pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.17788 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-20 · 💻 cs.CR · cs.SI

SoK: Analysis of Privacy Risks and Mitigation in Online Propaganda Detection through the PROMPT Framework

Dhiman Goswami , Al Nahian Bin Emran , Md Hasan Ullah Sadi , Sanchari Das This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 05:03 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CR cs.SI
keywords privacy riskspropaganda detectionPROMPT frameworkcompliance scoreprivacy-utility trade-offGDPR compliancesynthetic perturbationtransformer models
0
0 comments X

The pith

The PROMPT framework maps privacy risks in propaganda detection to mitigation strategies via a tunable utility function that weighs gains against performance and cost losses.

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

This paper reviews 162 studies on online propaganda detection to pinpoint privacy risks during data collection, feature extraction, and model inference. It introduces the PROMPT framework to connect those risks to mitigation options through a mapping guided by a utility function with adjustable weights for privacy, accuracy, and deployment costs. The authors also define a compliance score to check alignment with regulations like GDPR and CCPA. Their assessment finds that many existing pipelines fall short on rules for metadata handling and user-level aggregation. Experiments with synthetic perturbations on transformer models show a steady privacy-utility trade-off, with small accuracy drops at low perturbation levels and larger ones at higher levels.

Core claim

The authors establish that privacy risks in propaganda detection can be formalized by the PROMPT framework, which defines a mapping M from risks R to mitigation strategies S guided by the utility function α·PrivacyGain(s_j) − β·PerfLoss(s_j) − γ·Cost(s_j). Their analysis of existing methods reveals widespread non-compliance, especially in metadata handling and user-level aggregation. Fine-tuning experiments on transformer encoders and decoders under synthetic perturbation demonstrate a monotonic trade-off, with F1 score reductions of 1-2% at q = 0.05 and 13-14% at q = 0.20, supplying quantitative baselines for the performance costs of privacy measures.

What carries the argument

The PROMPT framework, which models risks R and mitigation strategies S through the mapping M: R→S guided by the weighted utility function that balances privacy gain, performance loss, and cost.

If this is right

  • Stakeholders can adjust the parameters alpha, beta, and gamma in the utility function to select mitigations according to their specific priorities for privacy, accuracy, and cost.
  • The compliance score provides a repeatable metric for auditing and improving regulatory alignment across detection pipelines.
  • The measured performance reductions supply expected cost estimates that can guide decisions on privacy enhancements for transformer-based detectors.
  • Focusing on metadata handling and user aggregation could address the most common compliance gaps without requiring complete system overhauls.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The risk-to-mitigation mapping could be applied to related content moderation tasks such as hate speech or misinformation detection to identify comparable privacy exposures.
  • Collecting real stakeholder input to calibrate the utility parameters might produce more practical guidelines for deploying compliant systems.
  • If the monotonic trade-off persists beyond synthetic methods, it could motivate research into efficiency improvements that reduce accuracy loss at higher privacy settings.

Load-bearing premise

That synthetic perturbations in the fine-tuning experiments adequately represent real-world privacy mitigations and that the utility function parameters can be set meaningfully by stakeholders without additional validation data.

What would settle it

An audit that applies actual privacy techniques such as differential privacy to deployed propaganda detectors and measures whether the resulting accuracy drops match the reported 1-2% and 13-14% ranges at equivalent privacy levels.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.17788 by Al Nahian Bin Emran, Dhiman Goswami, Md Hasan Ullah Sadi, Sanchari Das.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: PRISMA Diagram: Stepwise Literature Collection, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: PROMPT Framework Highlighting Privacy Risks and Mitigation Strategies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Online propaganda detection pipelines expose measurable privacy risks at multiple stages including data collection, feature extraction, and model inference. We conduct a structured analysis of $162$ peer-reviewed studies and formalize the problem using the Propaganda Risk Online Mitigation and Privacy-preserving Tactics (PROMPT) framework. PROMPT models risks $R$ and mitigation strategies $S$ through a mapping $M: R\to S$ guided by a utility function $\alpha\cdot \mathrm{PrivacyGain}(s_j) - \beta\cdot \mathrm{PerfLoss}(s_j) - \gamma\cdot \mathrm{Cost}(s_j)$, with tunable $(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)$ enabling stakeholders to balance privacy, accuracy, and deployment costs. To assess practical adoption, we introduce a compliance score that quantifies the alignment of existing methods with GDPR, CCPA etc. requirements. Our evaluation shows that many widely used pipelines remain non-compliant, particularly in metadata handling and user-level aggregation. We further present empirical fine-tuning experiments on transformer-based encoders and decoders under synthetic perturbation, demonstrating a monotonic privacy-utility trade-off: with $q = 0.05$ performance decreased by 1-2% F$_1$, while at $q = 0.20$ the reduction reached 13-14%. These results establish quantitative baselines for privacy costs in propaganda detection. Our contributions include a formal risk-to-defense mapping, a compliance-oriented auditing metric, and experimental evidence of privacy-performance trade-offs, providing a technical foundation for building regulation-compliant and privacy-aware detection systems.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript conducts a systematization of knowledge (SoK) on privacy risks in online propaganda detection by analyzing 162 peer-reviewed studies. It introduces the PROMPT framework that formalizes risks R and mitigations S via a mapping M guided by the utility function α·PrivacyGain(s_j) - β·PerfLoss(s_j) - γ·Cost(s_j) with tunable parameters. A compliance score is defined to assess alignment with regulations like GDPR and CCPA. The evaluation finds widespread non-compliance in areas such as metadata handling and user-level aggregation. Empirical experiments on transformer models using synthetic perturbations demonstrate a monotonic privacy-utility trade-off, with F1 score reductions of 1-2% at q=0.05 and 13-14% at q=0.20, providing quantitative baselines.

Significance. If the synthetic perturbation experiments adequately represent real privacy mitigations and the compliance analysis is rigorously documented, this paper would offer significant value by systematizing privacy concerns in propaganda detection, providing a practical framework for balancing privacy and utility, and highlighting regulatory gaps. The structured review of 162 studies and the introduction of a compliance metric are strengths that could guide future research and system design in privacy-preserving machine learning for security applications.

major comments (2)
  1. [Empirical fine-tuning experiments] The headline quantitative result of a monotonic trade-off with specific F1 drops (1-2% at q = 0.05, 13-14% at q = 0.20) depends on fine-tuning under 'synthetic perturbation'. Without details on the perturbation mechanism, its equivalence to standard privacy techniques (e.g., DP-SGD, k-anonymity), or privacy budget calculations, it is unclear if these numbers serve as reliable baselines for deployable systems. This is load-bearing for the claim of establishing quantitative baselines.
  2. [PROMPT Framework and Compliance Score] The compliance score is used to conclude that many pipelines are non-compliant in metadata handling and user-level aggregation, but the abstract provides no explicit definition, calculation method, or selection criteria for the 162 studies. This makes the non-compliance claim difficult to assess independently and potentially subject to post-hoc bias.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract lacks error bars, specific model details (e.g., which transformers), and full compliance methodology, reducing the ability to evaluate the strength of the claims from the summary alone.
  2. [PROMPT framework] The parameters α, β, γ are described as tunable but no example values, sensitivity analysis, or stakeholder guidance is mentioned, which could be clarified for better usability of the utility function.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We appreciate the referee's thorough review and valuable feedback on our SoK paper. We address the major comments below and have made revisions to clarify the experimental details and compliance score methodology.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Empirical fine-tuning experiments] The headline quantitative result of a monotonic trade-off with specific F1 drops (1-2% at q = 0.05, 13-14% at q = 0.20) depends on fine-tuning under 'synthetic perturbation'. Without details on the perturbation mechanism, its equivalence to standard privacy techniques (e.g., DP-SGD, k-anonymity), or privacy budget calculations, it is unclear if these numbers serve as reliable baselines for deployable systems. This is load-bearing for the claim of establishing quantitative baselines.

    Authors: We agree that additional details on the synthetic perturbation are necessary to substantiate the quantitative baselines. In the revised version, we will include a dedicated subsection describing the perturbation process, including how the parameter q is implemented (e.g., noise injection on user metadata and content features), its relation to differential privacy concepts, and approximate privacy budget estimates derived from the noise levels. While our experiments use a synthetic proxy rather than full DP-SGD for computational feasibility in the SoK context, we will explicitly discuss the limitations and how it provides indicative trade-offs. This addresses the concern and strengthens the empirical contribution. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [PROMPT Framework and Compliance Score] The compliance score is used to conclude that many pipelines are non-compliant in metadata handling and user-level aggregation, but the abstract provides no explicit definition, calculation method, or selection criteria for the 162 studies. This makes the non-compliance claim difficult to assess independently and potentially subject to post-hoc bias.

    Authors: The full manuscript provides the explicit definition of the compliance score in Section 4, including the calculation method as a weighted sum over regulatory requirements (e.g., consent, data minimization). The selection criteria for the 162 studies are detailed in Section 3.1, focusing on peer-reviewed works involving ML-based propaganda detection from major venues. To further enhance transparency and reduce any potential bias concerns, we will add an appendix with the compliance scores for all reviewed studies and the exact mapping to GDPR/CCPA articles. This allows readers to independently verify the non-compliance findings. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; PROMPT framework and empirical results are independently defined and measured.

full rationale

The paper introduces the PROMPT framework as a new formalization with a custom utility function α·PrivacyGain(sj) − β·PerfLoss(sj) − γ·Cost(sj) whose parameters are explicitly tunable by stakeholders rather than fitted to data. The compliance score is presented as a novel auditing metric. The reported monotonic privacy-utility trade-off (1-2% F1 drop at q=0.05, 13-14% at q=0.20) is obtained from separate empirical fine-tuning experiments on transformer encoders/decoders under synthetic perturbation; these measurements are direct observations and do not reduce to the framework definition or any fitted input by construction. No load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes imported from prior author work are invoked to justify the central mapping or results. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 2 invented entities

The paper introduces a new framework and metric without external benchmarks or independent validation of the utility function's practical utility.

free parameters (1)
  • alpha, beta, gamma
    Tunable weights in the utility function alpha*PrivacyGain - beta*PerfLoss - gamma*Cost; chosen by stakeholders but not derived from data.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Risks R and mitigations S admit a useful mapping M that can be scored by the utility function
    Invoked when formalizing the PROMPT framework in the abstract.
invented entities (2)
  • PROMPT framework no independent evidence
    purpose: To model risks R and mitigation strategies S through mapping M
    Newly introduced formalization.
  • compliance score no independent evidence
    purpose: To quantify alignment of methods with GDPR, CCPA and similar requirements
    New auditing metric introduced to assess practical adoption.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5597 in / 1346 out tokens · 76313 ms · 2026-05-10T05:03:23.269854+00:00 · methodology

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. Towards a Risk-Cost Model for Financial Adaptive Authentication

    cs.CR 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    A formal Risk-Cost Model is introduced for financial adaptive authentication that integrates CVaR-based cost-sensitive risks, adaptive sequential decisions, and regulatory constraints into one optimization framework.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

224 extracted references · 224 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Reem Abdel-Salam. 2023. rematchka at ArAIEval Shared Task: Prefix-Tuning & Prompt-tuning for Improved Detection of Propaganda and Disinformation in Arabic Social Media Content. InProceedings of ArabicNLP. Association for Computational Linguistics, Singapore (Hybrid), 536–542

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Vlad Achimescu and Dan Sultanescu. 2020. Feeding the troll detection algo- rithm: Informal flags used as labels in classification models to identify perceived computational propaganda.First Monday(2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Andrick Adhikari, Sanchari Das, and Rinku Dewri. 2023. Evolution of Composi- tion, Readability, and Structure of Privacy Policies over Two Decades.Proceed- ings of PETS3 (2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Kartik Aggarwal and Anubhav Sadana. 2019. NSIT@ NLP4IF-2019: Propaganda detection from news articles using transfer learning. InProceedings of NLP4IF

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Pir Noman Ahmad, Jiequn Guo, Nagwa M AboElenein, Qazi Mazhar ul Haq, Sadique Ahmad, Abeer D Algarni, and Abdelhamied A. Ateya. 2025. Hierarchical graph-based integration network for propaganda detection in textual news articles on social media.Scientific Reports15 (2025)

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Pir Noman Ahmad and Khalid Khan. 2023. Propaganda Detection And Chal- lenges Managing Smart Cities Information On Social Media.EAI Endorsed Transactions on Smart Cities7 (2023)

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Pir Noman Ahmad, Adnan Muhammad Shah, and KangYoon Lee. 2023. Propa- ganda Detection in Public Covid-19 Discussion on Social Media. (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Pir Noman Ahmad, Liu Yuanchao, Khursheed Aurangzeb, Muhammad Shahid Anwar, and Qazi Mazhar ul Haq. 2024. Semantic web-based propaganda text detection from social media using meta-learning.Service Oriented Computing and Applications(2024)

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    Vicent Ahuir, Lluís-Felip Hurtado, Fernando García-Granada, and Emilio Sanchis

    work page

  10. [10]

    InProceedings of SEPLN

    ELiRF-VRAIN at DIPROMATS 2023: Cross-lingual Data Augmentation for Propaganda Detection.. InProceedings of SEPLN

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    Hani Al-Omari, Malak Abdullah, Ola AlTiti, and Samira Shaikh. 2019. JUSTDeep at NLP4IF 2019 task 1: Propaganda detection using ensemble deep learning models. InProceedings of NLP4LF. 113–118

    work page 2019

  12. [12]

    Muhammad Al-Qurishi, Majed Alrubaian, Sk Md Mizanur Rahman, Atif Alamri, and Mohammad Mehedi Hassan. 2018. A prediction system of Sybil attack in social network using deep-regression model.Future Generation Computer Systems87 (2018)

    work page 2018

  13. [13]

    Firoj Alam, Hamdy Mubarak, Wajdi Zaghouani, Giovanni Da San Martino, and Preslav Nakov. 2022. Overview of the WANLP 2022 shared task on propaganda detection in Arabic.Proceedings of W ANLP(2022)

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    Farizeh Aldabbas, Shaina Ashraf, Rafet Sifa, and Lucie Flek. 2025. MultiProp Framework: Ensemble Models for Enhanced Cross-Lingual Propaganda Detec- tion in Social Media and News using Data Augmentation, Text Segmentation, and Meta-Learning. InProceedings of AbjadNLP

    work page 2025

  15. [15]

    Yasser Alhabashi, Abdullah Alharbi, Samar Ahmad, Serry Sibaee, Omer Nacar, Lahouari Ghouti, and Anis Koubaa. 2024. ASOS at ArAIEval Shared Task: Integrating Text and Image Embeddings for Multimodal Propaganda Detection in Arabic Memes. InProceedings of ArabicNLP

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    Tariq Alhindi, Jonas Pfeiffer, and Smaranda Muresan. 2019. Fine-Tuned Neural Models for Propaganda Detection at the Sentence and Fragment levels.Proceed- ings of EMNLP-IJCNLP(2019)

    work page 2019

  17. [17]

    Majed Alshammari and Andrew Simpson. 2018. A model-based approach to support privacy compliance.Information & Computer Security26, 4 (2018), 437–453

    work page 2018

  18. [18]

    Anastasios Arsenos and Georgios Siolas. 2020. NTUAAILS at SemEval-2020 Task 11: Propaganda detection and classification with biLSTMs and ELMo. In Proceedings of SemEval

    work page 2020

  19. [19]

    Joseph Attieh and Fadi Hassan. 2022. Pythoneers at WANLP 2022 Shared Task: Monolingual AraBERT for Arabic Propaganda Detection and Span Extraction. InProceedings of W ANLP

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    JM Auñón, D Hurtado-Ramírez, L Porras-Díaz, B Irigoyen-Peña, S Rahmian, Yusra Al-Khazraji, J Soler-Garrido, and Alexander Kotsev. 2024. Evaluation and utilisation of privacy enhancing technologies—A data spaces perspective.Data in Brief55 (2024)

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    Eugene Bagdasaryan and Vitaly Shmatikov. 2022. Spinning language models: Risks of propaganda-as-a-service and countermeasures. In2022 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). IEEE, 769–786

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    Vít Baisa, Ondřej Herman, and Aleš Horák. 2019. Benchmark dataset for propa- ganda detection in Czech newspaper texts. InProceedings of RANLP. 77–83

    work page 2019

  23. [23]

    Arash Barfar. 2022. A linguistic/game-theoretic approach to detection/explana- tion of propaganda.Expert Systems with Applications189 (2022)

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    Luka Barišic, Marko Pisacic, and Filip Radovic. [n. d.]. To Context or Not to Context? Analysis of De-contextualized Word Embeddings in Propaganda Detection Task. ([n. d.])

    work page

  25. [25]

    Alessandro Bessi and Emilio Ferrara. 2016. Social bots distort the 2016 US Presidential election online discussion.First monday21 (2016)

    work page 2016

  26. [26]

    Corneliu Bjola. 2018. The Ethics of Countering Digital Propaganda.Ethics & International Affairs32 (2018)

    work page 2018

  27. [27]

    Verena Blaschke, Maxim Korniyenko, and Sam Tureski. 2020. CyberWallE at SemEval-2020 Task 11: An analysis of feature engineering for ensemble models for propaganda detection.Proceedings of SemEval(2020)

    work page 2020

  28. [28]

    Marco Casavantes, Manuel Montes-y Gómez, Delia Irazú Hernández Farías, Luis Carlos González-Gurrola, and Alberto Barrón-Cedeño. 2023. PropaLTL at DIPROMATS: Incorporating Contextual Features with BERT’s Auxiliary Input for Propaganda Detection on Tweets.. InProceedings of SEPLN

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    Marco Casavantes, Manuel Montes-y Gómez, Luis Carlos González, and Al- berto Barróñ-Cedeno. 2023. Propitter: A Twitter Corpus for Computational Propaganda Detection. InProceedings of MICAI

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    Marco Casavantes, Manuel Montes-y Gómez, Delia Irazú Hernández-Farías, Luis Carlos González, and Alberto Barrón-Cedeño. 2024. PropaLTL at DIPRO- MATS 2024: Cross-lingual Data Augmentation for Propaganda Detection on Tweets. InProceedings of SEPLN

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    Danilo Cavaliere, Mariacristina Gallo, and Claudio Stanzione. 2023. Propaganda Detection Robustness Through Adversarial Attacks Driven by eXplainable AI. InProceedings of XAI

    work page 2023

  32. [32]

    Deptii Chaudhari and Ambika Vishal Pawar. 2023. Empowering propaganda detection in resource-restraint languages: a transformer-based framework for classifying hindi news articles.Big Data and Cognitive Computing7 (2023)

    work page 2023

  33. [33]

    Aniruddha Chauhan and Harshita Diddee. 2020. PsuedoProp at SemEval-2020 Task 11: Propaganda span detection using BERT-CRF and ensemble sentence level classifier. InProceedings of SemEval

    work page 2020

  34. [35]

    Tanmay Chavan and Aditya Manish Kane. 2022. ChavanKane at WANLP 2022 Shared Task: Large Language Models for Multi-label Propaganda Detection. In Proceedings of W ANLP

    work page 2022

  35. [36]

    Pengyuan Chen, Lei Zhao, Yangheran Piao, Hongwei Ding, and Xiaohui Cui

    work page

  36. [37]

    Multimodal visual-textual object graph attention network for propaganda detection in memes.Multimedia Tools and Applications83 (2024)

    work page 2024

  37. [38]

    Alexander Chernyavskiy, Dmitry Ilvovsky, and Preslav Nakov. 2024. Unleashing the Power of Discourse-Enhanced Transformers for Propaganda Detection. In Proceedings of EACL

    work page 2024

  38. [39]

    Evan Crothers, Nathalie Japkowicz, and Herna L Viktor. 2019. Towards ethical content-based detection of online influence campaigns. InProceedings of MLSP

    work page 2019

  39. [40]

    Jose Cuadrado, Elizabeth Martinez, Juan Cuadrado, Juan Carlos Martinez-Santos, and Edwin Puertas. 2024. VerbaNex AI at DIPROMATS 2024: Enhancing Propa- ganda Detection in Diplomatic Tweets with Fine-Tuned BERT and Integrated NLP Techniques. (2024)

    work page 2024

  40. [41]

    Jian Cui, Lin Li, Xin Zhang, and Jingling Yuan. 2023. Multimodal Propaganda Detection Via Anti-Persuasion Prompt enhanced contrastive learning. InPro- ceedings of ICASSP

    work page 2023

  41. [42]

    Rachel Cummings and David Durfee. 2020. Individual sensitivity preprocessing for data privacy. InProceedings of the Fourteenth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms. SIAM, 528–547

    work page 2020

  42. [43]

    Giovanni Da San Martino, Alberto Barron-Cedeno, and Preslav Nakov. 2019. Findings of the NLP4IF-2019 shared task on fine-grained propaganda detection. InProceedings of NLP4IF

    work page 2019

  43. [44]

    Giovanni Da San Martino, Alberto Barrón-Cedeno, and Preslav Nakov. 2020. Evaluation of propaganda detection tasks.Proceedings of SemEval(2020)

    work page 2020

  44. [45]

    Jiaxu Dao, Jin Wang, and Xuejie Zhang. 2020. YNU-HPCC at SemEval-2020 task 11: LSTM network for detection of propaganda techniques in news articles. In Proceedings of SemEval

    work page 2020

  45. [46]

    Daryna Dementieva, Igor Markov, and Alexander Panchenko. 2020. SkoltechNLP at SemEval-2020 Task 11: Exploring unsupervised text augmentation for propa- ganda detection. InProceedings of SemEval

    work page 2020

  46. [47]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of NAACL

    work page 2019

  47. [48]

    Dimas Sony Dewantara and Indra Budi. 2020. Combination of lstm and cnn for article-level propaganda detection in news articles. InProceedings of ICIC

    work page 2020

  48. [49]

    Soumia Zohra El Mestari, Gabriele Lenzini, and Huseyin Demirci. 2024. Pre- serving data privacy in machine learning systems.Computers & Security137 (2024), 103605

    work page 2024

  49. [50]

    Ahmed El Ouadrhiri and Ahmed Abdelhadi. 2022. Differential privacy for deep and federated learning: A survey.IEEE access10 (2022), 22359–22380

    work page 2022

  50. [51]

    Jan Ellermann. 2016. Terror won’t kill the privacy star–tackling terrorism propaganda online in a data protection compliant manner. InERA Forum, Vol. 17. Springer, 555–582

    work page 2016

  51. [52]

    Vlad Ermurachi and Daniela Gifu. 2020. UAIC1860 at SemEval-2020 Task 11: Detection of propaganda techniques in news articles. InProceedings of SemEval

    work page 2020

  52. [53]

    Alessandra Fabrocini. 2021. Electoral propaganda and privacy: the italian Data Protection Authority lays down rules for the advertising campaign.European Journal of Privacy Law & Technologies(2021)

    work page 2021

  53. [54]

    Ali Fadel, Ibraheem Tuffaha, and Mahmoud Al-Ayyoub. 2019. Pretrained ensem- ble learning for fine-grained propaganda detection. InProceedings of NLP4IF. ASIA CCS ’26, June 1–5, 2026, Bangalore, India Goswami et al. 139–142

    work page 2019

  54. [55]

    Miguel Fernández, Maximiliano Ojeda, Lilly Guevara, Diego Varela, Marcelo Mendoza, and Alberto Barrón-Cedeño. 2024. VICTOR VECTORS@ DIPROMATS 2024: Propaganda Detection with LLM Paraphrasing and Machine Translation. (2024)

    work page 2024

  55. [56]

    Mary Fouad and Julie Weeds. 2024. SussexAI at ArAIEval Shared Task: mitigating class imbalance in arabic propaganda detection. InProceedings of ArabicNLP

    work page 2024

  56. [57]

    Paul Franklin, Donald Cooper, Jan Danel, and Tiger Hu. 2020. Russian Facebook Propaganda Detection with Classification Models. (2020)

    work page 2020

  57. [58]

    Kamel Gaanoun and Imade Benelallam. 2022. SI2M & AIOX Labs at WANLP 2022 Shared Task: Propaganda Detection in Arabic, A Data Augmentation and Name Entity Recognition Approach. InProceedings of W ANLP

    work page 2022

  58. [59]

    Eric Goldman. 2020. An introduction to the california consumer privacy act (ccpa).Santa Clara Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper(2020)

    work page 2020

  59. [60]

    Paweł Golik, Arkadiusz Modzelewski, and Aleksander Jochym. 2024. DSHacker at CheckThat! 2024: LLMs and BERT for check-worthy claims detection with propaganda co-occurrence analysis.Faggioli et al.[22](2024)

    work page 2024

  60. [61]

    Ellen P Goodman and Lyndsey Wajert. 2017. The Honest Ads Act Won’t End Social Media Disinformation, but It’s a Start.A vailable at SSRN 3064451(2017)

    work page 2017

  61. [62]

    Dhiman Goswami, Jai Kruthunz Naveen Kumar, and Sanchari Das. 2026. NLP Privacy Risk Identification in Social Media (NLP-PRISM): A Survey. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL 2026. 1519–1541

    work page 2026

  62. [63]

    Dmitry Grigorev and Vladimir Ivanov. 2020. Inno at SemEval-2020 Task 11: Leveraging Pure Transformer for Multi-Class Propaganda Detection.Proceedings of SemEval(2020)

    work page 2020

  63. [64]

    SUNIL GUNDAPU. 2022.Automatic Detection of Negativity in User-Generated Social Media Content: Building Models for Fake News, Sentiment Analysis, Propa- ganda Techniques, Offensive and Sarcastic Content Identification. Ph. D. Disserta- tion. International Institute of Information Technology Hyderabad

    work page 2022

  64. [65]

    Sunil Gundapu and Radhika Mamidi. 2022. Detection of propaganda techniques in visuo-lingual metaphor in memes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.02937(2022)

    work page arXiv 2022

  65. [66]

    Chen Guo, Nan Zheng, and Chengqi Guo. 2023. Seeing is not believing: a nuanced view of misinformation warning efficacy on video-sharing social media platforms.Proceedings of CHI7, CSCW2 (2023), 1–35

    work page 2023

  66. [67]

    Pankaj Gupta, Khushbu Saxena, Usama Yaseen, Thomas Runkler, and Hinrich Schütze. 2019. Neural Architectures for Fine-Grained Propaganda Detection in News.Proceedings of EMNLP-IJCNLP(2019)

    work page 2019

  67. [68]

    Kyle Hamilton. 2021. Towards an ontology for propaganda detection in news articles. InProceedings of ESWC

    work page 2021

  68. [69]

    Kyle Hamilton, Luca Longo, and Bojan Bozic. 2024. GPT Assisted Annotation of Rhetorical and Linguistic Features for Interpretable Propaganda Technique Detection in News Text.. InProceedings of WWW

    work page 2024

  69. [70]

    Sakshini Hangloo and Bhavna Arora. 2022. Combating multimodal fake news on social media: methods, datasets, and future perspective.Multimedia systems 28 (2022)

    work page 2022

  70. [71]

    Sheetal Harris, Hassan Jalil Hadi, Naveed Ahmad, and Mohammed Ali Alshara

    work page

  71. [72]

    Fake News Detection Revisited: An Extensive Review of Theoretical Frameworks, Dataset Assessments, Model Constraints, and Forward-Looking Research Agendas.Technologies12 (2024)

    work page 2024

  72. [73]

    Mareike Hartmann, Yevgeniy Golovchenko, and Isabelle Augenstein. 2019. Map- ping (Dis-)Information Flow about the MH17 Plane Crash. InProceedings of NLP4IF

    work page 2019

  73. [74]

    Maram Hasanain, Fatema Ahmad, and Firoj Alam. 2024. Can GPT-4 Identify Propaganda? Annotation and Detection of Propaganda Spans in News Articles. InProceedings of LREC-COLING

    work page 2024

  74. [75]

    Maram Hasanain, Firoj Alam, Hamdy Mubarak, Samir Abdaljalil, Wajdi Za- ghouani, Preslav Nakov, Giovanni Da San Martino, and Abed Freihat. 2023. ArAIEval Shared Task: Persuasion Techniques and Disinformation Detection in Arabic Text. InProceedings of ArabicNLP

    work page 2023

  75. [76]

    Arid Hasan, Fatema Ahmad, Reem Suwaileh, Md

    Maram Hasanain, Md. Arid Hasan, Fatema Ahmad, Reem Suwaileh, Md. Rafiul Biswas, Wajdi Zaghouani, and Firoj Alam. 2024. ArAIEval Shared Task: Propa- gandistic Techniques Detection in Unimodal and Multimodal Arabic Content. InProceedings of ArabicNLP

    work page 2024

  76. [77]

    Feng He, Tianqing Zhu, Dayong Ye, Bo Liu, Wanlei Zhou, and Philip Yu. 2024. The emerged security and privacy of llm agent: A survey with case studies. Comput. Surveys(2024)

    work page 2024

  77. [78]

    2023.Propaganda detection in Russian and American news cov- erage about the war in Ukraine through text classification

    Vitalij Hein. 2023.Propaganda detection in Russian and American news cov- erage about the war in Ukraine through text classification. Ph. D. Dissertation. Technische Universität Wien

    work page 2023

  78. [79]

    Ondřej Herman, Vít Baisa, and Aleš Horák. 2020. Propaganda detection tool. (2020)

    work page 2020

  79. [80]

    Aleš Horák, Vít Baisa, and Ondřej Herman. 2021. Technological approaches to detecting online disinformation and manipulation.Challenging online propa- ganda and disinformation in the 21st century(2021), 139–166

    work page 2021

  80. [81]

    Benjamin D Horne, Dorit Nevo, and Susan L Smith. 2023. Ethical and safety considerations in automated fake news detection.Behaviour & Information Technology(2023)

    work page 2023

Showing first 80 references.