Misinformation

Misinformation is incorrect or misleading information.[1][2] It differs from disinformation, which is deliberately deceptive and propagated information.[3][4][5][6][7] Rumors are information not attributed to any particular source,[8] and so are unreliable and often unverified, but can turn out to be either true or false. However, definitions of the terms might vary between cultural contexts.[9] Even if later retracted, misinformation can continue to influence actions and memory.[10]

Not to be confused with Disinformation or Misinformation effect.

People may be more prone to believe misinformation because they are emotionally connected to what they are listening to or are reading. The role of social media has made information readily available to society at anytime, and it connects vast groups of people along with their information at one time.[11] Advances in technology has impacted the way people communicate information and the way misinformation is spread.[12] Misinformation has impacts on societies' ability to receive information which then influences our communities, politics, and medical field.[11]

History

Early examples include the insults and smears spread among political rivals in Imperial and Renaissance Italy in the form of pasquinades.[13] These are anonymous and witty verses named for the Pasquino piazza and talking statues in Rome. In pre-revolutionary France, "canards", or printed broadsides, sometimes included an engraving to convince readers to take them seriously.

During the summer of 1588, continental Europe anxiously awaited news as the Spanish Armada sailed to fight the English. The Spanish postmaster and Spanish agents in Rome promoted reports of Spanish victory in hopes of convincing Pope Sixtus V to release his promised of one million ducats upon landing of troops. In France, the Spanish and English ambassadors promoted contradictory narratives in the press, and a Spanish victory was incorrectly celebrated in Paris, Prague, and Venice. It was not until late August that reliable reports of the Spanish defeat arrived in major cities and were widely believed; the remains of the fleet returned home in the autumn.[14]

A lithograph from the first large scale spread of disinformation in America, the Great Moon Hoax

The first recorded large-scale disinformation campaign was the Great Moon Hoax, published in 1835 in the New York The Sun, in which a series of articles claimed to describe life on the Moon, "complete with illustrations of humanoid bat-creatures and bearded blue unicorns".[15] The challenges of mass-producing news on a short deadline can lead to factual errors and mistakes. An example of such is the Chicago Tribune's infamous 1948 headline "Dewey Defeats Truman".

Social media platforms allow for easy spread of misinformation. Post election surveys in 2016 suggest that many individuals who intake false information on social media believe them to be factual.[16] The specific reasons why misinformation spreads through social media so easily remain unknown. A 2018 study of Twitter determined that, compared to accurate information, false information spread significantly faster, further, deeper, and more broadly. Similarly, a research study of Facebook found that misinformation was more likely to be clicked on than factual information.

Harry S. Truman displaying the inaccurate Chicago Tribune headline, an example of misinformation.

Moreover, the advent of the Internet has changed traditional ways that misinformation spreads.[17] During the 2016 United States presidential election, it was seen that content from websites deemed 'untrustworthy' were reaching up to 40% of Americans, despite misinformation making up only 6% of overall news media.[18] Misinformation has been spread during many health crises.[9] For example, misinformation about alternative treatments were spread during Ebola outbreak in  2014–2016.[19][20] Also, later during the COVID-19 pandemic, both intentional and unintentional misinformation combined with a general lack of literacy regarding health science and medicine was proliferated, creating further misinformation.[21] What makes those susceptible to misinformation is still debated, however.[22]

Identification and correction
See also: § Countermeasures

According to Anne Mintz, editor of Web of Deception: Misinformation on the Internet, one of the best ways to determine whether the information is factual is to use common sense.[23] Mintz advises that the reader check whether the information makes sense, and to check whether the founders or reporters who are spreading the information are biased or have an agenda. Journalists and researchers look at other sites (particularly verified sources like news channels)[24] for information, as the information is more likely to be reviewed by multiple people or have been heavily researched, providing more reliable details.

Martin Libicki, author of Conquest In Cyberspace: National Security and Information Warfare,[25] noted that readers must balance what is correct or incorrect. Readers cannot be gullible, but also should not be paranoid that all information is incorrect. There is always the chance that even readers who strike this balance will believe an error to be true, or a truth to be an error.

A person's formal education level and media literacy correlates with their ability to recognize misinformation.[26][27] This means if a person is more familiar with the content and process of how the information is researched and presented or is better at critically evaluating information of any source, they are more likely to correctly identify misinformation. Increasing literacy may not lead to improved ability to detect misinformation, as a certain level of literacy could be used to "justify belief in misinformation."[28] Further research reveals that content descriptors can have varying effects on people's ability to detect misinformation.[29]

Social layers of misinformation

Based on the work by Scheufele and Krause, misinformation has different social layers that occur at the individual, group and sociostructural levels. At the Individual Root level of misinformation, efforts have sought to focus on the citizen's individual ability to recognize disinformation or misinformation and thus correct their views based on what they received. Hence, the proposed solutions for these cases utilize side of news which range from altering algorithms that find the root of fake news or fact check these different sites. The concern is that having the "inability to recognize misinformation" leads to assumption that all citizens are misinformed and thus unable to discern and logically evaluate information that emerges from social media. What poses the largest threat is "evaluation skill" that is lacking amongst individuals to understand and identify the sources with biased, dated or exploitative sources. Interestingly enough, Pew Research reports shared that approximately one in four American adults admitted to sharing misinformation on their social media platforms. The quality of media literacy is also part of the problem contributing to the individual root level of misinformation. Hence, the call for improving media literacy is a necessity to educate individual citizens on fake news. Other factors that influence misinformation at the individual level is motivations and emotion that influence motivated reasoning processes.[30]

The second root is at the group level. People's social networks have truly changed as the social media environment has evolved. Thus, allowing a different web of social networks to persist allowing individuals to ""selectively disclose"" information which is in a biased format. As we all have seen the effects of playing the Telephone Game with a large group of people, the same concept with the beliefs that are most widespread become the most repeated. The problem with debunking misinformation is that this can backfire due to people relying only on the familiar information they had just been exposed to. The problem with the homogenous social groups is that it nurtures a misinformation mindset allowing for falsehood to be accepted since it appears as perhaps a social "norm" due to the decrease in contradictory information. Due to these social networks, it creates "clustering" effect which can end up being "specific rumor variations". These rumor variations lead to beliefs being perceived as more popular than they actually are causing a rumor cascade on these social networks.[30]

The third level of misinformation is the Societal level which is influenced by both the individual and group levels. The common figures associated with misinformation include Politicians as well as other political actors who attempt to shape the public opinion in their favor. The role of the mass media is to be a corrective agent to prevent misinformation to American citizens. Objectivity has been a common thread that American media has lacked being a contributor to the plague of misinformation. As print media evolved into radio, television and now the internet which go hand in hand with paid commercial actors to generate tailored content to attract viewers. The intent is to reach target audiences which has dramatically shifted with examples such as Facebook utilize their sources to have data collection as well as ""profiling"" tools that track each users' preferences for products and allow for ads that are hypertargeted for that viewer. Not only are these hypertargeted ads but they also compete for younger audiences attention on social media which limit the amount of news sources viewed on a daily basis. The condition of our society at this point is quoted best by the Axios cofounder Jim VandeHei who stated that ""Survival...depends on giving readers what they really want, how they want it, when they want it, and on not spending too much money producing what they don't want."" Unfortunately, this is the climate of our culture when it comes to news quality. The change of these news realities are attributed to ""social mega trends"" which have been a huge contributor to the misinformation problem of the United States. In addition, the decline in social capital, political polarization, gap in economic inequalities, decline in trust in science, and how the parties are susceptible also to misinformation.[30]

Cognitive factors

Prior research suggests it can be difficult to undo the effects of misinformation once individuals believe it to be true, and that fact-checking can backfire.[31] Individuals may desire to reach a certain conclusion, causing them to accept information that supports that conclusion. Individuals are more likely to hang onto information and share information if it emotionally resonates with them.[32]

Individuals create mental models and schemas to understand their physical and social environments.[33] Misinformation that becomes incorporated into a mental model, especially for long periods of time, will be more difficult to address as individuals prefer to have a complete mental model.[34] In this instance, it is necessary to correct the misinformation by both refuting it and providing accurate information that can function in the mental model.[31] When attempting to correct misinformation, it is important to consider previous research which has identified effective and ineffective strategies. Simply providing the corrected information is insufficient to correct the effects of misinformation, and it may even have a negative effect. Due to the familiarity heuristic, information that is familiar is more likely to be believed to be true—corrective messages which contain a repetition of the original misinformation may result in an increase in familiarity and cause a backfire effect.[35]

Factors that contribute to the effectiveness of a corrective message include an individual's mental model or worldview, repeated exposure to the misinformation, time between misinformation and correction, credibility of the sources, and relative coherency of the misinformation and corrective message. Corrective messages will be more effective when they are coherent and/or consistent with the audience's worldview. They will be less effective when misinformation is believed to come from a credible source, is repeated prior to correction (even if the repetition occurs in the process of debunking), and/or when there is a time lag between the misinformation exposure and corrective message. Additionally, corrective messages delivered by the original source of the misinformation tend to be more effective.[36]

Countering misinformation

One suggested solution for prevention of misinformation is a distributed consensus mechanism to validate the accuracy of claims, with appropriate flagging or removal of content that is determined to be false or misleading.[34] Another approach is to "inoculate" against it by delivering weakened misinformation that warns of the dangers of the misinformation.[37] This includes counterarguments and showing the techniques used to mislead. One way to apply this is to use parallel argumentation, in which the flawed logic is transferred to a parallel situation (E.g. shared extremity or absurdity). This approach exposes bad logic without the need for complicated explanations.[38]

Flagging or eliminating false statements in media using algorithmic fact checkers is becoming an increasingly common tactic to fight misinformation. Computer programs that automatically detect misinformation are just emerging, but similar algorithms are already in place on Facebook and Google. Google provides supplemental information pointing to fact-checking websites in response to its users searching controversial search terms. Likewise, algorithms detect and alert Facebook users that what they are about to share is likely false.[39]

A common related issue brought up is the over censorship of platforms like Facebook and Twitter.[40] Many free speech activists argue that their voices are not being heard and their rights being taken away.[41] To combat the spread of misinformation, social media platforms are often tasked with finding common ground between allowing free speech, while also not allowing misinformation to be spread throughout their respective platforms.[40]

Websites have been created to help people to discern fact from fiction. For example, the site FactCheck.org aims to fact check the media, especially viral political stories. The site also includes a forum where people can openly ask questions about the information.[42] Similar sites allow individuals to copy and paste misinformation into a search engine and the site will investigate it.[43] Some sites exist to address misinformation about specific topics, such as climate change misinformation. DeSmog, formerly The DeSmogBlog, publishes factually accurate information in order to counter the well-funded disinformation campaigns spread by motivated deniers of climate change. Facebook and Google added automatic fact-checking programs to their sites, and created the option for users to flag information that they think is false.[43] A way that fact-checking programs find misinformation involves analyzing the language and syntax of news stories. Another way is fact-checkers can search for existing information on the subject and compare it to the news broadcasts being put online.[44] Other sites such as Wikipedia and Snopes are also widely used resources for verifying information.

Causes

Historically, people have relied on journalists and other information professionals to relay facts and truths about certain topics.[45] Many different things cause miscommunication, but the underlying factor is information literacy. Because information is distributed by various means, it is often hard for users to ask questions of credibility. Many online sources of misinformation use techniques to fool users into thinking their sites are legitimate and the information they generate is factual. Often, misinformation can be politically motivated. Conspiracy theories have long lurked in the background of American history, said Dustin Carnahan, a Michigan State University professor who studies political misinformation.[46] For example, websites such as USConservativeToday.com have posted false information for political and monetary gain.[47] Another role misinformation serves is to distract the public eye from negative information about a given person and/or issues of policy.[39] Aside from political and financial gain, misinformation can also be spread unintentionally. This can cause problems and ignorance in large populations if people don't check what they consume.

Misinformation cited with hyperlinks has been found to increase readers' trust. Trust is shown to be even higher when these hyperlinks are to scientific journals, and higher still when readers do not click on the sources to investigate for themselves.[48] Trusting a source could lead to spreading misinformation unintentionally. A good way to check if something is misinforming is to check sources that are widely agreed to be true, such as college research papers and organizations with no agendas or biases (.org, .edu, and .gov to be specific).

Misinformation is sometimes an unintended side effect of bias. Misguided opinions can lead to the unintentional spread of misinformation, where individuals do not intend on spreading false propaganda, yet the false information they share is not checked and referenced.[49] While that may be the case, there are plenty of instances where information is intentionally skewed, or leaves out major defining details and facts. Misinformation could be misleading rather than outright false.

Research documents "the role political elites play in shaping both news coverage and public opinion around science issues".[50]

Another reason for the recent spread of misinformation may be the lack of consequences. With little to no repercussions, there is nothing to stop people from posting misleading information. The gain they get from the power of influencing other peoples' minds is greater than the impact of a removed post or temporary ban on Twitter. This forces individual companies to be the ones to mandate rules and policies regarding when people's "free speech" impedes other users' quality of life.[51]

Online misinformation
The differences between disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation.

In recent years, the proliferation of misinformation online has drawn widespread attention.[52] More than half of the world's population had access to the Internet in the beginning of 2018.[52] Digital and social media can contribute to the spread of misinformation – for instance, when users share information without first checking the legitimacy of the information they have found. People are more likely to encounter online information based on personalized algorithms.[43] Google, Facebook and Yahoo News all generate newsfeeds based on the information they know about our devices, our location, and our online interests.[43]

Although two people can search for the same thing at the same time, they are very likely to get different results based on what that platform deems relevant to their interests, fact or false.[43] Various social media platforms have recently been criticized for encouraging the spread of false information, such as hoaxes, false news, and mistruths.[43] It is responsible with influencing people's attitudes and judgment during significant events by disseminating widely believed misinformation.[43] Furthermore, online misinformation can occur in numerous ways, including rumors, urban legends, factoids, etc.[53] However, the underlying factor is that it contains misleading or inaccurate information.[53]

Moreover, users of social media platforms may experience intensely negative feelings, perplexity, and worry as a result of the spread of false information.[53] According to a recent study, one in ten Americans has gone through mental or emotional stress as a result of misleading information posted online.[53] Spreading false information can also seriously impede the effective and efficient use of the information available on social media.[53] An emerging trend in the online information environment is "a shift away from public discourse to private, more ephemeral, messaging", which is a challenge to counter misinformation.[54]

Differences between misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation  

Misinformation is false information that is not meant to hurt anyone. Those who do not  know that a piece of information is untrue, for instance, might disseminate it on social media in an effort to help.[55]

Disinformation, as opposed to an honest mistake, is spread by someone who is actively attempting to deceive.[56] Furthermore, in addition to causing harm directly, disinformation can also cause indirect harm by undermining trust and obstructing the capacity to effectively communicate information with one another.[56] Targeted disinformation can be hard to recognize since it might be entirely made up, taken out of context on purpose, exaggerated, or omit crucial details, all of which create an inaccurate impression.[57] Also, it's not only limited to text anymore because it's getting easier to edit photos and movies.[57] There are also attempts to fundamentally misrepresent reality, such as when figures or quotations are taken out of context, a minority opinion is presented as the majority opinion, or the scope of specific articles is purposely manipulated.[57]

Malinformation is true knowledge that is disseminated with malicious intent.[55] This includes sensitive material that is disseminated in order to hurt someone or their reputation.[55]

Countermeasures

A report by the Royal Society in the UK lists potential or proposed countermeasures:[54]

  • Automated detection systems (e.g. to flag or add context and resources to content)
  • Emerging anti-misinformation sector (e.g. organizations combating scientific misinformation)
  • Provenance enhancing technology (i.e. better enabling people to determine the veracity of a claim, image, or video)
  • APIs for research (i.e. for usage to detect, understand, and counter misinformation)
  • Active bystanders (e.g. corrective commenting)
  • Community moderation (usually of unpaid and untrained, often independent, volunteers)
  • Anti-virals (e.g. limiting the number of times a message can be forwarded in privacy-respecting encrypted chats)
  • Collective intelligence (examples being Wikipedia where multiple editors refine encyclopedic articles, and question-and-answer sites where outputs are also evaluated by others similar to peer-review)
  • Trustworthy institutions and data
  • Media literacy (increasing citizens' ability to use ICTs to find, evaluate, create, and communicate information, an essential skill for citizens of all ages)
    • Media literacy is taught in Estonian public schools – from kindergarten through to high school – since 2010 and "accepted 'as important as [...] writing or reading'"[58]
    • New Jersey mandated K-12 students to learn information literacy[59]
    • "Inoculation" via educational videos shown to adults is being explored[60]

Broadly described, the report recommends building resilience to scientific misinformation and a healthy online information environment and not having offending content removed. It cautions that censorship could e.g. drive misinformation and associated communities "to harder-to-address corners of the internet".[61]

Online misinformation about climate change can be counteracted through different measures at different stages.[62] Prior to misinformation exposure, education and "inoculation" are proposed. Technological solutions, such as early detection of bots and ranking and selection algorithms are suggested as ongoing mechanisms. Post misinformation, corrective and collaborator messaging can be used to counter climate change misinformation. Incorporating fines and similar consequences has also been suggested.

There also is research and development of platform-built-in as well browser-integrated (currently in the form of addons) misinformation mitigation.[63][64][65][66] This includes quality/neutrality/reliability ratings for news sources. Wikipedia's perennial sources page categorizes many large news sources by reliability.[67] Researchers have also demonstrated the feasibility of falsity scores for popular and official figures by developing such for over 800 contemporary elites on Twitter as well as associated exposure scores.[68][69]

On social medias

In the Information Age, social networking sites have become a notable agent for the spread of misinformation, fake news, and propaganda.[70][27][71][72][73] Social media sites have changed their algorithms to prevent the spread of fake news but the problem still exists.[74]

Spread

Social media platforms allow for easy spread of misinformation.[74] The specific reasons why misinformation spreads through social media so easily remain unknown.[75]

Agent-based models and other computational models have been used by researchers to explain how false beliefs spread through networks. Epistemic network analysis is one example of a computational method for evaluating connections in data shared in a social media network or similar network.[76]

Researchers fear that misinformation in social media is "becoming unstoppable."[74] It has also been observed that misinformation and disinformation reappear on social media sites.

Misinformation spread by bots has been difficult for social media platforms to address.[77]

Social causes and echo chambers

Spontaneous spread of misinformation on social media usually occurs from users sharing posts from friends or mutually-followed pages.[78] These posts are often shared from someone the sharer believes they can trust.[78] Misinformation introduced through a social format influences individuals drastically more than misinformation delivered non-socially.[79]

People are inclined to follow or support like-minded individuals, creating echo chambers and filter bubbles.[80] Untruths or general agreement within isolated social clusters are difficult to counter.[80] Some argue this causes an absence of a collective reality.[80]

Misinformation might be created and spread with malicious intent for reasons such as causing anxiety or deceiving audiences.[78] Rumors created with or without malicious intent may be unknowingly shared by users. People may know what the scientific community has proved as a fact, and still refuse to accept it as such.[81]

Lack of regulation

Misinformation on social media spreads quickly in comparison to traditional media because of the lack of regulation and examination required before posting.[75][82]

Social media sites provide users with the capability to spread information quickly to other users without requiring the permission of a gatekeeper such as an editor, who might otherwise require confirmation of the truth before allowing publication.[83][84]

The problem of misinformation in social media is getting worse as younger generations prefer social media over journalistic for their source of information.[85]

Countermeasures

Combating the spread of misinformation on social medias is difficult for reasons such as :

  • the profusion of misinformation sources makes the reader's task of weighing the reliability of information more challenging[86]
  • social media's propensity for culture wars embeds misinformation with identity-based conflict[87]
  • the proliferation of echo chambers form an epistemic environment in which participants encounter beliefs and opinions that coincide with their own,[88] moving the entire group toward more extreme positions.[88][87]

With the large audiences that can be reached and the experts on various subjects on social media, some believe social media could also be the key to correcting misinformation.[89]

Journalists today are criticized for helping to spread false information on these social platforms, but research shows they also play a role in curbing it through debunking and denying false rumors.[83][84]

COVID-19 misinformation
Main article: COVID-19 misinformation

During the COVID-19 Pandemic, social media was used as one of the main propagators for spreading misinformation about symptoms, treatments, and long-term health-related problems.[1] This problem has initialized a significant effort in developing automated detection methods for misinformation on social media platforms.[5]

The creator of the Stop Mandatory Vaccination made money posting anti-vax false news on social media. He posted more than 150 posts aimed towards woman had over 1.6 million views and earned money on every click and share.[90]

Misinformation on Tiktok

A research report by NewsGuard found there is a very high level (~20% in their probes of videos about relevant topics) of online misinformation delivered – to a mainly young user base – with TikTok, whose (essentially unregulated) usage is increasing as of 2022.[91][92]

Misinformation on Facebook
Main article: Misinformation on Facebook

A research study of Facebook found that misinformation was more likely to be clicked on than factual information.[93] The most common reasons that Facebook users were sharing misinformation for socially-motivated reasons, rather than taking the information seriously.[94]

Facebook's coverage of misinformation has become a hot topic with the spread of COVID-19, as some reports indicated Facebook recommended pages containing health misinformation.[40] For example, this can be seen when a user likes an anti-vax Facebook page. Automatically, more and more anti-vax pages are recommended to the user.[40] Additionally, some reference Facebook's inconsistent censorship of misinformation leading to deaths from COVID-19.[40]

Facebook estimated the existence of up to 60 million troll bots actively spreading misinformation on their platform,[95] and has taken measures to stop the spread of misinformation, resulting in a decrease, though misinformation continues to exist on the platform.[74] On Facebook, adults older than 65 were seven times more likely to share fake news than adults ages 18–29.[96]

Misinformation on Twitter

Twitter is one of the most concentrated platforms for engagement with political fake news. 80% of fake news sources are shared by 0.1% of users, who are "super-sharers". Older, more conservative social users are also more likely to interact with fake news.[94] Another source of misinformation on Twitter are bot accounts, especially surrounding climate change.[97] Bot accounts on Twitter accelerate true and fake news at the same rate.[98] A 2018 study of Twitter determined that, compared to accurate information, false information spread significantly faster, further, deeper, and more broadly.[96] A research study watched the process of thirteen rumors appearing on Twitter and noticed that eleven of those same stories resurfaced multiple times, after time had passed.[99]

A social media app called Parler has caused much chaos as well. Right winged Twitter users who were banned on the app moved to Parler after the Capitol Hill riots, and the app was being used to plan and facilitate more illegal and dangerous activities. Google and Apple later pulled the app off their respective app stores. This app has been able to cause a lot of misinformation and bias in the media, allowing for more political mishaps.[100]

Misinformation on YouTube
This section is an excerpt from Social impact of YouTube § False scientific content.[edit]

A Frontiers in Communication study published in July 2019 concluded that most climate change-related videos support worldviews that are opposed to the scientific consensus on climate change.[101] Though YouTube claimed in December 2019 that new recommendation policies reduced "borderline" recommendations by 70%, a January 2020 Avaaz study found that, for videos retrieved by the search terms "climate change", "global warming", and "climate manipulation", YouTube's "up next" sidebar presented videos containing information contradicting the scientific consensus 8%, 16% and 21% of the time, respectively.[102] Avaaz argued that this "misinformation rabbit hole" means YouTube helps to spread climate denialism, and profits from it.[102]

In November 2020, YouTube issued a one-week suspension of the account of One America News Network and permanently de-monetized its videos because of OANN's repeated violations of YouTube's policy prohibiting videos claiming sham cures for COVID-19.[103] Without evidence, OANN also cast doubt on the validity of the 2020 U.S presidential election.[103]

On August 1, 2021, YouTube barred Sky News Australia from uploading new content for a week for breaking YouTube's rules on spreading COVID-19 misinformation.[104] In September 2021, more than a year after YouTube said it would take down misinformation about the coronavirus vaccines, the accounts of six out of twelve anti-vaccine activists identified by the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate were still searchable and still posting videos.[105] In October 2021, YouTube's owner Google announced it would no longer permit YouTube creators to earn advertising money for content that "contradicts well-established scientific consensus around the existence and causes of climate change", and that it will not allow ads that promote such views.[106] In spite of this policy, many videos that included misinformation about climate change were not de-monetized.[107]

Lack of peer review
Promoting more Peer Review to benefit the accuracy in information.

Due to the decentralized nature and structure of the Internet, content creators can easily publish content without being required to undergo peer review, prove their qualifications, or provide backup documentation. While library books have generally been reviewed and edited by an editor, publishing company, etc., Internet sources cannot be assumed to be vetted by anyone other than their authors. Misinformation may be produced, reproduced, and posted immediately on most online platforms.[108][109]

Censorship accusations

Social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter have found themselves defending accusations of censorship for removing posts they have deemed to be misinformation. Social media censorship policies relying on government agency-issued guidance to determine information validity have garnered criticism that such policies have the unintended effect of stifling dissent and criticism of government positions and policies.[110] Most recently, social media companies have faced criticism over allegedly prematurely censoring the discussion of the SARS-CoV 2 Lab Leak Hypothesis.[110][111]

Other accusations of censorship appear to stem from attempts to prevent social media consumers from self-harm through the use of unproven COVID-19 treatments. For example, in July 2020, a video went viral showing Dr. Stella Immanuel claiming hydroxychloroquine was an effective cure for COVID-19. In the video, Immanuel suggested that there was no need for masks, school closures, or any kind of economic shut down; attesting that her alleged cure was highly effective in treating those infected with the virus. The video was shared 600,000 times and received nearly 20 million views on Facebook before it was taken down for violating community guidelines on spreading misinformation.[112] The video was also taken down on Twitter overnight, but not before former president Donald Trump shared it to his page, which was followed by over 85 million Twitter users. NIAID director Dr. Anthony Fauci and members of the World Health Organization (WHO) quickly discredited the video, citing larger-scale studies of hydroxychloroquine showing it is not an effective treatment of COVID-19, and the FDA cautioned against using it to treat COVID-19 patients following evidence of serious heart problems arising in patients who have taken the drug.[113]

Another prominent example of misinformation removal criticized by some as an example of censorship was the New York Post's report on the Hunter Biden laptops approximately two weeks before the 2020 presidential election, which was used to promote the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. Social media companies quickly removed this report, and the Post's Twitter account was temporarily suspended. Over 50 intelligence officials found the disclosure of emails allegedly belonging to Joe Biden’s son had all the "classic earmarks of a Russian information operation".[114] Later evidence emerged that at least some of the laptop's contents were authentic.[115]

Mass media, trust, and transparency

Competition in news and media

Because news organizations and websites compete for viewers, there is a need for efficiency in releasing stories to the public. The news media landscape in the 1970s offered American consumers access to a limited, but often consistent selection of news offerings, whereas today consumers are confronted with an abundance of voices online. This growth of consumer choice when it comes to news media allows the consumer to choose a news source that may align with their biases, which consequently increases the likelihood that they are misinformed.[39] 47% of Americans reported social media as their main news source in 2017 as opposed to traditional news sources.[116] News media companies often broadcast stories 24 hours a day, and break the latest news in hopes of taking audience share from their competitors. News can also be produced at a pace that does not always allow for fact-checking, or for all of the facts to be collected or released to the media at one time, letting readers or viewers insert their own opinions, and possibly leading to the spread of misinformation.[117]

Inaccurate information from media sources

A Gallup poll made public in 2016 found that only 32% of Americans trust the mass media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly", the lowest number in the history of that poll.[118] An example of bad information from media sources that led to the spread of misinformation occurred in November 2005, when Chris Hansen on Dateline NBC claimed that law enforcement officials estimate 50,000 predators are online at any moment. Afterward, the U.S. attorney general at the time, Alberto Gonzales, repeated the claim. However, the number that Hansen used in his reporting had no backing. Hansen said he received the information from Dateline expert Ken Lanning, but Lanning admitted that he made up the number 50,000 because there was no solid data on the number. According to Lanning, he used 50,000 because it sounds like a real number, not too big and not too small, and referred to it as a "Goldilocks number". Reporter Carl Bialik says that the number 50,000 is used often in the media to estimate numbers when reporters are unsure of the exact data.[119]

The Novelty Hypothesis, which was created by Soroush Vosoughi, Deb Roy and Sinan Aral when they wanted to learn more about what attracts people to false news. What they discovered was that people are connected through emotion. In their study, they compared false tweets on Twitter that were shared by the total content tweeted, they specifically looked at the users and both the false and true information they shared. They learned that people are connected through their emotions, false rumors suggested more surprise and disgust which got people hooked and that the true rumors attracted more sadness, joy and trust. This study showed which emotions are more likely to cause the spread of false news.[90]

Distrust

Misinformation has often been associated with the concept of fake news, which some scholars define as "fabricated information that mimics news media content in form but not in organizational process or intent."[27] Intentional misinformation, called disinformation, has become normalized in politics and topics of great importance to the public, such as climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic. Intentional misinformation has caused irreversible damage to public understanding and trust.[120] Egelhofer et al. argued that the media's wide adoption of the term “fake news” has served to normalize this concept and help to stabilize the use of this buzzword in our everyday language (2021).[121] Goldstein (2021) discussed the need for government agencies and organizations to increase transparency of their practices or services by using social media. Companies can then utilize the platforms offered by social media and bring forth full transparency to the public. If used in strategic ways, social media can offer an agency or agenda (ex: political campaigns or vaccines) a way to connect with the public and offer a place for people to track news and developments.

Despite many popular examples being from the US, misinformation is prevalent worldwide. In the United Kingdom, many people followed and believed a conspiracy theory that Coronavirus was linked to the 5G network,[122] a popular idea that arose from a series of hashtags on Twitter.

Misinformation can also be used to deflect accountability. For example, Syria's repeated use of chemical weapons was the subject of a disinformation campaign intended to prevent accountability [cite Steward, M. (2021).[122] In his paper Defending Weapons Inspections from the Effects of Disinformation, Stewart shows how disinformation was used to conceal and purposely misinform the public about Syria's violations of international law. The intention was to create plausible deniability of the violations, making discussion of possible violations to be regarded as untruthful rumors. Because the disinformation campaigns have been so effective and normalized, the opposing side has also started relying on disinformation to prevent repercussions for unfavorable behavior from those pushing a counter narrative.

According to Melanie Freeze (Freeze et al., 2020), in most cases the damage of misinformation can be irreparable.[122] Freeze explored whether people can recollect an event accurately when presented with misinformation after the event occurred. Findings showed that an individual's recollection of political events could be altered when presented with misinformation about the event. This study also found that if one is able to identify warning signs of misinformation, they still have a hard time retaining the pieces of information which are accurate vs inaccurate. Furthermore, their results showed that people can completely discard accurate information if they incorrectly deem a news source as “fake news” or untrustworthy and potentially disregard completely credible information. Alyt Damstra (Damstra et al., 2021) states that misinformation has been around since the establishment of press, thus leaving little room to wonder how it has been normalized today.[123]

Alexander Lanoszka (2019)[124] argued that fake news does not have to be looked at as an unwinnable war. Misinformation can create a sense of societal chaos and anarchy. With deep mistrust, no single idea can successfully move forward. With the existence of malicious efforts to misinform, desired progress may rely on trust in people and their processes.

Misinformation was a major talking point during the 2016 American Presidential Election with claims of social media sites allowing "fake news" to be spread.[41] It has been found that exposure to misinformation is associated with an overall rise in political trust by those siding with the government in power or those who self-define as politically moderate.[125] Social media became polarized and political during the 2020 United States Presidential Election, with some arguing that misinformation about COVID-19 had been circulating, creating skepticism of topics such as vaccines and figures such as Dr. Fauci. Others argued that platforms such as Facebook had been unconstitutionally censoring conservative voices, spreading misinformation to persuade voters.[41]

Polarization on social media platforms has caused people to question the source of their information. Skepticism in news platforms created a large distrust of the news media. Often, misinformation is blended to seem true.[51] Misinformation does not simply imply false information. Social media platforms can be an easy place to skew and manipulate facts to show a different view on a topic, often trying to paint a bad picture of events.[126][49]

Impact

Misinformation can affect all aspects of life. Allcott, Gentzkow, and Yu concur that the diffusion of misinformation through social media is a potential threat to democracy and broader society. The effects of misinformation can lead to decline of accuracy of information as well as event details.[127] When eavesdropping on conversations, one can gather facts that may not always be true, or the receiver may hear the message incorrectly and spread the information to others. On the Internet, one can read content that is stated to be factual but that may not have been checked or may be erroneous. In the news, companies may emphasize the speed at which they receive and send information but may not always be correct in the facts. These developments contribute to the way misinformation may continue to complicate the public's understanding of issues and to serve as a source for belief and attitude formation.[128]

In regards to politics, some view being a misinformed citizen as worse than being an uninformed citizen. Misinformed citizens can state their beliefs and opinions with confidence and thus affect elections and policies. This type of misinformation occurs when a speaker appears "authoritative and legitimate", while also spreading misinformation.[70] When information is presented as vague, ambiguous, sarcastic, or partial, receivers are forced to piece the information together and make assumptions about what is correct.[129] Misinformation has the power to sway public elections and referendums if it gains enough momentum. Leading up to the 2016 UK European Union membership referendum, for example, a figure used prominently by the Vote Leave campaign claimed that by leaving the EU the UK would save £350 million a week, 'for the NHS'. Claims then circulated widely in the campaign that this amount would (rather than could theoretically) be redistributed to the British National Health Service after Brexit. This was later deemed a "clear misuse of official statistics" by the UK statistics authority.

Moreover, the advert infamously shown on the side of London's double-decker busses did not take into account the UK's budget rebate, and the idea that 100% of the money saved would go to the NHS was unrealistic. A poll published in 2016 by Ipsos MORI found that nearly half of the British public believed this misinformation to be true.[130] Even when information is proven to be misinformation, it may continue to shape attitudes towards a given topic,[118] meaning it has the power to swing political decisions if it gains enough traction. A study conducted by Soroush Vosoughi, Deb Roy and Sinan Aral looked at Twitter data including 126,000 posts spread by 3 million people over 4.5 million times. They found that political news traveled faster than any other type of information. They found that false news about politics reached more than 20,000 people three times faster than all other types of false news.[90]

Aside from political propaganda, misinformation can also be employed in industrial propaganda. Using tools such as advertising, a company can undermine reliable evidence or influence belief through a concerted misinformation campaign. For instance, tobacco companies employed misinformation in the second half of the twentieth century to diminish the reliability of studies that demonstrated the link between smoking and lung cancer.[131]

In the medical field, misinformation can immediately lead to life endangerment as seen in the case of the public's negative perception towards vaccines or the use of herbs instead of medicines to treat diseases.[70][132] In regards to the COVID-19 pandemic, the spread of misinformation has proven to cause confusion as well as negative emotions such as anxiety and fear.[133][134] Misinformation regarding proper safety measures for the prevention of the virus that go against information from legitimate institutions like the World Health Organization can also lead to inadequate protection and possibly place individuals at risk for exposure.[133][135]

Some scholars and activists are heading movements to eliminate the mis/disinformation and information pollution in the digital world. One theory, "information environmentalism," has become a curriculum in some universities and colleges.[136][137] The general study of misinformation and disinformation is by now also common across various academic disciplines, including sociology, communication, computer science, and political science, leading to the emerging field being described loosely as "Misinformation and Disinformation Studies".[138] However, various scholars and journalists have criticised this development, pointing to problematic normative assumptions, a varying quality of output and lack of methodological rigor, as well as a too strong impact of mis- and disinformation research in shaping public opinion and policymaking.[139][140] Summarising the most frequent points of critique, communication scholars Chico Camargo and Felix Simon wrote in an article for the Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review that "mis-/disinformation studies has been accused of lacking clear definitions, having a simplified understanding of what it studies, a too great emphasis on media effects, a neglect of intersectional factors, an outsized influence of funding bodies and policymakers on the research agenda of the field, and an outsized impact of the field on policy and policymaking."[141]

See also

References
  1. Merriam-Webster Dictionary (19 August 2020). "Misinformation". Archived from the original on 25 February 2019. Retrieved 19 August 2020.
  2. Fetzer, James H. (2004-05-01). "Information: Does it Have To Be True?". Minds and Machines. 14 (2): 223–229. doi:10.1023/B:MIND.0000021682.61365.56. ISSN 1572-8641. S2CID 31906034.
  3. Merriam-Webster Dictionary (19 August 2020). "Disinformation". Merriam-Webster. Archived from the original on 5 October 2020. Retrieved 19 August 2020.
  4. Woolley, Samuel C.; Howard, Philip N. (2016). "Political Communication, Computational Propaganda, and Autonomous Agents". International Journal of Communication. 10: 4882–4890. Archived from the original on 2019-10-22. Retrieved 2019-10-22.
  5. Caramancion, Kevin Matthe (2020). "An Exploration of Disinformation as a Cybersecurity Threat". 2020 3rd International Conference on Information and Computer Technologies (ICICT). pp. 440–444. doi:10.1109/icict50521.2020.00076. ISBN 978-1-72817-283-5. S2CID 218651389.
  6. Lewandowsky, Stephan; Stritzke, Werner G. K.; Freund, Alexandra M.; Oberauer, Klaus; Krueger, Joachim I. (October 2013). "Misinformation, disinformation, and violent conflict: From Iraq and the "War on Terror" to future threats to peace". American Psychologist. 68 (7): 487–501. doi:10.1037/a0034515. ISSN 1935-990X. PMID 24128313.
  7. Fisher, Natascha A. Karlova, Karen E. (2013-03-15). "A social diffusion model of misinformation and disinformation for understanding human information behaviour". informationr.net. Archived from the original on 2023-05-11. Retrieved 2023-05-11.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  8. "Definition of RUMOR". www.merriam-webster.com. May 21, 2023. Archived from the original on February 4, 2022. Retrieved February 4, 2022.
  9. Zeng, Jing; Chan, Chung-hong (2021-01-01). "A cross-national diagnosis of infodemics: comparing the topical and temporal features of misinformation around COVID-19 in China, India, the US, Germany and France". Online Information Review. 45 (4): 709–728. doi:10.1108/OIR-09-2020-0417. ISSN 1468-4527. S2CID 234242942.
  10. Ecker, Ullrich K.H.; Lewandowsky, Stephan; Cheung, Candy S.C.; Maybery, Murray T. (November 2015). "He did it! She did it! No, she did not! Multiple causal explanations and the continued influence of misinformation" (PDF). Journal of Memory and Language. 85: 101–115. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2015.09.002. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-12-07. Retrieved 2022-11-01.
  11. Aral, Sinan (2020). The hype machine : how social media disrupts our elections, our economy, and our health--and how we must adapt (First ed.). New York. ISBN 978-0-525-57451-4. OCLC 1155486056.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  12. Lewandowsky, Stephan; Ecker, Ullrich K. H.; Seifert, Colleen M.; Schwarz, Norbert; Cook, John (2012). "Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing". Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 13 (3): 106–131. doi:10.1177/1529100612451018. JSTOR 23484653. PMID 26173286. S2CID 42633.
  13. "The True History of Fake News". The New York Review of Books. 2017-02-13. Archived from the original on 2019-02-05. Retrieved 2019-02-24.
  14. Andrew Pettegree (2015). The Invention of News. Yale University Press. pp. 153–4. ISBN 978-0-300-21276-1.
  15. "A short guide to the history of 'fake news' and disinformation". International Center for Journalists. Archived from the original on 2019-02-25. Retrieved 2019-02-24.
  16. Allcott, Hunt; Gentzkow, Matthew; Yu, Chuan (April 2019). "Trends in the diffusion of misinformation on social media". Research & Politics. 6 (2): 205316801984855. doi:10.1177/2053168019848554. ISSN 2053-1680. S2CID 52291737. Archived from the original on 2022-10-28. Retrieved 2023-04-17.
  17. Godfrey-Smith, Peter (December 1989). "Misinformation". Canadian Journal of Philosophy. 19 (4): 533–550. doi:10.1080/00455091.1989.10716781. ISSN 0045-5091. S2CID 246637810.
  18. West, Jevin D.; Bergstrom, Carl T. (2021-04-13). "Misinformation in and about science". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 118 (15): e1912444117. Bibcode:2021PNAS..11812444W. doi:10.1073/pnas.1912444117. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 8054004. PMID 33837146.
  19. Fung, Isaac Chun-Hai; Fu, King-Wa; Chan, Chung-Hong; Chan, Benedict Shing Bun; Cheung, Chi-Ngai; Abraham, Thomas; Tse, Zion Tsz Ho (May 2016). "Social Media's Initial Reaction to Information and Misinformation on Ebola, August 2014: Facts and Rumors". Public Health Reports. 131 (3): 461–473. doi:10.1177/003335491613100312. ISSN 0033-3549. PMC 4869079. PMID 27252566.
  20. Oyeyemi, Sunday Oluwafemi; Gabarron, Elia; Wynn, Rolf (2014-10-14). "Ebola, Twitter, and misinformation: a dangerous combination?". BMJ. 349: g6178. doi:10.1136/bmj.g6178. ISSN 1756-1833. PMID 25315514. S2CID 731448. Archived from the original on 2022-11-01. Retrieved 2023-05-11.
  21. Swire-Thompson, Briony; Lazer, David (2020-04-02). "Public Health and Online Misinformation: Challenges and Recommendations". Annual Review of Public Health. 41 (1): 433–451. doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094127. ISSN 0163-7525. PMID 31874069.
  22. Jerit, Jennifer; Zhao, Yangzi (2020-05-11). "Political Misinformation". Annual Review of Political Science. 23 (1): 77–94. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-032814. ISSN 1094-2939. S2CID 212733536. Archived from the original on 2022-10-13. Retrieved 2022-12-01.
  23. Mintz, Anne. "The Misinformation Superhighway?". PBS. Archived from the original on 2 April 2013. Retrieved 26 February 2013.
  24. Jain, Suchita; Sharma, Vanya; Kaushal, Rishabh (2016). "Towards automated real-time detection of misinformation on Twitter". 2016 International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communications and Informatics (ICACCI). pp. 2015–2020. doi:10.1109/ICACCI.2016.7732347. ISBN 978-1-5090-2029-4. S2CID 17767475.
  25. Libicki, Martin (2007). Conquest in Cyberspace: National Security and Information Warfare. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 51–55. ISBN 978-0-521-87160-0.
  26. Khan, M. Laeeq; Idris, Ika Karlina (2 December 2019). "Recognise misinformation and verify before sharing: a reasoned action and information literacy perspective". Behaviour & Information Technology. 38 (12): 1194–1212. doi:10.1080/0144929x.2019.1578828. S2CID 86681742.
  27. Lazer, David M. J.; Baum, Matthew A.; Benkler, Yochai; Berinsky, Adam J.; Greenhill, Kelly M.; Menczer, Filippo; Metzger, Miriam J.; Nyhan, Brendan; Pennycook, Gordon; Rothschild, David; Schudson, Michael; Sloman, Steven A.; Sunstein, Cass R.; Thorson, Emily A.; Watts, Duncan J.; Zittrain, Jonathan L. (2018). "The science of fake news". Science. 359 (6380): 1094–1096. arXiv:2307.07903. Bibcode:2018Sci...359.1094L. doi:10.1126/science.aao2998. PMID 29590025. S2CID 4410672.
  28. Vraga, Emily K.; Bode, Leticia (December 2017). "Leveraging institutions, educators, and networks to correct misinformation: A commentary on Lewandosky, Ecker, and Cook". Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. 6 (4): 382–388. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.09.008.
  29. Caramancion, Kevin Matthe (2020). "Understanding the Impact of Contextual Clues in Misinformation Detection". 2020 IEEE International IOT, Electronics and Mechatronics Conference (IEMTRONICS). pp. 1–6. doi:10.1109/IEMTRONICS51293.2020.9216394. ISBN 978-1-72819-615-2. S2CID 222297695.
  30. Scheufele, Dietram; Krause, Nicole (April 16, 2019). "Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 116 (16): 7662–7669. Bibcode:2019PNAS..116.7662S. doi:10.1073/pnas.1805871115. PMC 6475373. PMID 30642953.
  31. Ecker, Ullrich K. H.; Lewandowsky, Stephan; Chadwick, Matthew (2020-04-22). "Can Corrections Spread Misinformation to New Audiences? Testing for the Elusive Familiarity Backfire Effect". Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications. 5 (1): 41. doi:10.31219/osf.io/et4p3. hdl:1983/0d5feec2-5878-4af6-b5c7-fbbd398dd4c4. PMC 7447737. PMID 32844338. Archived from the original on 2020-06-17. Retrieved 2020-06-17.
  32. Lewandowsky, Stephan; Ecker, Ullrich K. H.; Seifert, Colleen M.; Schwarz, Norbert; Cook, John (2012). "Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing". Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 13 (3): 106–131. doi:10.1177/1529100612451018. JSTOR 23484653. PMID 26173286. S2CID 42633.
  33. Busselle, Rick (2017). "Schema Theory and Mental Models". The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects. pp. 1–8. doi:10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0079. ISBN 978-1-118-78404-4.
  34. Plaza, Mateusz; Paladino, Lorenzo (2019). "The use of distributed consensus algorithms to curtail the spread of medical misinformation". International Journal of Academic Medicine. 5 (2): 93–96. doi:10.4103/IJAM.IJAM_47_19. S2CID 201803407.
  35. "Supplemental Material for The Role of Familiarity in Correcting Inaccurate Information". Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition: xlm0000422.supp. 2017. doi:10.1037/xlm0000422.supp.
  36. Walter, Nathan; Tukachinsky, Riva (March 2020). "A Meta-Analytic Examination of the Continued Influence of Misinformation in the Face of Correction: How Powerful Is It, Why Does It Happen, and How to Stop It?". Communication Research. 47 (2): 155–177. doi:10.1177/0093650219854600. S2CID 197731687. Archived from the original on 2022-12-07. Retrieved 2022-11-01.
  37. Cook, John; Ellerton, Peter; Kinkead, David (1 February 2018). "Deconstructing climate misinformation to identify reasoning errors". Environmental Research Letters. 13 (2): 024018. Bibcode:2018ERL....13b4018C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aaa49f. S2CID 149353744.
  38. Cook, John (May–June 2020). "Using Humor And Games To Counter Science Misinformation". Skeptical Inquirer. Vol. 44, no. 3. Amherst, New York: Center for Inquiry. pp. 38–41. Archived from the original on 31 December 2020. Retrieved 31 December 2020.
  39. Lewandowsky, Stephan; Ecker, Ullrich K. H.; Cook, John (December 2017). "Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the 'post-truth' era" (PDF). Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. 6 (4): 353–369. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008. hdl:1983/1b4da4f3-009d-4287-8e45-a0a1d7b688f7. S2CID 149003083. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2023-01-18. Retrieved 2022-11-01.
  40. Griffith, Chris (21 July 2021). "Facebook exposed over its handling of COVID misinformation". The Australian. Canberra. ProQuest 2553642687.
  41. Brosnan, Deanne (13 January 2021). "When Misinformation is Misinformation". CE Think Tank Newswire. Miami. ProQuest 2477885938.
  42. "Ask FactCheck". www.factcheck.org. Archived from the original on 2016-03-31. Retrieved 2016-03-31.
  43. Fernandez, Miriam; Alani, Harith (2018). "Online Misinformation". Companion of the Web Conference 2018 on the Web Conference 2018 – WWW '18. ACM Press. pp. 595–602. doi:10.1145/3184558.3188730. ISBN 978-1-4503-5640-4. S2CID 13799324.
  44. Zhang, Chaowei; Gupta, Ashish; Kauten, Christian; Deokar, Amit V.; Qin, Xiao (December 2019). "Detecting fake news for reducing misinformation risks using analytics approaches". European Journal of Operational Research. 279 (3): 1036–1052. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2019.06.022. S2CID 197492100.
  45. "Web of Deception: Misinformation on the Internet". The Electronic Library. 20 (6): 521. 1 December 2002. doi:10.1108/el.2002.20.6.521.7.
  46. DAVID KLEPPER (1 January 2022). "Conspiracy theories paint fraudulent reality of Jan. 6 riot". AP news. Archived from the original on 1 January 2022. Retrieved 1 January 2022.
  47. Marwick, Alice E. (2013). "Online Identity". A Companion to New Media Dynamics. pp. 355–364. doi:10.1002/9781118321607.ch23. ISBN 978-1-118-32160-7.
  48. Verma, Nitin; Fleischmann, Kenneth R.; Koltai, Kolina S. (January 2017). "Human values and trust in scientific journals, the mainstream media and fake news". Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 54 (1): 426–435. doi:10.1002/pra2.2017.14505401046. S2CID 51958978.
  49. Chen, Xinran; Sin, Sei-Ching Joanna (2013). "'Misinformation? What of it?' Motivations and individual differences in misinformation sharing on social media: 'Misinformation? What of it?' Motivations and Individual Differences in Misinformation Sharing on Social Media". Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 50 (1): 1–4. doi:10.1002/meet.14505001102. S2CID 52010791.
  50. "Literature Review: Echo chambers, filter bubbles and polarization" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 19 January 2022. Retrieved 21 February 2022.
  51. Harford, Tim (25 May 2013). "Misinformation can be Beautiful Too: The Undercover Economist". Financial Times. London. p. 60. ProQuest 1355300828.
  52. Acerbi, Alberto (2019-02-12). "Cognitive attraction and online misinformation". Palgrave Communications. 5 (1). doi:10.1057/s41599-019-0224-y. ISSN 2055-1045. S2CID 257089832.
  53. Almaliki, Malik (2019-04-06). "Online Misinformation Spread". Proceedings of the 2019 3rd International Conference on Information System and Data Mining. New York: ACM. pp. 171–178. doi:10.1145/3325917.3325938. ISBN 978-1-4503-6635-9. S2CID 190232270.
  54. The online information environment: Understanding how the internet shapes people's engagement with scientific information (PDF). The Royal Society. January 2022. ISBN 978-1-78252-567-7. Archived (PDF) from the original on 11 February 2022. Retrieved 21 February 2022.
  55. Marquez, Natalie. "Research Guides: Misinformation – Get the Facts: What is Misinformation?". guides.lib.uci.edu. Archived from the original on 2023-03-16. Retrieved 2023-03-16.
  56. Fallis, Don (2015). "What Is Disinformation?". Library Trends. 63 (3): 401–426. doi:10.1353/lib.2015.0014. hdl:2142/89818. ISSN 1559-0682. S2CID 13178809.
  57. "What is disinformation?". Die Bundesregierung informiert | Startseite (in German). Archived from the original on 2023-03-23. Retrieved 2023-03-16.
  58. Yee, Amy. "The country inoculating against disinformation". BBC. Archived from the original on 20 February 2022. Retrieved 21 February 2022.
  59. Sitrin, Carly (5 January 2023). "New Jersey becomes first state to mandate K-12 students learn information literacy". Politico. Archived from the original on 9 January 2023. Retrieved 9 January 2023.
  60. Roozenbeek, Jon; van der Linden, Sander; Goldberg, Beth; Rathje, Steve; Lewandowsky, Stephan (26 August 2022). "Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media". Science Advances. 8 (34): eabo6254. Bibcode:2022SciA....8O6254R. doi:10.1126/sciadv.abo6254. ISSN 2375-2548. PMC 9401631. PMID 36001675.
  61. "Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online". The Royal Society. Archived from the original on 12 February 2022. Retrieved 12 February 2022.
  62. Treen, Kathie M. d'I.; Williams, Hywel T. P.; O'Neill, Saffron J. (September 2020). "Online misinformation about climate change". WIREs Climate Change. 11 (5). doi:10.1002/wcc.665. S2CID 221879878.
  63. Zewe, Adam. "Empowering social media users to assess content helps fight misinformation". Massachusetts Institute of Technology via techxplore.com. Archived from the original on 18 December 2022. Retrieved 18 December 2022.
  64. Jahanbakhsh, Farnaz; Zhang, Amy X.; Karger, David R. (11 November 2022). "Leveraging Structured Trusted-Peer Assessments to Combat Misinformation". Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction. 6 (CSCW2): 524:1–524:40. doi:10.1145/3555637.
  65. Elliott, Matt. "Fake news spotter: How to enable Microsoft Edge's NewsGuard". CNET. Archived from the original on 9 January 2023. Retrieved 9 January 2023.
  66. "12 Browser Extensions to Help You Detect and Avoid Fake News". The Trusted Web. 18 March 2021. Archived from the original on 9 January 2023. Retrieved 9 January 2023.
  67. Darcy, Oliver (24 July 2020). "Wikipedia administrators caution editors about using Fox News as source on 'contentious' claims | CNN Business". CNN. Archived from the original on 20 November 2021. Retrieved 9 January 2023.
  68. "New MIT Sloan research measures exposure to misinformation from political elites on Twitter". AP NEWS. 29 November 2022. Archived from the original on 18 December 2022. Retrieved 18 December 2022.
  69. Mosleh, Mohsen; Rand, David G. (21 November 2022). "Measuring exposure to misinformation from political elites on Twitter". Nature Communications. 13 (1): 7144. Bibcode:2022NatCo..13.7144M. doi:10.1038/s41467-022-34769-6. ISSN 2041-1723. PMC 9681735. PMID 36414634.
  70. Stawicki, Stanislaw P.; Firstenberg, Michael S.; Papadimos, Thomas J. (2020). "The Growing Role of Social Media in International Health Security: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly". Global Health Security. Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications. pp. 341–357. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-23491-1_14. ISBN 978-3-030-23490-4. S2CID 212995901.
  71. Vosoughi, Soroush; Roy, Deb; Aral, Sinan (9 March 2018). "The spread of true and false news online" (PDF). Science. 359 (6380): 1146–1151. Bibcode:2018Sci...359.1146V. doi:10.1126/science.aap9559. PMID 29590045. S2CID 4549072. Archived from the original (PDF) on 29 April 2019. Retrieved 21 August 2019.
  72. Tucker, Joshua A.; Guess, Andrew; Barbera, Pablo; Vaccari, Cristian; Siegel, Alexandra; Sanovich, Sergey; Stukal, Denis; Nyhan, Brendan. "Social Media, Political Polarization, and Political Disinformation: A Review of the Scientific Literature". Hewlett Foundation White Paper. Archived from the original on 2019-03-06. Retrieved 2019-03-05.
  73. Machado, Caio; Kira, Beatriz; Narayanan, Vidya; Kollanyi, Bence; Howard, Philip (2019). "A Study of Misinformation in WhatsApp groups with a focus on the Brazilian Presidential Elections". Companion Proceedings of the 2019 World Wide Web Conference. pp. 1013–1019. doi:10.1145/3308560.3316738. ISBN 978-1-4503-6675-5. S2CID 153314118.
  74. Allcott, Hunt; Gentzkow, Matthew; Yu, Chuan (April 2019). "Trends in the diffusion of misinformation on social media". Research & Politics. 6 (2): 205316801984855. doi:10.1177/2053168019848554. S2CID 52291737.
  75. Chen, Xinran; Sin, Sei-Ching Joanna; Theng, Yin-Leng; Lee, Chei Sian (September 2015). "Why Students Share Misinformation on Social Media: Motivation, Gender, and Study-level Differences". The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 41 (5): 583–592. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2015.07.003. S2CID 141523357.
  76. Shaffer, David Williamson; Collier, Wesley; Ruis, A. R. (2016). "A tutorial on epistemic network analysis: Analysing the structural connections in cognitive, social and interaction data". Journal of Learning Analytics. 3 (3): 9–45. doi:10.18608/jla.2016.33.3. ERIC EJ1126800.
  77. Milman, Oliver (2020-02-21). "Revealed: quarter of all tweets about climate crisis produced by bots". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2020-02-22. Retrieved 2020-02-23.
  78. Thai, My T.; Wu, Weili; Xiong, Hui (2016-12-01). Big Data in Complex and Social Networks. CRC Press. ISBN 978-1-315-39669-9.
  79. Gabbert, Fiona; Memon, Amina; Allan, Kevin; Wright, Daniel B. (September 2004). "Say it to my face: Examining the effects of socially encountered misinformation". Legal and Criminological Psychology. 9 (2): 215–227. doi:10.1348/1355325041719428. S2CID 144823646.
  80. Benkler, Y. (2017). "Study: Breitbart-led rightwing media ecosystem altered broader media agenda". Archived from the original on 4 June 2018. Retrieved 8 June 2018.
  81. Scheufele, Dietram A.; Krause, Nicole M. (16 April 2019). "Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 116 (16): 7662–7669. Bibcode:2019PNAS..116.7662S. doi:10.1073/pnas.1805871115. PMC 6475373. PMID 30642953.
  82. Caramancion, Kevin Matthe (2021). "The Role of Information Organization and Knowledge Structuring in Combatting Misinformation: A Literary Analysis". Computational Data and Social Networks. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 13116. pp. 319–329. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-91434-9_28. ISBN 978-3-030-91433-2. S2CID 244890285.
  83. Starbird, Kate; Dailey, Dharma; Mohamed, Owla; Lee, Gina; Spiro, Emma S. (19 April 2018). "Engage Early, Correct More: How Journalists Participate in False Rumors Online during Crisis Events". Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. pp. 1–12. doi:10.1145/3173574.3173679. ISBN 9781450356206. S2CID 5046314.
  84. Arif, Ahmer; Robinson, John J.; Stanek, Stephanie A.; Fichet, Elodie S.; Townsend, Paul; Worku, Zena; Starbird, Kate (2017). "A Closer Look at the Self-Correcting Crowd". Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. pp. 155–168. doi:10.1145/2998181.2998294. ISBN 978-1-4503-4335-0. S2CID 15167363.
  85. Spradling, Matthew; Straub, Jeremy; Strong, Jay (June 2021). "Protection from 'Fake News': The Need for Descriptive Factual Labeling for Online Content". Future Internet. 13 (6): 142. doi:10.3390/fi13060142. ISSN 1999-5903.
  86. Messerole, Chris (2018-05-09). "How misinformation spreads on social media – And what to do about it". Brookings Institution. Archived from the original on 25 February 2019. Retrieved 24 February 2019.
  87. Diaz Ruiz, Carlos; Nilsson, Tomas (2022-08-08). "Disinformation and Echo Chambers: How Disinformation Circulates on Social Media Through Identity-Driven Controversies". Journal of Public Policy & Marketing. 42: 18–35. doi:10.1177/07439156221103852. ISSN 0743-9156.
  88. Nguyen, C. Thi (2020). "Echo Chambers and Epistemic Bubbles". Episteme. 17 (2): 141–161. doi:10.1017/epi.2018.32. ISSN 1742-3600. S2CID 171520109. Archived from the original on 2022-02-09. Retrieved 2022-11-25.
  89. Bode, Leticia; Vraga, Emily K. (2 September 2018). "See Something, Say Something: Correction of Global Health Misinformation on Social Media". Health Communication. 33 (9): 1131–1140. doi:10.1080/10410236.2017.1331312. PMID 28622038. S2CID 205698884.
  90. Aral, Sinan (2020). The hype machine : how social media disrupts our elections, our economy, and our health--and how we must adapt (First ed.). New York. ISBN 978-0-525-57451-4. OCLC 1155486056.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  91. Tucker, Emma (18 September 2022). "TikTok's search engine repeatedly delivers misinformation to its majority-young user base, report says | CNN Business". CNN. Archived from the original on 19 October 2022. Retrieved 19 October 2022.
  92. "Misinformation Monitor: September 2022". NewsGuard. Archived from the original on 18 October 2022. Retrieved 19 October 2022.
  93. Dwoskin, Elizabeth. "Misinformation on Facebook got six times more clicks than factual news during the 2020 election, study says". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2021-10-21. Retrieved 2021-10-22.
  94. Chen, Xinran; Sin, Sei-Ching Joanna; Theng, Yin-Leng; Lee, Chei Sian (2015). "Why do Social Media Users Share Misinformation?". Proceedings of the 15th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries. pp. 111–114. doi:10.1145/2756406.2756941. ISBN 978-1-4503-3594-2. S2CID 15983217.
  95. Iyengar, Shanto; Massey, Douglas S. (16 April 2019). "Scientific communication in a post-truth society". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 116 (16): 7656–7661. Bibcode:2019PNAS..116.7656I. doi:10.1073/pnas.1805868115. PMC 6475392. PMID 30478050.
  96. Swire-Thompson, Briony; Lazer, David (2 April 2020). "Public Health and Online Misinformation: Challenges and Recommendations". Annual Review of Public Health. 41 (1): 433–451. doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094127. PMID 31874069.
  97. "Revealed: a quarter of all tweets about climate crisis produced by bots". The Guardian. 2020-02-21. Archived from the original on 2021-04-29. Retrieved 2021-04-20.
  98. Vosoughi, Soroush; Roy, Deb; Aral, Sinan (2018-03-09). "The spread of true and false news online". Science. 359 (6380): 1146–1151. Bibcode:2018Sci...359.1146V. doi:10.1126/science.aap9559. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 29590045. S2CID 4549072. Archived from the original on 2023-05-11. Retrieved 2023-05-11.
  99. Shin, Jieun; Jian, Lian; Driscoll, Kevin; Bar, François (June 2018). "The diffusion of misinformation on social media: Temporal pattern, message, and source". Computers in Human Behavior. 83: 278–287. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.02.008. S2CID 41956979.
  100. "Amazon to suspend Parler after deadly Capitol Hill riot". Al Jazeera. 10 January 2021. Archived from the original on 7 March 2022. Retrieved 7 March 2022.
  101. Allgaier, Joachim (July 25, 2019). "Science and Environmental Communication on YouTube: Strategically Distorted Communications in Online Videos on Climate Change and Climate Engineering". Front. Commun. 4 (4): 36. doi:10.3389/fcomm.2019.00036.
  102. Nugent, Ciara (January 16, 2020). "YouTube Has Been 'Actively Promoting' Videos Spreading Climate Denialism, According to New Report". Time. Archived from the original on January 31, 2020.
  103. Paul, Kari (24 November 2020). "OANN suspended from YouTube after promoting a sham cure for Covid-19". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 25 November 2020. YouTube's Covid-specific misinformation policies prohibit content that disputes the existence of the virus, discourages someone from seeking medical treatment for Covid, disputes guidance from local health authorities on the pandemic, or offers unsubstantiated medical advice or treatment.
  104. "Sky News Australia barred for week by YouTube over Covid misinformation". BBC News. 2021-08-01. Retrieved 2021-08-01.
  105. De Vynck, Gerrit (September 28, 2021). "YouTube is banning prominent anti-vaccine activists and blocking all anti-vaccine content". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on September 29, 2021.
  106. Wakabayashi, Daisuke; Hsu, Tiffany (October 7, 2021). "Google bans ads on content, including YouTube videos, with false claims about climate change". The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 8, 2021.
  107. "Google profiting from climate misinformation on YouTube, report finds". The Independent. May 4, 2023. Retrieved August 27, 2023.
  108. Stapleton, Paul (2003). "Assessing the quality and bias of web-based sources: implications for academic writing". Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 2 (3): 229–245. doi:10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00026-2.
  109. West, Jevin D.; Bergstrom, Carl T. (2021). "Misinformation in and about science". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 118 (15). Bibcode:2021PNAS..11812444W. doi:10.1073/pnas.1912444117. PMC 8054004. PMID 33837146.
  110. "Facebook's Lab-Leak About-Face". WSJ. Archived from the original on 2021-07-14. Retrieved 2021-07-14.
  111. "Covid origin: Why the Wuhan lab-leak theory is being taken seriously". BBC News. 27 May 2021. Archived from the original on 30 June 2021. Retrieved 14 July 2021.
  112. "Hydroxychloroquine: Why a video promoted by Trump was pulled on social media". BBC News. 2020-07-28. Archived from the original on 2020-11-02. Retrieved 2021-11-24.
  113. "Stella Immanuel – the doctor behind unproven coronavirus cure claim". BBC News. 2020-07-29. Archived from the original on 2021-10-11. Retrieved 2020-11-23.
  114. Bertrand, Natasha (October 19, 2020). "Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say". Politico. Archived from the original on October 20, 2020. Retrieved October 20, 2020.
  115. Lizza, Ryan (September 21, 2021). "Politico Playbook: Double Trouble for Biden". Politico. Archived from the original on November 23, 2021. Retrieved September 23, 2021.
  116. Shearer, Elisa; Gottfried, Jeffrey (2017-09-07). "News Use Across Social Media Platforms 2017". Pew Research Center's Journalism Project. Archived from the original on 2021-03-16. Retrieved 2021-03-28.
  117. Croteau, David; Hoynes, William; Milan, Stefania. "Media Technology" (PDF). Media Society: Industries, Images, and Audiences. pp. 285–321. Archived (PDF) from the original on January 2, 2013. Retrieved March 21, 2013.
  118. Marwick, Alice; Lewis, Rebecca (2017). Media Manipulation and Disinformation Online. New York: Data & Society Research Institute. pp. 40–45.
  119. Gladstone, Brooke (2012). The Influencing Machine. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. pp. 49–51. ISBN 978-0-393-34246-8.
  120. Goldstein, Neal D. (February 2021). "Misinformation". American Journal of Public Health. 111 (2): e3–e4. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2020.306056. PMC 7811089. PMID 33439720. ProQuest 2486203133.
  121. Egelhofer, Jana Laura; Aaldering, Loes; Eberl, Jakob-Moritz; Galyga, Sebastian; Lecheler, Sophie (26 July 2020). "From Novelty to Normalization? How Journalists Use the Term 'Fake News' in their Reporting". Journalism Studies. 21 (10): 1323–1343. doi:10.1080/1461670x.2020.1745667. S2CID 216189313.
  122. Stewart, Mallory (2021). "Defending Weapons Inspections from the Effects of Disinformation". AJIL Unbound. 115: 106–110. doi:10.1017/aju.2021.4. S2CID 232070073.
  123. Damstra, Alyt; Boomgaarden, Hajo G.; Broda, Elena; Lindgren, Elina; Strömbäck, Jesper; Tsfati, Yariv; Vliegenthart, Rens (26 October 2021). "What Does Fake Look Like? A Review of the Literature on Intentional Deception in the News and on Social Media". Journalism Studies. 22 (14): 1947–1963. doi:10.1080/1461670x.2021.1979423. S2CID 244253422.
  124. Lanoszka, Alexander (June 2019). "Disinformation in international politics". European Journal of International Security. 4 (2): 227–248. doi:10.1017/eis.2019.6. S2CID 211312944.
  125. Ognyanova, Katherine; Lazer, David; Robertson, Ronald E.; Wilson, Christo (2 June 2020). "Misinformation in action: Fake news exposure is linked to lower trust in media, higher trust in government when your side is in power". Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review. doi:10.37016/mr-2020-024. S2CID 219904597.
  126. "Clarifying misinformation Clarifying misinformation". University Wire. Carlsbad. 10 March 2016. ProQuest 1771695334.
  127. Bodner, Glen E.; Musch, Elisabeth; Azad, Tanjeem (December 2009). "Reevaluating the potency of the memory conformity effect". Memory & Cognition. 37 (8): 1069–1076. doi:10.3758/MC.37.8.1069. PMID 19933452.
  128. Southwell, Brian G.; Thorson, Emily A.; Sheble, Laura (2018). Misinformation and Mass Audiences. University of Texas Press. ISBN 978-1-4773-1458-6.
  129. Barker, David (2002). Rushed to Judgement: Talk Radio, Persuasion, and American Political Behavior. New York: Columbia University Press. pp. 106–109.
  130. "The misinformation that was told about Brexit during and after the referendum". The Independent. 2 August 2018. Archived from the original on 15 May 2022.
  131. O'Connor, Cailin; Weatherall, James Owen (2019). The Misinformation Age: How False Beliefs Spread. New Haven: Yale University Press. pp. 10. ISBN 978-0-300-23401-5.
  132. Sinha, P.; Shaikh, S.; Sidharth, A. (2019). India Misinformed: The True Story. Harper Collins. ISBN 978-9353028381.
  133. Bratu, Sofia (May 24, 2020). "The Fake News Sociology of COVID-19 Pandemic Fear: Dangerously Inaccurate Beliefs, Emotional Contagion, and Conspiracy Ideation". Linguistic and Philosophical Investigations. 19: 128–134. doi:10.22381/LPI19202010.
  134. Gayathri Vaidyanathan (22 July 2020). "News Feature: Finding a vaccine for misinformation". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 117 (32): 18902–18905. Bibcode:2020PNAS..11718902V. doi:10.1073/PNAS.2013249117. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 7431032. PMID 32699146. Wikidata Q97652640.
  135. "Misinformation on coronavirus is proving highly contagious". AP NEWS. 2020-07-29. Archived from the original on 2020-11-20. Retrieved 2020-11-23.
  136. "Info-Environmentalism: An Introduction". Archived from the original on 2018-07-03. Retrieved 2018-09-28.
  137. "Information Environmentalism". Digital Learning and Inquiry (DLINQ). 2017-12-21. Archived from the original on 2018-09-28. Retrieved 2018-09-28.
  138. Righetti, Nicola; Rossi, Luca; Marino, Giada (4 July 2022). "At the onset of an infodemic: Geographic and disciplinary boundaries in researching problematic COVID-19 information". First Monday. doi:10.5210/fm.v27i7.12557. S2CID 250289817.
  139. Bernstein, Joseph (9 August 2021). "Bad News: Selling the story of disinformation". Harper's Magazine. Archived from the original on 26 September 2022. Retrieved 30 September 2022.
  140. Adler-Bell, Sam (2022-05-20). "The Liberal Obsession With 'Disinformation' Is Not Helping". Intelligencer. Archived from the original on 2022-09-30. Retrieved 2022-09-30.
  141. Camargo, Chico Q.; Simon, Felix M. (20 September 2022). "Mis- and disinformation studies are too big to fail: Six suggestions for the field's future". Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review. doi:10.37016/mr-2020-106. S2CID 252423678.

Further reading
Library resources about
Misinformation
Wikiquote has quotations related to Misinformation.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.