Which Emotions of Social Media Users Lead to Dissemination of Fake News: Sentiment Analysis Towards Covid-19 Vaccine

Abstract

The use of social media as a news source is quite common today. However, the fact that the news encountered on social media are accepted as true without questioning or checking their validity is one of the main reasons for the dissemination of fake news. For the social media ecosystem, the question arises as to which emotion is more effective in spreading fake news, as the accuracy and validity of the news are under the control of opinions and emotions rather than evidence-based data. From this point of view, our study investigates whether there is a relationship between users’ reaction to the news and the prevalence of the news. In our study, sentiment analysis was conducted on the reactions of Twitter users to fake news about the COVID-19 vaccine between December 31, 2019 and July 30, 2022. To fully assess whether there is a relationship between the reactions and the prevalence of the news, the spread of real news published in the same period in addition to fake news is also taken into consideration. Fake and real news comments, which were selected in different degrees of prevalence from the most to the least, were examined comparatively. In the study, where text mining techniques were used for text pre-processing, analysis was carried out with NLP techniques. In 83% of the fake news datasets and 91% of the overall news datasets considered in the study, negative emotion was more dominant than other emotions, and it was observed that as negative comments increased, fake news spread more as well as real news. While neutral comments have no effect on prevalence, users who comment on fake news for fun significantly increase the prevalence. Finally, to reveal bot activity NLP techniques were applied.

Keywords

• Bot detection
• fake news
• nlp
• sentiment analysis
• text mining

References

1. Agarwal, A., Xie, B., Vovsha, I., Rambow, O., & Passonneau, R. J. (2011, June). Sentiment analysis of twitter data. In Proceedings of the workshop on language in social media (LSM 2011) (pp. 30-38). Retrieved from: https://aclanthology.org/W11-0705
2. Alonso, M. A., Vilares, D., Gómez-Rodríguez, C., & Vilares, J. (2021). Sentiment analysis for fake news detection. Electronics, 10(11), 1348. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10111348
3. Anoop, K., Deepak, P., & Lajish, V. L. (2020). Emotion cognizance improves health fake news iden-tification. In IDEAS (p. 24). DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1906.10365
4. Antonakaki, D., Fragopoulou, P., & Ioannidis, S. (2021). A survey of Twitter research: Data model, graph structure, sentiment analysis and attacks. Expert Systems with Applications, 164, 114006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.114006
5. Bird, S., Klein, E., & Loper, E. (2009). Natural language processing with Python: analyzing text with the natural language toolkit. O'Reilly Media, Inc.. Retrieved from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40925581
6. Bodaghi, A., & Goliaei, S. (2018). A novel model for rumor spreading on social networks with con-sidering the influence of dissenting opinions. Advances in Complex Systems, 21(06n07), 1850011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1142/S021952591850011X
7. Bodaghi, A., & Oliveira, J. (2022). The theater of fake news spreading, who plays which role? A study on real graphs of spreading on Twitter. Expert Systems with Applications, 189, 116110. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.116110
8. Check Your Fact. (2019). Retrieved from checkyourfact website: https://checkyourfact.com/

9. Contractions. (2022). Retrieved July 26, 2022, from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/grammatik/britisch-grammatik/contractions
10. Conversation, T. (2021, April 8). COVID-19 vaccine is not linked to the mark of the beast. Retrieved June 12, 2021, from https://www.snopes.com/news/2021/04/08/no-the-covid-19-vaccine-is-not-linked-to-the-mark-of-the-beast
11. Cui, L., Wang, S., & Lee, D. (2019). Same: sentiment-aware multi-modal embedding for detecting fake news. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE/ACM international conference on advances in so-cial networks analysis and mining (pp. 41-48). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3341161.3342894
12. Dai, E., Sun, Y., & Wang, S. (2020, May). Ginger cannot cure cancer: Battling fake health news with a comprehensive data repository. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (Vol. 14, pp. 853-862). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v14i1.7350
13. Dey, A., Rafi, R. Z., Parash, S. H., Arko, S. K., & Chakrabarty, A. (2018, June). Fake news pattern recognition using linguistic analysis. In 2018 Joint 7th International Conference on Informatics, Electronics & Vision (ICIEV) and 2018 2nd International Conference on Imaging, Vision & Pattern Recognition. (pp. 305-309). IEEE. DOI: 10.1109/ICIEV.2018.8641018
14. Dickerson, J. P., Kagan, V., & Subrahmanian, V. S. (2014, August). Using sentiment to detect bots on twitter: Are humans more opinionated than bots?. In 2014 IEEE/ACM International Confe-rence on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM 2014) (pp. 620-627). IEEE. DOI: 10.1109/ASONAM.2014.6921650
15. Dzogang, F., Lightman, S., & Cristianini, N. (2018). Diurnal variations of psychometric indicators in Twitter content. PloS one, 13(6), e0197002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197002
16. FactCheck.org. (2008). Retrieved from FactCheck.org website: https://www.factcheck.org/
17. Giachanou, A., & Crestani, F. (2016). Like it or not: A survey of twitter sentiment analysis methods. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 49(2), 1-41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2938640
18. Go, A., Bhayani, R., & Huang, L. (2009). Twitter sentiment classification using distant supervision. CS224N project report, Stanford, 1(12), 2009. Retrieved June 22, 2021, from https://www-cs.stanford.edu/people/alecmgo/papers/TwitterDistantSupervision09.pdf
19. Hamdan, H., Béchet, F., & Bellot, P. (2013, June). Experiments with DBpedia, WordNet and SentiWordNet as resources for sentiment analysis in micro-blogging. In Second Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (* SEM), Volume 2: Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2013) (pp. 455-459). Retrieved from: https://aclanthology.org/S13-2075
20. Hutto, C., & Gilbert, E. (2014, May). Vader: A parsimonious rule-based model for sentiment analysis of social media text. In Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media (Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 216-225). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v8i1.14550
21. Informal contractions list in English. (2020, December 25). Retrieved July 26, 2021, from https://7esl.com/informal-contractions-list
22. Internet Slang Terms. (2021, March 21). Retrieved July 28, 2021, from https://7esl.com/internet-slang
23. Islam, M. S., Kamal, A. H. M., Kabir, A., Southern, D. L., Khan, S. H., Hasan, S. M., ... and Seale, H., "COVID-19 vaccine rumors and conspiracy theories: The need for cognitive inoculation against misinformation to improve vaccine adherence." PloS ONE, 16 (5): e0251605, (2021). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251605
24. Iwendi, C., Mohan, S., Ibeke, E., Ahmadian, A., & Ciano, T. (2022). Covid-19 fake news sentiment analysis. Computers and electrical engineering, 101, 107967. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compeleceng.2022.107967
25. Kim, T. & Wurster K. (2015). emoji (Version v1.7.0) [Computer software]. https://github.com/carpedm20/emoji
26. Kouloumpis, E., Wilson, T., & Moore, J. (2011). Twitter sentiment analysis: The good the bad and the omg!. In Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media (Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 538-541). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v5i1.14185
27. Manning, C. D., Raghavan, P., Schutze, H., & Cambridge University Press. (2008). Introduction to information retrieval. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28. Neethu, M. S., & Rajasree, R. (2013, July). Sentiment analysis in twitter using machine learning techniques. In 2013 fourth international conference on computing, communications and networking technologies (ICCCNT) (pp. 1-5). IEEE. DOI: 10.1109/ICCCNT.2013.6726818
29. Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Schulz, A., Andi, S., Robertson, C. T., & Nielsen, R. K. (2021). Reuters institute digital news report 2021. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Retrieved from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3873260
30. Pak, A., & Paroubek, P. (2010, May). Twitter as a corpus for sentiment analysis and opinion mining. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'10). Retrieved from: http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2010/pdf/385_Paper.pdf
31. Saif, H., He, Y., & Alani, H. (2012, November). Semantic sentiment analysis of twitter. In International semantic web conference (pp. 508-524). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35176-1_32
32. Snefjella, B., Schmidtke, D., & Kuperman, V. (2018). National character stereotypes mirror language use: A study of Canadian and American tweets. PloS one, 13(11), e0206188. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0206188
33. Snopes. (2018). Retrieved from Snopes.com website: https://www.snopes.com/
34. Vicario, M. D., Quattrociocchi, W., Scala, A., & Zollo, F. (2019). Polarization and fake news: Early warning of potential misinformation targets. ACM Transactions on the Web (TWEB), 13(2), 1-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3316809
35. Zacharias, C. & Poldi, F. (2018). Twint (Version 2.1.4) [Computer software]. https://github.com/twintproject/twint
36. Zhang, X., Cao, J., Li, X., Sheng, Q., Zhong, L., & Shu, K. (2021). Mining dual emotion for fake news detection. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021 (pp. 3465-3476). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3442381.3450004