The spread of misinformation varies by topic and by country in Europe, study finds
May 2024, phys.org
Researchers analyzed news activity on Twitter (now X) in France, Germany, Italy and the UK from 2019 to 2021, including a focus on news about Brexit, the coronavirus, and the COVID vaccines. Each news source they analyzed was rated as either "reliable" or "questionable" based upon their NewsGuard score.
- Across all four countries, the vast majority of users only ever consumed reliable news sources on each of the three topics.
- But in every country and in each topic, there was always a small percentage of users who only ever consumed questionable news sources - with very few people consuming a mix of both reliable and questionable sources.
- Germany had the highest ratio of questionable news retweets to reliable news retweets on all three topics, with France in second, followed by Italy, and the UK had the lowest proportion of questionable news retweets overall.
- Italy had the lowest proportion of questionable news retweets for the topic of the coronavirus - but had the highest percentage of people consuming only questionable news sources on Brexit.
"Cultural nuances" will be important when it comes to fighting misinformation.
via Ca' Foscari University of Venice: News and misinformation consumption: A temporal comparison across European countries, PLoS ONE (2024). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0302473
Image credit: 3D printed vacuum system traps dark matter - University of Nottingham - Jun 2024
Study finds avoiding social media before an election has little to no effect on people's political views
May 2024, phys.org
35,000 Facebook and Instagram users who were paid to stay off the platforms in the run-up to Election Day.
I'm thinking about the overall social influence, like if you're not online but your friends are, it's all the same. So if they did this study by taking only the friends of the people chosen, then we would see an effect? (Friendship Paradox)
via Stanford: Gentzkow, Matthew, The effects of Facebook and Instagram on the 2020 election: A deactivation experiment, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2024). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2321584121.
Mental disorders may spread in young people's social networks
May 2024, phys.org
Contagion - 700,000 ninth-grade pupils born between 1985 and 1997 from 860 Finnish schools followed for 11 years (largest and most comprehensive so far on the spread of mental disorders in social networks).The number of classmates diagnosed with a mental disorder was associated with a higher risk of receiving a mental disorder diagnosis later in life.The connection observed in the study is not necessarily causal. "It may be possible, for instance, that the threshold for seeking help for mental health issues is lowered when there are one or more people in your social network who have already sought help for their problems" (beneficial contagion).
via University of Helsinki: Jussi Alho et al, Transmission of Mental Disorders in Adolescent Peer Networks, JAMA Psychiatry (2024). DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2024.1126
Dual-species Rydberg array combining rubidium and cesium atoms to enhance quantum computing - BernienLab at University of Chicago - Oct 2024 [link] |
Study suggests less conformity leads to more innovation
May 2024, phys.org
These methods reveal something crazy - how easy it could be to manipulate a big part of a population just by doing some very small adjustments to the recommendation algorithms, and the idea of synthetic networks cycling through the real networks as a kind of social regulator.
- The Matthew effect aka "rich-get-richer effect" increases centralization in the network, which destroys the niches protecting minority opinions, reducing sociodiversity.
- "Networks that promote sociodiversity have structural features that protect minority opinions"
- "Unfollowing a few VIPs can help to promote sociodiversity"
via Complexity Science Hub and ETH Zurich: Andrea Musso et al, How networks shape diversity for better or worse, Royal Society Open Science (2024). DOI: 10.1098/rsos.230505
Misleading COVID-19 headlines from mainstream sources did more harm on Facebook than fake news
May 2024, phys.org
They showed thousands of survey participants the headlines from 130 vaccine-related stories - including both mainstream content and known misinformation - and tested how those headlines impacted their intentions to get vaccinated against COVID-19. Researchers also asked a separate group of respondents to rate the headlines across various attributes, including plausibility and political leaning. They matched that against 13,206 vaccine-related URLs and the number of users who viewed each.
- Misleading content from mainstream news sources - rather than outright misinformation or "fake news" - was the primary driver of vaccine hesitancy on Facebook.
- "Vaccine-skeptical" content was potentially misleading but not flagged as misinformation by Facebook fact-checkers.
- One factor reliably predicted impacts on vaccination intentions: the extent to which a headline suggested that the vaccine was harmful to a person's health.
- The most-viewed was an article was from a well-regarded mainstream news source, and its clickbait" headline was highly suggestive and implied that the vaccine was likely responsible.
- (That's significant since the vast majority of viewers on social media likely never click out to read past the headline.)
- Contrary to popular perceptions, the researchers estimated that vaccine-skeptical content reduced vaccination intentions 46 times more than misinformation flagged by fact-checkers.
- Even though flagged misinformation was more harmful when seen, it had relatively low reach.
- Gray-area content is less harmful per exposure but is seen far more often, thus it's more impactful overall.
(Also, what does this mean about actual advertising metrics?)
via MIT Sloan School of Management: Jennifer Allen, Quantifying the impact of misinformation and vaccine-skeptical content on Facebook, Science (2024). DOI: 10.1126/science.adk3451.
Advertisers may be inadvertently funding misinformation
Jun 2024, phys.org
(I think we're starting to see a pattern here.)
5,000 websites (1,250 were misinformation websites); 42,000 unique advertisers; nine million instances of advertising companies appearing on news websites from 2019 to 2021.The companies advertising on misinformation websites accounted for anywhere from 46% to 82% of overall companies in their respective industries.
Companies that used digital advertisement platforms were 10 times more likely to appear on misinformation websites than those that did not.
Authors propose two low-cost, scalable interventions:
- Improve transparency for advertisers about where their ads appear
- Make it easier for consumers to identify which companies advertise on misinformation outlets through information disclosures and company rankings
via Carnegie Mellon University's Heinz College and Stanford: Wajeeha Ahmad et al, Companies inadvertently fund online misinformation despite consumer backlash, Nature (2024). DOI: 10.1038/s41586-024-07404-1
Entangling pairs of photons using 1.2 micrometer niobium oxide dichloride - Leevi Kallioniemi at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore - Oct 2024 [link] |
Study suggests ambivalence and polarized views can promote political violence
Jun 2024, phys.org
Time to get confused!
Previous research has shown that ambivalence about a political issue typically leads people to avoid taking moderate actions such as voting or donating money in support of that issue.And that's why these findings for extreme behaviors surprised the researchers.Here, researchers found that ambivalence can actually lead some people - especially those with polarized views - to be more supportive of extreme actions.The reason? Ambivalence creates discomfort in those with extreme views by making them feel weak or insecure about their beliefs - and that can lead them to compensate."When people have these polarized views on a political topic, but also feel some conflict about that belief - that is really a potent combination.""Those who are conflicted are more willing to give their money to extreme organizations.""Those who have extreme views, but still feel conflicted about them, feel a need to prove themselves, to show that their beliefs are real and strong."
via Ohio State University: Joseph Siev, Ambivalent attitudes promote support for extreme political actions, Science Advances (2024). DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.adn2965.