Why People Share Social Media Screenshots

Tarannum Zaki; Michael L. Nelson; Michele C. Weigle

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2608.27539

Why People Share Social Media Screenshots

Tarannum Zaki·Michael L. Nelson·Michele C. Weigle

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Posting screenshots of social media posts is a common way of increasing platform functionality, enabling inter-platform interoperability, and gives users more control over how content is presented and interpreted. While these are legitimate purposes, screenshot sharing is also used in ways that can remove context, hide the original source, or mislead audiences. We examine the motivations behind sharing screenshots of social media posts on social media platforms like Twitter/X, Instagram, and Facebook. By focusing on user motivations, our study contributes to understanding how screenshot practices shape the sharing and interpretation of information in online spaces.

Explore related subjects

cs.SI

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Tarannum Zaki, Michael L. Nelson, Michele C. Weigle. 2026-08-27. Why People Share Social Media Screenshots. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.27539

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

cs.SI subject

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related discoveries

arXiv2026

Algorithmic Simplification for Million-Vertex Diffusion History Reconstruction

Diffusion history reconstruction infers latent node states between sparse observations of SI or SIR processes. HERMES combines parameter fitting, a learned graph-neural proposal, and feasibility-aware Markov chain Monte Carlo. We remove these stages one at a time and evaluate each version on all 12 canonical datasets. The final method uses deterministic mean-field forward-backward inference, threshold decoding, and fixed rates. This fixed-rate variant, Battus-Z, achieves mean macro-F1 of 0.8726 and NRMSE of 0.1010, compared with published HERMES aggregates of 0.8692 and 0.1483. The benchmark pins the final observed frame before scoring, so we also exclude all observed frames. Under this metric, Battus-Z obtains macro-F1 0.8431 and NRMSE 0.1181. Thus, the learned proposal, MCMC, and fitting stages can be removed while retaining the published aggregate quality on the evaluated HERMES benchmark and scoring protocol. A CUDA implementation processes generated histories with up to 4.84M vertices on LiveJournal and 117M edges on Orkut. On the same CUDA backend, Battus-Z reduces the geometric-mean algorithm interval relative to fitted Battus by 5.1x for SI and 20.3x for SIR. Its event-weighted causal-violation rates are 7.50% for SI and 8.77% for SIR; graph-constrained decoding remains future work.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2026

Convergence and acceleration of a nonlinear fixed-point iteration for computing the Fitness Centrality of general graphs

We establish the global convergence of the (non-homogeneous) Fitness Centrality algorithm for general graphs, deriving an explicit convergence bound for the corresponding fixed-point iteration. Furthermore, we show how the convergence can be dramatically improved by Anderson acceleration and by switching to Newton's method once a sufficiently good approximation to the fixed point has been found. The efficacy of this strategy is illustrated by numerical experiments on different types of graphs.

math.NA↗

arXiv2026

Are Widely Known Findings Easier to Retract?

Failures of retraction are common in science. Why do they occur? And what determines whether a retraction is successful? We use data from citation records and Altmetrics to test proposed answers to these questions. LaCroix et al. employ network models to argue the social spread of information helps explain failures of retraction. One prediction is that widely known results, surprisingly, should be easier to retract, since their retraction is more relevant. Our results support this conclusion. We find highly cited papers show more significant reductions in citation after retraction and garner more attention to their retractions as they occur.

cs.DL↗