Cited by 32Misinformation and Its ImpactsSocial Media and PoliticsPopulism, Right-Wing Movements

The Seed of Doubt: Examining the Role of Alternative Social and News Media for the Birth of a Conspiracy Theory

Open access
Schatto-Eckrodt, Tim, Clever, Lena, Frischlich, Lena·2024·Social Science Computer Review

Abstract

Consuming conspiracy theories erodes trust in democratic institutions, while conspiracy beliefs demotivate democratic participation, posing a potential threat to democracy. The proliferation of social media, especially the emergence of numerous alternative platforms with minimal moderation, has greatly facilitated the dissemination and consumption of conspiracy theories. Nevertheless, there remains a dearth of knowledge concerning the origin and evolution of specific conspiracy theories across different platforms. This study aims to address this gap through a large-scale, cross-platform examination of the genesis of new conspiracy theories surrounding the death of Jeffrey Epstein. Through a (semi-) automated content analysis conducted on a distinctive dataset comprising N = 8,020,314 Epstein-related posts posted on both established platforms ( Twitter, Reddit) and alternative platforms ( Gab and 4Chan), we demonstrate that conspiracy theories emerge early and influence public discourse well in advance of reports from established media sources. Our data shows that users of the studied platforms immediately turn to conspirational explanations, exhibiting skepticism towards the official representation of events. Especially on alternative platforms, this skepticism swiftly transformed into unwarranted conspiracy theorizing, partly bolstered by references to alternative news media sources. The present study shows how conspirational explanations thrive in low information environments and how alternative media plays a role in turning rational skepticism into unwarranted conspiracy theories.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This study traces the birth of conspiracy theories around Jeffrey Epstein’s death across 8,020,314 posts on Twitter, Reddit, Gab, and 4chan, showing conspiratorial interpretations appeared before established news reports and were more prevalent on alternative platforms. It argues that references to alternative news media help turn skepticism into unwarranted conspiracy theorizing.

Key findings

Across all four platforms, posting surged before the official news announcement of Epstein’s death; no platform reacted significantly faster, though the 4chan debate lasted longer. Manual coding of n = 300 posts found 34.00% contained an unwarranted conspiracy theory; shares were 36.00% before August 10, 38.00% on the day, and 28.00% afterward. Unwarranted conspiracy theories were more common on 4chan (56.00%) and Gab (42.67%) than on Twitter (22.67%) and Reddit (14.67%). Co-occurrence graphs linked Epstein’s death to Trump/Clintons, intelligence agencies, antisemitic narratives (especially 4chan), and QAnon/satanic-cult themes (Gab); 40.99% of posts contained a URL, with established news URLs most shared overall (4.41%, n = 13,162) but alternative news URLs also prominent (3.64%, n = 10,860), and users sharing alternative sources were more likely to reference unwarranted conspiracy theories.

Methods

Large-scale cross-platform computational content analysis of Epstein-related posts from August 8–26, 2019 on Twitter, Reddit, Gab, and 4chan’s /pol/ board (N = 8,020,314), segmented into pre-death (4.77%), day-of-death (21.40%), and afterward (73.83%). Co-occurrence graphs mapped semantic clusters, and a random sample of n = 300 posts (25 per platform per time segment) was manually coded for warranted vs. unwarranted conspiracy theories following Keeley (Krippendorff’s α = .89). External URLs were extracted and domains classified as established or alternative news media.

Limitations

Stated: the study is a single-event comparative case study, uses only text-based platforms, relies on a mixed automated/manual design that cannot capture all qualitative intricacies, cannot infer individual users’ beliefs or sharing motivations, and does not analyze the content of shared sources. Evident: the manual coding sample is small (n = 300; 25 posts per platform/time cell), 4chan data are limited to /pol/ via an archive, and platform data were collected through different APIs/archives, so cross-platform comparisons should be interpreted cautiously.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/08944393241246281

Cites

72 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 1 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

4 of 27 cited sources checked · 2 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation
    § Abstract · p. 2

    The proliferation of social media, especially alternative platforms with minimal moderation, has greatly facilitated the dissemination and consumption of conspiracy theories.

    “The proliferation of social media, especially the emergence of numerous alternative platforms with minimal moderation, has greatly facilitated the dissemination and consumption of conspiracy theories.”
    • Also stated in: § Alternative Social Media Platforms · p. 5 · boosted
      “the advent of social media has profoundly amplified the possibility to spread, disseminate, and consume them (Zeng et al., 2022).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Zeng et al., 2022 source

      The ‘Affordance of digital media’ section (page unavailable) says digital media has amplified the visibility of conspiracy-theory content and that social-media platform dynamics can promote its circulation. The ‘Research conspiracy theories in digital environments’ section (page unavailable) notes migration to non-mainstream platforms, but does not say those platforms have minimal moderation or that their emergence has especially facilitated dissemination and consumption. The paper also questions whether digital media is the crucial cause of growth in conspiracy theories or belief in them. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation
    § Introduction · p. 3

    Exposure to conspiracy theories undermines trust in democratic institutions.

    “Exposure to such theories has been shown to undermine trust in democratic institutions (van Prooijen et al., 2022)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites van Prooijen et al., 2022

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Einstein & Glick, 2015 source
    • cites Pummerer et al., 2020 source
  • Premisecitation
    § Alternative News Media · p. 6

    Alternative news media contribute to the spreading of conspiracy theories.

    “While they do not always explicitly promote conspiracy theories, they do contribute to their spreading (Boberg et al., 2020), and attract users with higher levels of conspiracy mentality (Frischlich, Kuhfeldt, et al., 2022).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Boberg et al., 2020 source
  • Findingown data
    § The Genesis of (Unwarranted) Conspiracy Theories · p. 12

    The co-occurrence graphs demonstrate the abundance and interconnectivity of the various conspiratorial interpretations of Epstein's death.

    “In sum, the co-occurrence graphs vividly demonstrate the abundance and interconnectivity of the various conspiratorial interpretations of Epstein ' s death.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Co-occurrence of words in posts indicates semantic association or narrative linkage.
  • Findingown data
    § Abstract · p. 2

    Especially on alternative platforms, skepticism swiftly transformed into unwarranted conspiracy theorizing.

    “Especially on alternative platforms, this skepticism swiftly transformed into unwarranted conspiracy theorizing, partly bolstered by references to alternative news media sources.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 14
  • May combine two claims. 27
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Individual and Societal Effects of Conspiracy Theories · p. 5

    The 5G-COVID-19 conspiracy theory emerged by merging two existing conspiracy theories: that the pandemic was deliberate and that 5G emissions have adverse health effects.

    “More recently, Bruns et al. (2020) demonstrated that the conspiracy theory linking 5G to COVID-19 emerged by merging two existing conspiracy theories -one positing that the pandemic was a deliberate event and the other asserting that 5G emissions have adverse health effects.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bruns et al., 2020 source

      The Discussion and conclusion describes the COVID-19/5G theory as a collision of longstanding beliefs about 5G’s supposed health dangers with the emerging coronavirus crisis. The Introduction mentions a separate theory that the virus was intentionally released, and Phase 2 describes an early story combining a possible bioweapon with 5G. Neither passage establishes that the theory emerged by merging two pre-existing theories, one of which held that the pandemic was deliberate. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Discourse Dynamics · p. 11

    The four platforms did not display significant differences in general posting patterns; all aligned with typical responses to news events.

    “In addressing RQ 2, our sample of the four platforms did not display significant differences in general posting patterns, which all aligned with typical responses to news events.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § The Genesis of (Unwarranted) Conspiracy Theories · p. 12

    4Chan (56.00%) and Gab (42.67%) contained more unwarranted conspiracy theories than Twitter (22.67%) and Reddit (14.67%).

    “Furthermore, 4Chan (56.00%) and Gab (42.67%) both contained more unwarranted conspiracy theories”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The manually coded sample of n=300 posts is representative of the full dataset of Epstein-related posts.
    • Rests on an assumption: The manual coding reliably distinguished unwarranted conspiracy theories from warranted skepticism.
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Discourse Dynamics · p. 11

    No platform exhibited significantly faster reactions to the event, although on 4chan the debate extended for a longer duration compared to the other platforms.

    “In this initial quantitative analysis, no platform exhibited significantly faster reactions to the event, although on 4chan, the debate extended for a longer duration compared to the other platforms.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § The Genesis of (Unwarranted) Conspiracy Theories · p. 12

    Antisemitic conspiracy theories accusing an alleged global Jewish conspiracy against the West of being responsible for Epstein's death were most notable on 4chan but also present on the other three platforms.

    “Most notably on 4chan, but also present on the other three platforms, were antisemitic conspiracy theories, accusing an alleged global Jewish conspiracy against the West of being responsible for Epstein ' s death.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Preliminary Analyses · p. 10

    Average post lengths were: tweets M=150.02, SD=87.66; Reddit comments M=190.05, SD=374.20; Gab M=287.06, SD=353.07; 4Chan M=337.29, SD=405.12 characters.

    “Onaverage, the posts were relatively short with tweets ( M =150.02, SD =87.66 characters) and Reddit comments ( M = 190.05, SD =374.20 characters) being even shorter than posts on Gab ( M = 287.06, SD = 353.07 characters) and 4Chan ( M = 337.29, SD = 405.12 characters).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Discourse Dynamics · p. 11

    On Twitter, the peak was more pronounced, accounting for 5.25% of all tweets, compared to Reddit 3.88%, Gab 3.60%, and 4chan 3.57%.

    “On Twitter, the peak was more pronounced, accounting for a larger share of all tweets (5.25%), compared to the other platforms (Reddit: 3.88%, Gab: 3.60%, 4chan: 3.57%).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Users ' Reliance on Established and Alternative News Media · p. 13

    On 4Chan, users did share some URLs linking to established news outlets, but other news outlets, alternative and established alike, are mostly missing from the sample.

    “The exception to this is 4Chan: While users on this platform did share some URLs linking to established news outlets (e.g., the first official news report confirming Epstein ' s death published by the New York Times), other news outlets, alternative and established alike, are mostly missing from out sample.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Users ' Reliance on Established and Alternative News Media · p. 13

    The top 15 most shared outlets contained an equal amount of alternative and established media sources, with the larger outlets from both categories taking up most of the shares.

    “The top 15 sources contained an equal amount of alternative and established media sources, with the larger outlets from both categories taking up most of the shares.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The classification of media domains as established or alternative is valid.
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning
    § Users ' Reliance on Established and Alternative News Media · p. 13

    On Gab (74.28%) and Twitter (44.71%) the share of URLs was higher, whereas posts on 4Chan (12.98%) and Reddit (31.24%) used URLs less frequently.

    “On Gab, (74.28%) and Twitter (44.71%) the share of URLs was higher, whereas posts on 4Chan (12.98%) and Reddit (31.24%) used URLs less frequently.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Discussion · p. 15

    None of the platforms exhibited significantly faster reactions to the event, although the debate extended for a longer duration on 4Chan than on the other platforms.

    “None of the platforms exhibited significantly faster reactions to the event, although the debate extended for a longer duration on 4 Chan than on the other platforms.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Users ' Reliance on Established and Alternative News Media · p. 13

    On Gab, users shared fewer established media sources (52.81%) than alternative media sources (71.77%), and almost a quarter shared both (24.58%).

    “On Gab on the other hand, users shared fewer established media sources (52.81%) than alternative media sources (71.77%) and almost a quarter shared both (24.58%).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The classification of media domains as established or alternative is valid.
    • Rests on an assumption: The four platforms have distinct levels of alternativeness, with Twitter and Reddit as established and Gab and 4Chan as alternative.
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Users ' Reliance on Established and Alternative News Media · p. 13

    On Twitter and Reddit, most users shared established media sources (Twitter: 74.64%, Reddit: 88.59%), and only a small share (<5%) shared both established and alternative media sources.

    “On Twitter and Reddit, most users shared established media sources (Twitter: 74.64%, Reddit: 88.59%), and only a small share of users (&lt; 5%) shared both established and alternative media sources.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The classification of media domains as established or alternative is valid.
    • Rests on an assumption: The four platforms have distinct levels of alternativeness, with Twitter and Reddit as established and Gab and 4Chan as alternative.
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Users ' Reliance on Established and Alternative News Media · p. 15

    Users who shared established media sources tended to post like those who didn't share these sources at all, yet they were less likely to reference one of the most prominent unwarranted conspiracy theories found in the data.

    “Answering RQ 3, users who shared established media sources tended to post like those who didn ' t share these sources at all, yet they were less likely to reference one of the most prominent unwarranted conspiracy theories found in the data.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Co-occurrence of words in posts indicates semantic association or narrative linkage.
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Discussion · p. 15

    Most posts were critical of the official representation of events, and over a third of all posts spread unwarranted conspiracy theories.

    “Most posts were critical of the official representation of events, and over a third of all posts spread unwarranted conspiracy theories.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The manually coded sample of n=300 posts is representative of the full dataset of Epstein-related posts.
    • Rests on an assumption: The manual coding reliably distinguished unwarranted conspiracy theories from warranted skepticism.
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Users ' Reliance on Established and Alternative News Media · p. 13

    The most shared URLs led to established news media outlets reporting on Epstein's death (4.41%, n=13,162), although alternative news media outlets were also present (3.64%, n=10,860).

    “Analyzing the most frequently shared URLs per platform revealed that the most shared URLs led to established news media outlets reporting on Epstein ' s death (4.41%, n = 13,162), although alternative news media outlets were also present (3.64%, n = 10,860).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The classification of media domains as established or alternative is valid.
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation
    § Discussion · p. 15

    Conspiracy-theoretical interpretations were particularly prominent on alternative social media, with 4chan contributing heavily to the spread of antisemitic narratives, and Gab providing a home for QAnon-related discourses.

    “Conspiracy-theoretical interpretations were particularly prominent on alternative social media, with 4chan contributing heavily to the spread of antisemitic narratives, and Gab providing a home for QAnon-related discourses.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The four platforms have distinct levels of alternativeness, with Twitter and Reddit as established and Gab and 4Chan as alternative.
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Users ' Reliance on Established and Alternative News Media · p. 13

    4Chan users shared little from any news media source, except a New York Times article breaking the news of Epstein's death, but mainly shared direct sources used to support the formation of conspirational narratives, like flight logs.

    “4Chan users shared little from any news media source (with the exception of a New York Times article breaking the news of Epstein ' s death), but mainly shared direct sources used to support the formation of conspirational narratives, like flight logs.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The classification of media domains as established or alternative is valid.
    • Rests on an assumption: The four platforms have distinct levels of alternativeness, with Twitter and Reddit as established and Gab and 4Chan as alternative.
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Users ' Reliance on Established and Alternative News Media · p. 15

    While the corpus for users sharing established media sources contains around three times the number of posts than the alternative-source corpus, it is much more complex and less monothematic.

    “While the corpus used to build the co-occurrence graph of users sharing established media sources contains around three times the number of posts than the one of users sharing alternative media sources, it is much more complex and less monothematic.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Co-occurrence of words in posts indicates semantic association or narrative linkage.
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Users ' Reliance on Established and Alternative News Media · p. 15

    The mean number of connections between words is more than 10 times higher in the established-source graph, and the graph has a lower centrality than its counterpart.

    “The mean number of connections between words is more than 10 times higher, and the graph also has a lower centrality than its counterpart”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Co-occurrence of words in posts indicates semantic association or narrative linkage.
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Individual and Societal Effects of Conspiracy Theories · p. 5

    Conspiracy mentality tends to be relatively stable and normally distributed in society.

    “While conspiracy mentality tends to be relatively stable and normally distributed in society, the belief in specific conspiracies is skewed and subject to change (Imhoff et al., 2022; Uscinski, Enders, et al., 2022).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Imhoff et al., 2022 source
    • cites Uscinski, Enders, et al., 2022

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given
    § Introduction · p. 3

    In most conspiracy theories, the central actors of the narrative are politicians or political institutions, either as conspirators or enablers.

    “Regarding their content, in most conspiracy theories, the central actors of the narrative are politicians or political institutions, either as the conspirators themselves or as the enablers of some nefarious plot, due to an assumed naivete or corrupt behavior.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given
    § Introduction · p. 3

    Conspiracy theories can be understood as a tool that enables the critique of established forms of knowledge (production).

    “From a less normative perspective conspiracy theories can also be understood as a tool that enables the critique of established forms of knowledge (production).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Individual and Societal Effects of Conspiracy Theories · p. 5

    Belief in specific conspiracies is skewed and subject to change.

    “While conspiracy mentality tends to be relatively stable and normally distributed in society, the belief in specific conspiracies is skewed and subject to change (Imhoff et al., 2022; Uscinski, Enders, et al., 2022).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Imhoff et al., 2022 source
    • cites Uscinski, Enders, et al., 2022

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data
    § Preprocessing · p. 10

    The study made all scripts and comprehensive details of preprocessing and analytical pipeline available through OSF.

    “We have made available all scripts and comprehensive details of the preprocessing and analytical pipeline through the Open Science Framework (link removed for blinded peer-review).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Introduction · p. 3

    Turning towards conspiracy theories seems to be motivated by societal crises and feelings of fear, uncertainty, and perceived lack of control.

    “Turning towards conspiracy theories also seems to be motivated by societal crises and the feelings of fear, uncertainty, and a perceived lack of control.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites van Prooijen & Jostmann, 2013 source
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Alternative News Media · p. 6

    The availability of news coverage about a critical event could reduce the spread of conspiracy theories by reducing the need for sensemaking in the collective.

    “In consequence, the availability of news coverage about a critical event could reduce the spread of conspiracy theories by reducing the need for sensemaking in the collective.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Individual and Societal Effects of Conspiracy Theories · p. 5

    Conspiracy theories can arise quickly after pivotal incidents.

    “Bricker (2013) delved into the responses and subsequent surge in accusations of conspiracies directed at climate scientists following the leak of unlawfully obtained emails from a Climate Research Unit, illustrating how quickly conspiracy theories can arise after pivotal incidents.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bricker, 2013 source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Introduction · p. 3

    Conspiracy theories can be used as a form of propaganda or misinformation to spread uncertainty and distrust in societal institutions.

    “They can be used as a form of propaganda or misinformation to spread uncertainty and distrust in societal institutions (van Prooijen et al., 2022).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites van Prooijen et al., 2022

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given
    § Introduction · p. 3

    There remains a dearth of knowledge concerning the origin and evolution of specific conspiracy theories across different platforms.

    “Despite the accumulating evidence highlighting the corrosive impact of conspiracy beliefs, there remains a notable gap in our understanding of the genesis and evolution of specific conspiracy theories.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Discussion · p. 15

    The findings align with the assumption that conspiracy theories flourish in times of uncertainty and serve as a form of collective sense making.

    “Overall, our findings align with the assumption that conspiracy theories flourish in times of uncertainty (van Prooijen &amp; Jostmann, 2013) and serve as a form of collective sense making (Kou et al., 2017).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites van Prooijen & Jostmann, 2013 source
    • cites Kou et al., 2017 source
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion · p. 15

    Specific conspiracy theories in the aftermath of a pivotal event seemed to build upon existing conspiracy myths (e.g., antisemitism), already circulating theories (e.g., Pizzagate), and thrive on animosities (e.g., towards political opponents).

    “Like Lego bricks, specific conspiracy theories in the aftermath of a pivotal event seemed to build upon existing conspiracy myths (e.g., antisemitism), already circulating theories (e.g., Pizzagate), and thrive on animosities (e.g., towards political opponents).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Limitations and Future Research Directions · p. 16

    The study is a comparative case study of a single event, which limits the generalizability of its results.

    “First, we present a comparative case study of a single event. Future research on other events needs to examine the stability of the observed dynamics to test the generalizability of our results.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Limitations and Future Research Directions · p. 16

    The mixed design of (semi-)automated and manual content analysis may not capture many intricacies of conspiracy theory practices (e.g., coded language).

    “Second, to account for the sheer amount of data, we used a mixed design of (semi-)automated and manual content analysis. Many of the intricacies of conspiracy theory practices (e.g., the use of coded language) would benefit from a more extensive qualitative approach.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationnone given
    § Limitations and Future Research Directions · p. 16

    The evidence presented cannot be used to draw assumptions about individual users' beliefs or individual sharing motivations.

    “Finally, the evidence presented in this study cannot be used to draw assumptions about individual users ' beliefs or individual sharing motivations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation
    § Conclusion · p. 16

    Uncertainty can be a driver of a turn towards conspirational explanations, which in turn may erode trust in societal institutions.

    “By understanding conspiracy theories as purposeful communication about politics (McNair, 2011), our study can illustrate how uncertainty can be a driver of a turn towards conspirational explanations, which in turn may erode trust in societal institutions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites McNair, 2011 source
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion · p. 15

    The findings are consistent with prior research showing that alternative social media and particularly fringe communities like 4Chan provide a welcoming environment for the spread of toxic content, likely due to their self-positioning as safe havens for such statements and their corresponding loose moderation rules.

    “Thus, our findings are consistent with prior research showing that alternative social media and particularly fringe communities like 4Chan provide a welcoming environment for the spread of toxic content (Finkelstein et al., 2020; Rieger et al., 2021; Zannettou et al., 2018), likely due to their self-positioning as safe havens for such statements and their corresponding loose moderation rules (Fris”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Finkelstein et al., 2020

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Rieger et al., 2021 source
    • cites Zannettou et al., 2018

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • Rests on an assumption: The four platforms have distinct levels of alternativeness, with Twitter and Reddit as established and Gab and 4Chan as alternative.
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Users ' Reliance on Established and Alternative News Media · p. 15

    The established-source graph indicates a thematically less centralized discussion that lacks a central narrative.

    “hinting at a thematically less centralized discussion, that is, a discussion that lacks a central narrative.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Limitations and Future Research Directions · p. 16

    The study did not analyze the content of the shared sources, so its distinction between established and alternative media sources does not consider the possibility of established news outlets spreading unwarranted conspiracy theories or alternative news sources confirming orthodox views.

    “We also did not analyze the content of the shared sources. Our distinction of established and alternative media sources, representing the distinction between orthodox and heterodox interpretations of events, does not consider the possibility of established news outlets spreading unwarranted conspiracy theories, or alternative news sources confirming orthodox views”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The distinction between established and alternative media sources represents the distinction between orthodox and heterodox interpretations of events.
39 of 39
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The manually coded sample of n=300 posts is representative of the full dataset of Epstein-related posts.

    “The manual coding of n = 300 posts revealed, that, overall, 34.00% of the posts contained an unwarranted conspiracy theory.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Co-occurrence of words in posts indicates semantic association or narrative linkage.

    “we utilized cooccurrence graphs to construct a semantic network based on the content of the posts.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The classification of media domains as established or alternative is valid.

    “We then used this list of established media sources to build a corpus of posts by users who shared an established media source and those who shared an alternative media source to be able to examine platform differences.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The four platforms have distinct levels of alternativeness, with Twitter and Reddit as established and Gab and 4Chan as alternative.

    “four social media platforms with distinct levels of alternativeness (Twitter vs. Gab, Reddit vs. 4Chan)”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The distinction between established and alternative media sources represents the distinction between orthodox and heterodox interpretations of events.

    “Our distinction of established and alternative media sources, representing the distinction between orthodox and heterodox interpretations of events, does not consider the possibility of established news outlets spreading unwarranted conspiracy theories, or alternative news sources confirming orthodox views”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The manual coding reliably distinguished unwarranted conspiracy theories from warranted skepticism.

    “The manual coding of n = 300 posts revealed, that, overall, 34.00% of the posts contained an unwarranted conspiracy theory.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The official announcement of Epstein's death on August 10 is the correct reference point for before/after analysis.

    “Before the official announcement of Epstein ' s death on August 10, 36.00% posts contained a reference to an unwarranted conspiracy theory”
7 of 7

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?

  • As conspiracy theories can be amplified so quickly on social media, there is less time for authoritative sources to have published fact-checks.

    “As conspiracy theories can be amplified so quickly on social media, there is less time for authoritative sources to have published fact-checks-our rationale for inclusion was to see if this would influence chatbot results (Burel et al., 2021; Schatto-Eckrodt et al., 2024).”

    From "Just Asking Questions": Doing Our Own Research on Conspiratorial Ideation by Generative AI Chatbots (2026) · cites this paper as Schatto-Eckrodt et al., 2024

    The Discussion (p. 15) says conspiracy theories emerged and influenced public discourse before established media had time to comment, and identifies the speed of social media as a challenge for journalists. It does not specifically examine whether authoritative sources had published fact-checks, so that part of the claim goes beyond the paper’s finding. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • The results assign RQ1's question to RQ2

    Minor

    The stated RQ2 asks about differences between platforms; the question of when and how conspiratorial interpretations enter the discourse is RQ1.

  • The claimed top 15 sources are 13 and are not evenly split

    Minor

    Table 2 lists 13 sources: seven classified as alternative and six as established. It therefore supports neither the stated count of 15 nor an equal number in each category.

  • Epstein's death is dated both April and August 2019

    Minor

    The introduction places Epstein's death in April 2019, while the case description dates it to August 10, 2019.

3 of 3

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. Barkun M., 2014, Culture of conspiracy: Apocalyptic visions in contemporary America
  2. Dentith M. R. X., 2019, Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 8, 1
  3. Ellis E. G., 2019, Wired
  4. Frischlich L., 2022, Forschungspapier, 3, 1
  5. Kim M., 2016, International Journal of Communication, 10, 3808
  6. Nocun K., 2020, Fake facts: Wie verschwörungstheorien unser denken bestimmen (Originalausgabe)
  7. Phillips W. M., 2012, This is why we can’t have nice things: The origins, evolution and cultural embeddedness of online trolling [Ph.D.]
  8. Rashbaum W. K., 2019, The New York Times
  9. Sisak M. R., 2019, Medical examiner rules Epstein death a suicide by hanging
  10. Smith A., 2013, Pew Research Center
  11. Uscinski J. E., 2017, Argumenta, 3, 233
  12. Wagner-Egger P., 2019, Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 8, 50

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schatto-Eckrodt, T., Clever, L., & Frischlich, L.
Affiliations
  • Department of Communication and Journalism, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
  • University of Münster (DE)
  • University of Southern Denmark (DK)
Venue
Social Science Computer Review
Published
2024-04-14
Volume
42
Issue
5
Pages
1160-1180
ISSN
  • 0894-4393 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-8286
OpenAlex
W4394797912
Cited by
32
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 7
FWCI
23.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Social Science Computer Review (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
Digital Society research program funded by the Ministry of Culture and Science of the German State of North Rhine-Westphalia (005-1709-001)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Populism, Right-Wing Movements
Keywords
conspiracy theories, Jeffrey Epstein, alternative social media, alternative press, Gab, 4chan, Twitter, Reddit, trust in democratic institutions, democratic participation

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-19.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-19.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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