mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Justice in Misinformation Detection Systems: An Analysis of Algorithms, Stakeholders, and Potential Harms

arXiv 2204.13568 ↗First posted 28 Apr 2022cs.CY cs.AIcited by 10

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Faced with the scale and surge of misinformation on social media, many platforms and fact-checking organizations have turned to algorithms for automating key parts of misinformation detection pipelines. While offering a promising solution to the challenge of scale, the ethical and societal risks associated with algorithmic misinformation detection are not well-understood. In this paper, we employ and extend upon the notion of informational justice to develop a framework for explicating issues of justice relating to representation, participation, distribution of benefits and burdens, and credibility in the misinformation detection pipeline. Drawing on the framework: (1) we show how injustices materialize for stakeholders across three algorithmic stages in the pipeline; (2) we suggest empirical measures for assessing these injustices; and (3) we identify potential sources of these harms. This framework should help researchers, policymakers, and practitioners reason about potential harms or risks associated with these algorithms and provide conceptual guidance for the design of algorithmic fairness audits in this domain.

Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 81 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Apr 2022.

Builds on

20 of 81 references.

References · 20

  1. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,007
  2. 2018FEVER: a large-scale dataset for Fact Extraction and VERificationcited by 1,375
  3. 2020Language (Technology) is Power: A Critical Survey of "Bias" in NLPcited by 956
  4. 2021A Survey on Automated Fact-Checkingcited by 378
  5. 2019Bias in Bios: A Case Study of Semantic Representation Bias in a High-Stakes Settingcited by 349
  6. 2021Dealing with Disagreements: Looking Beyond the Majority Vote in Subjective Annotationscited by 314
  7. 2019Measurement and Fairnesscited by 308
  8. 2020Directions in Abusive Language Training Data: Garbage In, Garbage Outcited by 140
  9. 2020That is a Known Lie: Detecting Previously Fact-Checked Claimscited by 82
  10. 2020Fighting the COVID-19 Infodemic: Modeling the Perspective of Journalists, Fact-Checkers, Social Media Platforms, Policy Makers, and the Societycited by 72
  11. 2018Towards Automated Factchecking: Developing an Annotation Schema and Benchmark for Consistent Automated Claim Detectioncited by 55
  12. 2020Overview of CheckThat! 2020: Automatic Identification and Verification of Claims in Social Mediacited by 46
8 more
  1. 2018Fairness Under Compositioncited by 43
  2. 2020Diversity and Inclusion Metrics in Subset Selectioncited by 27
  3. 2021When Fair Ranking Meets Uncertain Inferencecited by 22
  4. 2021Hierarchical Multi-head Attentive Network for Evidence-aware Fake News Detectioncited by 17
  5. 2019FAKTA: An Automatic End-to-End Fact Checking Systemcited by 13
  6. 2021Diversity in Sociotechnical Machine Learning Systemscited by 13
  7. 2021Hate Speech Classifiers Learn Human-Like Social Stereotypescited by 12
  8. 2020RP-DNN: A Tweet level propagation context based deep neural networks for early rumor detection in Social Mediacited by 5

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2022: 4; 2023: 0; 2024: 3; 2025: 3.

10 papers.