Community notes increase trust in fact-checking on social media.

Community-based fact-checking is a promising approach to fact-check social media content at scale. However, an understanding of whether users trust community fact-checks is missing. Here, we presented n = 1,810 Americans with 36 misleading and nonmisleading social media posts and assessed their trust in different types of fact-checking interventions. Participants were randomly assigned to treatments where misleading content was either accompanied by simple (i.e. context-free) misinformation flags in different formats (expert flags or community flags), or by textual "community notes" explaining why the fact-checked post was misleading. Across both sides of the political spectrum, community notes were perceived as significantly more trustworthy than simple misinformation flags. Our results further suggest that the higher trustworthiness primarily stemmed from the context provided in community notes (i.e. fact-checking explanations) rather than generally higher trust towards community fact-checkers. Community notes also improved the identification of misleading posts. In sum, our work implies that context matters in fact-checking and that community notes might be an effective approach to mitigate trust issues with simple misinformation flags.

Moralized language predicts hate speech on social media.

Hate speech on social media threatens the mental health of its victims and poses severe safety risks to modern societies. Yet, the mechanisms underlying its proliferation, though critical, have remained largely unresolved. In this work, we hypothesize that moralized language predicts the proliferation of hate speech on social media. To test this hypothesis, we collected three datasets consisting of N = 691,234 social media posts and ∼35.5 million corresponding replies from Twitter that have been authored by societal leaders across three domains (politics, news media, and activism). Subsequently, we used textual analysis and machine learning to analyze whether moralized language carried in source tweets is linked to differences in the prevalence of hate speech in the corresponding replies. Across all three datasets, we consistently observed that higher frequencies of moral and moral-emotional words predict a higher likelihood of receiving hate speech. On average, each additional moral word was associated with between 10.76% and 16.48% higher odds of receiving hate speech. Likewise, each additional moral-emotional word increased the odds of receiving hate speech by between 9.35 and 20.63%. Furthermore, moralized language was a robust out-of-sample predictor of hate speech. These results shed new light on the antecedents of hate speech and may help to inform measures to curb its spread on social media.