From prosthetic memory to prosthetic denial: Auditing whether large language models are prone to mass atrocity denialism

The proliferation of large language models (LLMs) can influence how historical narratives are disseminated and perceived. This study explores the implications of LLMs' responses on the representation of mass atrocity memory, examining whether generative AI systems contribute to prosthetic memory, i.e., mediated experiences of historical events, or to what we term "prosthetic denial," the AI-mediated erasure or distortion of atrocity memories. We argue that LLMs function as interfaces that can elicit prosthetic memories and, therefore, act as experiential sites for memory transmission, but also introduce risks of denialism, particularly when their outputs align with contested or revisionist narratives. To empirically assess these risks, we conducted a comparative audit of five LLMs (Claude, GPT, Llama, Mixtral, and Gemini) across four historical case studies: the Holodomor, the Holocaust, the Cambodian Genocide, and the genocide against the Tutsis in Rwanda. Each model was prompted with questions addressing common denialist claims in English and an alternative language relevant to each case (Ukrainian, German, Khmer, and French). Our findings reveal that while LLMs generally produce accurate responses for widely documented events like the Holocaust, significant inconsistencies and susceptibility to denialist framings are observed for more underrepresented cases like the Cambodian Genocide. The disparities highlight the influence of training data availability and the probabilistic nature of LLM responses on memory integrity. We conclude that while LLMs extend the concept of prosthetic memory, their unmoderated use risks reinforcing historical denialism, raising ethical concerns for (digital) memory preservation, and potentially challenging the advantageous role of technology associated with the original values of prosthetic memory.

Fact-checking with Generative AI: A Systematic Cross-Topic Examination of LLMs Capacity to Detect Veracity of Political Information

The purpose of this study is to assess how large language models (LLMs) can be used for fact-checking and contribute to the broader debate on the use of automated means for veracity identification. To achieve this purpose, we use AI auditing methodology that systematically evaluates performance of five LLMs (ChatGPT 4, Llama 3 (70B), Llama 3.1 (405B), Claude 3.5 Sonnet, and Google Gemini) using prompts regarding a large set of statements fact-checked by professional journalists (16,513). Specifically, we use topic modeling and regression analysis to investigate which factors (e.g. topic of the prompt or the LLM type) affect evaluations of true, false, and mixed statements. Our findings reveal that while ChatGPT 4 and Google Gemini achieved higher accuracy than other models, overall performance across models remains modest. Notably, the results indicate that models are better at identifying false statements, especially on sensitive topics such as COVID-19, American political controversies, and social issues, suggesting possible guardrails that may enhance accuracy on these topics. The major implication of our findings is that there are significant challenges for using LLMs for factchecking, including significant variation in performance across different LLMs and unequal quality of outputs for specific topics which can be attributed to deficits of training data. Our research highlights the potential and limitations of LLMs in political fact-checking, suggesting potential avenues for further improvements in guardrails as well as fine-tuning.

Search engines in polarized media environment: Auditing political information curation on Google and Bing prior to 2024 US elections

Search engines play an important role in the context of modern elections. By curating information in response to user queries, search engines influence how individuals are informed about election-related developments and perceive the media environment in which elections take place. It has particular implications for (perceived) polarization, especially if search engines' curation results in a skewed treatment of information sources based on their political leaning. Until now, however, it is unclear whether such a partisan gap emerges through information curation on search engines and what user- and system-side factors affect it. To address this shortcoming, we audit the two largest Western search engines, Google and Bing, prior to the 2024 US presidential elections and examine how these search engines' organic search results and additional interface elements represent election-related information depending on the queries' slant, user location, and time when the search was conducted. Our findings indicate that both search engines tend to prioritize left-leaning media sources, with the exact scope of search results' ideological slant varying between Democrat- and Republican-focused queries. We also observe limited effects of location- and time-based factors on organic search results, whereas results for additional interface elements were more volatile over time and specific US states. Together, our observations highlight that search engines' information curation actively mirrors the partisan divides present in the US media environments and has the potential to contribute to (perceived) polarization within these environments.

Finding frames with BERT: A transformer-based approach to generic news frame detection

Framing is among the most extensively used concepts in the field of communication science. The availability of digital data offers new possibilities for studying how specific aspects of social reality are made more salient in online communication but also raises challenges related to the scaling of framing analysis and its adoption to new research areas (e.g. studying the impact of artificial intelligence-powered systems on representation of societally relevant issues). To address these challenges, we introduce a transformer-based approach for generic news frame detection in Anglophone online content. While doing so, we discuss the composition of the training and test datasets, the model architecture, and the validation of the approach and reflect on the possibilities and limitations of the automated detection of generic news frames.

Algorithmically Curated Lies: How Search Engines Handle Misinformation about US Biolabs in Ukraine

The growing volume of online content prompts the need for adopting algorithmic systems of information curation. These systems range from web search engines to recommender systems and are integral for helping users stay informed about important societal developments. However, unlike journalistic editing the algorithmic information curation systems (AICSs) are known to be subject to different forms of malperformance which make them vulnerable to possible manipulation. The risk of manipulation is particularly prominent in the case when AICSs have to deal with information about false claims that underpin propaganda campaigns of authoritarian regimes. Using as a case study of the Russian disinformation campaign concerning the US biolabs in Ukraine, we investigate how one of the most commonly used forms of AICSs - i.e. web search engines - curate misinformation-related content. For this aim, we conduct virtual agent-based algorithm audits of Google, Bing, and Yandex search outputs in June 2022. Our findings highlight the troubling performance of search engines. Even though some search engines, like Google, were less likely to return misinformation results, across all languages and locations, the three search engines still mentioned or promoted a considerable share of false content (33% on Google; 44% on Bing, and 70% on Yandex). We also find significant disparities in misinformation exposure based on the language of search, with all search engines presenting a higher number of false stories in Russian. Location matters as well with users from Germany being more likely to be exposed to search results promoting false information. These observations stress the possibility of AICSs being vulnerable to manipulation, in particular in the case of the unfolding propaganda campaigns, and underline the importance of monitoring performance of these systems to prevent it.

In Generative AI we Trust: Can Chatbots Effectively Verify Political Information?

This article presents a comparative analysis of the ability of two large language model (LLM)-based chatbots, ChatGPT and Bing Chat, recently rebranded to Microsoft Copilot, to detect veracity of political information. We use AI auditing methodology to investigate how chatbots evaluate true, false, and borderline statements on five topics: COVID-19, Russian aggression against Ukraine, the Holocaust, climate change, and LGBTQ+ related debates. We compare how the chatbots perform in high- and low-resource languages by using prompts in English, Russian, and Ukrainian. Furthermore, we explore the ability of chatbots to evaluate statements according to political communication concepts of disinformation, misinformation, and conspiracy theory, using definition-oriented prompts. We also systematically test how such evaluations are influenced by source bias which we model by attributing specific claims to various political and social actors. The results show high performance of ChatGPT for the baseline veracity evaluation task, with 72 percent of the cases evaluated correctly on average across languages without pre-training. Bing Chat performed worse with a 67 percent accuracy. We observe significant disparities in how chatbots evaluate prompts in high- and low-resource languages and how they adapt their evaluations to political communication concepts with ChatGPT providing more nuanced outputs than Bing Chat. Finally, we find that for some veracity detection-related tasks, the performance of chatbots varied depending on the topic of the statement or the source to which it is attributed. These findings highlight the potential of LLM-based chatbots in tackling different forms of false information in online environments, but also points to the substantial variation in terms of how such potential is realized due to specific factors, such as language of the prompt or the topic.

Novelty in news search: a longitudinal study of the 2020 US elections

The 2020 US elections news coverage was extensive, with new pieces of information generated rapidly. This evolving scenario presented an opportunity to study the performance of search engines in a context in which they had to quickly process information as it was published. We analyze novelty, a measurement of new items that emerge in the top news search results, to compare the coverage and visibility of different topics. We conduct a longitudinal study of news results of five search engines collected in short-bursts (every 21 minutes) from two regions (Oregon, US and Frankfurt, Germany), starting on election day and lasting until one day after the announcement of Biden as the winner. We find more new items emerging for election related queries ("joe biden", "donald trump" and "us elections") compared to topical (e.g., "coronavirus") or stable (e.g., "holocaust") queries. We demonstrate differences across search engines and regions over time, and we highlight imbalances between candidate queries. When it comes to news search, search engines are responsible for such imbalances, either due to their algorithms or the set of news sources they rely on. We argue that such imbalances affect the visibility of political candidates in news searches during electoral periods.

This is what a pandemic looks like: Visual framing of COVID-19 on search engines

In today's high-choice media environment, search engines play an integral role in informing individuals and societies about the latest events. The importance of search algorithms is even higher at the time of crisis, when users search for information to understand the causes and the consequences of the current situation and decide on their course of action. In our paper, we conduct a comparative audit of how different search engines prioritize visual information related to COVID-19 and what consequences it has for the representation of the pandemic. Using a virtual agent-based audit approach, we examine image search results for the term "coronavirus" in English, Russian and Chinese on five major search engines: Google, Yandex, Bing, Yahoo, and DuckDuckGo. Specifically, we focus on how image search results relate to generic news frames (e.g., the attribution of responsibility, human interest, and economics) used in relation to COVID-19 and how their visual composition varies between the search engines.

Panning for gold: Lessons learned from the platform-agnostic automated detection of political content in textual data

The growing availability of data about online information behaviour enables new possibilities for political communication research. However, the volume and variety of these data makes them difficult to analyse and prompts the need for developing automated content approaches relying on a broad range of natural language processing techniques (e.g. machine learning- or neural network-based ones). In this paper, we discuss how these techniques can be used to detect political content across different platforms. Using three validation datasets, which include a variety of political and non-political textual documents from online platforms, we systematically compare the performance of three groups of detection techniques relying on dictionaries, supervised machine learning, or neural networks. We also examine the impact of different modes of data preprocessing (e.g. stemming and stopword removal) on the low-cost implementations of these techniques using a large set (n = 66) of detection models. Our results show the limited impact of preprocessing on model performance, with the best results for less noisy data being achieved by neural network- and machine-learning-based models, in contrast to the more robust performance of dictionary-based models on noisy data.

Where the Earth is flat and 9/11 is an inside job: A comparative algorithm audit of conspiratorial information in web search results

Web search engines are important online information intermediaries that are frequently used and highly trusted by the public despite multiple evidence of their outputs being subjected to inaccuracies and biases. One form of such inaccuracy, which so far received little scholarly attention, is the presence of conspiratorial information, namely pages promoting conspiracy theories. We address this gap by conducting a comparative algorithm audit to examine the distribution of conspiratorial information in search results across five search engines: Google, Bing, DuckDuckGo, Yahoo and Yandex. Using a virtual agent-based infrastructure, we systematically collect search outputs for six conspiracy theory-related queries (flat earth, new world order, qanon, 9/11, illuminati, george soros) across three locations (two in the US and one in the UK) and two observation periods (March and May 2021). We find that all search engines except Google consistently displayed conspiracy-promoting results and returned links to conspiracy-dedicated websites in their top results, although the share of such content varied across queries. Most conspiracy-promoting results came from social media and conspiracy-dedicated websites while conspiracy-debunking information was shared by scientific websites and, to a lesser extent, legacy media. The fact that these observations are consistent across different locations and time periods highlight the possibility of some search engines systematically prioritizing conspiracy-promoting content and, thus, amplifying their distribution in the online environments.