研究：在社交媒體上不實(shí)新聞比真消息更易傳播

False news travels far faster and ext­ends further than truth on social media, researchers have found, in the largest scientific study so far of the way stories spread online.

根據(jù)一項(xiàng)迄今最大規(guī)模的關(guān)于新聞在網(wǎng)上傳播方式的科學(xué)研究，在社交媒體上，不實(shí)新聞的傳播速度遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)快過真實(shí)消息，擴(kuò)散范圍也更廣。

Scientists at Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that falsehoods were 70 per cent more likely to be retweeted on Twitter than the truth — and true stories took six times longer on average to reach 1,500 people than falsehoods.

麻省理工學(xué)院(MIT)的科學(xué)家發(fā)現(xiàn)，在Twitter上不實(shí)消息被轉(zhuǎn)發(fā)的概率比真相高70%，真實(shí)消息擴(kuò)散至1500人所需的時(shí)間平均是不實(shí)消息的6倍。

The study analysed 126,000 stories between 2006 and 2017, verified by six independent fact-checking organisations as either true or false news, which were tweeted 4.5m times by 3m people. The results are published in the journal Science.

這項(xiàng)研究分析了2006年至2017年間被300萬人轉(zhuǎn)發(fā)了450萬次的12.6萬篇報(bào)道，由6家獨(dú)立的事實(shí)核查機(jī)構(gòu)確認(rèn)真?zhèn)巍Ｑ芯拷Y(jié)果發(fā)表在《科學(xué)》(Science)期刊上。

Sinan Aral of MIT, the senior author, said: “I was really surprised by the sheer magnitude of the way false news travels faster than the truth.”

研究論文的資深作者(senior author)、麻省理工學(xué)院的錫南•阿拉爾(Sinan Aral)說：“我著實(shí)感到驚訝，不實(shí)消息的傳播速度比真相快如此之多。”

But the study also found that automated bots [web robots] do not increase the spread of false news over true stories.

但該研究還發(fā)現(xiàn)，自動(dòng)機(jī)器人(即網(wǎng)絡(luò)機(jī)器人)在助長不實(shí)新聞傳播方面的作用并沒有大于對真消息傳播的促進(jìn)。

“We found that, contrary to conventional wisdom, bots accelerate the spread of true and false stories at the same rate,” Professor Aral said.

阿拉爾教授說：“我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，與一般看法相反，機(jī)器人加快真?zhèn)蜗鞑サ乃俣仁且粯拥摹?rdquo;

“False news spreads more than the truth because humans, not robots, are more likely to spread it,” he pointed out.

他指出：“不實(shí)新聞之所以比真相傳播更廣，是因?yàn)槿祟?mdash;—而非機(jī)器人——更易于傳播不實(shí)新聞。”

Twitter, which is investing $10m in MIT research over five years, funded the project.

Twitter資助了這一研究項(xiàng)目，該公司計(jì)劃5年內(nèi)為麻省理工學(xué)院的研究提供1000萬美元經(jīng)費(fèi)。

“The company gave us access to the data, but they had no input into the study design and analysis,” Prof Aral said.

“該公司向我們提供數(shù)據(jù)，但他們并未參與研究課題的設(shè)計(jì)和分析。”阿拉爾教授說。

“They read our [Science] paper when it was finished, but were not involved in the research,” he added.

他還表示：“研究完成后，他們讀了我們(發(fā)表在《科學(xué)》上)的論文，但并未參與研究。”

Although Twitter was not prepared to comment on the MIT researchers’ specific findings about the fast spread of false news, the company said the study was an example of the way it wanted more partnerships with outside experts “to help us identify how we measure the health of Twitter”.

盡管Twitter不準(zhǔn)備對麻省理工學(xué)院研究人員關(guān)于不實(shí)新聞快速傳播的獨(dú)特發(fā)現(xiàn)發(fā)表評論，但該公司表示，這項(xiàng)研究是一個(gè)例證，反映該公司希望更多地與外部專家進(jìn)行合作，“以幫助我們確定如何評估Twitter是否在良好運(yùn)行”。

The company added: “Twitter’s open and real-time nature is a powerful antidote to the spreading of all types of false information.”

該公司補(bǔ)充說：“Twitter的開放性和實(shí)時(shí)性能夠極為有效地阻止各種不實(shí)信息的傳播。”

According to MIT, the project was far more extensive than previous studies of the spread of false news, which were either case studies of particular stories or “analyses of small ad hoc samples”.

據(jù)麻省理工學(xué)院表示，以往有關(guān)不實(shí)消息傳播的研究不是針對特定新聞的案例研究，就是著眼于小規(guī)模的特別樣本，相比之下，這個(gè)項(xiàng)目的研究范圍要廣泛得多。

The researchers deliberately avoided using the contentious term “fake news” in favour of “false news”, which is easier to verify objectively.

研究人員有意避免使用爭議性術(shù)語“假新聞”(fake news)，而使用“不實(shí)新聞”(false news)，這更便于客觀查證。

Twitter users were more likely to spread false news if they were generally less active on the site and had fewer followers than average, the MIT study found.

麻省理工學(xué)院的研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，那些在Twitter上通常不太活躍、粉絲數(shù)量少于平均水平的用戶更有可能傳播不實(shí)新聞。

Falsehood diffused faster and further than truth “despite these differences rather than because of them”.

“盡管存在這些差異、而非因?yàn)檫@些差異”，不實(shí)比真相傳播得更快更廣。

The researchers concluded from analysis of tweets that the dissemination of false news is mainly driven by a love of novelty. People are more likely to repeat news that surprises them — and false stories tend to be surprising and novel compared with the truth.

研究人員從推文分析中得出結(jié)論：不實(shí)新聞的傳播主要緣于獵奇心理。人們更有可能轉(zhuǎn)發(fā)讓他們感到驚訝的消息，而不實(shí)新聞與真相相比往往更令人驚訝和新奇。

The MIT authors said: “Understanding how false news spreads is the first step towards containing it.”

麻省理工學(xué)院這篇論文的作者們表示：“搞清不實(shí)新聞如何傳播是遏制它們的第一步。”

One conclusion from the study is that the US debate about fake news is wrong to focus so much on bots, when human behaviour is actually far more important. Solutions could include finding a reliable way to label news as true or false which people would trust.

這項(xiàng)研究得出的一個(gè)結(jié)論是，美國關(guān)于假新聞的討論過多地將重點(diǎn)放在機(jī)器人上，其實(shí)人類的行為要重要得多。解決方案可能包括找到一種能讓人們相信的、可靠的方式來標(biāo)記新聞是真實(shí)的或不實(shí)的。

Another paper in the same issue of Science by 15 US social media experts calls for a co-ordinated and large-scale investigation into the social, psychological and technological forces behind fake news.

同期《科學(xué)》期刊還發(fā)表了另一篇由15名美國社交媒體專家撰寫的文章，他們呼吁對假新聞背后的社會(huì)、心理和科技因素展開大規(guī)模聯(lián)合調(diào)查。

“What we want to convey most is that fake news is a real problem, it’s a tough problem, and it’s a problem that requires serious research to solve,” said Filippo Menczer, founder of the Indiana University Observatory on Social Media.

印第安納大學(xué)(Indiana University)社交媒體觀測站(Observatory on Social Media)創(chuàng)始人菲利波•門采爾(Filippo Menczer)表示：“我們最想傳達(dá)的是，假新聞是一個(gè)真實(shí)的問題，一個(gè)棘手的問題，一個(gè)亟需認(rèn)真研究加以解決的問題。”