Search for: All records

The COVID-19 pandemic provides a unique opportunity to study science communication and, in particular, the transmission of consensus. In this study, we show how “science communicators,” writ large to include both mainstream science journalists and practiced conspiracy theorists, transform scientific evidence into two dueling consensuses using the effectiveness of masks as a case study. We do this by compiling one of the largest, hand-coded citation datasets of cross-medium science communication, derived from 5 million Twitter posts of people discussing masks. We find that science communicators selectively uplift certain published works while denigrating others to create bodies of evidence that support and oppose masks, respectively. Anti-mask communicators in particular often use selective and deceptive quotation of scientific work and criticize opposing science more than pro-mask communicators. Our findings have implications for scientists, science communicators, and scientific publishers, whose systems of sharing (and correcting) knowledge are highly vulnerable to what we term adversarial science communication. 

Abstract Perceived experts (i.e. medical professionals and biomedical scientists) are trusted sources of medical information who are especially effective at encouraging vaccine uptake. The role of perceived experts acting as potential antivaccine influencers has not been characterized systematically. We describe the prevalence and importance of antivaccine perceived experts by constructing a coengagement network of 7,720 accounts based on a Twitter data set containing over 4.2 million posts from April 2021. The coengagement network primarily broke into two large communities that differed in their stance toward COVID-19 vaccines, and misinformation was predominantly shared by the antivaccine community. Perceived experts had a sizable presence across the coengagement network, including within the antivaccine community where they were 9.8% of individual, English-language users. Perceived experts within the antivaccine community shared low-quality (misinformation) sources at similar rates and academic sources at higher rates compared to perceived nonexperts in that community. Perceived experts occupied important network positions as central antivaccine users and bridges between the antivaccine and provaccine communities. Using propensity score matching, we found that perceived expertise brought an influence boost, as perceived experts were significantly more likely to receive likes and retweets in both the antivaccine and provaccine communities. There was no significant difference in the magnitude of the influence boost for perceived experts between the two communities. Social media platforms, scientific communications, and biomedical organizations may focus on more systemic interventions to reduce the impact of perceived experts in spreading antivaccine misinformation. 

Health-related misinformation online poses threats to individual well-being and undermines public health efforts. In response, many social media platforms have temporarily or permanently suspended accounts that spread misinformation, at the risk of losing traffic vital to platform revenue. Here we examine the impact on platform engagement following removal of six prominent accounts during the COVID-19 pandemic. Focused on those who engaged with the removed accounts, we find that suspension did not meaningfully reduce activity on the platform. Moreover, we find that removal of the prominent accounts minimally impacted the diversity of information sources consumed. 

Claims of election fraud throughout the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election and during the lead up to the January 6, 2021 insurrection attempt have drawn attention to the urgent need to better understand how people interpret and act on disinformation. In this work, we present three primary contributions: (1) a framework for understanding the interaction between participatory disinformation and informal and tactical mobilization; (2) three case studies from the 2020 U.S. election analyzed using detailed temporal, content, and thematic analysis; and (3) a qualitative coding scheme for understanding how digital disinformation functions to mobilize online audiences. We combine resource mobilization theory with previous work examining participatory disinformation campaigns and "deep stories" to show how false or misleading information functioned to mobilize online audiences before, during, and after election day. Our analysis highlights how users on Twitter collaboratively construct and amplify alleged evidence of fraud that is used to facilitate action, both online and off. We find that mobilization is dependent on the selective amplification of false or misleading tweets by influencers, the framing around those claims, as well as the perceived credibility of their source. These processes are a self-reinforcing cycle where audiences collaborate in the construction of a misleading version of reality, which in turn leads to offline actions that are used to further reinforce a manufactured reality. Through this work, we hope to better inform future interventions. 

The prevalence and spread of online misinformation during the 2020 US presidential election served to perpetuate a false belief in widespread election fraud. Though much research has focused on how social media platforms connected people to election-related rumors and conspiracy theories, less is known about the search engine pathways that linked users to news content with the potential to undermine trust in elections. In this paper, we present novel data related to the content of political headlines during the 2020 US election period. We scraped over 800,000 headlines from Google's search engine results pages (SERP) in response to 20 election-related keywords—10 general (e.g., "Ballots") and 10 conspiratorial (e.g., "Voter fraud")—when searched from 20 cities across 16 states. We present results from qualitative coding of 5,600 headlines focused on the prevalence of delegitimizing information. Our results reveal that videos (as compared to stories, search results, and advertisements) are the most problematic in terms of exposing users to delegitimizing headlines. We also illustrate how headline content varies when searching from a swing state, adopting a conspiratorial search keyword, or reading from media domains with higher political bias. We conclude with policy recommendations on data transparency that allow researchers to continue to monitor search engines during elections. 

Abstract Misinformation online poses a range of threats, from subverting democratic processes to undermining public health measures. Proposed solutions range from encouraging more selective sharing by individuals to removing false content and accounts that create or promote it. Here we provide a framework to evaluate interventions aimed at reducing viral misinformation online both in isolation and when used in combination. We begin by deriving a generative model of viral misinformation spread, inspired by research on infectious disease. By applying this model to a large corpus (10.5 million tweets) of misinformation events that occurred during the 2020 US election, we reveal that commonly proposed interventions are unlikely to be effective in isolation. However, our framework demonstrates that a combined approach can achieve a substantial reduction in the prevalence of misinformation. Our results highlight a practical path forward as misinformation online continues to threaten vaccination efforts, equity and democratic processes around the globe.