The fight against misinformation goes deeper than dispelling ‘fake news’

The fight against misinformation goes deeper than dispelling ‘fake news’

Written by Jennifer Allen & David Rand

Americans are concerned about online misinformation, especially in light of recent news that the Department of Justice has seized 32 domains in connection with Russian influence operations interfering in U.S. politics, including the 2024 presidential election. is strengthening. Policymakers, experts, and the public widely accept that social media users are awash with “fake news” and that these false claims are shaping everything from voting to vaccinations. .

But surprisingly, the academic research community is embroiled in a heated debate about the scope of the misinformation problem. in recent comments nature For example, he argues that online misinformation is a “greater threat to democracy” than people realize. Meanwhile, another paper published in the same issue synthesized evidence that exposure to misinformation is “low” and “concentrated among a small number of users.” Some go further and argue that concerns about misinformation constitute a moral panic or are themselves misinformation.

So should everyone stop worrying about spreading misleading information? Obviously not. Most researchers agree that a major problem does exist. The disagreement is simply about what exactly the problem is and therefore what should be done about it.

About supporting science journalism

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting our award-winning journalism. Currently subscribing. By subscribing, you help ensure future generations of influential stories about the discoveries and ideas that shape the world today.

The debate mainly hinges on definitions. Many researchers and much of the reporting on this issue manipulates “misinformation” into completely false news stories published by disreputable news outlets with headlines like “Pope Endorses Donald Trump.” are. Despite a large amount of research investigating why people believe and share such content, this type of “fake news” is rare on social media and concentrated in a small number of extreme users. This is shown in study after study. And despite claims that fake news and Russian disinformation “swayed” the election, research shows little causal link between exposure to this type of content and political behavior or attitudes. do not have.

But there is plenty of evidence of public misconceptions. A violent mob stormed the Capitol, claiming the 2020 election was stolen. One in five Americans has refused the coronavirus vaccine. If misinformation is defined as misinformation that misleads people, the widespread support of misinformation suggests that misinformation is common and influential. .

How do we reconcile all this? The important thing to remember is that misinformation, in the narrow sense of “fake news,” is only part of what causes misunderstandings. For example, in a recently published paper, science, We found misleading reports about rare deaths after vaccination, mostly from trusted news outlets. Chicago Tribune—It had nearly 50 times more impact on hesitancy about getting a coronavirus vaccine in the U.S. than content flagged as false by fact checkers. And Donald Trump’s repeated claims about election interference have gained a large audience on both social media and traditional media. With a broader definition that includes everything from questionable to misleading headlines in mainstream media. new york post to a fine person washington post, Direct statements from political elites like Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. make misinformation more pervasive, more influential, and more difficult to counter.

Existing solutions that focus on falsehoods from fringe news outlets are not enough. After all, even debunking every fake news link on Facebook won’t prevent President Trump from lying non-stop in a televised debate watched by tens of millions of Americans. There probably wasn’t. Expanding the definition of misinformation will require a policy shift not only by social media companies, but also by academics and the media.

First, scholars must go beyond the narrow claims that have been debunked to date and study the roots of public misconceptions more broadly. This has its challenges. Studying patently false claims may avoid criticism from reviewers, but you will miss a large part of the problem. On the other hand, researching content that is misleading, but not necessarily false, and has the potential to cause widespread harm makes you vulnerable to charges of bias. The risks are real, as exemplified by the virtual shutdown of the Stanford Internet Observatory and the attack on researchers at the University of Washington., Both were the result of conservatives shouting “censorship!” But in reality, there is rarely universal agreement on what is and is not misinformation. Universities and policy makers must protect academic freedom to study controversial topics, and academics must ensure that what content is misleading, for example by experimentally determining its impact on relevant beliefs. An approach needs to be developed to formalize what is considered an invitation.

Second, news organizations publish a plethora of reports about “fake news” but do little to reflect on their role in promoting false beliefs. Journalists need to internalize the fact that their influence is far greater than that of the disinformation outlets they so often criticize, and therefore their responsibility is far greater. It is. Unintended failures by mainstream media, such as misleading reports about hospital explosions in the Gaza Strip or Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, have far more impact than the torrent of largely invisible falsehoods from “fake news” outlets. have. Despite the pressure to track clicks and ratings, journalists must remain wary of misleading headlines and uncontextualized lies from politicians.

Finally, social media companies like Meta, YouTube, and TikTok need to do more. Their current approach to combating misinformation, based on expert fact-checking, largely turns a blind eye to the unconventional misinformation content of “fake news” and thus misses much of the problem. Platforms often exempt politicians from fact-checking and deprioritize fact-checking to posts from mainstream sources. However, it is precisely this content that has the greatest impact and therefore the greatest potential for harm, and is therefore more important to tackle than the less visible ‘fake news’. Interventions must be modified to reflect this reality. For example, the common media literacy approach of combating misinformation by emphasizing the credibility of sources can backfire if the misleading content comes from a trusted source. .

Platforms can also address misleading content that does not violate official policies using community-based moderation that adds context to misleading posts (such as X’s Community Notes and YouTube’s new Crowdsourced Notes program) ). Larger platform changes, such as ranking content based on quality rather than engagement, could get to the root of the problem rather than a band-aid fix.

Combating misinformation is far more complex and politically and ethically challenging than reducing the spread of patently false content. But if we want to solve the “misinformation” problem, we must overcome this challenge.

This is an opinion and analysis article and the views expressed by the author are not necessarily those of the author. scientific american.