Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 54 references

Polarized Patterns of Language Toxicity and Sentiment of Debunking Posts on Social Media

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Analyzing over 86 million Twitter posts and more than 4 million Reddit comments, this paper finds that peripheral users, platform design, and reply frequency shape toxicity and pessimism in debunking debates independently of party…

desk verdict Potentially interesting large-scale observations, but the manuscript is missing its statistical backbone and conflates keyword mentions with debunking. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.06274 v2 pith:ZCFX33JH submitted 2025-01-10 cs.CY cs.AIcs.CL

Wentao Xu , Wenlu Fan , Shiqian Lu , Tenghao Li , Bin Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYcs.AIcs.CL
keywords languagetoxicitypessimismdebunkingpoliticalpolarizationsocialmediaplatformsTwitterRedditmisinformation
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 sets out to show that polarization in online debunking discussions is not only a partisan divide: it also runs along user engagement, platform architecture, and emotional tone. Examining 86.7 million Twitter posts and 4.7 million Reddit comments about the 2016 and 2020 U.S. elections and QAnon, the authors report three regularities: lightly engaged peripheral users carry a disproportionate share of toxic language, Twitter amplifies partisan gaps while Reddit sustains higher overall toxicity, and language toxicity is negatively correlated with pessimism, with more replies associated with less toxicity, especially on Reddit. If these regularities hold, debunking campaigns and moderation tools would need to target peripheral participants and platform-specific interaction structures, not just partisan echo chambers.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a set of measurement pairings: a network-degree partition (2-core versus 1-degree users) defines engagement level; automated toxicity scoring and sentiment/emotion classification assign each aggregated user text a toxicity and a pessimism score; and Shannon entropy of user text, summarized by the minimal interval containing roughly half the users, quantifies informational complexity. The 2-core/1-degree partition provides a structural proxy for community accountability, the entropy-minimal-interval procedure makes platform differences in text diversity comparable, and the regression of maximum received toxicity or pessimism on reply count operationalizes whether interaction calms language. These tools are what allow the authors to separate user-engagement polarization from partisan polarization.

What would settle it

Take a random sample of the keyword-matched posts, have independent annotators classify each as a genuine debunking attempt (e.g., explicitly labeling a claim false) versus other uses, then recompute the toxicity–pessimism correlations and the 1-degree/2-core effect sizes on the confirmed-debunking subset only. If the negative correlations or peripheral-user effects vanish or flip sign, the keyword operationalization of 'debunking post' is the point of failure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that debunking discourse is polarized along three axes in addition to political affiliation: participation depth, platform design, and emotional expression. Users at the network periphery (1-degree users, defined as those absent from the 2-core of the retweet network on Twitter or the reply network on Reddit) are numerically dominant and contribute an outsized share of toxic language. Reddit's threaded, community-structured format is associated with higher overall toxicity and greater informational diversity (wider text-entropy intervals), while Twitter's broadcast format shows more uniform text and sharper partisan separation in the toxicity–entropy relationship. Across both platforms and both party groups, toxicity and pessimism move in opposite directions, and the toxicity of the most extreme replies declines as reply counts increase, with steeper declines on Reddit.

Load-bearing premise

The operating assumption is that any post containing one of the debunking keywords ('fake news,' 'misinformation,' 'debunk') is actually a debunking post; if many such posts are instead spreading or dismissing misinformation, the whole corpus is mislabeled and the conclusions no longer apply to debunking.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Moderation focused only on highly engaged users or partisan echo chambers will miss the largest numerical source of toxic language, because peripheral 1-degree users dominate the toxic tail.
  • Platform features that encourage reply-based interaction are a plausible lever for reducing extreme content, since toxicity and pessimism decline as reply counts rise, and the decline is steeper on Reddit.
  • Toxicity and pessimism should not be treated as a single negative-emotion cluster; their consistent negative correlation means an intervention that lowers toxic speech may not touch pessimism, and vice versa.
  • Broadcast-style platforms and community-thread platforms polarize through different mechanisms, so platform-specific moderation (accountability prompts for newcomers on Twitter-like feeds, structure-based rules on Reddit-like threads) is implied by the findings.
  • The three-mechanism account (peripheral users, platform architecture, and emotional expression) is presented as transferable to other controversial topics and newer platforms, though the authors caution that their binary 1-degree/2-core distinction simplifies the spectrum of participation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Recomputing the analyses on a manually validated subset of genuinely corrective posts (versus keyword-matched posts that quote, mock, or spread misinformation) would show whether the reported patterns are about debunking or about any political talk that mentions 'fake news' and 'misinformation'.
  • The negative toxicity–pessimism relationship may partly reflect the way the two constructs are measured—one by a reader-perception toxicity model and the other by an emotion classifier—so the 'surprising' sign could be an artifact of label separation; swapping in other measurement tools would test this.
  • The reply-count regressions are observational: an equally plausible interpretation is that users stop replying to the most toxic threads, which would make the apparent calming effect a selection effect; identifying a change in reply visibility or ranking would separate the two.
  • If the peripheral-user effect is causal, lightweight interventions targeted at first-time repliers—such as community-rule reminders or delayed publishing—could reduce toxic load more efficiently than post hoc moderation, but the paper stops at correlation.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes 86.7 million Twitter posts and 4.7 million Reddit comments retrieved with debunking-related keywords around the 2016 and 2020 U.S. presidential elections and QAnon. Using Perspective API, VADER, a RoBERTa emotion model, and retweet/reply network analyses, it reports three main findings: peripheral 1-degree users contribute disproportionately to toxic discourse; platform architecture shapes polarization, with Twitter amplifying partisan differences and Reddit showing higher overall toxicity; and language toxicity correlates negatively with pessimism, while increased replying is associated with reduced toxicity. The authors interpret these patterns as evidence about the dynamics of debunking discourse on social media.

Significance. If the central claims were supported, the paper would be a valuable large-scale cross-platform investigation of toxicity and sentiment in misinformation-correction contexts, with practical implications for moderation and platform design. The scale of the data, the combination of network and NLP measures, and the manual verification of the political classification are notable strengths. However, the contribution is conditional on resolving the construct-validity and reporting problems described below; in its current form the central findings cannot be evaluated from the manuscript as written.

major comments (5)
  1. [Methods, Data collection] The corpus is built solely by querying keywords such as "fact check," "fake news," "misinformation," and "debunk," but the paper provides no validation that posts containing these keywords actually perform debunking. A post containing "fake news" may be an act of correction, a dismissal of unfavorable reporting, or itself misinformation. Because all three headline findings are attributed to "debunking tweets/comments," this is a load-bearing assumption. Please report a manual or automated validation of a random sample of the retrieved posts, report agreement, and either restrict the corpus to verified debunking content or revise all claims to refer to posts matching debunking-related keywords.
  2. [Methods, Sentiment calculation and pessimism detection] The paper never operationalizes pessimism. It names the model "cardiffnlp/twitter-roberta-base-emotion-multilabel-latest" but does not state which emotion labels are used, how they are combined into a pessimism score, or whether a threshold is applied. Since the negative toxicity-pessimism correlation in the Results is a central finding, the missing mapping makes that analysis unverifiable. Please define the pessimism score explicitly, ideally with an equation or a table of label-to-score weights.
  3. [Results, throughout] The statistical evidence for nearly every quantitative claim is reported only as "Table ??": Pearson correlations, Mann-Whitney U tests, Cliff's delta effect sizes, regression slopes and intercepts, and reply-regression statistics are all referenced to missing tables. For example, the subsection "Negative relationship between language toxicity and pessimism" cites "Table ??" for all correlation coefficients, and "Polarization of replying" references "Table ??" for slopes and intercepts. Without the actual tables, the claims cannot be checked. Please supply complete tables with sample sizes, test statistics, and confidence intervals, and correct all cross-references.
  4. [Abstract and Discussion] The assertion that peripheral users shape toxic discourse "driven by lower community accountability and emotional expression" is a causal explanation, but the observational design only measures retweet/reply degree, toxicity, and sentiment. No variable for accountability or community investment is measured, and no causal identification is used. Please rephrase this as an observed association and discuss alternative mechanisms, such as selection into peripheral participation or topic-specific activity.
  5. [Results, Polarization of replying] The analysis regresses the maximum toxicity and pessimism received by replied-to users on log-transformed reply counts and interprets the negative slopes as evidence that "sustained interaction" reduces toxicity. This is an observational correlation and is subject to endogeneity: users who receive few replies may differ systematically from heavily replied-to users in topic, visibility, or prior behavior. Please soften the causal language and consider controlling for user-level confounders or explicitly labeling the finding as correlational.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Methods, Sentiment calculation and pessimism detection] VADER is misspaced as "V ADER" in multiple places; please correct the spacing.
  2. [Algorithm 1] The pseudocode contains the typo "out put" for "output," and the step size of 0.1 with strict inequalities should be clarified to avoid floating-point edge cases.
  3. [Results, Polarization of replying] There is a typo "20120 U.S. presidential election" in the paragraph discussing the 2020 election; please correct it.
  4. [Results, Polarization in 1-Degree and 2-Core Users] The text reports "P = 0.0" in one Mann-Whitney U test; statistical results should be reported as inequalities (for example, P < 0.001) rather than as exactly zero.
  5. [Table 2] Table 2 is labeled as the minimal entropy interval for "50% of users," but the user rates are 50.1% to 53.4%; the threshold and the reason for exceeding 50% should be stated more precisely.
  6. [Results, Negative relationship between language toxicity and pessimism] Several reported Pearson correlations are quite small (for example, r = -0.079 and r = -0.126); the text describes them as showing a "consistent negative relationship," but the practical significance and confidence intervals should be discussed once the missing tables are supplied.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: measurements rely on external detectors, manual verification, and descriptive statistics; no result reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain from keyword-based corpus construction through sentiment/pessimism detection (VADER, RoBERTa emotion model), toxicity scoring (Perspective API), network-based user classification, entropy-interval estimation, and the various regressions and correlations. None of these quantities is defined in terms of the outcome it is used to explain, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The entropy-interval algorithm is a descriptive sliding-window statistic, and the linear regressions are reported as descriptive fits rather than as predictions. The only self-citations (Ref. 40 for retweet-network user classification and Ref. 46 for an earlier toxicity baseline) are not load-bearing: the classification method is independently validated in this paper via manual coding with reported Cohen's kappa values, and Ref. 46 is used only as a comparative baseline. The keyword-only construction of the 'debunking' corpus is a genuine construct-validity concern, but it is a measurement or labeling threat, not a circularity: the findings are not logically entailed by the keyword definition, and the paper's claims could in principle be false even after data collection. Accordingly, no circular step meets the evidentiary standard of the review, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical claims rest on external NLP tools as ground truth, a keyword-defined corpus, and a network-based party identification. These are domain assumptions about the validity of automated scores and operationalizations, not geometric or physical axioms.

free parameters (4)
  • q (bubble plot normalization) = 500
    A visualization constant chosen for the entropy bubble plot (Methods, Eq. 2); it scales bubble sizes but does not affect the ordinal comparisons.
  • Minimal entropy interval user fraction = 50%
    The algorithm seeks the smallest interval containing just over 50% of users (Methods, Algorithm 1). The threshold is arbitrary and affects the interval lengths reported in Table 2.
  • Entropy interval granularity = 0.1
    The sliding-window step size in Algorithm 1 is fixed at 0.1; a finer or coarser step would change the minimal interval endpoints.
  • Time segmentation window = 5 or 10 days
    The authors select a 5-day or 10-day segmentation per topic to keep analysis windows near 35 days (Results, Figure 2). The choice is ad hoc and could affect temporal correlation tests.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Tweets and comments containing debunking keywords are debunking posts
    The corpus is built by querying keywords such as 'fake news' and 'misinformation' (Methods, Data collection). These terms are also used by non-debunking accounts, so the corpus may not represent debunking content.
  • domain assumption Perspective API toxicity scores provide valid ground truth for toxicity
    The paper defines toxicity through Perspective API probabilities (Methods, Language toxicity measurement) without human annotation on this corpus, inheriting any biases in the API.
  • domain assumption VADER compound scores and the Cardiff emotion model capture sentiment and pessimism
    Sentiment is quantified with VADER, and 'pessimism' is attributed to a RoBERTa emotion model, but the mapping from emotion labels to a pessimism value is never described (Methods, Sentiment calculation and pessimism detection).
  • domain assumption PoliticalBiasBERT, trained on news articles, can classify Reddit users' party affiliation from their aggregated comments
    For Reddit users, party labels come from PoliticalBiasBERT (Methods, Identification of Republican and Democratic users). The application to users rather than articles is not explained, and validation covers only 50 manually checked users.
  • domain assumption The retweet network's two largest k-core clusters correspond to Republican and Democratic users
    Twitter users are classified by the two major clusters in a k-core retweet network (Methods, Identification of Republican and Democratic users), with manual inspection of high-indegree users as the only verification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Polarized Patterns of Language Toxicity and Sentiment of Debunking Posts on Social Media." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZCFX33JH

@misc{pith2026250106274,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Polarized Patterns of Language Toxicity and Sentiment of Debunking Posts on Social Media},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZCFX33JH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.06274}
}
read the original abstract

The rise of misinformation and fake news in online political discourse poses significant challenges to democratic processes and public engagement. While debunking efforts aim to counteract misinformation and foster fact-based dialogue, these discussions often involve language toxicity and emotional polarization. We examined over 86 million debunking tweets and more than 4 million Reddit debunking comments to investigate the relationship between language toxicity, pessimism, and social polarization in debunking efforts. Focusing on discussions of the 2016 and 2020 U.S. presidential elections and the QAnon conspiracy theory, our analysis reveals three key findings: (1) peripheral participants (1-degree users) play a disproportionate role in shaping toxic discourse, driven by lower community accountability and emotional expression; (2) platform mechanisms significantly influence polarization, with Twitter amplifying partisan differences and Reddit fostering higher overall toxicity due to its structured, community-driven interactions; and (3) a negative correlation exists between language toxicity and pessimism, with increased interaction reducing toxicity, especially on Reddit. We show that platform architecture affects informational complexity of user interactions, with Twitter promoting concentrated, uniform discourse and Reddit encouraging diverse, complex communication. Our findings highlight the importance of user engagement patterns, platform dynamics, and emotional expressions in shaping polarization in debunking discourse. This study offers insights for policymakers and platform designers to mitigate harmful effects and promote healthier online discussions, with implications for understanding misinformation, hate speech, and political polarization in digital environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.06274 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. shows the retweet network constructed from the 2016, 2020, U.S. presidential elections and QAnon dataset, revealing that Republican and Democratic users were segregated. Based on the retweet network analysis, we then identified and classified Republican and Democratic users on both Twitter and Reddit platforms (cf. Methods). The demographics of the two classes of users were described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/ful… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. illustrates the temporal oscillation across platforms and topics: for Twitter’s 2016 and 2020 U.S. presidential election discussions and Reddit’s 2016 U.S. presidential election topic, a 5-day segmentation was selected, while a 10-day segmentation was applied for Twitter’s QAnon topic, the 2020 U.S. election topic on Reddit, and Reddit’s QAnon topic. This approach keeps the analysis windows around 35 days across pla… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Polarization of sentiment and language toxicity for 2-core users and 1-degree users across Twitter and Reddit platforms during the 2016, 2020 U.S. presidential elections, and QAnon topics. The 3D Gaussian distribution plots show the relationship between language toxicity (horizontal axis, 0 is in the middle of the axis), compound score (depth axis), and kernel density (vertical axis). The color gradient from dark bl… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The difference in toxicity and pessimism between Republican and Democratic 1-degree and 2-core users across the 2016, 2020 U.S. presidential elections and QAnon on Twitter and Reddit. Panels (a-f) show toxicity distributions: Twitter (panel a-c) and Reddit (panel d-f),…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Toxicity as a function of pessimism for Republican (red) and Democratic (blue) users across different political events on Twitter (panel a-f)) and Reddit (panel g-l). For all panels, fitted lines represent the best-fit linear regression lines; Error bands represent 95%…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The temporal polarization of language toxicity and pessimism across Twitter and Reddit. Our analysis involved several steps to extract and process retweet data, allowing us to examine trends in language toxicity and pessimism over time. First, we filtered timestamped r…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Entropy median polarization analysis of users in the range of entropy minimal interval (cf. Methods for details) of Republican and Democratic. The figure is organized by topic (2016 presidential election, 2020 presidential election, and QAnon) and platform (Twitter, pa…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Entropy-median language toxicity polarization. The figure is categorized by topic (2016 U.S. presidential election, 2020 U.S. presidential election, and QAnon) and platform (Twitter, panel a–c and Reddit, panel d-f). The data is split by political affiliation, with Rep…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The maximum toxicities and pessimism of replies of Republican and Democratic replied-to users received across different political events and platforms. The X-axis, replied times, is in log scale to better visualize the distribution across different engagement levels. T…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    & Adamic, L

    Bakshy, E., Messing, S. & Adamic, L. A. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on facebook. Science 348, 1130–1132, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1160 (2015)

    doi:10.1126/science.aaa1160 2015

  2. [3]

    post-truth

    Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. & Cook, J. Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 6, 353–369, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008 (2017)

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008 2017

  3. [4]

    Friggeri, A., Adamic, L. A. & Eckles, D. Rumor cascades. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on computer supported cooperative work, 101–110, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v8i1.14559 (ACM, 2014)

    work page doi:10.1609/icwsm.v8i1.14559 2014

  4. [5]

    A., Suárez-Betancur, N., Vega, L

    Castaño-Pulgarín, S. A., Suárez-Betancur, N., Vega, L. M. T. & López, H. M. H. Internet, social media and online hate speech. systematic review. Aggress. Violent Behav. 58, 101608, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2021.101608 (2021)

    arXiv 2021

  5. [6]

    Johnson, N. F. et al. Hidden resilience and adaptive dynamics of the global online hate ecology. Nature 573, 261–265, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1494-7 (2019)

    doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1494-7 2019

  6. [7]

    Nitschinsk, L., Tobin, S. J. & Vanman, E. J. The disinhibiting effects of anonymity increase online trolling.Cyberpsychology, Behav. Soc. Netw. 25, 377–383, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2022.0005 (2022). 16/19

    work page arXiv 2022

  7. [8]

    & Benevenuto, F

    Mondal, M., Correa, D. & Benevenuto, F. Anonymity effects: A large-scale dataset from an anonymous social media platform. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media , HT ’20, 69–74, DOI: https: //doi.org/10.1145/3372923.3404792 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA, 2020)

    arXiv

  8. [9]

    Nonverbal communication

    Hess, U. Nonverbal communication. In Friedman, H. S. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Mental Health (Second Edition) , 208–218, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-397045-9.00218-4 (Academic Press, Oxford, 2016), second edition edn

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-397045-9.00218-4 2016

Show all 54 references
  1. [10]

    & Stanziano, A

    Rega, R., Marchetti, R. & Stanziano, A. Incivility in online discussion: An examination of impolite and intolerant comments. Soc. Media + Soc. 9, 20563051231180638, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231180638 (2023)

    2023 doi

  2. [11]

    Maia, R. C. M. & Rezende, T. A. S. Respect and Disrespect in Deliberation across the Networked Media Environment: Examining Multiple Paths of Political Talk. J. Comput. Commun. 21, 121–139, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12155 (2016)

    2016 doi

  3. [12]

    Toxic speech: Toward an epidemiology of discursive harm

    Tirrell, L. Toxic speech: Toward an epidemiology of discursive harm. Philos. Top. 45, 139–162 (2017)

    2017

  4. [13]

    & Lee, D

    Gervais, P., Holmes, D. & Lee, D. Topic-driven toxicity: Exploring the relationship between online toxicity and news topics. PLOS ONE 18, e0228723, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228723 (2023)

    2023 doi

  5. [14]

    D., Gordon, J

    V olkow, N. D., Gordon, J. A. & Koob, G. F. Choosing appropriate language to reduce the stigma around mental illness and substance use disorders. Neuropsychopharmacology 46, 1850–1857, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-021-01069-4 (2021)

    2021 doi

  6. [15]

    Baum, M. A. & Groeling, T. Troll and divide: The language of online polarization. PNAS Nexus 7, 24–31, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac019 (2020)

    2020 doi

  7. [16]

    Chen, G. M. Online incivility and public debate: Nasty talk (Springer, 2017)

    2017

  8. [17]

    & Rains, S

    Coe, K., Kenski, K. & Rains, S. A. The distorting prism of social media: How self-presentation affects public opinion. Int. J. Public Opin. Res. 74, 399–415, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edt019 (2014)

    2014 doi

  9. [18]

    a pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty

    Kumar, U., Rana, V . K., PYKL, S. & Das, A. “a pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty” – understanding the psycho-sociological influences to it. In Bandyopadhyay, S. (ed.) Proceedings of the 14th International C...

    2017

  10. [19]

    & Seligman, M

    Isaacowitz, D. & Seligman, M. Is pessimism a risk factor for depressive mood among community-dwelling older adults? Behav. Res. Ther. 39, 255–272, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(99)00178-3 (2001)

    2001 doi

  11. [20]

    Chang, E. C. Optimism–Pessimism and Stress Appraisal: Testing a Cognitive Interactive Model of Psychological Adjustment in Adults. Cogn. Ther. Res. 26, 675–690, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1020313427884 (2002)

    2002 doi

  12. [21]

    The influence of pessimism on adverse network behavior during covid-19: the mediating effect of negative affect and risk perception

    Wu, S. The influence of pessimism on adverse network behavior during covid-19: the mediating effect of negative affect and risk perception. Curr. Psychol. 43, 14027–14036, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03584-z (2022)

    2022 doi

  13. [22]

    & Poell, T

    Van Dijck, J. & Poell, T. Understanding social media logic. Media Commun. 1, 2–14, DOI: https://doi.org/10.17645/mac. v1i1.70 (2013)

    2013 doi

  14. [23]

    & Hills, T

    Pilgrim, C., Guo, W. & Hills, T. T. The rising entropy of english in the attention economy. Commun. Psychol. 2, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s44271-024-00117-1 (2024)

    2024 doi

  15. [24]

    & Sasahara, K

    Miyazaki, K., Uchiba, T., Tanaka, K. & Sasahara, K. Aggressive behaviour of anti-vaxxers and their toxic replies in english and japanese. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 9, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01245-x (2022)

    2022 doi

  16. [25]

    Del Vicario, M. et al. The spreading of misinformation online. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113, 554–559, DOI: https: //doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1517441113 (2016)

    2016 doi

  17. [26]

    & Aral, S

    V osoughi, S., Roy, D. & Aral, S. The spread of true and false news online. Science 359, 1146–1151, DOI: https: //doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559 (2018)

    2018 doi

  18. [27]

    Lazer, D. M. J. et al. The science of fake news. Science 359, 1094–1096, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao2998 (2018)

    2018 doi

  19. [28]

    & Ghorbani, A

    Zhang, Y . & Ghorbani, A. A. An overview of online fake news: characterization, detection, and discussion.Inf. Process. & Manag. 57, 102025, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2019.03.004 (2020)

    2020 doi

  20. [29]

    Cinelli, M., Morales, G. D. F., Galeazzi, A., Quattrociocchi, W. & Starnini, M. The echo chamber effect on social media. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 118, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023301118 (2021)

    2021 doi

  21. [30]

    & Blackburn, J

    Baumgartner, J., Zannettou, S., Keegan, B., Squire, M. & Blackburn, J. The pushshift reddit dataset (2020). arXiv: 2001.08435. 17/19

    2020 arXiv

  22. [31]

    & Gilbert, E

    Hutto, C. & Gilbert, E. Vader: A parsimonious rule-based model for sentiment analysis of social media text. Proc. Int. AAAI Conf. on Web Soc. Media 8, 216–225, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v8i1.14550 (2014)

    2014 doi

  23. [32]

    RoBERTa: A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach (2019)

    Liu, Y .et al. RoBERTa: A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach (2019). arXiv:1907.11692

    2019 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Camacho-collados, J. et al. TweetNLP: Cutting-edge natural language processing for social media. In Che, W. & Shutova, E. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations , 38–49, DOI: https://doi.org/10.18653...

    2022 doi

  25. [34]

    & Kiritchenko, S

    Mohammad, S., Bravo-Marquez, F., Salameh, M. & Kiritchenko, S. SemEval-2018 task 1: Affect in tweets. In Apidianaki, M. et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation , 1–17, DOI: https: //doi.org/10.18653/v1/S18-1001 (Association for Compu...

    2018 doi

  26. [35]

    Lees, A. et al. A new generation of perspective api: Efficient multilingual character-level transformers. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , KDD ’22, 3197–3207, DOI: https: //doi.org/10.1145/3534678.3539147 (Association fo...

  27. [36]

    Schramowski, P., Turan, C., Andersen, N., Rothkopf, C. A. & Kersting, K. Large pre-trained language models contain human-like biases of what is right and wrong to do. Nat. Mach. Intell. 4, 258–268, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ s42256-022-00458-8 (2022)

    2022

  28. [37]

    Avalle, M. et al. Persistent interaction patterns across social media platforms and over time. Nature 628, 582–589, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07229-y (2024)

    2024 doi

  29. [38]

    & Smith, N

    Gehman, S., Gururangan, S., Sap, M., Choi, Y . & Smith, N. A. RealToxicityPrompts: Evaluating neural toxic degeneration in language models. In Cohn, T., He, Y . & Liu, Y . (eds.) Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, 3356–3369, DOI: http://dx.d...

    2020 doi

  30. [39]

    A., Schult, D

    Hagberg, A. A., Schult, D. A. & Swart, P. J. Exploring network structure, dynamics, and function using networkx. In Proceedings of the 7th Python in Science Conference , SciPy, 11–15, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.25080/TCWV9851 (SciPy, 2008)

    doi

  31. [40]

    & Sasahara, K

    Xu, W. & Sasahara, K. A network-based approach to qanon user dynamics and topic diversity during the covid-19 infodemic. APSIPA Transactions on Signal Inf. Process. 11, e17, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/116.00000055 (2022)

    2022 doi

  32. [41]

    Giatsidis, C., Thilikos, D. M. & Vazirgiannis, M. D-cores: Measuring collaboration of directed graphs based on degeneracy. In 2011 IEEE 11th International Conference on Data Mining , 201–210, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICDM.2011.46 (2011)

    2011 doi

  33. [42]

    & Nakov, P

    Baly, R., Da San Martino, G., Glass, J. & Nakov, P. We can detect your bias: Predicting the political ideology of news articles. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) , EMNLP ’20, 4982–4991, DOI: https://doi.org/10.18...

    2020 doi

  34. [43]

    Landis, J. R. & Koch, G. G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33, 159–174, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310 (1977)

    1977 doi

  35. [44]

    Shannon, C. E. A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell Syst. Tech. J. 27, 379–423 (1948)

    1948

  36. [45]

    Phillips, A. W. The relation between unemployment and the rate of change of money wage rates in the united kingdom, 1861-1957. Economica 25, 283–299, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2550759 (1958)

    1958 doi

  37. [46]

    Characterization of political polarized users attacked by language toxicity on Twitter

    Xu, W. Characterization of political polarized users attacked by language toxicity on Twitter. In Companion Publication of the 2024 Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing , CSCW Companion ’24, 185–189, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3678884.368184...

    2024

  38. [47]

    B., Zhang, J., Wang, C

    Lowry, P. B., Zhang, J., Wang, C. & Siponen, M. Why do adults engage in cyberbullying on social media ? an integration of online disinhibition and deindividuation effects with the social structure and social learning model. Inf. Syst. Res. 27, 962–986, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/1...

    2016

  39. [48]

    D., Spears, R

    Reicher, S. D., Spears, R. & Postmes, T. A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 6, 161–198, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779443000049 (1995)

    1995 doi

  40. [49]

    The social calibration of emotion expression: An affective basis of micro-social order

    von Scheve, C. The social calibration of emotion expression: An affective basis of micro-social order. Sociol. Theory 30, 1–14, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275112437163 (2012)

    2012 doi

  41. [50]

    Bail, C. A. et al. Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 115, 9216–9221, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1804840115 (2018). 18/19

    2018 doi

  42. [51]

    & Kligler-Vilenchik, N

    Yarchi, M., Baden, C. & Kligler-Vilenchik, N. Political polarization on the digital sphere: A cross-platform, over- time analysis of interactional, positional, and affective polarization on social media. Polit. Commun. 38, 98–139, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.178...

    2021

  43. [52]

    J., Wills, J

    Brady, W. J., Wills, J. A., Jost, J. T., Tucker, J. A. & Van Bavel, J. J. Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114, 7313–7318, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1618923114 (2017)

    2017 doi

  44. [53]

    Understanding and countering misinformation about climate change

    Cook, J. Understanding and countering misinformation about climate change. In Handbook of Research on Deception, Fake News, and Misinformation Online, 281–306, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-8535-0.ch016 (IGI Global, 2019)

    doi

  45. [54]

    Newman, R. S. Abolitionism: A V ery Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2018)

    2018

  46. [55]

    Earl, J., Maher, T. V . & Pan, J. The digital repression of social movements, protest, and activism: A synthetic review.Sci. Adv. 8, eabl8198, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abl8198 (2022). 19/19

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.