 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3610058

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    Harold Feld. 2020. From the telegraph to Twitter: The case for the digital platform act. Computer Law & Security Review 36 (2020), 105378

    2020

  21. [29]

    Jennifer Fereday and Eimear Muir-Cochrane. 2006. Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International journal of qualitative methods 5, 1 (2006), 80–92

    2006

  22. [30]

    Bertram Gawronski. 2021. Partisan bias in the identification of fake news. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 25, 9 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    Tarleton Gillespie. 2018. Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media . Yale University Press

    2018

  24. [32]

    Justin Grandinetti and Jeffrey Bruinsma. 2022. The Affective Algorithms of Conspiracy TikTok. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media (2022), 1–20

    2022

  25. [33]

    Bobby Harpal and Sandhu Amber. 2023. ADHD on TikTok: Raising awareness or driving inaccurate self-diagnosis? https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat- 65457044

    2023

  26. [34]

    John Herrman. 2019. How TikTok is rewriting the world. https://www.nytimes. com/2019/03/10/style/what-is-tik-tok.html

    2019

  27. [35]

    Tiffany Hsu. 2022. Worries grow that TikTok is new home for manipulated video and photos. The New York Times (2022). https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/04/t echnology/tiktok-deepfakes-disinformation.html

    2022

  28. [36]

    Brubaker, and Casey Fiesler

    Jialun Aaron Jiang, Peipei Nie, Jed R. Brubaker, and Casey Fiesler. 2023. A Trade- off-centered Framework of Content Moderation. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 30, 1, Article 3 (March 2023), 34 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3534929

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    Shan Jiang and Christo Wilson. 2018. Linguistic Signals under Misinformation and Fact-Checking: Evidence from User Comments on Social Media. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2, CSCW, Article 82 (November 2018), 23 pages. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3274351

    2018 doi

  30. [38]

    Amelia Johns, Francesco Bailo, Emily Booth, and Marian-Andrei Rizoiu. 2024. Labelling, shadow bans and community resistance: did meta’s strategy to suppress rather than remove COVID misinformation and conspiracy theory on Facebook slow the spread? Media International Australia...

    2024

  31. [39]

    Hollyn M Johnson and Colleen M Seifert. 1994. Sources of the continued influence effect: When misinformation in memory affects later inferences. Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, memory, and cognition 20, 6 (1994), 1420

    1994

  32. [40]

    Cecilia Kang and Sheera Frenkel. 2020. ’PizzaGate’ Conspiracy Theory Thrives Anew in the TikTok Era. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/27/technology/pizz agate-justin-bieber-qanon-tiktok.html

    2020

  33. [41]

    Jan Kirchner and Christian Reuter. 2020. Countering Fake News: A Comparison of Possible Solutions Regarding User Acceptance and Effectiveness. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 4, CSCW2 (oct 2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Daniel Klug, Yiluo Qin, Morgan Evans, and Geoff Kaufman. 2021. Trick and Please: A Mixed-Method Study On User Assumptions About the TikTok Algorithm. In 13th ACM Web Science Conference 2021 (Virtual Event, United Kingdom) (WebSci ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New ...

    2021

  35. [43]

    Herzog, Stephan Lewandowsky, Ralph Hertwig, Philipp Lorenz-Spreen, Mark Leiser, and Jason Reifler

    Anastasia Kozyreva, Stefan M. Herzog, Stephan Lewandowsky, Ralph Hertwig, Philipp Lorenz-Spreen, Mark Leiser, and Jason Reifler. 2023. Resolving con- tent moderation dilemmas between free speech and harmful misinformation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120, 7...

    2023

  36. [44]

    Kendou, D

    Stephan Lewandowsky, John Cook, Ullrich Ecker, Dolores Albarracin, Michelle Amazeen, P. Kendou, D. Lombardi, E. Newman, G. Pennycook, E. Porter, and et al. 2020. The debunking handbook 2020. https://open.bu.edu/handle/2144/43031

    2020

  37. [45]

    Learn the Facts about COVID-19

    Chen Ling, Krishna P. Gummadi, and Savvas Zannettou. 2023. “Learn the Facts about COVID-19” Analyzing the Use of Warning Labels on TikTok Videos. Pro- ceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media 17, 1 (Jun. 2023), 554–565

    2023

  38. [46]

    Sapna Maheshwari and David McCabe. 2024. Congress Passed a Bill That Could Ban TikTok. Now Comes the Hard Part. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/23/t echnology/bytedance-tiktok-ban-bill.html

    2024

  39. [47]

    Cameron Martel, Jennifer Allen, Gordon Pennycook, and David G. Rand. 2024. Crowds Can Effectively Identify Misinformation at Scale. Perspectives on Psycho- logical Science 19, 2 (2024), 477–488

    2024

  40. [48]

    Cameron Martel and David G. Rand. 2023. Misinformation warning labels are widely effective: A review of warning effects and their moderating features. Current Opinion in Psychology 54 (2023), 101710

    2023

  41. [49]

    Lee McIntyre. 2018. Post-truth. MIt Press

    2018

  42. [50]

    Juan Carlos Medina Serrano, Orestis Papakyriakopoulos, and Simon Hegelich

  43. [51]

    Meta. 2022. How We’re Tackling Misinformation Across Our Apps. https://abou t.fb.com/news/2021/03/how-were-tackling-misinformation-across-our-apps/

    2022

  44. [52]

    Michaels

    D. Michaels. 2020. The Triumph of Doubt: Dark Money and the Science of Deception. Oxford University Press. ‘Debunk-It-Yourself’: Health Professionals’ Strategies for Responding to Misinformation on TikTok NSPW ’24, September 16–19, 2024, Bedford, PA, USA

    2020

  45. [53]

    Mohsen Mosleh, Cameron Martel, Dean Eckles, and David Rand. 2021. Perverse Downstream Consequences of Debunking: Being Corrected by Another User for Posting False Political News Increases Subsequent Sharing of Low Quality, Partisan, and Toxic Content in a Twitter Field Experim...

    2021

  46. [54]

    Influencing the influencers:

    Matt Motta, Yuning Liu, and Amanda Yarnell. 2024. “Influencing the influencers:” A field experimental approach to promoting effective mental health communica- tion on TikTok. Scientific Reports 14, 1 (March 2024), 5864

    2024

  47. [55]

    Jules Murtha. 2022. TikTok: A tool for physicians, or a risk to professionalism? (Mar 2022). https://www.mdlinx.com/article/tiktok-a-tool-for-physicians-or-a- risk-to-professionalism/3IfndsO8NdmoeryTc4niGR

    2022

  48. [56]

    Philip Napoli and Robyn Caplan. 2017. Why media companies insist they’re not media companies, why they’re wrong, and why it matters. First Monday 22, 5 (March 2017). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v22i5.7051

    2017 doi

  49. [57]

    Shaun Nichols. 2014. Process Debunking and Ethics. Ethics 124, 4 (2024/03/28 2014), 727–749

    2014

  50. [58]

    Nursing World. 2024. Social Media Principles. https://www.nursingworld.org/s ocial/

    2024

  51. [59]

    Jeffry Oktavianus and John Robert Bautista. 2023. Motivating healthcare profes- sionals to correct online health misinformation: The roles of subjective norm, third-person perception, and channel differences. Computers in Human Behavior 147 (2023), 107839

    2023

  52. [60]

    Orestis Papakyriakopoulos and Ellen Goodman. 2022. The Impact of Twitter Labels on Misinformation Spread and User Engagement: Lessons from Trump’s Election Tweets. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022 . 2541–2551

    2022

  53. [61]

    Royal Pathak, Francesca Spezzano, and Maria Soledad Pera. 2023. Understanding the Contribution of Recommendation Algorithms on Misinformation Recommen- dation and Misinformation Dissemination on Social Networks. ACM Trans. Web 17, 4, Article 35 (oct 2023), 26 pages. https://do...

    2023 doi

  54. [62]

    Pujan Paudel, Jeremy Blackburn, Emiliano De Cristofaro, Savvas Zannettou, and Gianluca Stringhini. 2023. Lambretta: Learning to Rank for Twitter Soft Moderation. In 2023 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) . 311–326. https://doi.org/10.1109/SP46215.2023.10179392

    2023

  55. [63]

    Moritz Pilarski, Kirill Solovev, and Nicolas Pröllochs. 2023. Community Notes vs. Snoping: How the Crowd Selects Fact-Checking Targets on Social Media. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.09519 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Julie Posetti and Alice Matthews. 2018. A short guide to the history of ‘fake news’ and disinformation. International Center for Journalists 7, 2018 (2018), 2018–07

    2018

  57. [65]

    Claudette Pretorius, Darragh McCashin, and David Coyle. 2022. Mental health professionals as influencers on TikTok and Instagram: What role do they play in mental health literacy and help-seeking? Internet Interventions 30 (2022), 100591

    2022

  58. [66]

    Toby Prike and Ullrich K.H. Ecker. 2023. Effective correction of misinformation. Current Opinion in Psychology 54 (2023), 101712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cops yc.2023.101712

    2023

  59. [67]

    Rina Raphael. 2022. TikTok Is Flooded With Health Myths. These Creators Are Pushing Back. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/29/well/live/tiktok- misinformation.html

    2022

  60. [68]

    Emma Roth. 2023. Twitter has stopped enforcing its covid misinformation policies. https://www.theverge.com/2022/11/29/23483836/twitter-covid- misinformation-policy-enforcement-end

    2023

  61. [69]

    Mohammed Saeed, Nicolas Traub, Maelle Nicolas, Gianluca Demartini, and Paolo Papotti. 2022. Crowdsourced Fact-Checking at Twitter: How Does the Crowd Compare With Experts?. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management (Atlanta, ...

    2022

  62. [70]

    Schluger and Kenneth Prager

    Neil W. Schluger and Kenneth Prager. 2022. A license to practice medicine cannot be a license to harm. The American Journal of Medicine 135, 8 (Aug 2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2022.01.051

    2022 doi

  63. [71]

    Philipp Schmid and Benedikt Werner. 2023. Hostility has a trivial effect on persuasiveness of rebutting science denialism on social media. Communications Psychology 1, 1 (2023), 39

    2023

  64. [72]

    Filipo Sharevski, Raniem Alsaadi, Peter Jachim, and Emma Pieroni. 2022. Mis- information warnings: Twitter’s soft moderation effects on COVID-19 vaccine belief echoes. Computers & Security 114 (2022), 102577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cose.2021.102577

    2022

  65. [73]

    Gettr-ing

    Filipo Sharevski, Amy Devine, Peter Jachim, and Emma Pieroni. 2022. “Gettr-ing” User Insights from the Social Network Gettr. https://truthandtrustonline.com/wp- content/uploads/2022/10/TTO_2022_proceedings.pdf

    2022

  66. [74]

    Filipo Sharevski, Amy Devine, Peter Jachim, and Emma Pieroni. 2022. Meaningful Context, a Red Flag, or Both? Preferences for Enhanced Misinformation Warnings Among US Twitter Users. In Proceedings of the 2022 European Symposium on Usable Security (Karlsruhe, Germany) (EuroUSEC...

    2022

  67. [75]

    Filipo Sharevski, Alice Huff, Peter Jachim, and Emma Pieroni. 2022. (Mis)perceptions and engagement on Twitter: COVID-19 vaccine rumors on efficacy and mass immunization effort. International Journal of Information Management Data Insights 2, 1 (2022), 100059

    2022

  68. [76]

    Filipo Sharevski, Jennifer Vander Loop, Peter Jachim, Amy Devine, and Emma Pieroni. 2023. Abortion Misinformation on TikTok: Rampant Content, Lax Mod- eration, and Vivid User Experiences. arXiv:2301.05128 [cs.SI]

    2023 arXiv

  69. [77]

    I Just Didn’t Notice It:

    Filipo Sharevski and Aziz Zeidieh. 2023. “I Just Didn’t Notice It:” Experiences with Misinformation Warnings on Social Media amongst Low Vision or Blind Users. In New Security Paradigms Workshop (Segovia, Spain) (NSPW ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, US...

    2023

  70. [78]

    Clare Southerton and Marianne Clark. 2022. OBGYNs of TikTok and the role of misinformation in diffractive knowledge production. Journal of Sociology 59, 3 (2024/03/27 2022), 610–627

    2022

  71. [79]

    Guntuku, Elissa V

    Lauren Southwick, Sharath C. Guntuku, Elissa V. Klinger, Emily Seltzer, Haley J. McCalpin, and Raina M. Merchant. 2021. Characterizing covid-19 content posted to TikTok: Public sentiment and response during the first phase of the COVID- 19 pandemic. Journal of Adolescent Healt...

    2021 doi

  72. [80]

    Kate Starbird, Ahmer Arif, and Tom Wilson. 2019. Disinformation as Col- laborative Work: Surfacing the Participatory Nature of Strategic Information Operations. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 3, CSCW (November 2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3359229

    2019 doi

  73. [81]

    Elizabeth Stewart. 2021. Detecting Fake News: Two Problems for Content Mod- eration. Philosophy & Technology 34, 4 (2021), 923–940

    2021

  74. [82]

    Briony Swire-Thompson, Joseph DeGutis, and David Lazer. 2020. Searching for the Backfire Effect: Measurement and Design Considerations. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 9, 3 (2020), 286–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jarmac.2020.06.006

    2020 doi

  75. [83]

    TikTok. 2020. How TikTok recommends videos #ForYou. https://newsroom.tik tok.com/en-us/how-tiktok-recommends-videos-for-you

    2020

  76. [84]

    TikTok. 2023. TikTok Creator Rewards. https://support.tiktok.com/en/business- and-creator/creator-rewards-program/creator-rewards-program

    2023

  77. [85]

    TikTok. 2023. TikTok Safety. https://www.tiktok.com/safety/en-us/topics/

    2023

  78. [86]

    TikTok. 2023. TikTok Terms of Service. https://www.tiktok.com/legal/page/us/t erms-of-service/en

    2023

  79. [87]

    Twitter. 2022. How we address misinformation on Twitter. https://help.twitter.c om/en/resources/addressing-misleading-info

    2022

  80. [88]

    Twitter. 2024. Community Notes. https://communitynotes.x.com/guide/en/abou t/introduction

    2024

  81. [89]

    Lance Holbert, and Yasmin Morag

    Nathan Walter, Jonathan Cohen, R. Lance Holbert, and Yasmin Morag. 2020. Fact-Checking: A Meta-Analysis of What Works and for Whom. Political Com- munication 37, 3 (05 2020), 350–375

    2020

  82. [90]

    Erin Willis and Marjorie Delbaere. 2022. Patient Influencers: The Next Frontier in Direct-to-Consumer Pharmaceutical Marketing. Journal of Medical Internet Research 24, 3 (March 2022), e29422. https://doi.org/10.2196/29422

    2022 doi

  83. [91]

    Woolley and P.N

    S.C. Woolley and P.N. Howard. 2018. Computational Propaganda: Political Parties, Politicians, and Political Manipulation on Social Media . Oxford University Press, Incorporated

    2018

  84. [92]

    YouTube. 2023. Misinformation policies. https://support.google.com/youtube/a nswer/10834785?hl=en

    2023

  85. [93]

    misinformation

    Jing Zeng and D Bondy Valdovinos Kaye. 2022. From content moderation to visibility moderation: A case study of platform governance on TikTok. Policy & Internet 14, 1 (2022), 79–95. NSPW ’24, September 16–19, 2024, Bedford, PA, USA F. Sharevski, J. Vander Loop, A. Devine, P.Jac...

    2022

  86. [2020]

    In 12th ACM Conference on Web Science (Southampton, United King- dom) (WebSci ’20)

    Dancing to the Partisan Beat: A First Analysis of Political Communication on TikTok. In 12th ACM Conference on Web Science (Southampton, United King- dom) (WebSci ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 257–266. https://doi.org/10.1145/3394231.3397916

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.