Disinformation and misinformation triangle: A conceptual model for “fake news” epidemic, causal factors and interventions
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to treat disinformation and misinformation (intentionally deceptive and unintentionally inaccurate misleading information, respectively) as a socio-cultural technology-enabled epidemic in digital news, propagated via social media. Design/methodology/approach: The proposed disinformation and misinformation triangle is a conceptual model that identifies the three minimal causal factors occurring simultaneously to facilitate the spread of the epidemic at the societal level. Findings: Following the epidemiological disease triangle model, the three interacting causal factors are translated into the digital news context: the virulent pathogens are falsifications, clickbait, satirical “fakes” and other deceptive or misleading news content; the susceptible hosts are information-overloaded, time-pressed news readers lacking media literacy skills; and the conducive environments are polluted poorly regulated social media platforms that propagate and encourage the spread of various “fakes.” Originality/value: The three types of interventions – automation, education and regulation – are proposed as a set of holistic measures to reveal, and potentially control, predict and prevent further proliferation of the epidemic. Partial automated solutions with natural language processing, machine learning and various automated detection techniques are currently available, as exemplified here briefly. Automated solutions assist (but not replace) human judgments about whether news is truthful and credible. Information literacy efforts require further in-depth understanding of the phenomenon and interdisciplinary collaboration outside of the traditional library and information science, incorporating media studies, journalism, interpersonal psychology and communication perspectives.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The proliferation of deepfakes is subjecting companies to derogatory activities such as defamation and sabotage, which can threaten a company's reputation and brand image through marketplace deception, resulting in a loss of trust from customers and other stakeholder groups.
“The proliferation of deepfakes is subjecting companies to derogatory activities such as defamation and sabotage, which can threaten a company's reputation and brand image through marketplace deception, resulting in a loss of trust from customers and other stakeholder groups (Di Domenico & Visentin, 2020; Rubin, 2019).”
From Deepfakes: Deceptions, mitigations, and opportunities (2023) · cites this paper as Rubin, 2019
A lack of media literacy or familiarity with modern digital technologies may predispose consumers to being convinced by false or deceptive information.
“For instance, a lack of media literacy or familiarity with modern digital technologies may predispose consumers to being convinced by false or deceptive information (Köbis et al., 2021; Rubin, 2019), stressing a new form of the digital divide where consumers lacking the cognitive skills to detect deepfakes are at a structural disadvantage to those possessing such skills.”
From Deepfakes: Deceptions, mitigations, and opportunities (2023) · cites this paper as Rubin, 2019
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 55 · Cited by 146
- Authors
- Rubin, V. L.
- Affiliations
- Western University (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Rubin, Victoria L.
- ORCID
- Rubin, Victoria L.
- Venue
- Journal of Documentation
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2019-09-09
- Volume
- 75
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1013-1034
- ISSN
- 0022-0418 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2978591550
- Cited by
- 146
- References
- 55
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 6
- FWCI
- 28.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Locations
- Journal of Documentation (publishedVersion)
- Scholarship@Western (Western University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Government of Canada
- Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (435-2015)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Islamic Finance and Communication
- Keywords
- disinformation, misinformation, online news, social media, conceptual model, clickbait, information overload, media literacy, social media regulation, news credibility
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review