Facebook's Architecture Undermines Vaccine Misinformation Removal Efforts
Authors:
David A. Broniatowski,
Jiayan Gu,
Amelia M. Jamison,
Joseph R. Simons,
Lorien C. Abroms
Abstract:
Misinformation promotes distrust in science, undermines public health, and may drive civil unrest. Vaccine misinformation, in particular, has stalled efforts to overcome the COVID-19 pandemic, prompting social media platforms' attempts to reduce it. Some have questioned whether "soft" content moderation remedies -- e.g., flagging and downranking misinformation -- were successful, suggesting that t…
▽ More
Misinformation promotes distrust in science, undermines public health, and may drive civil unrest. Vaccine misinformation, in particular, has stalled efforts to overcome the COVID-19 pandemic, prompting social media platforms' attempts to reduce it. Some have questioned whether "soft" content moderation remedies -- e.g., flagging and downranking misinformation -- were successful, suggesting that the addition of "hard" content remedies -- e.g., deplatforming and content bans -- is necessary. We therefore examined whether Facebook's vaccine misinformation content removal policies were effective. Here, we show that Facebook's policies reduced the number of anti-vaccine posts but also caused several perverse effects: pro-vaccine content was also removed, engagement with remaining anti-vaccine content repeatedly recovered to pre-policy levels, and this content became more misinformative, more politically polarised, and more likely to be seen in users' newsfeeds. We explain these results as an unintended consequence of Facebook's design goal: promoting community formation. Members of communities dedicated to vaccine refusal appear to seek out misinformation from multiple sources. Community administrators make use of several channels afforded by the Facebook platform to disseminate misinformation. Our findings suggest the need to address how social media platform architecture enables community formation and mobilisation around misinformative topics when managing the spread of online content.
△ Less
Submitted 11 August, 2022; v1 submitted 4 February, 2022;
originally announced February 2022.
Twitter and Facebook posts about COVID-19 are less likely to spread false and low-credibility content compared to other health topics
Authors:
David A. Broniatowski,
Daniel Kerchner,
Fouzia Farooq,
Xiaolei Huang,
Amelia M. Jamison,
Mark Dredze,
Sandra Crouse Quinn
Abstract:
On February 2, 2020, the World Health Organization declared a COVID-19 social media "infodemic", with special attention to misinformation -- frequently understood as false claims. To understand the infodemic's scope and scale, we analyzed over 500 million posts from Twitter and Facebook about COVID-19 and other health topics, between March 8 and May 1, 2020. Following prior work, we assumed URL so…
▽ More
On February 2, 2020, the World Health Organization declared a COVID-19 social media "infodemic", with special attention to misinformation -- frequently understood as false claims. To understand the infodemic's scope and scale, we analyzed over 500 million posts from Twitter and Facebook about COVID-19 and other health topics, between March 8 and May 1, 2020. Following prior work, we assumed URL source credibility is a proxy for false content, but we also tested this assumption. Contrary to expectations, we found that messages about COVID-19 were more likely to contain links to more credible sources. Additionally, messages linking to government sources, and to news with intermediate credibility, were shared more often, on average, than links to non-credible sources. These results suggest that more ambiguous forms of misinformation about COVID-19 may be more likely to be disseminated through credible sources when compared to other health topics. Furthermore, the assumption that credibility is an adequate proxy for false content may overestimate the prevalence of false content online: less than 25% of posts linking to the least credible sources contained false content. Our results emphasize the importance of distinguishing between explicit falsehoods and more ambiguous forms of misinformation due to the search for meaning in an environment of scientific uncertainty.
△ Less
Submitted 26 March, 2021; v1 submitted 19 July, 2020;
originally announced July 2020.
