Natural Stings: Selling Distrust About Vaccines on Brazilian YouTube

Abstract

In this study, we investigate misinformation and disinformation (M&D) about vaccines using a case study approach to understand how M&D about vaccines circulate on YouTube in Portuguese, and who are the channels creating and disseminating this kind of content. The World Health Organization considered vaccine hesitation as one of the greatest threats to global health in 2019. Researchers associated this hesitation to a strengthening of the anti-vaccination movements, suggesting that social media is currently the main spreader of this position. YouTube increasingly becomes a matter of concern, since its recommendation system is identified as a promoter of misinformation and extreme content. Despite YouTube's statements, M&D about vaccines continue to be disseminated in videos in Portuguese, reaching a large audience. We found 52 videos containing M&D about vaccines. The main M&D were the claim of dangerous ingredients in vaccines, the defense of self-direction-freedom of choice, independent research-, the promotion of alternative health services, the myth that vaccines cause diseases, conspiracy theories, and the allegation of vaccine's severe collateral effects. We identified 39 brands advertising on 13 videos of our M&D sample. Although the YouTube Partner Program is an important source of income, the channels use different economic strategies, such as the selling of courses, and therapies and the use of fundraising platforms. We also found that alternative health channels spread distrust about traditional institutions to promote themselves as trusted sources for the audience and thereby profit with alternative health services.

The political economy of digital profiteering: communication resource mobilization by anti-vaccination actors

“…Analysis showed that donations, sale of merchandise, and advertising were key monetization strategies. This was broadly consistent with reporting by watchdog organizations, as well as evidence published in academic studies that has analyzed other issue-oriented misinformation actors ( Center for Countering Digital Hate, 2020 ; First Draft, 2021 ; Snyder et al, 2021 ; Tokojima Machado et al, 2020 ). However, it seems the role of advertising was overemphasized in previous reports, as donations are the most common financial strategy.…”

“…Along with spreading misinformation, junk news websites often attempt to mobilize material resources to sustain their operations or make a profit ( Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017 ; Tokojima Machado et al, 2020 ). Indeed, there is good evidence that many junk news producers have a commercial motivation behind their activities ( Braun & Eklund, 2019 ; Wardle & Derakhshan, 2017 ).…”

Why Should Scientists be on YouTube? It’s all About Bamboo, Oil and Ice Cream

“…Making interesting and engaging DIY videos is a worthwhile time investment if you consider how it can radically increase the impact of your research. Furthermore, these videos are an excellent way for scientists to have a voice online to increase scientific literacy, meaningful engagement and help to reduce misinformation that is increasingly prevalent (Menezes, 2018) and often propagated on YouTube (Basch et al, 2015;Allgaier, 2019;D'Souza et al, 2020;Tokojima Machado et al, 2020) and other social media platforms (Thaler and Shiffman, 2015). Online videos may make you vulnerable to more criticism (and praise) than typically occurs with other forms of science communication.…”

Misinformation About the Human Gut Microbiome in YouTube Videos: Cross-sectional Study

“…As increasing understanding develops around the “digital determinants of health” [ 8 ], there is concern that unverified content may lead to instances of clinical harm to viewers who cannot independently discern content quality [ 9 - 11 ]. In turn, these users may share misinformed content with their social networks, resulting in misinformation within epistemic bubbles and, more concerningly, “echo chambers” [ 12 , 13 ].…”