How much time do people spend on social media? As of 2025, the average daily social media usage of internet users worldwide amounted to 141 minutes per day, down from 143 minutes in the previous year. Currently, the country with the most time spent on social media per day is Brazil, with online users spending an average of 3 hours and 49 minutes on social media each day. In comparison, the daily time spent with social media in the U.S. was just 2 hours and 16 minutes. Global social media usageCurrently, the global social network penetration rate is 62.3 percent. Northern Europe had an 81.7 percent social media penetration rate, topping the ranking of global social media usage by region. Eastern and Middle Africa closed the ranking with 10.1 and 9.6 percent usage reach, respectively. People access social media for a variety of reasons. Users like to find funny or entertaining content and enjoy sharing photos and videos with friends, but mainly use social media to stay in touch with current events friends. Global impact of social mediaSocial media has a wide-reaching and significant impact on not only online activities but also offline behavior and life in general. During a global online user survey in February 2019, a significant share of respondents stated that social media had increased their access to information, ease of communication, and freedom of expression. On the flip side, respondents also felt that social media had worsened their personal privacy, increased a polarization in politics and heightened everyday distractions.

How many people use social media?

              Social media usage is one of the most popular online activities. In 2024, over five billion people were using social media worldwide, a number projected to increase to over six billion in 2028.

              Who uses social media?
              Social networking is one of the most popular digital activities worldwide and it is no surprise that social networking penetration across all regions is constantly increasing. As of January 2023, the global social media usage rate stood at 59 percent. This figure is anticipated to grow as lesser developed digital markets catch up with other regions
              when it comes to infrastructure development and the availability of cheap mobile devices. In fact, most of social media’s global growth is driven by the increasing usage of mobile devices. Mobile-first market Eastern Asia topped the global ranking of mobile social networking penetration, followed by established digital powerhouses such as the Americas and Northern Europe.

              How much time do people spend on social media?
              Social media is an integral part of daily internet usage. On average, internet users spend 151 minutes per day on social media and messaging apps, an increase of 40 minutes since 2015. On average, internet users in Latin America had the highest average time spent per day on social media.

              What are the most popular social media platforms?
              Market leader Facebook was the first social network to surpass one billion registered accounts and currently boasts approximately 2.9 billion monthly active users, making it the most popular social network worldwide. In June 2023, the top social media apps in the Apple App Store included mobile messaging apps WhatsApp and Telegram Messenger, as well as the ever-popular app version of Facebook.

The dataset is the processed dataset that is used as input files for the Mplus models (but then in .csv instead of .dat format). The materials used, including the R and Mplus syntaxes (https://osf.io/hsjur/) and the preregistration of the current study (https://osf.io/f2sc7) can be found on OSF. For more information, please contact the authors.

During a 2024 survey, 77 percent of respondents from Nigeria stated that they used social media as a source of news. In comparison, just 23 percent of Japanese respondents said the same. Large portions of social media users around the world admit that they do not trust social platforms either as media sources or as a way to get news, and yet they continue to access such networks on a daily basis.

              Social media: trust and consumption

              Despite the majority of adults surveyed in each country reporting that they used social networks to keep up to date with news and current affairs, a 2018 study showed that social media is the least trusted news source in the world. Less than 35 percent of adults in Europe considered social networks to be trustworthy in this respect, yet more than 50 percent of adults in Portugal, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Slovakia and Croatia said that they got their news on social media.

              What is clear is that we live in an era where social media is such an enormous part of daily life that consumers will still use it in spite of their doubts or reservations. Concerns about fake news and propaganda on social media have not stopped billions of users accessing their favorite networks on a daily basis.
              Most Millennials in the United States use social media for news every day, and younger consumers in European countries are much more likely to use social networks for national political news than their older peers.
              Like it or not, reading news on social is fast becoming the norm for younger generations, and this form of news consumption will likely increase further regardless of whether consumers fully trust their chosen network or not.

The global social media penetration rate in was forecast to continuously increase between 2024 and 2028 by in total 11.6 (+18.19 percent). After the ninth consecutive increasing year, the penetration rate is estimated to reach 75.31 and therefore a new peak in 2028. Notably, the social media penetration rate of was continuously increasing over the past years.

This dataset contains simulated data for social media users' demographics, behaviors, and perceptions related to political content. It includes features such as age, gender, education level, occupation, social media usage frequency, exposure to political content, and perceptions of accuracy and relevance.

the features included in the "Social Media Political Content Analysis Dataset":

1. Age: Age of the user.
2. Gender: Gender identity of the user.
3. Education Level: Highest level of education attained by the user.
4. Occupation: Current occupation of the user.
5. Political Affiliation: Political leaning or affiliation of the user (e.g., Liberal, Conservative, Independent).
6. Geographic Location: Country or region where the user is located (e.g., USA, UK, Canada, Australia).
7. Social Media Usage Frequency: Frequency of social media usage by the user (e.g., 0-1 hour, 1-2 hours, 2-4 hours, 4+ hours).
8. Preferred Social Media: Social media platform preferred by the user (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Instagram).
9. Political Content Exposure: Frequency of exposure to political content on social media (e.g., Once a day, Few times a week, Rarely, Several times a day).
10. Types of Political Content: Types of political content consumed by the user (e.g., News articles, Opinion pieces, Memes).
11. Sources of Political Content: Sources from which the user obtains political content (e.g., Mainstream media, Political parties, Independent bloggers).
12. Recency of Exposure: Recency of the user's exposure to political content (e.g., Within the last hour, Within the last 24 hours, Within the last week, Longer than a week ago).
13. Interactions Frequency: Frequency of user interactions with political content on social media (e.g., Once a day, Few times a week, Rarely, Several times a day).
14. Political Content Topics: Topics of political content that interest the user (e.g., Economy, Healthcare, Immigration, Environment).
15. Perception of Accuracy: User's perception of the accuracy of political content on social media (e.g., Very accurate, Somewhat accurate, Not accurate).
16. Awareness of Algorithms: Whether the user is aware of algorithms that determine their social media feed (e.g., Yes, No).
17. Perception of Relevance: User's perception of the relevance of political content on social media (e.g., Very relevant, Somewhat relevant, Not relevant).
18. Personal Impact: User's perception of the personal impact of political content on social media (e.g., Strong impact, Moderate impact, No impact).
19. Trust in Social Media: User's level of trust in social media as a source of political information (e.g., Trust a lot, Trust somewhat, Do not trust).
20. Concerns about Algorithms: User's level of concern about algorithms shaping their social media experience (e.g., Very concerned, Somewhat concerned, Not concerned).
21. Overall Quality of Discourse: User's perception of the overall quality of political discourse on social media (e.g., High quality, Moderate quality, Low quality).
22. Views on Influence: User's perception of the influence of political content on social media (e.g., Very influential, Somewhat influential, Not influential).
23. Suggestions for Improvement: User's suggestions for improving the quality or experience of political content on social media (e.g., Increase transparency, Provide more diverse sources, Improve fact-checking, Enhance user controls).

As of April 2024, around 16.5 percent of global active Instagram users were men between the ages of 18 and 24 years. More than half of the global Instagram population worldwide was aged 34 years or younger.

              Teens and social media

              As one of the biggest social networks worldwide, Instagram is especially popular with teenagers. As of fall 2020, the photo-sharing app ranked third in terms of preferred social network among teenagers in the United States, second to Snapchat and TikTok. Instagram was one of the most influential advertising channels among female Gen Z users when making purchasing decisions. Teens report feeling more confident, popular, and better about themselves when using social media, and less lonely, depressed and anxious.
              Social media can have negative effects on teens, which is also much more pronounced on those with low emotional well-being. It was found that 35 percent of teenagers with low social-emotional well-being reported to have experienced cyber bullying when using social media, while in comparison only five percent of teenagers with high social-emotional well-being stated the same. As such, social media can have a big impact on already fragile states of mind.

Daily interactions naturally define social circles. Individuals tend to be friends with the people they spend time with and they choose to spend time with their friends, inextricably entangling physical location and social relationships. As a result, it is possible to predict not only someone’s location from their friends’ locations but also friendship from spatial and temporal co-occurrence. While several models have been developed to separately describe mobility and the evolution of social networks, there is a lack of studies coupling social interactions and mobility. In this work, we introduce a model that bridges this gap by explicitly considering the feedback of mobility on the formation of social ties. Data coming from three online social networks (Twitter, Gowalla and Brightkite) is used for validation. Our model reproduces various topological and physical properties of the networks not captured by models uncoupling mobility and social interactions such as: i) the total size of the connected components, ii) the distance distribution between connected users, iii) the dependence of the reciprocity on the distance, iv) the variation of the social overlap and the clustering with the distance. Besides numerical simulations, a mean-field approach is also used to study analytically the main statistical features of the networks generated by a simplified version of our model. The robustness of the results to changes in the model parameters is explored, finding that a balance between friend visits and long-range random connections is essential to reproduce the geographical features of the empirical networks.

Preprint

Abstract

The World Wide Web is a complex interconnected digital ecosystem, where information and attention flow between platforms and communities throughout the globe. These interactions co-construct how we understand the world, reflecting and shaping public discourse. Unfortunately, researchers often struggle to understand how information circulates and evolves across the web because platform-specific data is often siloed and restricted by linguistic barriers. To address this gap, we present a comprehensive, multilingual dataset capturing all Wikipedia links shared in posts and comments on Reddit from 2020 to 2023, excluding those from private and NSFW subreddits. Each linked Wikipedia article is enriched with revision history, page view data, article ID, redirects, and Wikidata identifiers. Through a research agreement with Reddit, our dataset ensures user privacy while providing a query and ID mechanism that integrates with the Reddit and Wikipedia APIs. This enables extended analyses for researchers studying how information flows across platforms. For example, Reddit discussions use Wikipedia for deliberation and fact-checking which subsequently influences Wikipedia content, by driving traffic to articles or inspiring edits. By analyzing the relationship between information shared and discussed on these platforms, our dataset provides a foundation for examining the interplay between social media discourse and collaborative knowledge consumption and production.

Datasheet

Motivation

The motivations for this dataset stem from the challenges researchers face in studying the flow of information across the web. While the World Wide Web enables global communication and collaboration, data silos, linguistic barriers, and platform-specific restrictions hinder our ability to understand how information circulates, evolves, and impacts public discourse. Wikipedia and Reddit, as major hubs of knowledge sharing and discussion, offer an invaluable lens into these processes. However, without comprehensive data capturing their interactions, researchers are unable to fully examine how platforms co-construct knowledge. This dataset bridges this gap, providing the tools needed to study the interconnectedness of social media and collaborative knowledge systems.

Composition

WikiReddit, a comprehensive dataset capturing all Wikipedia mentions (including links) shared in posts and comments on Reddit from 2020 to 2023, excluding those from private and NSFW (not safe for work) subreddits. The SQL database comprises 336K total posts, 10.2M comments, 1.95M unique links, and 1.26M unique articles spanning 59 languages on Reddit and 276 Wikipedia language subdomains. Each linked Wikipedia article is enriched with its revision history and page view data within a ±10-day window of its posting, as well as article ID, redirects, and Wikidata identifiers. Supplementary anonymous metadata from Reddit posts and comments further contextualizes the links, offering a robust resource for analysing cross-platform information flows, collective attention dynamics, and the role of Wikipedia in online discourse.

Collection Process

Data was collected from the Reddit4Researchers and Wikipedia APIs. No personally identifiable information is published in the dataset. Data from Reddit to Wikipedia is linked via the hyperlink and article titles appearing in Reddit posts.

Preprocessing/cleaning/labeling

Extensive processing with tools such as regex was applied to the Reddit post/comment text to extract the Wikipedia URLs. Redirects for Wikipedia URLs and article titles were found through the API and mapped to the collected data. Reddit IDs are hashed with SHA-256 for post/comment/user/subreddit anonymity.

Uses

We foresee several applications of this dataset and preview four here. First, Reddit linking data can be used to understand how attention is driven from one platform to another. Second, Reddit linking data can shed light on how Wikipedia's archive of knowledge is used in the larger social web. Third, our dataset could provide insights into how external attention is topically distributed across Wikipedia. Our dataset can help extend that analysis into the disparities in what types of external communities Wikipedia is used in, and how it is used. Fourth, relatedly, a topic analysis of our dataset could reveal how Wikipedia usage on Reddit contributes to societal benefits and harms. Our dataset could help examine if homogeneity within the Reddit and Wikipedia audiences shapes topic patterns and assess whether these relationships mitigate or amplify problematic engagement online.

Distribution

The dataset is publicly shared with a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. The article describing this dataset should be cited: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.04942

Maintenance

Patrick Gildersleve will maintain this dataset, and add further years of content as and when available.

SQL Database Schema

Table: posts

Table: comments

Table: postlinks

Table: commentlinks

During a January 2024 global survey among marketers, nearly 60 percent reported plans to increase their organic use of YouTube for marketing purposes in the following 12 months. LinkedIn and Instagram followed, respectively mentioned by 57 and 56 percent of the respondents intending to use them more. According to the same survey, Facebook was the most important social media platform for marketers worldwide.

Right now we see that depression is one of the most common problems in our society. Most of the time people are committed suicide only cause of depression. And till now there is no proper lab test way for detecting depression. Generally, doctors are detecting depression by asking some knowledge-base questions. On the other hand, there are a good number of people using social media platforms right now, where they are sharing their daily experiences, emotion, and other activity with their friends. Twitter is one of the common social platforms and also popular for data collection. I was collecting these datasets from twitter based on some depressive words. I hope that this twitter datasets will help researchers to detect depression more precisely.

The dataset for "Media Context and the 2017 General Election: How Traditional and Social Media Shape Elections" consists of an analysis of media coverage of the 2017 British General Election. Media included are national newspapers, local newspapers, national and regional television news, and radio. The complete list of outlets is included in the codebooks. This study was conducted as part of the ESRC Media in Context and the 2017 General Election award, which extends the analysis of the 2015 election, data available under SN 8176.

In 2017 the electoral context had shifted from two years earlier, with a majority Conservative government, different leaders of almost all the major parties, Brexit as both the main issue (prior to the terrorist bomb in Manchester) and the ostensible reason the election was called, the possibility of the incumbent government gaining the largest proportion of the vote in a generation, and a growing distrust of polling data and the media e.g., ‘fake news’ and Twitter bots. This provided us with the opportunity to re-examine media coverage and extend our aims in four ways, by: 1) Looking at media coverage and its effects on different leaders and different issues than in 2015, e.g., Theresa May, Jeremy Corbyn, and Brexit; 2) Comparing the drivers of coverage of the election in traditional and social media, how they interact, and their effects in an era of “fake news” and “post-truth democracy” ; 3) Drawing links between key narratives in the 2015 post-election media coverage that led to the EU referendum and key narratives on Brexit in the 2017 campaign; 4) Identifying the aspects of media and media effects that vary between a competitive and an uncompetitive election at the national level and those that stay constant.

Data collection was for the following additional objectives: 1. To extend the longitudinal data set using the methods we established for the 2015 media content, capturing traditional and social media coverage of the 2017 election beginning on April 18th, 2017, the day Theresa May announced her intention to call an election and ending with the Queen’s speech on June 21st. 2. As in ES/M010775/1, to link traditional media content and social media analysis from 2017 to questions in the British Election Study, both allowing examination of media effects in 2017, and, for the same respondents, in 2015 for comparison.

The LGBTQI+ Dataset 2020-2022_es is a collection of 410,015 original tweets extracted from the social network Twitter between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2022. To ensure data quality and relevance, retweets, replies, and other duplicate content were excluded, retaining only original tweets. The tweets were collected by Jacinto Mata (University of Huelva, I2C/CITES) with the support of the Python programming language and using the twarc2 tool and the Academic API v2 of Twitter. Tbis data collection is part of the project “Conspiracy Theories and Hate Speech Online: Comparison of patterns in narratives and social networks about COVID-19, immigrants and refugees and LGBTI people [NON-CONSPIRA-HATE!]”, PID2021-123983OB-I00, funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033/ by FEDER/EU.

The search criteria (words and hashtags) used for the data collection followed the objectives of the aforementioned project and were defined by Estrella Gualda, Francisco Javier Santos Fernández and Jacinto Mata (University of Huelva, Spain). Terms and hashtags used for the search and extraction of tweets were: #orgullogay, #orgullotrans, #OrgulloLGTB, #OrgulloLGTBI, #Díadelorgullo, #TRANSFOBIA, #transexuales, #LGTB, #LGTBI, #LGTBIQ, #LGTBQ, #LGTBQ+, anti-gay, "anti gay", anti-trans, "anti trans", "Ley Anti-LGTB", "ley trans", "anti-ley trans".

This dataset collected in the frame of the NON-CONSPIRA-HATE! project had the aim of identifying and mapping online hate speech narratives and conspiracy theories towards LGBTIQ+ people and community. Additionally, the dataset is intended to compare communication patterns in social media (rhetoric, language, micro-discourses, semantic networks, emotions, etc.) deployed in different datasets collected in this project. This dataset also contributes to mapping the actors, communities, and networks that spread hate messages and conspiracy theories, aiming to understand the patterns and strategies implemented by extremist sectors on social media. he dataset includes messages that address a wide range of topics related to the LGBTQI+ community, such as rights, visibility, the fight against discrimination and transphobia, as well as debates surrounding the Trans Law and other related issues. It includes expressions of support and celebration of Pride as well as hate speech and opposition to LGBTQI+ rights, along with debates and controversies surrounding these issues.

This dataset offers a wide range of possibilities for research in various disciplines, as the following examples express:

Social Sciences & Digital Humanities:- Analysis of opinions, attitudes, and trends toward the LGBTIQ+ people and community.- Studies on the evolution of public discourse and polarization around issues such as transphobia, hate speech, disinformation, LGBTIQ+ rights and pride, and others.- Analysis on social and political actors, leaders or organizations disseminating diverse narratives on LGBTIQ+ - Research on the impact of specific events (e.g., Pride Day) on social media conversations.- Investigations on social and semantic networks around LGBTIQ+ people and community.- Analysis of narratives, discourses and rethoric around gender identity and sexual diversity.- Comparative studies on the representation of the LGBTIQ+ people and community in different cultural or geographic contexts.

Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence:- Development of algorithms for the automatic detection of hate speech, discriminatory language, or offensive content.- Training natural language processing (NLP) models to analyze sentiments and emotions in texts related to the LGBTIQ+ people and community.

For more information on other technical details of the dataset and the structure of the .jsonl data, see the “Readme.txt” file.

During a 2024 survey among marketers worldwide, approximately 83 percent selected increased exposure as a benefit of social media marketing. Increased traffic followed, mentioned by 73 percent of the respondents, while 65 percent cited generated leads.

              The multibillion-dollar social media ad industry

              Between 2019 – the last year before the pandemic – and 2024, global social media advertising spending skyrocketed by 140 percent, surpassing an estimated 230 billion U.S. dollars in the latter year. That figure was forecast to increase by nearly 50 percent by the end of the decade, exceeding 345 billion dollars in 2029. As of 2024, the social media networks with the most monthly active users were Facebook, with over three billion, and YouTube, with more than 2.5 billion.

              Pros and cons of GenAI for social media marketing

              According to another 2024 survey, generative artificial intelligence's (GenAI) leading benefits for social media marketing according to professionals worldwide included increased efficiency and easier idea generation. The third place was a tie between increased content production and enhanced creativity. All those advantages were cited by between 33 and 38 percent of the interviewees. As for GenAI's top challenges for global social media marketing,
              maintaining authenticity and the value of human creativity ranked first, mentioned by 43 and 40 percent of the respondents, respectively. Another 35 percent deemed ensuring the content resonates as an obstacle.

Dataset corresponding to the paper "Studying social unrest through the lens of social media".

107,674 geolocated visual posts from a social media were collected during and after the 'Nahel Merzouk' riots in the summer 2023 in 7 French cities. These posts were fed to a computer vision model with the objective of identifying riot-related posts. This dataset contains the metadata (date, time, and location) of those posts along with the probability for the post to represent a riot (according to the model). Riot-related posts are then clustered into "events", based on their spatiotemporal proximity (see paper for more details).

Columns:

• "timestamp" (TIMESTAMP): Date and time of the posts
• "latitude" (REAL): Latitude at which the post was published
• "longitude" (REAL): Longitude at which the post was published
• "prob" (REAL): Probability that the post represents a riot according to the model
• "pred_class" (INTEGER): Binary variable with value 1 if it represents a riot, 0 otherwise
• "event" (TEXT): Event associated to the post, structured as follows:
• "No event" if the post is not marked as riot-related
• "day_city_id" with "day" being the day of the month associated to the event, such as "2", "city" being the city in which the event happened, such as "Paris", "id" being an integer. "29_Marseille_0" corresponds to event "0" happening in Marseille on June 29th 2023. If the value of the id is "-1", the post could not be associated to any event.

Data Access: The data in the research collection provided may only be used for research purposes. Portions of the data are copyrighted and have commercial value as data, so you must be careful to use them only for research purposes. Due to these restrictions, the collection is not open data. Please fill out the form and upload the Data Sharing Agreement at Google Form.

Citation

Please cite our work as

@article{shahi2021overview,
 title={Overview of the CLEF-2021 CheckThat! lab task 3 on fake news detection},
 author={Shahi, Gautam Kishore and Stru{\ss}, Julia Maria and Mandl, Thomas},
 journal={Working Notes of CLEF},
 year={2021}
}

Problem Definition: Given the text of a news article, determine whether the main claim made in the article is true, partially true, false, or other (e.g., claims in dispute) and detect the topical domain of the article. This task will run in English and German.

Subtask 3: Multi-class fake news detection of news articles (English) Sub-task A would detect fake news designed as a four-class classification problem. The training data will be released in batches and roughly about 900 articles with the respective label. Given the text of a news article, determine whether the main claim made in the article is true, partially true, false, or other. Our definitions for the categories are as follows:

• False - The main claim made in an article is untrue.

• Partially False - The main claim of an article is a mixture of true and false information. The article contains partially true and partially false information but cannot be considered 100% true. It includes all articles in categories like partially false, partially true, mostly true, miscaptioned, misleading etc., as defined by different fact-checking services.

• True - This rating indicates that the primary elements of the main claim are demonstrably true.

• Other- An article that cannot be categorised as true, false, or partially false due to lack of evidence about its claims. This category includes articles in dispute and unproven articles.

Input Data

The data will be provided in the format of Id, title, text, rating, the domain; the description of the columns is as follows:

• ID- Unique identifier of the news article
• Title- Title of the news article
• text- Text mentioned inside the news article
• our rating - class of the news article as false, partially false, true, other

Output data format

• public_id- Unique identifier of the news article
• predicted_rating- predicted class

Sample File

public_id, predicted_rating
1, false
2, true

Sample file

public_id, predicted_domain
1, health
2, crime

Additional data for Training

To train your model, the participant can use additional data with a similar format; some datasets are available over the web. We don't provide the background truth for those datasets. For testing, we will not use any articles from other datasets. Some of the possible sources:

• Fakenews Classification Datasets
• Fake News Detection Challenge KDD 2020
• FakeNewsNet

IMPORTANT!

1. We have used the data from 2010 to 2021, and the content of fake news is mixed up with several topics like elections, COVID-19 etc.

Evaluation Metrics

This task is evaluated as a classification task. We will use the F1-macro measure for the ranking of teams. There is a limit of 5 runs (total and not per day), and only one person from a team is allowed to submit runs.

Baseline: For this task, we have created a baseline system. The baseline system can be found at https://zenodo.org/record/6362498

Submission Link: Coming soon

Related Work

• Shahi GK. AMUSED: An Annotation Framework of Multi-modal Social Media Data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.00502. 2020 Oct 1.https://arxiv.org/pdf/2010.00502.pdf
• G. K. Shahi and D. Nandini, “FakeCovid – a multilingual cross-domain fact check news dataset for covid-19,” in workshop Proceedings of the 14th International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 2020. http://workshop-proceedings.icwsm.org/abstract?id=2020_14
• Shahi, G. K., Dirkson, A., & Majchrzak, T. A. (2021). An exploratory study of covid-19 misinformation on twitter. Online Social Networks and Media, 22, 100104. doi: 10.1016/j.osnem.2020.100104
• Shahi, G. K., Struß, J. M., & Mandl, T. (2021). Overview of the CLEF-2021 CheckThat! lab task 3 on fake news detection. Working Notes of CLEF.
• Nakov, P., Da San Martino, G., Elsayed, T., Barrón-Cedeno, A., Míguez, R., Shaar, S., ... & Mandl, T. (2021, March). The CLEF-2021 CheckThat! lab on detecting check-worthy claims, previously fact-checked claims, and fake news. In European Conference on Information Retrieval (pp. 639-649). Springer, Cham.
• Nakov, P., Da San Martino, G., Elsayed, T., Barrón-Cedeño, A., Míguez, R., Shaar, S., ... & Kartal, Y. S. (2021, September). Overview of the CLEF–2021 CheckThat! Lab on Detecting Check-Worthy Claims, Previously Fact-Checked Claims, and Fake News. In International Conference of the Cross-Language Evaluation Forum for European Languages (pp. 264-291). Springer, Cham.

General: The purpose of the Multimodal Sentiment Analysis in Real-life media Challenge and Workshop (MuSe) is to bring together communities from different disciplines; mainly, the audio-visual emotion recognition community (signal-based), and the sentiment analysis community (symbol-based).

We introduce the novel dataset MuSe-CAR that covers the range of aforementioned desiderata. MuSe-CAR is a large (>36h), multimodal dataset which has been gathered in-the-wild with the intention of further understanding Multimodal Sentiment Analysis in-the-wild, e.g., the emotional engagement that takes place during product reviews (i.e., automobile reviews) where a sentiment is linked to a topic or entity.

We have designed MuSe-CAR to be of high voice and video quality, as informative video social media content, as well as everyday recording devices have improved in recent years. This enables robust learning, even with a high degree of novel, in-the-wild characteristics, for example as related to: i) Video: Shot size (a mix of closeup, medium, and long shots), face-angle (side, eye, low, high), camera motion (free, free but stable, and free but unstable, switch, e.g., zoom, fixed), reviewer visibility (full body, half-body, face only, and hands only), highly varying backgrounds, and people interacting with objects (car parts). ii) Audio: Ambient noises (car noises, music), narrator and host diarisation, diverse microphone types, and speaker locations. iii) Text: Colloquialisms, and domain-specific terms.

AbstractThe dataset provided here contains the efforts of independent data aggregation, quality control, and visualization of the University of Arizona (UofA) COVID-19 testing programs for the 2019 novel Coronavirus pandemic. The dataset is provided in the form of machine-readable tables in comma-separated value (.csv) and Microsoft Excel (.xlsx) formats.Additional InformationAs part of the UofA response to the 2019-20 Coronavirus pandemic, testing was conducted on students, staff, and faculty prior to start of the academic year and throughout the school year. These testings were done at the UofA Campus Health Center and through their instance program called "Test All Test Smart" (TATS). These tests identify active cases of SARS-nCoV-2 infections using the reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test and the Antigen test. Because the Antigen test provided more rapid diagnosis, it was greatly used three weeks prior to the start of the Fall semester and throughout the academic year.As these tests were occurring, results were provided on the COVID-19 websites. First, beginning in early March, the Campus Health Alerts website reported the total number of positive cases. Later, numbers were provided for the total number of tests (March 12 and thereafter). According to the website, these numbers were updated daily for positive cases and weekly for total tests. These numbers were reported until early September where they were then included in the reporting for the TATS program.For the TATS program, numbers were provided through the UofA COVID-19 Update website. Initially on August 21, the numbers provided were the total number (July 31 and thereafter) of tests and positive cases. Later (August 25), additional information was provided where both PCR and Antigen testings were available. Here, the daily numbers were also included. On September 3, this website then provided both the Campus Health and TATS data. Here, PCR and Antigen were combined and referred to as "Total", and daily and cumulative numbers were provided.At this time, no official data dashboard was available until September 16, and aside from the information provided on these websites, the full dataset was not made publicly available. As such, the authors of this dataset independently aggregated data from multiple sources. These data were made publicly available through a Google Sheet with graphical illustration provided through the spreadsheet and on social media. The goal of providing the data and illustrations publicly was to provide factual information and to understand the infection rate of SARS-nCoV-2 in the UofA community.Because of differences in reported data between Campus Health and the TATS program, the dataset provides Campus Health numbers on September 3 and thereafter. TATS numbers are provided beginning on August 14, 2020.Description of Dataset ContentThe following terms are used in describing the dataset.1. "Report Date" is the date and time in which the website was updated to reflect the new numbers2. "Test Date" is to the date of testing/sample collection3. "Total" is the combination of Campus Health and TATS numbers4. "Daily" is to the new data associated with the Test Date5. "To Date (07/31--)" provides the cumulative numbers from 07/31 and thereafter6. "Sources" provides the source of information. The number prior to the colon refers to the number of sources. Here, "UACU" refers to the UA COVID-19 Update page, and "UARB" refers to the UA Weekly Re-Entry Briefing. "SS" and "WBM" refers to screenshot (manually acquired) and "Wayback Machine" (see Reference section for links) with initials provided to indicate which author recorded the values. These screenshots are available in the records.zip file.The dataset is distinguished where available by the testing program and the methods of testing. Where data are not available, calculations are made to fill in missing data (e.g., extrapolating backwards on the total number of tests based on daily numbers that are deemed reliable). Where errors are found (by comparing to previous numbers), those are reported on the above Google Sheet with specifics noted.For inquiries regarding the contents of this dataset, please contact the Corresponding Author listed in the README.txt file. Administrative inquiries (e.g., removal requests, trouble downloading, etc.) can be directed to data-management@arizona.edu

ILQA-19 is a longitudinal qualitative case study. It investigates the social consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic on older people’s well-being and everyday life. It is conducted on a purposive sample of 40 older men and women aged between 65 and 80 living in the ten villages (located in the Northern part of Italy) that experienced the first lockdown in Europe. All data collection phases, i.e. recruitment, interviewing, and gaining informed consent, were performed by remote. We also adopted innovative protocols to recruit a heterogeneous sample, allowing everyone to participate in the study regardless of their digital literacy. The second wave of the data collection started in spring 2021, using semi-structured video-interviews, involving 31 individuals. The interview explores changes occurred in older people’s everyday life, the role of social relationships and social media use during the lockdown, and representation and social inclusion of older adults. For information on the other waves: - Wave 1 (2020)