Misinformation has dire implications for both public welfare and the operational aims of user-generated content platforms. As a result, platforms have adopted various content moderation policies aimed at decreasing the volume and impact of misinformation. However, implementing new platform policies runs the risk of decreasing user contribution and alienating core users, and results regarding the efficacy of such policies are mixed. Herein, we empirically assess a prominence reduction policy applied to a problematic group that is high in misinformation. The goal of this policy is to reduce the visibility of misinformation on the platform (rather than deleting misinformation or banning users). The results show that while prominence reduction diminishes misinformation dissemination in the focal group, this method also results in a spillover of misinformation to topically related spaces. This spillover is short-lived and driven primarily by a small set of problematic users. As misinformation is not contagious, we find that this spillover to external groups diminishes over time. Finally, prominence reduction is found to have no impact on non-misinformation contribution on the studied platform. The findings of this study have important implications for platform operations and provide useful recommendations for managers regarding effective ways to reduce the spread of misinformation.
AbadieA (2005) Semiparametric difference-in-differences estimators. The Review of Economic Studies72: 1–19.
2.
AcemogluDDahlehMALobelI, et al. (2011) Bayesian Learning in social networks. The Review of Economic Studies78: 1201–1236.
3.
AvramMMicallefNPatilS, et al. (2020) Exposure to social engagement metrics increases vulnerability to misinformation. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review1: 1–11.
4.
AyersJWChuBZhuZ (2021) Spread of misinformation about face masks and COVID-19 by automated software on Facebook. JAMA Internal Medicine181(9): 1251–1253.
5.
Bak-ColemanJBKennedyIWackM, et al. (2022) Combining interventions to reduce the spread of viral misinformation. Nature Human Behavior6: 1372–1380.
6.
BanerjeeA (1992) A simple model of herd behavior. Quarterly Journal of Economics107(3): 797–817.
7.
BikhchandaniSHirshleiferDWelchI (1992) A theory of fads, fashion, custom, and cultural change as informational cascades. Journal of Political Economy100(5): 992–1026.
8.
BurkeMMarlowCLentoT (2009) Feed me: Motivating newcomer contribution in social network sites. In: CHI: Conference on human factors in computing systems proceedings, Boston, MA, pp.945–954.
9.
BurtchGHongYKumarS (2021) When does dispute resolution substitute for a reputation system? Empirical evidence from a service procurement platform. Production and Operations Management30(6): 1565–1582.
10.
CandoganODrakopoulosK (2020) Optimal signaling of content accuracy: Engagement vs. misinformation. Operations Research68(2): 497–515.
11.
CezarARaghunathanSSarkarS (2020) Adversarial classification: Impact of agents’ faking cost on firms and agents. Production and Operations Management29(12): 2789–2807.
12.
ChangJDanescu-Niculescu-MizilC (2019) Trajectories of blocked community members: Redemption, recidivism, and departure. In: Proceedings of the world wide web conference, San Francisco, CA, pp.184–195.
13.
ChenHZhengZECeranY (2016) De-biasing the reporting bias in social media analytics. Production and Operations Management25(5): 849–865.
14.
Chung NgKKePFSoMKP, et al. (2023) Augmenting fake content detection in online platforms: A domain adaptive transfer learning via adversarial training approach. Production and Operations Management32(7): 2101–2122.
CrapisDIfrachBMaglarasC, et al. (2017) Monopoly pricing in the presence of social learning. Management Science63(11): 3586–3608.
17.
DuanWGuBWhinstonAB (2008) Do online reviews matter? An empirical investigation of panel data. Decision Support Systems45(4): 1007–1016.
18.
FeldmanPPapanastasiouYSegevE (2019) Social learning and the design of new experience goods. Management Science65(4): 1502–1519.
19.
GranovetterM (1978) Threshold models of collective behavior. American Journal of Sociology83(6): 1420–1443.
20.
GranovetterMSoongR (1983) Threshold models of diffusion and collective behavior. Journal of Mathematical Sociology9: 165–179.
21.
GrinbergNJosephKFriedlandL, et al. (2019) Fake news on twitter during the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. Science363(6425): 374–378.
22.
GuidryJPDAustinLLO’DonnellNH, et al. (2020) Tweeting the #flushot: Beliefs, barriers, and threats during different periods of the 2018 to 2019 flu season. Journal of Primary Care & Community Health11: 1–10.
HabibHBin MusaMZaffarF, et al. (2022) Are proactive interventions for Reddit communities feasible? In: Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media, Atlanta, GA, pp.264–274.
25.
HabibHNithyanandR (2022) Exploring the magnitude and effects of media influence on Reddit moderation. In: Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media, Atlanta, GA, pp.275–286.
HauskenK (2020) Game theoretic analysis of ideologically biased clickbait or fake news, and real news. Operations Research and Decisions30(2): 39–57.
28.
HodasNOLermanK (2014) The simple rules of social contagion. Nature Scientific Reports4(4343): 1–7.
29.
HossainMAChowdhuryMMHPappasIO, et al. (2022) Fake news on Facebook and their impact on supply chain disruption during COVID-19. Annals of Operations Research327(2): 683–711.
30.
HoungbedjieK (2016) Abadie’s semiparametric difference-in-differences estimator. The Stata Journal16(2): 482–490.
31.
HussainAAliSAhmedM, et al. (2018) The anti-vaccination movement: A regression in modern medicine. Cureus10(7): e2919.
32.
JinYTanYHuangJ (2022) Managing contributor performance in knowledge-sharing communities: A dynamic perspective. Production and Operations Management31(11): 3945–3962.
33.
JolleyDDouglasKM (2014) The effects of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories on vaccination intentions. PloS ONE9(2): e89177.
34.
KataA (2010) A postmodern Pandora’s box: Anti-vaccination misinformation on the Internet. Vaccine28(7): 1709–1716.
35.
KataA (2012) Anti-vaccine activists, Web 2.0, and the postmodern paradigm – An overview of tactics and tropes used online by the anti-vaccination movement. Vaccine30(25): 3778–3789.
36.
KonstantakisKCheilasPTMelissaropoulosIG, et al. (2022) Supply chains and fake news: A novel input–output neural network approach for the US food sector. Annals of Operations Research327(2): 779–794.
37.
KüçükgülCÖzerÖWangS (2022) Engineering social learning: Information design of time-locked sales campaigns for online platforms. Management Science68(7): 4899–4918.
38.
KwanAYangSAZhangAH (2023) Crowd-judging on two-sided platforms: An analysis of in-group bias. Management Science70(4): 2459–2476.
39.
LauRYKZhangWXuW (2018) Parallel aspect-oriented sentiment analysis for sales forecasting with big data. Production and Operations Management27(10): 1775–1794.
40.
LeeSQiuLWhinstonA (2018) Sentiment manipulation in online platforms: An analysis of movie tweets. Production and Operations Management27(3): 393–416.
41.
LodgeMTaberCS (2013) The Rationalizing Voter. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
42.
MaglarasCScarsiniMShinD, et al. (2022) Product ranking in the presence of social learning. Operations Research71(4): 1136–1153.
43.
MostagirMSideriusJ (2022) Learning in a post-truth world. Management Science68(4): 2860–2868.
44.
National Bureau of Economic Research (2021) Misinformation: Strategic sharing, homophily, and endogenous echo chambers. Report, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
NewellEJurgensDSaleemHM, et al. (2016) User migration in online social networks: A case study on Reddit during a period of community unrest. In: Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media, Cologne, Germany, pp.279–289.
OffittPHackettCJ (2003) Addressing parents’ concerns: Do vaccines cause allergic or autoimmune diseases?Pediatrics111(3): 653–659.
50.
PanYQiuL (2022) How ride-sharing is shaping public transit system: A counterfactual estimator approach. Production and Operations Management31(3): 906–927.
51.
PapakyriakopoulosOGoodmannE (2022) The impact of twitter labels on misinformation spread and user engagement: Lessons from trump’s election tweets. In: Proceedings of the ACM web conference, Lyon, France, pp.2541–2551.
52.
PapanastiasouY (2020) Fake news propagation and detection: A sequential model. Management Science66(5): 1826–1846.
53.
Peres NobreGFerreiraCHGAlmeidaJM (2022) A hierarchical network-oriented analysis of user participation in misinformation spread on WhatsApp. Information Processing & Management59(1): 102757.
54.
PhadkeSSamoryMMitraT (2022) Pathways through conspiracy: The evolution of conspiracy radicalization through engagement in online conspiracy discussions. In: Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media, Atlanta, GA, pp.770–781.
SaltzELeibowiczCWardleC (2021) Encounters with visual misinformation and labels across platforms. In: Proceedings of the CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Yokohama, Japan, pp.1–6.
59.
ShaoCCiampagliaGLVarolO, et al. (2018) The spread of low-credibility content by social bots. Nature Communications9(1): 4787.
60.
SharevskiFAlsaadiRJachimP, et al. (2022) Misinformation warnings: Twitter’s soft moderation effects on COVID-19 vaccine belief echoes. Computers & Security114: 102577.
61.
SmithNGrahamT (2019) Mapping the anti-vaccination movement on Facebook. Information, Communication & Society22(9): 1310–1327.
62.
Transparency Centre (2023) Code of practice on disinformation, report of Meta for the period 01 January 2023 to 30 June 2023. Report, EU Code of Practice on Disinformation, Transparency Centre, EU.
63.
van der LindenSPanagopoulosCRoozenbeekJ (2020) You are fake news: Political bias in perceptions of fake news. Media, Culture & Society42(3): 460–470.
64.
VosoughiSRoyDAralS (2018) The spread of true and false news online. Science359(6380): 1146–1151.
65.
WangYGoesPWeiZ, et al. (2019) Production of online word-of-mouth: Peer effects and the moderation of user characteristics. Production and Operations Management28(7): 1621–1640.
66.
WeiZXiaoMRongR (2021) Network size and content generation on social media platforms. Productions and Operations Management30(5): 1406–1426.
67.
XiaoSHoYCheH (2021) Building the momentum: Information disclosure and herding in online crowdfunding. Production and Operations Management30(9): 3213–3230.
68.
YanLYanXTanY, et al. (2019) Shared minds: How patients use collaborative information sharing via social media platforms. Production and Operations Management28(1): 9–26.
69.
YiannakouliasNSlavikCEChaseM (2019) Expressions of pro- and anti-vaccine sentiment on YouTube. Vaccine37(15): 2057–2064.
70.
ZannettouS (2021) “I won the election!”: An empirical analysis of soft moderation interventions on twitter. In: Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media, Palo Alto, CA, pp.865–876.
71.
ZengZDaiHZhangDJ, et al. (2022) The impact of social nudges on user-generated content for social network platforms. Management Science69(9): 5189–5208.
72.
ZhangXDuQZhangZ (2022a) A theory-driven machine learning system for financial disinformation detection. Production and Operations Management31(8): 3160–3179.
73.
ZhangXWeiZDuQ, et al. (2022b) Social media moderations, user ban, and content generation: Evidence from Zhihu. In: Proceedings of the Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Honolulu, HI, pp.4432–4441.
74.
ZhangXZhuF (2011) Group size and incentives to contribute: A natural experiment at Chinese wikipedia. American Economic Review101: 1601–1615.
75.
ZhouJChenY (2016) Targeted information release in social networks. Operations Research64(3): 721–735.
76.
ZhouYShenL (2022) Confirmation bias and the persistence of misinformation on climate change. Communication Research49(4): 500–523.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
