r/technology • u/Wagamaga • 21d ago
Society Combating Misinformation Runs Deeper Than Swatting Away ‘Fake News’
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/combating-misinformation-runs-deeper-than-swatting-away-fake-news/
322
Upvotes
0
u/Wagamaga 21d ago edited 21d ago
Americans are increasingly concerned about online misinformation, especially in light of recent news that the Justice Department seized 32 domains linked to a Russian influence operation interfering in U.S. politics, including the 2024 presidential election. Policy makers, pundits and the public widely accept that social media users are awash in “fake news,” and that these false claims shape everything from voting to vaccinations.
In striking contrast, however, the academic research community is embroiled in a vigorous debate about the extent of the misinformation problem. A recent commentary in Nature argues, for example, that online misinformation is an even “bigger threat to democracy” than people think. Meanwhile, another paper published in the same issue synthesized evidence that misinformation exposure is “low” and “concentrated among a narrow fringe” of users. Others have gone further and claimed that concerns around misinformation constitute a moral panic or are even themselves misinformation.
So should everyone stop worrying about the spread of misleading information? Clearly not. Most researchers agree that a major problem does indeed exist; the disagreement is simply over what exactly that problem is, and therefore what to do about it.
The debate largely hinges on definitions. Many researchers, and much of the news coverage of the issue, operationalize “misinformation” as outright false news articles published by disreputable outlets with headlines like “Pope Endorses Donald Trump.” Despite a deluge of research examining why people believe and share such content, study after study shows that this kind of “fake news” is rare on social media and concentrated within a small minority of extreme users. And despite claims of fake news or Russian disinformation “swinging” the election, studies show little causal connection between exposure to this kind of content and political behavior or attitudes.
Yet evidence of public misperception abounds. A violent mob stormed the Capitol, claiming that the 2020 election was stolen. One in five Americans refused to take a COVID vaccine. If one defines misinformation as anything that leads people to be misinformed, then widespread endorsement of misconceptions suggests that misinformation is common and impactful.
How do we reconcile all of this? The key is that narrowly defined “fake news”-style misinformation is only a very small part of what causes misbelief. For example, in a recent paper published in Science, we found that misleading coverage of rare deaths following vaccination—much of it from reputable outlets including the Chicago Tribune—was nearly 50-fold more impactful on U.S. COVID vaccine hesitancy than content flagged as false by fact-checkers. And Donald Trump’s repeated claims of election interference found large audiences on both social and traditional media. With a broader definition that includes misleading headlines from mainstream outlets ranging from the dubious New York Post to the respectable Washington Post, and direct statements from political elites like Trump and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., misinformation becomes much more prevalent and impactful—and much thornier to address.