Grok fact-checks our paper on Grok fact-checking - and it approves!
04.02.2026 13:49
👍 28
🔁 7
💬 1
📌 0
Grok fact-checks our paper on Grok fact-checking - and it approves!
🚨New WP "@Grok is this true?"
We analyze 1.6M factcheck requests on X (grok & Perplexity)
📌Usage is polarized, Grok users more likely to be Reps
📌BUT Rep posts rated as false more often—even by Grok
📌Bot agreement with factchecks is OK but not great; APIs match fact-checkers
osf.io/preprints/ps...
In a new working paper, @thomasrenault.bsky.social, @mmosleh.bsky.social & @dgrand.bsky.social break down how Grok is being used to fact-check, and on whom.
osf.io/preprints/ps...
New on @indicator.media: "@grok is this true" was the single most frequent reply tagging X's AI chatbot in the six months following its launch.
Comment l’irruption du FN a bouleversé le jeu politique
(A la marge)
blogs.alternatives-economiques.fr/anota/2025/1...
We are seeking a Fellow to lead cutting-edge research on short-form video content and its societal implications. Bridging the gap between computer vision, causal inference, and computational social science, the Fellow will focus on the large-scale analysis of TikTok data (using an existing, massive dataset). The position involves developing novel multimodal methods to understand how short-form algorithmic content shapes public opinion, political polarization, and online culture. This is a unique opportunity to work at the forefront of the field, combining rigorous social science research designs with state-of-the-art computational techniques.
The Center for Information Technology Policy at Princeton invites applications for a Postdoctoral Fellow to work with an interdisciplinary team (me, @bstewart.bsky.social, and @manoelhortaribeiro.bsky.social).
Link: puwebp.princeton.edu/AcadHire/app...
Please apply by THIS SUNDAY, Dec. 14!
Apply for funding to work with me and Gord at Cornell!
Would love to read more. Is there a full paper ? Or full version of the poster ? Thx
3 months into Meta’s pivot to Community Notes, the company has yet to share any data about its crowdsourced moderation feature.
With help from three @indicator.media readers in the pilot, I tried to piece together how it’s going:
indicator.media/p/a-first-lo...
🚨In PNAS🚨
The right often accuses fact-checkers of political bias
But we analyzed Community Notes on Musk's X and found posts flagged as "misleading" are 2.3x more likely to be written by Reps than Dems!
The issue is Reps sharing misinformation, not fact-checker bias...
www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/...
With @dgrand.bsky.social and @mmosleh.bsky.social
🔗 Read the Brief Report (Open Access) here: www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/...
— We find a real, measurable partisan gap in misinformation sharing : even a “crowdsourced,” supposedly neutral system ends up flagging more Republican posts
— This challenges arguments that fact-checkers should be dismissed on the grounds that they’re too biased.
We analyzed every English Community Note on X over 1.5 years. In Community Notes:
— Users from across the political spectrum propose and rate notes
— Notes are only published when there is agreement between people who typically disagree (via X’s “bridging algorithm”)
💡 Why is this important?
Many past studies have found that Republicans share more misinformation. But critics argue those findings could be driven by :
— Bias in how fact-checkers or academics define misinformation
— Bias in which news stories researchers choose to study
🚨 New in PNAS 🚨
Posts by Republicans are 2.3 times more likely to be flagged as misleading than those by Democrats on X's Community Notes. A 🧵
pnas.org/doi/epub/10.... (Open Access)
Interested in how people talk to each other online? Care about causal inference and/or NLP? Want to design and implement field experiments?
Come do a PhD with Dominik Hangartner, me, and a bunch of awesome people at IPL in Zurich:
jobs.ethz.ch/job/view/JOP...
Many thanks to lead author @thomasrenault.bsky.social who does amazing work on Community Notes and other topics; and the always-wonderful coauthor @mmosleh.bsky.social
For more of my group's work on misinformation, check out this doc: docs.google.com/document/d/1...
We examine all English notes 1/23-6/24. More notes are proposed on tweets written by Reps than Dems. The partisan diff is MUCH bigger when restricting to "helpful" (ie ~unbiased) notes: 63% on Reps, 37% on Dems. The "vox populi" on X has spoken and concluded that Reps share more misinfo than Dems!
Accusations of bias against conservatives drove Musk to buy Twitter- then gut fact-checking and up Community Notes. This month, Zuckerberg did the same at Meta. But greater sanctioning of conservatives could just be the result of conservatives sharing more misinformation bsky.app/profile/dgra...
🚨New WP🚨
Remember Musk+Zuck+Trump+Jordan etc crying fact-checker bias b/c Reps were flagged more than Dems? We analyzed Community Notes on Musk's X and guess what: posts flagged as "misleading" are 67% more likely to be written by Reps! The issue is Reps, not fact-checkers...
osf.io/preprints/ps...
🚨OpEd+data: Meta is out of step with public opinion🚨
Zuck cut moderation b/c he said people no longer want it. But he's wrong!
We polled 1k Americans and most people, including majority of Reps:
i) want content moderation
ii) don't want Community Notes w/o fact-checkers
thehill.com/opinion/tech...