Cited by 80Misinformation and Its ImpactsEthics and Social Impacts of AIDigital Media Forensic Detection

Are Deepfakes Concerning? Analyzing Conversations of Deepfakes on Reddit and Exploring Societal Implications

Open access
Gamage, Dilrukshi, Ghasiya, Piyush, Bonagiri, Vamshi, Whiting, Mark E., Sasahara, Kazutoshi·2022·CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Abstract

Deepfakes are synthetic content generated using advanced deep learning and AI technologies. The advancement of technology has created opportunities for anyone to create and share deepfakes much easier. This may lead to societal concerns based on how communities engage with it. However, there is limited research available to understand how communities perceive deepfakes. We examined deepfake conversations on Reddit from 2018 to 2021—including major topics and their temporal changes as well as implications of these conversations. Using a mixed-method approach—topic modeling and qualitative coding, we found 6,638 posts and 86,425 comments discussing concerns of the believable nature of deepfakes and how platforms moderate them. We also found Reddit conversations to be pro-deepfake and building a community that supports creating and sharing deepfake artifacts and building a marketplace regardless of the consequences. Possible implications derived from qualitative codes indicate that deepfake conversations raise societal concerns. We propose that there are implications for Human Computer Interaction (HCI) to mitigate the harm created from deepfakes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3491102.3517446

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • There is insufficient awareness of the potential harms of AI-generated misinformation and inadequate coverage of up-to-date AI progress and abilities.

    “However, there is insufcient awareness of the potential harms of AI-generated misinformation [32] and inadequate coverage of up-to-date AI progress and abilities [89].”

    From Synthetic Lies: Understanding AI-Generated Misinformation and Evaluating Algorithmic and Human Solutions (2023) · cites this paper as [32]

    Section 4.3 says the Reddit communities studied paid insufficient attention to AI-generated news and other harms of artificially created content, while focusing more on deepfake videos. This supports the concern about limited awareness, but the unqualified claim extends beyond the Reddit conversations the paper examined. The separate claim about coverage of AI progress is attached to [89], not this source. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Compared with discussions about deep fake videos and potential harms highlighted in media, people are less aware of the persuasiveness and fluency of AI-generated text.

    “Compared with discussions about deep fake videos and potential harms that have been highlighted in media in recent years, people are less aware of the persuasiveness and fuency of AI-generated text [32].”

    From Synthetic Lies: Understanding AI-Generated Misinformation and Evaluating Algorithmic and Human Solutions (2023) · cites this paper as [32]

    Section 4.3 finds that Reddit communities paid substantially more attention to deepfake videos than to the deceptive potential of AI-generated text, and says AI can generate news with apparent legitimacy. That supports the comparison, but the finding concerns Reddit discussions, not people's awareness generally; the passage also does not establish that media coverage caused the difference. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Oxford Analytica. 2019. 'deepfakes' could irreparably damage public trust. Expert Briefings (2019).
  2. Steven Bird, Ewan Klein, and Edward Loper. 2009. Natural language processing with Python: analyzing text with the natural language toolkit. " O'Reilly Media, Inc. ".
  3. Loukas Konstantinou, Ana Caraban, and Evangelos Karapanos. 2019. Combat- ing Misinformation Through Nudging. In IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, 630-634.
  4. Catherine Stupp. 2019. Fraudsters used AI to mimic CEO's voice in unusual cybercrime case. The Wall Street Journal 30, 08 (2019).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gamage, D., Ghasiya, P., Bonagiri, V., Whiting, M. E., & Sasahara, K.
Affiliations
  • Tokyo Institute of Technology (JP)
  • International Institute of Information Technology (IN)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
Venue
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2022-04-27
Pages
1-19
OpenAlex
W4220800320
Cited by
79
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 3
FWCI
48.14
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Core Research for Evolutional Science and Technology (JPMJCR20D3)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Digital Media Forensic Detection
Keywords
deepfakes, Reddit, online communities, synthetic media, content moderation, societal implications, user perception, human-computer interaction

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