Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Context, Credibility, and Control: User Reflections on AI Assisted Misinformation Tools

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2506.22940 v1 pith:TGMPUBJR submitted 2025-06-28 cs.HC cs.SI

Context, Credibility, and Control: User Reflections on AI Assisted Misinformation Tools

classification cs.HC cs.SI
keywords misinformationusercollaborativeinteractivemediasystemstoolsaddress
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

This paper investigates how collaborative AI systems can enhance user agency in identifying and evaluating misinformation on social media platforms. Traditional methods, such as personal judgment or basic fact-checking, often fall short when faced with emotionally charged or context-deficient content. To address this, we designed and evaluated an interactive interface that integrates collaborative AI features, including real-time explanations, source aggregation, and debate-style interaction. These elements aim to support critical thinking by providing contextual cues and argumentative reasoning in a transparent, user-centered format. In a user study with 14 participants, 79% found the debate mode more effective than standard chatbot interfaces, and the multiple-source view received an average usefulness rating of 4.6 out of 5. Our findings highlight the potential of context-rich, dialogic AI systems to improve media literacy and foster trust in digital information environments. We argue that future tools for misinformation mitigation should prioritize ethical design, explainability, and interactive engagement to empower users in a post-truth era.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. It Matters How You Say It: Exploring Rhetorical Patterns for AI-Assisted Information Evaluation

    cs.HC 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    In a 98-participant fact-checking study, the rhetorical style of AI advice changed accuracy, confidence, and preference, with step-by-step explanations helping most and user preference diverging from performance.