POST-TRUTH, SOSYAL MEDYA VE DEZENFORMASYONLA MÜCADELE MERKEZİ

Abstract

Post-truth çağında dezenformasyon, yalnızca yanlış veya yanıltıcı bilgilerin dolaşımıyla sınırlı kalmayan; toplumsal güvenin aşınması, kamusal aklın zayıflaması ve kurumların meşruiyetinin sorgulanması gibi çok boyutlu sonuçlar doğuran yapısal bir olguya dönüşmüştür. Sosyal medya platformları, hız, erişilebilirlik, düşük maliyet ve algoritmik görünürlük aracılığıyla doğru bilginin etkisini zayıflatmakta ve bireylerin bilgi edinme pratiklerini nesnel olgular yerine siyasal, ideolojik ve duygusal yönelimler lehine dönüştürmektedir. Bu bağlamda çalışma, Türkiye’de 2022 yılında Cumhurbaşkanlığı İletişim Başkanlığı’na bağlı olarak kurulan Dezenformasyonla Mücadele Merkezi’nin sosyal medya paylaşımlarına verilen kullanıcı yorumlarını inceleyerek, dezenformasyon karşıtı kurumsal iletişimin toplumsal güven üzerindeki yansımalarını analiz etmektedir. Kullanıcı yorumları valence, stance ve incivility kriterleri doğrultusunda sınıflandırılmış; elde edilen bulgular, kurumun güvenilirliğinin düşük algılandığını, eleştirilerin çoğunlukla tarafsızlık ve şeffaflık ekseninde yoğunlaştığını ve özellikle kriz dönemlerinde güvensizliğin derinleştiğini ortaya koymuştur. Çalışmanın sonuçları, dezenformasyonun yalnızca bilgi doğrulama pratikleriyle sınırlandırılamayacağını; aynı zamanda demokratik istikrarı, toplumsal güvenin yeniden inşasını ve kurumsal meşruiyetin sürdürülebilirliğini tehdit eden kritik bir meydan okuma olarak değerlendirilmesi gerektiğini göstermektedir.

Keywords

• : Post-truth
• Dezenformasyon
• Sosyal Medya
• Dezenformasyonla Mücadele Merkezi
• Toplumsal Güven

POST-TRUTH, SOCIAL MEDIA AND THE CENTRE FOR COUNTERING DISINFORMATION

Abstract

In the post-truth era, disinformation has evolved into a structural phenomenon that extends beyond the mere circulation of false or misleading information, producing multidimensional consequences such as the erosion of social trust, the weakening of public reasoning, and the delegitimization of institutions. Social media platforms, through speed, accessibility, low cost, and algorithmic visibility, diminish the impact of truth claims and reshape practices of knowledge acquisition in favor of political, ideological, and emotional orientations rather than objective facts. Against this background, the study analyzes user comments on the social media posts of the Center for Countering Disinformation, established in 2022 under the Directorate of Communications Center of the Presidency of Turkiye, to examine the implications of institutional communication against disinformation for public trust. User comments were classified according to valence, stance, and incivility; the findings demonstrate that institutional trust is perceived as low, with criticisms concentrated on issues of neutrality and transparency, while distrust becomes more pronounced during times of crisis. The findings indicate that the issue of disinformation cannot be confined to the realm of information verification; rather, it must be recognised as a pivotal challenge to democratic stability, the reconstruction of social trust, and the sustainability of institutional legitimacy in the contemporary media environment.

Keywords

• Post-truth
• Disinformation
• Social Media
• Centre for Countering Disinformation
• Social Trust

References

1. Aassve, A., Capezzone, T., Cavalli, N., Conzo, P., & Peng, C. (2024). Social and political trust diverge during a crisis. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 331. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-50898-4
2. Aïmeur, E., Amri, S., & Brassard, G. (2023). Fake news, disinformation and misinformation in social media: a review. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 13(1), 30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-023-01028-5
3. AlDayel, A., & Magdy, W. (2021). Stance detection on social media: State of the art and trends. Information Processing & Management, 58(4), 102597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2021.102597
4. Alpay, Y. (2020). Yalanın Siyaseti. Destek Yayınları.
5. Anderson, A. A., Yeo, S. K., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., & Xenos, M. A. (2018). Toxic talk: How online incivility can undermine perceptions of media. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 30(1), 156-168. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edw022
6. Antoci, A., Bonelli, L., Paglieri, F., Reggiani, T., & Sabatini, F. (2019). Civility and trust in social media. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 160, 83-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2019.02.026
7. Baek, Y. M., Cappella, J. N., & Bindman, A. (2011). Automating content analysis of open-ended responses: Wordscores and affective intonation. Communication methods and measures, 5(4), 275-296. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2011.624489
8. Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. A. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130-1132. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1160

9. Brandtzaeg, P. B., & Følstad, A. (2017). Trust and distrust in online fact-checking services. Communications of the ACM, 60(9), 65–71. https://doi.org/10.1145/3122803
10. Bright, J., Margetts, H., Hale, S. A., & Yasseri, T. (2014). The use of social media for research and analysis: a feasibility study. Department for Work and Pensions.
11. Bruns & Burgess, 2014) Crisis communication in natural disasters: The Queensland floods and Christchurch earthquakes. In Bruns, A, Mahrt, M, Weller, K, Burgess, J, & Puschmann, C (Eds.) Twitter and society [Digital Formations, Volume 89]. Peter Lang Publishing, United States of America, pp. 373-384.
12. Bruns, A., & Burgess, J. (2011). The use of Twitter hashtags in the formation of ad hoc publics. In Proceedings of the 6th European consortium for political research (ECPR) general conference 2011 (pp. 1-9). The European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR).
13. Bruns, A., & Burgess, J. (2015). Twitter hashtags from ad hoc to calculated publics. Hashtag publics: The power and politics of discursive networks, 103, 13-28.
14. Buccafurri, F., Lax, G., Nocera, A., & Ursino, D. (2013). Supporting information spread in a social internetworking scenario. In New Frontiers in Mining Complex Patterns: First International Workshop, NFMCP 2012, Held in Conjunction with ECML/PKDD 2012, Bristol, UK, September 24, 2012, Rivesed Selected Papers 1 (pp. 200-214). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37382-4_14
15. Burns, K. E., Brown, P., Calnan, M., Ward, P. R., Little, J., Betini, G. S., ... & Meyer, S. B. (2023). Development and validation of the Trust in Government measure (TGM). BMC Public Health, 23(1), 2023. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-16974-0
16. Cinelli, M., De Francisci Morales, G., Galeazzi, A., Quattrociocchi, W., & Starnini, M. (2021). The echo chamber effect on social media. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 118(9), e2023301118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023301118
17. Coe, K., Kenski, K., & Rains, S. A. (2014). Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of communication, 64(4), 658-679. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12104
18. Cohen, J., Fung, A., Bernholz, L., Landemore, H., & Reich, R. (2021). Democracy and the digital public sphere. Digital technology and democratic theory, 23-61. University of Chicago Press.
19. Colomina, C., Margalef, H. S., Youngs, R., & Jones, K. (2021). The impact of disinformation on democratic processes and human rights in the world. Brussels: European Parliament, 1-19.
20. Cooky, C., Linabary, J. R., & Corple, D. J. (2018). Navigating big data dilemmas: Feminist holistic reflexivity in social media research. Big Data & Society, 5(2), 2053951718807731. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951718807731
21. Datareportal, (2024). Digital 2024: Global Overview Report. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2024-global-overview-report
22. Dawson, A. J., Bista, A., & Wilson, A. E. (2025). Is trust a zero-sum game? What happens when institutional sources get it wrong. PloS one, 20(4), e0321743. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0321743
23. Dong, W., Han, H., Ke, Y., & Chan, K. C. (2018). Social trust and corporate misconduct: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 151, 539-562. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3234-3
24. Enria, L., Waterlow, N., Rogers, N. T., Brindle, H., Lal, S., Eggo, R. M., Lees, S., & Roberts, C. H. (2021). Trust and transparency in times of crisis: Results from an online survey during the first wave (April 2020) of the COVID-19 epidemic in the UK. PloS one, 16(2), e0239247. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239247
25. Evci, Görkem (2018). Yalanlar Kişisel Arşive Sığmadı. https://www.milliyet.com.tr/gundem/yalanlar-kisisel-arsive-sigmadi-2643402 Erişim Tarihi: 10.05.2024
26. Feng, G. C. (2024). Effects of narratives and information valence in digital headlines on user responses. Asian Journal of Communication, 34(2), 156-177. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2024.2317308
27. Fossen, B. L., & Schweidel, D. A. (2025). Emotionality in Political Social Media Communications: The Moderating Role of Audience Diversity. Information Systems Research, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2022.0064
28. Fuchs, C. (2015). Social media and the public sphere. In Culture and economy in the age of social media (pp. 315-372). Routledge.
29. Giaxoglou, K. (2018). # JeSuisCharlie? Hashtags as narrative resources in contexts of ecstatic sharing. Discourse, context & media, 22, 13-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2017.07.006
30. Golder, S., Ahmed, S., Norman, G., & Booth, A. (2017). Attitudes toward the ethics of research using social media: a systematic review. Journal of medical internet research, 19(6), e195. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.7082
31. González, S. and C. Smith (2017), “The accuracy of measures of institutional trust in household surveys: Evidence from the oecd trust database”, OECD Statistics Working Papers, No. 2017/11, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d839bd50-en.
32. Goovaerts, I. (2025). Highlighting incivility: How the news media’s focus on political incivility affects political trust and news credibility. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 102(2), 407-429. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990221084608
33. Gorrell, G., Bakir, M. E., Roberts, I., Greenwood, M. A., Iavarone, B., & Bontcheva, K. (2019). Partisanship, propaganda and post-truth politics: Quantifying impact in online debate. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.01752. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1902.01752
34. Graves, L. (2018). Understanding the promise and limits of automated fact-checking. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/our-research/understanding-promise-and-limits-automated-fact-checking Erişim Tarihi: 30.07.2025
35. Güngör, Emre (2021). Doğrulama Kuruluşları: Gerçekten Etkililer mi? https://www.newslabturkey.org/2021/09/30/dogrulama-kuruluslari-gercekten-etkililer-mi/ Erişim Tarihi: 10.05.2024.
36. Hadler, M., Vrečar, B., & Schaffer, R. (2025). Generalized trust as a foundation for online trust: findings from Austria, Greece, Poland, the Philippines, and South Africa. Frontiers in Sociology, 10, 1504812. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2025.1504812
37. Hendriks, F., Kienhues, D., & Bromme, R. (2015). Measuring laypeople’s trust in experts in a digital age: The Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI). PloS one, 10(10), e0139309. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139309
38. Herreros, F., & Criado, H. (2008). The state and the development of social trust. International Political Science Review, 29(1), 53-71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512107083447
39. Hoang, T. B. N., & Mothe, J. (2022). Prediction of brand stories spreading on social networks. Advances in Data Analysis and Classification, 16(3), 559-591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11634-021-00450-x
40. Hochberg, M. E. (2019). An editor's guide to writing and publishing science. Oxford University Press.
41. Humprecht, E. (2019). Where ‘fake news’ flourishes: a comparison across four Western democracies. Information, Communication & Society, 22(13), 1973–1988. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1474241
42. Hwang, I. D. (2017). Which type of trust matters?: Interpersonal vs. institutional vs. political trust. Interpersonal vs. Institutional vs. Political Trust (May 15, 2017). Bank of Korea WP, 15. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2967051
43. İletişim Başkanlığı (2022). İletişim Başkanlığı bünyesinde Dezenformasyonla Mücadele Merkezi oluşturuldu. https://www.iletisim.gov.tr/turkce/haberler/detay/iletisim-baskanligi-bunyesinde-dezenformasyonla-mucadele-merkezi-olusturuldu Erişim Tarihi: 01.05.2024
44. Johnson, K., & Goldwasser, D. (2016). Identifying stance by analyzing political discourse on twitter. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on NLP and Computational Social Science (pp. 66-75).
45. Jungherr, A. (2014). Twitter in politics: a comprehensive literature review. Available at SSRN 2865150.
46. Jungherr, A., & Schroeder, R. (2021). Disinformation and the structural transformations of the public arena: Addressing the actual challenges to democracy. Social Media+ Society, 7(1), 2056305121988928. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305121988928
47. Kavanagh, J., Carman, K. G., DeYoreo, M., Chandler, N., & Davis, L. E. (2020). The drivers of institutional trust and distrust: Exploring components of trustworthiness (RAND Research Report No. RRA112-7). RAND Corporation.
48. Keyes, R. (2004). The post-truth era: Dishonesty and deception in contemporary life. Macmillan.
49. Lazer, D. M., Baum, M. A., Benkler, Y., Berinsky, A. J., Greenhill, K. M., Menczer, F., ... & Zittrain, J. L. (2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359(6380), 1094-1096. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao2998
50. Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., & Cook, J. (2017). Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008
51. Li, R., & Suh, A. (2015). Factors influencing information credibility on social media platforms: Evidence from Facebook pages. Procedia computer science, 72, 314-328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.146
52. Majerczak, P., & Strzelecki, A. (2022). Trust, media credibility, social ties, and the intention to share towards information verification in an age of fake news. Behavioral Sciences, 12(2), 51. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12020051
53. Malhotra, P. (2023). Bounded social media places. University of Washington.
54. Mancosu, M., & Vegetti, F. (2020). What you can scrape and what is right to scrape: A proposal for a tool to collect public Facebook data. Social Media+ Society, 6(3), 2056305120940703. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120940703
55. Mari, S., Gil de Zúñiga, H., Suerdem, A., Hanke, K., Brown, G., Vilar, R., ... & Bilewicz, M. (2022). Conspiracy theories and institutional trust: Examining the role of uncertainty avoidance and active social media use. Political Psychology, 43(2), 277-296. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12754
56. McIntyre, L. (2018). Post-truth. MIt Press.
57. Media Defence, (2022). Misinformation, Disinformation and Mal-information. https://www.mediadefence.org/ereader/publications/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia/module-8-false-news-misinformation-and-propaganda/misinformation-disinformation-and-mal-information/
58. Metzger, M. J., & Flanagin, A. J. (2013). Credibility and trust of information in online environments: The use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of pragmatics, 59, 210-220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.012
59. Miller, A., & Listhaug, O. (1999). Political performance and institutional trust. Critical citizens: Global support for democratic government, 204-216. OUP Oxford.
60. Modreanu, S. (2017). The Post-Truth Era. Human and Social Studies, 6(3), 7-9.
61. Mohammad, S. M. (2020). Practical and ethical considerations in the effective use of emotion and sentiment lexicons. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.03492. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2011.03492
62. Moreno, M. A., Goniu, N., Moreno, P. S., & Diekema, D. (2013). Ethics of social media research: Common concerns and practical considerations. Cyberpsychology, behavior, and social networking, 16(9), 708-713. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0334
63. Newman, S. (2024). Fugitive Truth: Renewing the Public Sphere in the Age of Post-Truth. Javnost-The Public, 31(3), 327-342.
64. Newton, K. (2001). Trust, social capital, civil society, and democracy. International political science review, 22(2), 201-214. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512101222004
65. Nunn, N., Qian, N., & Wen, J. (2018). Distrust and political turnover during economic crises (No. w24187). National Bureau of Economic Research.
66. Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303-330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2
67. Odey, C. (2020). Institutional Credibility as Mechanism for Promoting Social Justice in Nigeria. Available at SSRN 3809361. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3809361
68. OECD, (2024). OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions – 2024 Results. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-survey-on-drivers-of-trust-in-public-institutions-2024-results_9a20554b-en.html
69. Ognyanova, K., Lazer, D., Robertson, R. E., & Wilson, C. (2020). Misinformation in action: Fake news exposure is linked to lower trust in media, higher trust in government when your side is in power. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review.
70. Oxford Languages, (2020). Oxford Word of the Year 2016. https://languages.oup.com/word-of-the-year/2016/ Erişim Tarihi: 10.03.2024.
71. Oz, M. (2023). Social media incivility and engagement: The role of experiences, perceptions, and expectations. First Monday. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v28i11.13124
72. Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. penguin UK.
73. Pavlova, I. (2018). The Post-Truth Era: Algorithms, Emotions, Power. 21st Century Media and Communications. 7-16. https://doi.org/10.54664/FMVW8443
74. Pillay, N., & Pitcher, S. (2017). Hashtag Activism: Assessing the Perceived Value of Online Activism Campaigns Among UKZN (PMB) Students (Doctoral dissertation, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg).
75. Polanyi, L., & Zaenen, A. (2006). Contextual valence shifters. In Computing attitude and affect in text: Theory and applications (pp. 1-10). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4102-0_1
76. Prike, T., Butler, L. H., & Ecker, U. K. (2024). Source-credibility information and social norms improve truth discernment and reduce engagement with misinformation online. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 6900. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-57560-7
77. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon and schuster.
78. Qiang, R., Li, X., & Han, Q. (2021). The relationship between social class and generalized trust: The mediating role of sense of control. Frontiers in psychology, 12, 729083. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.729083
79. Reveilhac, M., Steinmetz, S., & Morselli, D. (2022). A systematic literature review of how and whether social media data can complement traditional survey data to study public opinion. Multimedia tools and applications, 81(7), 10107-10142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-022-12101-0
80. Rincón, A. H., Barragán Moreno, S., Rodríguez-Canovas, B., Carrillo Barbosa, R. L., & Africano Franco, D. R. (2023). Social networks, disinformation and diplomacy: a dynamic model for a current problem. Humanities and social sciences communications, 10(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01998-z
81. Ruths, D., & Pfeffer, J. (2014). Social media for large studies of behavior. Science, 346(6213), 1063-1064. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.346.6213.1063
82. Schäfer, M. S. (2015). Digital public sphere. The international encyclopedia of political communication, 15, 1-7.
83. Schilke, O., Reimann, M., & Cook, K. S. (2021). Trust in social relations. Annual Review of Sociology, 47(1), 239-259. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-082120-082850
84. Schnackenberg, A. K., & Tomlinson, E. C. (2016). Organizational transparency: A new perspective on managing trust in organization-stakeholder relationships. Journal of management, 42(7), 1784-1810. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314525202
85. Sismondo, S. (2017). Post-truth? Social studies of science, 47(1), 3-6. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312717692076
86. Strong, S. I. (2016). Alternative facts and the post-truth society: Meeting the challenge. U. Pa. L. Rev. Online, 165, 137
87. Suiter, J. (2016). Post-truth politics. Political Insight, 7(3), 25-27. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041905816680417
88. Sun, Q., Wojcieszak, M., & Davidson, S. (2021). Over-time trends in incivility on social media: evidence from political, non-political, and mixed sub-reddits over eleven years. Frontiers in Political Science, 3, 741605. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2021.741605
89. Tandoc, E. C., Lim, Z. W., & Ling, R. (2018). Defining “fake news”: A typology of scholarly definitions. Digital Journalism, 6(2), 137–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2017.1360143
90. Taxidou, I., & Fischer, P. M. (2014, April). Online analysis of information diffusion in twitter. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on world wide web (pp. 1313-1318). https://doi.org/10.1145/2567948.2580050
91. Terzi, Â., (2020). Post-Truth Kavramı ve Türkçe Karşılıkları Üzerine. Türk Dili.69: 8520, 80-86.
92. Tesich, S. (1992). A government of lies. The nation, 254(1), 12-15.
93. Tsfati, Y., Boomgaarden, H. G., Strömbäck, J., Vliegenthart, R., Damstra, A., & Lindgren, E. (2020). Causes and consequences of mainstream media dissemination of fake news: Literature review and synthesis. Annals of the International Communication Association, 44(2), 157–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2020.1759443
94. Türk dil Kurumu, https://sozluk.gov.tr/?ara=g%C3%BCven Erişim Tarihi: 11.03.2024.
95. Uslaner, E. M. (2012). Segregation and mistrust: Diversity, isolation, and social cohesion. Cambridge University Press.
96. Van Duyn, E., & Collier, J. (2018). Priming and Fake News: The Effects of Elite Discourse on Evaluations of News Media. Mass Communication and Society, 22(1), 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2018.1511807
97. Van Zoonen, W., Luoma-aho, V., & Lievonen, M. (2024). Trust but verify? Examining the role of trust in institutions in the spread of unverified information on social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 150, 107992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107992
98. Vasist, P. N., Chatterjee, D., & Krishnan, S. (2024). The polarizing impact of political disinformation and hate speech: A cross-country configural narrative. Information Systems Frontiers, 26(2), 663-688. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-023-10390-w
99. Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146–1151. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559
100. Wardle, C., & Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policymaking (Vol. 27, pp. 1-107). Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
101. ZAkhArchenko, A. (2017). Evaluating the social impact of Internet media news. Civitas et Lex, (3 (15)), 7-21.
102. Zhou, Y., Zhang, Z., Wang, K., Chen, S., & Zhou, M. (2021). How social media shapes one’s public mood: The three-way interaction effect of sphere, information valence, and justice sensitivity. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 15, 1834490921991425. https://doi.org/10.1177/1834490921991425