Fighting Covid-19 Misinformation
March 30, 2020 10:12 AM Subscribe
Accuracy Nudge via Social Media MIT has posted this article about a possible new method to reduce misinformation about Covid-19 surfaced via social media.
I've been watching the moderation process on a local COVID-19 response group that requests that everything posted either be a link to a reputable site, or cite sources. And still the forwarded "I'm a trusted veterinarian at Johns Hopkins School of Epidemiology, and in my practice at an Urgent Care I see a lot of people who aren't practicing safe chocolate bar unwrapping..." spam continues.
One of the things about having been a blogger for over two decades is that I've spent a lot of time trying to chase news stories backwards from to the journal articles and university press releases that the original stemmed from, and I think the problem really goes to how much we've been acculturated to take "they say" or just completely random attributions seriously by how newspapers and TV news do reporting.
We've got decades, if not centuries, of "they say" and other uncited hearsay passed off as truth, and fixing that isn't going to be so much focused on getting people to spot fakes as it is changing how we understand knowledge and the sources of it.
So I'm skeptical that the "accuracy nudge" will work, if only because the goal of the false propagandists is more nuanced than just spreading BS, it's about discrediting the notion of knowledge, so they're just going to get more subtle about inserting completely wacky stuff inside true headlines. And we'll get apologists, like we see for all of the people who forwarded that video of that "doctor" telling you how you can desanitize your shopping.
posted by straw at 11:35 AM on March 30, 2020 [16 favorites]
One of the things about having been a blogger for over two decades is that I've spent a lot of time trying to chase news stories backwards from to the journal articles and university press releases that the original stemmed from, and I think the problem really goes to how much we've been acculturated to take "they say" or just completely random attributions seriously by how newspapers and TV news do reporting.
We've got decades, if not centuries, of "they say" and other uncited hearsay passed off as truth, and fixing that isn't going to be so much focused on getting people to spot fakes as it is changing how we understand knowledge and the sources of it.
So I'm skeptical that the "accuracy nudge" will work, if only because the goal of the false propagandists is more nuanced than just spreading BS, it's about discrediting the notion of knowledge, so they're just going to get more subtle about inserting completely wacky stuff inside true headlines. And we'll get apologists, like we see for all of the people who forwarded that video of that "doctor" telling you how you can desanitize your shopping.
posted by straw at 11:35 AM on March 30, 2020 [16 favorites]
But the other type are those spreading false information for political reasons, and for this group I'm not sure accuracy is a consideration at all.
Iran is suspected of under-reporting cases of corona virus and doubts persist in Russia and Chinese reports.
posted by Brian B. at 11:37 AM on March 30, 2020 [3 favorites]
Iran is suspected of under-reporting cases of corona virus and doubts persist in Russia and Chinese reports.
posted by Brian B. at 11:37 AM on March 30, 2020 [3 favorites]
So, even if "You can provide documented evidence showing that something is false" and "the problem really goes to how much we've been acculturated..." is cognitive dissonance the true enemy? There is so much propaganda, disinformation, misinformation and outright lies that continue to feed the machine, will new methods like "accuracy nudge" have any impact at all?
posted by dented_halo at 12:12 PM on March 30, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by dented_halo at 12:12 PM on March 30, 2020 [1 favorite]
Mod note: Comment removed. If you'd like to repost without the wishing-harm-on-another aspect feel free to email and we can send you your comment.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:55 PM on March 30, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:55 PM on March 30, 2020 [1 favorite]
One really useful idea is the different standards of evidence we demand for things that reinforce vs. contradict our predispositions. For things we already believe we say "eh, can I believe this? does it pass the smell test?" If so, fine, we believe it. For things we don't already believe we ask "MUST I believe this?" Is the evidence so strong that I have to change my perception? I think false-but-engaging content passes the "can I believe this?" test. But it doesn't pass the "must I believe this?" test so if you nudge people to evaluate the accuracy of information you may be nudging them to use a more stringent standard for evidence.
posted by selfmedicating at 1:07 PM on March 30, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by selfmedicating at 1:07 PM on March 30, 2020 [3 favorites]
What I wish is that people forwarding crap could expect to face general and vocal social disapproval for it. Like "Mary, that took 5 seconds to debunk, are you starting to lose it?" and "Bill, do you not have the common sense your chickens do, or do you just not respect me enough to fact-check your forwards?" If only people knew they would get that kind of reaction from 95% of their peers and family, not just the occasional smart-aleck generally-younger killjoy that they should obviously just filter out.
Because the people who manufacture the lies are a real and significant problem, but I think they're dwarfed by the people who blithely forward things because they think they sound good, or because it makes them feel active or connected or important. The part in the study where they found that even knowing that something isn't true doesn't prevent people from disseminating it is the part that drives me crazy. I don't see any way for that to stop short of serious societal censure of untruths. A society where people actively take offense at being offered low-quality information. The nudge described in the article, where accuracy is held up as a positive value, is a start, though I doubt it goes far enough.
My favorite part is how, even when you manage to convince someone that what they sent was total BS, and maybe even that it's a bad thing to spread stuff like that around, they'll never, ever follow up their mass forward with a mass "Sorry, actually it turns out that information was false, please ignore". It's like forwarding these things is simultaneously so important they just absolutely have to do it, and so unimportant that sending out lies doesn't matter, who cares, why are you taking it so seriously anyway.
posted by trig at 1:12 PM on March 30, 2020 [15 favorites]
Because the people who manufacture the lies are a real and significant problem, but I think they're dwarfed by the people who blithely forward things because they think they sound good, or because it makes them feel active or connected or important. The part in the study where they found that even knowing that something isn't true doesn't prevent people from disseminating it is the part that drives me crazy. I don't see any way for that to stop short of serious societal censure of untruths. A society where people actively take offense at being offered low-quality information. The nudge described in the article, where accuracy is held up as a positive value, is a start, though I doubt it goes far enough.
My favorite part is how, even when you manage to convince someone that what they sent was total BS, and maybe even that it's a bad thing to spread stuff like that around, they'll never, ever follow up their mass forward with a mass "Sorry, actually it turns out that information was false, please ignore". It's like forwarding these things is simultaneously so important they just absolutely have to do it, and so unimportant that sending out lies doesn't matter, who cares, why are you taking it so seriously anyway.
posted by trig at 1:12 PM on March 30, 2020 [15 favorites]
> It's like forwarding these things is simultaneously so important they just absolutely have to do it and so unimportant that sending out lies doesn't matter, who cares, why are you taking it so seriously anyway.
I encountered this today on a forum site I moderate. Someone posted a (now deleted) tweet linking to a chart showing that death rates in the US are significantly down significantly since COVID-19 came to the US, commenting something along the lines of "can't vouch for whether this is accurate or not, but it's interesting, and offers a different perspective." It took me five seconds to click the tweet itself and see a reply from the author of the tweet saying that the study from which the chart was taken saying that the data was preliminary and missing a ton of data, since states are... a bit busy right now, and behind on their recordkeeping.
So of course the guy who posted the tweet was all "that's why I included the disclaimer", as if passing on something without vetting it is a neutral act. It's really not. You are part of the misinformation apparatus if your first priority is being the first to put the info out there instead of making sure that info is factual.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:21 PM on March 30, 2020 [19 favorites]
I encountered this today on a forum site I moderate. Someone posted a (now deleted) tweet linking to a chart showing that death rates in the US are significantly down significantly since COVID-19 came to the US, commenting something along the lines of "can't vouch for whether this is accurate or not, but it's interesting, and offers a different perspective." It took me five seconds to click the tweet itself and see a reply from the author of the tweet saying that the study from which the chart was taken saying that the data was preliminary and missing a ton of data, since states are... a bit busy right now, and behind on their recordkeeping.
So of course the guy who posted the tweet was all "that's why I included the disclaimer", as if passing on something without vetting it is a neutral act. It's really not. You are part of the misinformation apparatus if your first priority is being the first to put the info out there instead of making sure that info is factual.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:21 PM on March 30, 2020 [19 favorites]
straw: "And we'll get apologists, like we see for all of the people who forwarded that video of that "doctor" telling you how you can desanitize your shopping."
Are you talking about the Jeffrey VanWingen video, and if so, is there something debunking it? I did a quick search and didn't find anything ...
posted by kristi at 1:42 PM on March 30, 2020
Are you talking about the Jeffrey VanWingen video, and if so, is there something debunking it? I did a quick search and didn't find anything ...
posted by kristi at 1:42 PM on March 30, 2020
This isn't debunking but it's basically talking about what we know about COVID-19 and food and links to two good sources of information, NC State and a well-researched Serious Eats article.
posted by jessamyn at 1:47 PM on March 30, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by jessamyn at 1:47 PM on March 30, 2020 [6 favorites]
So of course the guy who posted the tweet was all "that's why I included the disclaimer", as if passing on something without vetting it is a neutral act.
All the ones I know who post easily debunked forwards usually post things like "positive replies only, I'm not looking for a debate" to get around having to internalize the negative replies.
posted by The_Vegetables at 2:13 PM on March 30, 2020 [6 favorites]
All the ones I know who post easily debunked forwards usually post things like "positive replies only, I'm not looking for a debate" to get around having to internalize the negative replies.
posted by The_Vegetables at 2:13 PM on March 30, 2020 [6 favorites]
One of my friends posted a “joke” coronavirus-related article on FB today, which she revealed was a joke in the comments. I didn’t want to be rude, but I did say that I kind of have no sense of humor about coronavirus-related posts, because there is already so much misinformation out there and the “jokes” just add to it. People won’t read beyond the headline to get the “joke” — they’ll just repeat the headline as fact.
April Fool’s Day is going to be a shitshow.
posted by snowmentality at 2:50 PM on March 30, 2020 [3 favorites]
April Fool’s Day is going to be a shitshow.
posted by snowmentality at 2:50 PM on March 30, 2020 [3 favorites]
kristi: This Twitter thread from Don Shaffner, food microbiologist with Rutgers affiliations*, doesn't name specifically which doctor video he's dunking on, but... one of the problems is that we've got so many dunkable doctor videos to choose from. Of course as the Mercolas and Wakefields demonstrate, physicianing is prone to questionable self-promotion as a way to advance professionally.
Edit: Schaffner's Rutgers page
posted by straw at 3:21 PM on March 30, 2020 [7 favorites]
Edit: Schaffner's Rutgers page
posted by straw at 3:21 PM on March 30, 2020 [7 favorites]
I caught up with my dad last night.
His friend Jane had just forwarded me the “I’m a John Hopkins researcher and blah blah” email that’s going around, and had asked my opinion. I’d told Jane, and was also now relaying to my dad, that A: this particular one contains potentially harmful bullshit, but more importantly B: there is zero reason to take personal health guidance from unsourced email forwards. You can find this same type of information—except actually true—if you just go to the CDC website and look. The email/Facebook whisper network of tips for not getting sick, or ghoulish under-the-sink home remedies if you do, is not giving you anything of any value. Please for Christ’s sake just ignore them ALL, don’t pass them along, and go to an authoritative source any time you have questions.
He agreed totally. We got off the phone. Later that evening, he forwarded me another email and said “what about this one though, not sure about it but it sounds legit”. It was the exact same email his friend Jane had sent me. The one that we’d just talked about.
I really don’t know how we fix this destructive compulsion to shoot first and ask questions later. We seem to be fundamentally wired for it, and it’s causing so much damage right now.
posted by churl at 3:56 PM on March 30, 2020 [16 favorites]
His friend Jane had just forwarded me the “I’m a John Hopkins researcher and blah blah” email that’s going around, and had asked my opinion. I’d told Jane, and was also now relaying to my dad, that A: this particular one contains potentially harmful bullshit, but more importantly B: there is zero reason to take personal health guidance from unsourced email forwards. You can find this same type of information—except actually true—if you just go to the CDC website and look. The email/Facebook whisper network of tips for not getting sick, or ghoulish under-the-sink home remedies if you do, is not giving you anything of any value. Please for Christ’s sake just ignore them ALL, don’t pass them along, and go to an authoritative source any time you have questions.
He agreed totally. We got off the phone. Later that evening, he forwarded me another email and said “what about this one though, not sure about it but it sounds legit”. It was the exact same email his friend Jane had sent me. The one that we’d just talked about.
I really don’t know how we fix this destructive compulsion to shoot first and ask questions later. We seem to be fundamentally wired for it, and it’s causing so much damage right now.
posted by churl at 3:56 PM on March 30, 2020 [16 favorites]
Jessamyn and straw - thank you very much for those links. I really appreciate the fact check.
posted by kristi at 4:59 PM on March 30, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by kristi at 4:59 PM on March 30, 2020 [3 favorites]
US Intelligence reports that China has been faking its pandemic numbers, exposing other nations to bad data in making assumptions to fight the disease. It probably didn't help that America's conservative media labeled it a "Chinese virus" along the way (illustrating how stupid they are while we still need information from China).
posted by Brian B. at 8:49 AM on April 1, 2020
posted by Brian B. at 8:49 AM on April 1, 2020
US Intelligence reports that China has been faking its pandemic numbers
And that's the only country who has been faking, eh?
posted by rhizome at 4:27 PM on April 1, 2020
And that's the only country who has been faking, eh?
posted by rhizome at 4:27 PM on April 1, 2020
« Older Un-turfing yards, changing the landscape | What makes scorpions glow in ultraviolet light? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
But the other type are those spreading false information for political reasons, and for this group I'm not sure accuracy is a consideration at all. They're just promoting their underlying politics, which is why they can change with the wind as Trump and the greater conservative infosphere constantly changes the message. They are also convinced that all information that is negative or unflattering about Trump are lies manufactured by a vast conspiracy of Democrats, the "deep state", the media, and academia. Note the the actual content of this negative or unflattering information is entirely irrelevant: if it was something Trump said yesterday it's good, and if it's the exact same thing he's now saying is bad, then it's bad, and vice-versa.
I'm not sure how you fight this when accuracy or content doesn't matter at all and the only concern is supporting the leader. You can provide documented evidence showing that something is false, and they will dismiss it as anti-Trump liberal lies today...but support it tomorrow if Trump does.
posted by star gentle uterus at 10:39 AM on March 30, 2020 [8 favorites]