Online Misinformation

and, Anya Schiffrin; Cunliffe‐Jones, Peter

doi:10.1002/9781119714491.ch11

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This subtle obfuscation complicates efforts to detect and effectively mitigate it [Nan, Wang & Thier, 2022] particularly in developing countries. These reasons encompass a range of factors, including, but not limited to, the proliferation of false health claims regarding traditional remedies, low health literacy, limited access to trustworthy health-related data, and inadequate technical and informational infrastructure [Schiffrin & Cunliffe-Jones, 2022]. Second, misinformation often relies on anecdotal evidence or personal narratives, making it challenging to refute.…”

Section: Barriers and Potential Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Polio vaccine misinformation on social media: challenges, efforts, and recommendations

Ittefaq,

Kamboh,

M. Zelaya

et al. 2024

Journal of Science Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On April 22, 2019, false rumors regarding the side effects of the polio vaccine quickly spread across various social media platforms, including Facebook, X (formerly known as Twitter), WhatsApp, and YouTube. This rapid spread of misinformation had a detrimental impact on Pakistan's efforts to eradicate polio. This essay sheds lights on two critical aspects related to polio vaccine misinformation on social media in Pakistan. First, it examines the current state of polio vaccine misinformation on social media and finds it a significant threat to public health, resulting in vaccine refusals, erosion of trust in public health institutions, distrust in science, and providing opportunities for anti-vaccination groups and individual advocates to target healthcare workers involved in polio eradication efforts nationwide. Second, it highlights the collaborative initiatives undertaken by relevant government institutions and social media companies, which have proven inadequate in effectively addressing the persistent dissemination of mis/disinformation, particularly on Facebook. Lastly, we suggest Pakistan should adopt a more inclusive approach of engaging all stakeholders, promote independent fact-checking initiatives, and increase health literacy among the target population about the risks and benefits associated with the polio vaccine.

show abstract

Section: Barriers and Potential Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Polio vaccine misinformation on social media: challenges, efforts, and recommendations

Ittefaq,

Kamboh,

M. Zelaya

et al. 2024

Journal of Science Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Currently, there are serious ramifications for individuals or organisations found to have intentionally disseminated inaccurate or false content deemed harmful (e.g., democratically, economically, socially). In fact, this is the case in several countries where laws are being devised or are already in effect (e.g., China, France, Germany, Ireland, Kenya, Russia, Singapore, Thailand, the USA) (e.g., Aaronson 2024;Colomina et al 2021;Saurwein and Spencer-Smith 2020;Schiffrin and Cunliffe-Jones 2022;Tan 2023). If the defining characteristics of misinformation and disinformation are indistinguishable, then either one of the terms is not needed, or else some other property should separate them.…”

Section: Definitions Of Misinformation: Inconsistencies Vs Multidimen...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Evaluations of Misinformation and Motives for Sharing It

Osman

2024

Journalism and Media

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concerns around the definition of misinformation hamper ways of addressing purported problems associated with it, along with the fact that public understanding of the concept is often ignored. To this end, the present pilot survey study examines three broad issues, as follows: (1) contexts where the concept most applies to (i.e., face-to-face interactions, social media, news media, or all three contexts), (2) criteria people use to identify misinformation, and (3) motivations for sharing it. A total of 1897 participants (approximately 300 per country) from six different countries (Chile, Germany, Greece, Mexico, the UK, the USA) were asked questions on all three, along with an option to provide free text responses for two of them. The quantitative and qualitative findings reveal a nuanced understanding of the concept, with the common defining characteristics being claims presented as fact when they are opinion (71%), claims challenged by experts (66%), and claims that are unqualified by evidence (64%). Moreover, of the 28% (n = 538) of participants providing free text responses further qualifying criteria for misinformation, 31% of them mentioned critical details from communication (e.g., concealing relevant details or lacking evidence to support claims), and 41% mentioned additions in communication that reveal distortions (e.g., sensationalist language, exaggerating claims). Rather than being exclusive to social media, misinformation was seen by the full sample (n = 1897) as present in all communication contexts (59%) and is shared for amusement (50%) or inadvertently (56%).

show abstract

“…While the fact-checking industry in the West took off in the aftermath of the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election (Kumar 2022;Lelo 2022;Rodríguez-Pérez et al 2021), a catalyst event to the ensuing third-party partnerships with tech companies (Stencel and Luther 2021), organizations outside the West have long contended with insufficient or inappropriate resources and the political backlash that jeopardize their operations (Haque et al 2019). Indeed, many initiatives evolved from informal journalism and social media activism rather than developing from a liberal and profitable media market (Ababakirov et al 2022), a development that resulted in the number of fact-checkers in non-WEIRD countries to be commonly misrepresented (Schiffrin and Cunliffe-Jones 2022).…”

Section: Fact-checking Organizations Outside the Weird Worldmentioning

confidence: 99%