The impact of misinformation on social media is a growing concern, and two studies published in the journal Science shed light on the issue. The first study, led by Jennifer Allen from MIT, focuses on vaccine hesitancy and its relation to misinformation. The researchers found that exposure to vaccine misinformation reduces people’s intent to get vaccinated. This is troubling because previous studies have shown that intent correlates with actual vaccination rates.
The study also revealed that articles flagged as misinformation had a greater effect on vaccine hesitancy compared to non-flagged content. However, the volume of unflagged misinformation was significantly higher, suggesting that its overall influence was likely far greater in aggregate. This type of misinformation often comes from big news outlets that post misleading information, mischaracterizing risks or studies. For example, a headline from the Chicago Tribune falsely claimed that a healthy doctor died after receiving a COVID vaccine. Despite being misleading, it was viewed by millions of people.
The findings challenge the notion that fake news on Facebook is solely responsible for low vaccine uptake. While addressing blatantly false information is important, it’s just a small part of the larger problem of misinformation on social media.
The second study examined the spread of fake news during the 2020 election. The researchers found that a small group of 2,107 registered U.S. voters accounted for 80% of the fake news spread during the election. These supersharers, as they are called, were not state-sponsored plants or bot farms but individuals who manually and persistently retweeted false and misleading information.
Demographically, supersharers were predominantly older Republican women. They skewed way older than the average user and were overwhelmingly Republican. While these demographics are revealing, it’s important to note that they are not the sole perpetrators of spreading misinformation. Supersharers include political pundits, media personalities, contrarians, and anti-vaxxers with various motives for spreading untrustworthy content.
These findings highlight the vulnerability of social media for democracy, where a small group of people can distort the political reality for many. It raises concerns about the potential impact of misinformation on public opinion, decision-making, and trust in institutions. Addressing this issue requires a multi-faceted approach, including efforts from social media platforms, fact-checkers, and individuals to critically evaluate the information they encounter online.