{"id":979,"date":"2024-11-13T14:11:58","date_gmt":"2024-11-13T14:11:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/?page_id=979"},"modified":"2024-11-15T17:39:52","modified_gmt":"2024-11-15T17:39:52","slug":"how-human-analyzing-the-perceived-humanness-of-ai-generated-social-media-content-around-the-u-s-2024-presidential-debate","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/president2024\/section-6-digital-campaign\/how-human-analyzing-the-perceived-humanness-of-ai-generated-social-media-content-around-the-u-s-2024-presidential-debate\/","title":{"rendered":"Analyzing the perceived humanness of AI-generated social media content around the presidential debate"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

Dr. Tiago Ventura<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Assistant Professor of Computational Social Science at Georgetown, researching politics and social media, with focus on content propagation, misinformation, and political behavior.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

X\/Twitter: @_Tiagoventura
Email: tv186@georgetown.edu<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

Rebecca Ansell<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

M.S. Computer Science candidate and MDI Scholar at Georgetown, researching humanness and misinformation detection on social media during major political events.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Email: rja80@georgetown.edu <\/a><\/em><\/span><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

Dr. Sejin Paik<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Postdoctoral Fellow at Georgetown\u2019s Massive Data Institute, researching AI in Journalism, Political Psychology, Human-Centered AI, and Intelligent Social Systems for trustworthy AI development.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

X\/Twitter: @sejinpaik
Email: sp1822@georgetown.edu<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

Autumn Toney<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

PhD student in Computer Science at Georgetown and data scientist, researching NLP, domain-specific LLM applications, and bibliometrics in large text corpora.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Email: autumn.toney@georgetown.edu <\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

Prof. Leticia Bode<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Professor of Communication at Georgetown and Research Director for Knight-Georgetown Institute, studying communication technology\u2019s impact on information use, effects, and misinformation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

X\/Twitter: @leticiabode
Email: lb871@georgetown.edu<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

Prof. Lisa Singh<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sonneborn Chair, Professor of Computer Science and Public Policy, and Director at Georgetown\u2019s Massive Data Institute, with 100+ publications in data-centric computing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Email: los4@georgetown.edu <\/a><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

U.S. Election 2024<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

64. Reversion to the meme: A return to grassroots content<\/a> (Dr Jessica Baldwin-Philippi)
65. From platform politics to partisan platforms<\/a> (Prof Philip M. Napoli, Talia Goodman)
66. The fragmented social media landscape in the 2024 U.S. election<\/a> (Dr Michael A. Beam, Dr Myiah J. Hutchens, Dr Jay D. Hmielowski)
67. Outside organization advertising on Meta platforms: Coordination and duplicity<\/a> (Prof Jennifer Stromer-Galley)
68. Prejudice and priming in the online political sphere<\/a> (Prof Richard Perloff)
69. Perceptions of social media in the 2024 presidential election<\/a> (Dr Daniel Lane, Dr Prateekshit \u201cKanu\u201d Pandey)
70. Modeling public Facebook comments on the attempted assassination of President Trump<\/a> (Dr Justin Phillips, Prof Andrea Carson)
71. The memes of production: Grassroots-made digital content and the presidential campaign<\/a> (Dr Rosalynd Southern, Dr Caroline Leicht)
72. The gendered dynamics of presidential campaign tweets in 2024<\/a> (Prof Heather K. Evans, Dr Jennifer Hayes Clark)
73. Threads and TikTok adoption among 2024 congressional candidates in battleground states<\/a> (Prof Terri L. Towner, Prof Caroline Mu\u00f1oz)
74. Who would extraterrestrials side with if they were watching us on social media?<\/a> (Taewoo Kang, Prof Kjerstin Thorson)
75. AI and voter suppression in the 2024 election<\/a> (Prof Diana Owen)
76. News from AI: ChatGPT and political information<\/a> (Dr Caroline Leicht, Dr Peter Finn, Dr Lauren C. Bell, Dr Amy Tatum)
77. Analyzing the perceived humanness of AI-generated social media content around the presidential debate<\/a> (Dr Tiago Ventura, Rebecca Ansell, Dr Sejin Paik, Autumn Toney, Prof Leticia Bode, Prof Lisa Singh)<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n

While many raised concerns<\/a> about generative AI influencing elections in 2024, the impact on the United States 2024 elections was likely minimal<\/a>. However, how individuals perceive<\/em> the content they encounter online is currently unknown\u2013can the general public effectively identify AI-generated content?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We analyzed how people perceive election-related content they might encounter online, particularly when this content is generated by AI (without being labeled as such). We selected two widely-used public social media platforms in the U.S<\/a>. for news consumption<\/a>, X (formerly Twitter) and YouTube. We focused on content discussing the U.S. presidential debate that took place on September 10th, 2024, the only debate between the final presidential candidates from the two major American political parties. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The American public\u2019s perception of AI-generated content around the election is mixed, but leans toward caution. A 2024 Pew Research Report <\/a>showed that while use of generative AI chatbot tools like ChatGPT is on the rise, nearly 40% of Americans express low to no trust in election information from ChatGPT (even less when excluding those that haven\u2019t heard of the tools). Despite this general skepticism, incidents like the fabricated hurricane alerts<\/a> in October 2024 illustrate a paradox: even when aware of the potential for inaccuracy, people sometimes believe the AI-generated misinformation. This tension between skepticism and susceptibility suggests a need to further understand how effectively people can identify AI-generated content. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Method<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

To explore this dynamic, we recruited 504 online workers (via Connect) to annotate 7,500 pairwise comparisons of real content collected from X\/Twitter and YouTube and content generated from GPT-4o (OpenAI\u2019s current, freely available model) discussing the 2024 U.S. Presidential Debate. We collected real posts from X\/Twitter (mentioning #DebateNight and #Debate2024) and real YouTube comments from 10 debate recap videos. Then, we instructed GPT-4o to generate similar posts in the voice of five different political personas (e.g., a liberal commentator with a left-leaning political stance in the U.S.) based on the debate transcript. To build the content pairs for annotation, we sampled 250 posts from the platforms, with an equal split between X\/Twitter and YouTube, and 500 posts from the generated data, with an equal split between the platforms and the personas. Holding the platform constant, each post was randomly paired with another 10 posts, generating a total of 7,500 pairs. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Using the Bradley-Terry scaling statistical model to measure latent \u201cability\u201d from pairwise contests, we estimated a perceived humanness score, normalized from -1 to 1, where scores closer to -1 indicated stronger perceptions of human origin and closer to 1 suggested AI generation. This approach for scaling human perceptions based on pairwise contexts has been widely used in other social science tasks, such as measuring the persuasiveness of arguments<\/a>, ideological scaling of politicians<\/a>, and textual complexity<\/a>. This method provides a nuanced understanding of how individuals perceive the authenticity of election-related content online.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Results and discussion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

We present the density distribution of the humanness scores, separated by platform and the source of the text, in Figure 1. Our most critical finding indicates that participants could generally distinguish between human-authored versus AI-generated content on both X\/Twitter and YouTube. However, the platform context appears to significantly influence this ability.  The separation between human and AI content was more blurred for YouTube than X\/Twitter. One potential explanation is the inherent difference in content type: Youtube features comments that respond to videos, while X\/Twitter focuses on original posts. This distinction may shape how users perceive content, as comments on Youtube often adopt a more informal, verbose and free-form writing style (See Table 1 for the differences in average length of posts). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Comparative Density Distribution of Humanness Scores Across Platforms[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"
Descriptive Statistics of Word Counts Across Platforms and Authors<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Next, we examine the effects of semantic and emotional features, classified with the TweetEval<\/a> pre-trained model, on human perceptions. TweetEval\u2019s emotion detection is trained using the affect of tweets that corresponds to human experience. Figure 2 presents the marginal effects of these features using a linear mixed model regressing the humanness scores on these textual features. Content exhibiting positive sentiment was more frequently perceived as AI-authored, while content containing negative sentiment was more likely to be perceived as human.  Offensive language also served as an indicator of human authorship, while irony and hateful speech were less distinguishing features. Strong emotional markers like \u201cjoy\u201d were indications of humanness, while \u201csadness\u201d was linked to AI-authored content. These patterns suggest that humans may use text tone, civility, and emotion to identify AI-generated content. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Pooled Marginal Effects of Associated Sentiment and Emotion in Text on Perceived Humanness Scores[2]<\/sup><\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Our results indicate that humans can generally differentiate between AI-generated and human-authored content, particularly by relying on tone, civility, and emotion markers. Negative sentiment, offensive language, and \u201cjoy\u201d tended to be associated with human authorship, while positive sentiment and \u201csadness\u201d were associated with AI-generated content. This suggests that public concerns about AI\u2019s ability to fully replicate human nuances in text might be somewhat overblown, at least with the current generation of tools available.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/sup><\/a> Note: The density plots reveal how participants perceived the humanness of real and AI-generated posts on X and YouTube. Each plot shows two distributions: one for real content and one for AI-generated content. The x-axis represents a \u201chumanness score\u201d ranging from -1 to 1, where scores closer to -1 indicate stronger perceptions of human origin, and scores closer to 1 indicate stronger perceptions of AI generation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2]<\/sup><\/a> Note: Point-Estimates Presented with 90% and 95% Confidence Intervals. To estimate the marginal effects, we use a linear mixed-effects model using a random intercept for the platforms (Twitter\/X and YouTube).  We classified the sentiment and emotions in the text using TweetEval Pre-Trained Model (TweetEval<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Dr. Tiago Ventura Assistant Professor of Computational Social Science at Georgetown, researching politics and social media, with focus on content propagation, misinformation, and political behavior. X\/Twitter: @_TiagoventuraEmail: tv186@georgetown.edu Rebecca Ansell M.S. Computer Science candidate and MDI Scholar at Georgetown, researching humanness and misinformation detection on social media during major political events. Email: rja80@georgetown.edu Dr. Sejin Paik […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"parent":1017,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-979","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\nAnalyzing the perceived humanness of AI-generated social media content around the presidential debate - Election Analysis - United States<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/president2024\/section-6-digital-campaign\/how-human-analyzing-the-perceived-humanness-of-ai-generated-social-media-content-around-the-u-s-2024-presidential-debate\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Analyzing the perceived humanness of AI-generated social media content around the presidential debate - Election Analysis - United States\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Dr. Tiago Ventura Assistant Professor of Computational Social Science at Georgetown, researching politics and social media, with focus on content propagation, misinformation, and political behavior. X\/Twitter: @_TiagoventuraEmail: tv186@georgetown.edu Rebecca Ansell M.S. Computer Science candidate and MDI Scholar at Georgetown, researching humanness and misinformation detection on social media during major political events. Email: rja80@georgetown.edu Dr. Sejin Paik […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/president2024\/section-6-digital-campaign\/how-human-analyzing-the-perceived-humanness-of-ai-generated-social-media-content-around-the-u-s-2024-presidential-debate\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Election Analysis - United States\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-11-15T17:39:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2024\/11\/Ventura.png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/president2024\/section-6-digital-campaign\/how-human-analyzing-the-perceived-humanness-of-ai-generated-social-media-content-around-the-u-s-2024-presidential-debate\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/president2024\/section-6-digital-campaign\/how-human-analyzing-the-perceived-humanness-of-ai-generated-social-media-content-around-the-u-s-2024-presidential-debate\/\",\"name\":\"Analyzing the perceived humanness of AI-generated social media content around the presidential debate - Election Analysis - United States\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/president2024\/section-6-digital-campaign\/how-human-analyzing-the-perceived-humanness-of-ai-generated-social-media-content-around-the-u-s-2024-presidential-debate\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/president2024\/section-6-digital-campaign\/how-human-analyzing-the-perceived-humanness-of-ai-generated-social-media-content-around-the-u-s-2024-presidential-debate\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2024\/11\/Ventura.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-11-13T14:11:58+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-11-15T17:39:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/president2024\/section-6-digital-campaign\/how-human-analyzing-the-perceived-humanness-of-ai-generated-social-media-content-around-the-u-s-2024-presidential-debate\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/president2024\/section-6-digital-campaign\/how-human-analyzing-the-perceived-humanness-of-ai-generated-social-media-content-around-the-u-s-2024-presidential-debate\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/president2024\/section-6-digital-campaign\/how-human-analyzing-the-perceived-humanness-of-ai-generated-social-media-content-around-the-u-s-2024-presidential-debate\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2024\/11\/Ventura.png?fit=1150%2C1150&ssl=1\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2024\/11\/Ventura.png?fit=1150%2C1150&ssl=1\",\"width\":1150,\"height\":1150},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/president2024\/section-6-digital-campaign\/how-human-analyzing-the-perceived-humanness-of-ai-generated-social-media-content-around-the-u-s-2024-presidential-debate\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"U.S. Election Analysis 2024\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Section 6: Digital campaign\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/president2024\/section-6-digital-campaign\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":4,\"name\":\"Analyzing the perceived humanness of AI-generated social media content around the presidential debate\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/\",\"name\":\"Election Analysis - United States\",\"description\":\"Election Analysis reports from the U.S. Presidential Elections\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Analyzing the perceived humanness of AI-generated social media content around the presidential debate - Election Analysis - United States","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/president2024\/section-6-digital-campaign\/how-human-analyzing-the-perceived-humanness-of-ai-generated-social-media-content-around-the-u-s-2024-presidential-debate\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Analyzing the perceived humanness of AI-generated social media content around the presidential debate - Election Analysis - United States","og_description":"Dr. Tiago Ventura Assistant Professor of Computational Social Science at Georgetown, researching politics and social media, with focus on content propagation, misinformation, and political behavior. X\/Twitter: @_TiagoventuraEmail: tv186@georgetown.edu Rebecca Ansell M.S. Computer Science candidate and MDI Scholar at Georgetown, researching humanness and misinformation detection on social media during major political events. Email: rja80@georgetown.edu Dr. Sejin Paik […]","og_url":"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/president2024\/section-6-digital-campaign\/how-human-analyzing-the-perceived-humanness-of-ai-generated-social-media-content-around-the-u-s-2024-presidential-debate\/","og_site_name":"Election Analysis - United States","article_modified_time":"2024-11-15T17:39:52+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2024\/11\/Ventura.png","type":"","width":"","height":""}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/president2024\/section-6-digital-campaign\/how-human-analyzing-the-perceived-humanness-of-ai-generated-social-media-content-around-the-u-s-2024-presidential-debate\/","url":"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/president2024\/section-6-digital-campaign\/how-human-analyzing-the-perceived-humanness-of-ai-generated-social-media-content-around-the-u-s-2024-presidential-debate\/","name":"Analyzing the perceived humanness of AI-generated social media content around the presidential debate - Election Analysis - United States","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/president2024\/section-6-digital-campaign\/how-human-analyzing-the-perceived-humanness-of-ai-generated-social-media-content-around-the-u-s-2024-presidential-debate\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/president2024\/section-6-digital-campaign\/how-human-analyzing-the-perceived-humanness-of-ai-generated-social-media-content-around-the-u-s-2024-presidential-debate\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2024\/11\/Ventura.png","datePublished":"2024-11-13T14:11:58+00:00","dateModified":"2024-11-15T17:39:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/president2024\/section-6-digital-campaign\/how-human-analyzing-the-perceived-humanness-of-ai-generated-social-media-content-around-the-u-s-2024-presidential-debate\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/president2024\/section-6-digital-campaign\/how-human-analyzing-the-perceived-humanness-of-ai-generated-social-media-content-around-the-u-s-2024-presidential-debate\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/president2024\/section-6-digital-campaign\/how-human-analyzing-the-perceived-humanness-of-ai-generated-social-media-content-around-the-u-s-2024-presidential-debate\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2024\/11\/Ventura.png?fit=1150%2C1150&ssl=1","contentUrl":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2024\/11\/Ventura.png?fit=1150%2C1150&ssl=1","width":1150,"height":1150},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/president2024\/section-6-digital-campaign\/how-human-analyzing-the-perceived-humanness-of-ai-generated-social-media-content-around-the-u-s-2024-presidential-debate\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"U.S. Election Analysis 2024","item":"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Section 6: Digital campaign","item":"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/president2024\/section-6-digital-campaign\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":4,"name":"Analyzing the perceived humanness of AI-generated social media content around the presidential debate"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/","name":"Election Analysis - United States","description":"Election Analysis reports from the U.S. Presidential Elections","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"}]}},"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/979","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=979"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/979\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1179,"href":"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/979\/revisions\/1179"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1017"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.electionanalysis.ws\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=979"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}