By Namitha Alluri ’25
As I sat at my dinner table, I observed the vibrant conversation between my family members. As I’ve grown, I’ve been taught that it is important to have our own beliefs and opinions– and that is shaped my opinion– or a better way to say it, analytical– personality. However, as I saw each of my family members share our conflicting ideas, I noticed the increase in citing social media as our credible source of information. I was intrigued. When did we start trusting social media so easily– and is it worth it?
We live in an age where social media is incredibly accessible, fast, and cost-effective. In fact, according to Statistica, Social media is now among the most used news sources worldwide. While the exact numbers differ slightly between countries, over 50 percent of adults consume social media in many of the highly populated countries in the world. Specifically, 80 percent of respondents in India aged 16 to 70 years old used social networks as their main news outlet, 60 percent of those in Argentina and Australia consume social media, and over 71 percent of Brazilian, South African, and Malaysian respondents are social media news consumers.
Social media has absolutely revolutionized how information is created and spread. Platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok have become ubiquitous, offering users instant access to vast amounts of information. However, this convenience comes with a significant drawback: the rampant spread of misinformation, “information that is false, inaccurate, or misleading according to the best available evidence at the time.”
With the increase in concern about the way the internet can be used to spread false information, it is important to distinguish misinformation–information offered in good faith but flawed–and disinformation–information offered by those who are well aware that it is flawed or inaccurate. Both are harmful, but especially misinformation, which may be trusted by many individuals because of the lack of knowledge and awareness in its accuracy.
As Dr. Vivek H. Murthy, Surgeon General of the US states, “Health misinformation is a serious threat to public health. It can cause confusion, sow mistrust, harm people’s health, and undermine public health efforts.”
The spread of misinformation on social media is staggering. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), an “infodemic” of false information has accompanied the COVID-19 pandemic, exacerbating the crisis by spreading fear, confusion, and mistrust. The pandemic truly highlighted how “health misinformation has led people to decline vaccines, reject public health measures, and use unproven treatments. Health misinformation has also led to harassment and violence against health workers, airline staff, and other frontline workers tasked with communicating evolving public health measures.”
Even more, during the pandemic, misinformation about the use of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19 led to increased demand and misuse of the drug, despite a lack of scientific evidence supporting its efficacy. This not only jeopardized the health of individuals who consumed the drug without medical supervision but also caused shortages for patients who needed it for approved medical conditions such as lupus and rheumatoid arthritis
In addition, a study published in the Irish Journal of Medical Science found that misinformation on social media significantly impacted vaccination decisions among university students. The study revealed that 27.4% of participants reported that social media moderately influenced their decision to get vaccinated. This highlights another terrifying moment in the U.S health trajectories: the anti-vaccine movement. Fueled by misinformation on social media, this movement has led to outbreaks of preventable diseases such as measles. In 2019, the United States experienced its highest number of measles cases in 25 years, a surge attributed largely to vaccine misinformation spread online. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that unvaccinated individuals, many influenced by misinformation, were primarily responsible for these outbreaks.
Furthermore, research shows that social media usage leads to “body image concerns, eating disorders/disordered eating and poor mental health via the mediating pathways of social comparison, thin / fit ideal internalization, and self-objectification.” Misinformation on social media further exacerbates body image concerns and unhealthy behaviors. Influencers and unverified sources often promote fad diets, detox teas, and other unproven methods for weight loss and fitness. These claims are typically not backed by scientific evidence and can be harmful.
For example, the promotion of unproven dietary supplements and detox regimens can lead to serious health issues. The FDA has had to issue numerous warnings about the dangers of these unverified health claims circulating on social media.
Moreover, a study in the Journal of Medical Internet Research examined the dissemination of weight loss information on Twitter. The researchers found that much of the weight loss advice shared on the platform was not evidence-based and could potentially lead to unhealthy weight control practices.
Misinformation, thus, can have a significant impact. However, as we zoom out, we see that misinformation is not only impactful and detrimental on the individual level, but also on a global scale.
For example, the spread of misinformation about climate science on social media platforms has become a significant barrier to effective climate action. False claims about the non-existence or natural causes of global warming undermine public understanding and delay necessary measures to address climate change.
A study by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) found that climate misinformation on social media comes from a small but active group of climate change skeptics. Their posts received significant engagement, especially with these tweets often containing misleading or false information about climate science, such as claims that global warming is a natural phenomenon, that climate change is a hoax, and that the scientific consensus on climate change is divided.
A survey by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication found that exposure to climate misinformation significantly decreases individuals’ acceptance of climate science and their support for climate policies. This misinformation erodes public trust in scientific institutions and experts, making it more difficult to build consensus around the urgent need for climate action. It also contributes to political polarization on the issue, with individuals’ beliefs about climate change increasingly aligning with their political affiliations rather than scientific evidence.
A notable example is the Trump administration’s rollback of numerous environmental regulations and its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, which was influenced by climate change denial narratives. These actions have had significant negative implications for global climate efforts, highlighting the real-world impact of misinformation on climate policy
Furthermore, Sinan Aral, an award-winning researcher and business analyst, discusses the impact of the 2013 infiltration of social media by Syrian hackers in his ted talk. He talks about how Syrian hackers created fake news, which went viral and triggered automated trading algorithms that sent the stock market crashing, wiping $140 billion in equity. The content reached 126 million facebook users, with 3 million tweets and 43 hours of YT content.
He discusses how false news diffuses farther faster and deeper than other news, with false political news being the most viral. He attributes this phenomena to how human attention is driven to novelty. We like to share novel information because we think we “gain in status” and have the ability to “share insider information.” Even more, he found that people who view false news exhibit emotions of surprise and disgust, whereas those that view true news show emotions of joy and trust; this idea corroborates the novelty hypothesis.
He makes an important distinction that even though algorithms and bots play a role in the spread of new information, computer algorithms speed up true and false news– meaning they are not responsible for the differential diffusion/spread of false news, we humans are.
Thus, the solution lies in changes in human behavior on social networks and implementing systematic changes across multiple levels of society.
One key strategy described by Aral is the clear labeling of content. Just as food products come with detailed labels to inform consumers about their contents, social media posts should include labels indicating their credibility. However, this raises the question of who in society gets to decide what is true and what is false. The process of labeling must be transparent and involve multiple stakeholders, including scientists, educators, and fact-checking organizations, to ensure accuracy and fairness.
Aral also recommends modifying the economic incentives that drive the spread of misinformation. Social media platforms should depress the spread of false information by reducing the financial incentives for sharing sensational but false content. This includes regulating political speech to ensure that platforms are not profiting from the dissemination of falsehoods during critical periods such as elections. Transparency is crucial in these efforts. Social media companies must show exactly how their algorithms work, allowing researchers and the public to understand how information is prioritized and spread. Although this poses a challenge given the need to protect user data and ensure security, the benefits of increased transparency far outweigh the risks.
Plus, changes in behavior fall into many levels.
On an individual level, users must learn to identify and avoid sharing health misinformation.
Health professionals play a critical role in this process by engaging proactively with patients and the public to correct false information. They can leverage technology and media platforms to disseminate accurate health information and partner with community groups to prevent and address misinformation at the local level.
On a technology platform level, strengthening the monitoring of misinformation and prioritizing the early detection of “super-spreaders” and repeat offenders is essential. These platforms (and their designers/monitors) must evaluate their internal policies and be transparent about the effectiveness of their efforts to curb misinformation.
In addition, researchers must also intensify the monitoring of health-related questions, concerns, and misinformation. They should evaluate the effectiveness of strategies and policies designed to prevent and address misinformation, and work on communicating health information in a way that is accessible and reliable.
Finally, Governments have a role to play by increasing investment in research on misinformation, modernizing public health communications, and providing more resources and technical assistance to state and local public health agencies. Additionally, expanding efforts to build long-term resilience to misinformation, such as through educational programs, is crucial for sustaining public trust and ensuring an informed populace.
The fight against misinformation is not merely a battle against falsehoods but a struggle for the integrity of our information ecosystem. Social media, while a revolutionary tool for communication and information sharing, has also become a double-edged sword, capable of both enlightening and misleading its users. To navigate this complex landscape, we must adopt a multi-faceted approach involving transparency, education, regulation, and individual responsibility. Only through concerted efforts can we hope to reclaim the digital space as a realm of credible and reliable information, ensuring that we are creating and sharing the truth for the health and safety of ourselves, our families, and the human population.
References:
- https://www.statista.com/topics/9002/social-media-news-consumption-worldwide/#topicOverview
- https://www.who.int/news-room/spotlight/let-s-flatten-the-infodemic-curve
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9718450/#:~:text=Hydroxychloroquine%20and%20Chloroquine&text=The%20FDA%20revoked%20the%20EUA,COVID%2D19%20%5B24%5D.
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10760349/
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10946219/
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10032524/
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5352642/
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27321206/
- https://www.isdglobal.org/disinformation/climate-disinformation/
- https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Inoculation-article-Global-Challenges.pdf
- https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-nature-gap/
- https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks-list.html
- https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/priorities/health-misinformation/index.html
- https://sciedandmisinfo.sites.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj25316/files/media/file/science_education_in_an_age_of_misinformation.pdf
- https://www.ted.com/talks/sinan_aral_how_we_can_protect_truth_in_the_age_of_misinformation?language=en&delay=0s&subtitle=en
- https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/56865/health-misinformation-examining-its-presence-and-impact-across-communication-contexts
- https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11845-022-02936-9
