Phoney Science: Social Media’s Spread of Misinformation
by Science and Environment Editor Leah Moynihan
As I scrolled through TikTok for the first time, I was overwhelmed by conspiracy theories that I knew could not be correct. Outright lies and inaccurate scientific data flooded my screen. However, as I sieved through the comments there was no evidence for anything. There was no one fact-checking the information. Even my friends send me videos full of phoney science, believing it is true. Some of the most shared reels often promote the wildest theories, and it can be dangerous for individuals and for society.
The recent global pandemic has alerted people as to how important trustworthy news sources are, as unsupported claims about the virus caused many people to suffer. Yet, this is not a new trend. In the 1960s, doctors began warning about the link between cancer and tobacco. They were not believed due to the doubt and mistrust within institutions. Misinformation can influence peoples’ decisions on global issues, which can have major repercussions. This is a challenge for all media types, however thanks to its ease of access, science miscommunication is most prevalent on social media platforms.
Misinformation is misleading or false information and is often unintentional. Disinformation is when false information is spread intentionally. This is often seen in government campaigns when scientific results are exploited for political gain. Misinformation is mainly spread because of a nervous community seeking to find their own information when official sources fail to inform. Scarcity of information can cause social tension, as seen during the global pandemic. People seek answers on social media to come to a collective understanding of a stressful situation. However, this can often cause an echo chamber where their pre-existing beliefs are solidified. Even though there is increased access to a range of sources, their user feed is often based on existing opinions to increase the shareability of content. In this way, social media is a large promoter of confirmation bias. We only hear what we want to hear, and we are not introduced to new ideas or perspectives.
One of the main problems with social media is that it has systems in place that reward the spread of scientific misinformation. Studies have shown that habitual users will share any post once it receives enough likes and comments. It was also found that a small group of accounts have a disproportionate influence on spreading false claims. Many of these accounts have been flagged by fact-checkers, yet their accounts remain active. This is a systems issue that is often overlooked, and the social media environment needs to change for people to pay more attention to what falsehoods they are sharing.
Most of us receive our daily news from the internet from a variety of sources that we select ourselves. Truths such as poverty or climate collapse are usually not enough to grab our attention. A catchy headline about the latest celebrity breakup will have far more views. Even seemingly, “trustworthy” news outlets promote popular stories in order to compete for clicks. The news on our feed is selected for us based on our preferences and pre-existing beliefs. We do not receive the same news as our neighbour next door. Furthermore, like journalists, scientists compete for the attention of readers. Incentives are in place so that the research is frequently hyped up, and “clickable” findings are often selected to be published while less “exciting” results gain little attention. There is a lot of pressure on scientists to add fluff to their papers. It is no longer about discovery and innovation. Publications are suddenly like magic wands that can help a young scientist progress in their career, which can encourage fraudulent results. Publishers are a big part of this problem as they prefer to publish positive results, while those with no statistically significant outcomes are often never made public. This publication bias can cause the published records to be misleading, leaving unreliable data in the literature.
A lot of misinformation in science is caused by the misuse or misinterpretation of data that is not always intentional. This is far more threatening than outright false information, as it is harder to discredit the claims when there is a reliable source to back them up. Fact-checking is vital as real figures are regularly misinterpreted. Information moves from the primary literature to journalists to social media and back again. This causes the data to become altered, like a form of the kids’ game telephone. Furthermore, predatory publishers are on the rise. This is where anyone can create a website that resembles a scientific publisher, and they can post whatever convincing information they want. Some companies use this out-of-context data for sales pitches so that customers trust the legitimacy of their products.
Traditionally, editors from academic journals would select appropriate papers and professional reviewers would assess their validity. This system is still very much in place, and it is effective; however, over the last few decades the basic model has shifted. Bound journals have been moved online and search engines are the new gatekeepers of the science world. Online access has opened academia for millions of people and should be praised for its ability to disperse information quickly and widely. Studies have found that scientists now read more broadly than ever, and that interdisciplinary science is on the rise. However, many search engines list articles in order of citation count, causing bias with frequently cited papers receiving a disproportionate number of shares while other papers are forgotten about.
A big question currently facing the scientific community is whether misinformation should be removed from social media platforms. However, this can look a lot like censorship when the study of science is based on sharing information. Scientists live with the firm belief that data should always be questioned and evidence is always changing. For a scientist, a question is never fully answered. So how can we justify silencing people online who are sharing their opinions, even if what they are saying is untrue and possibly dangerous?
This is a political question that needs to consider individual freedoms, yet we must also have some restrictions on what people can and cannot say. In India, certain religious groups were targeted for the spread of Covid-19 and the people circulating these claims should certainly be removed from social media. Yet who monitors this, and who decides this? Algorithms can be adjusted so that certain types of posts do not go viral, and people can be prevented from profiting from these fabricated truths. However, The Centre for Countering Digital Hate reasons that content that is harmful and spreading extensively needs to be removed. Different bodies have different opinions on how to deal with science misinformation, however removing content creates a lack of trust in institutions that is already strongly present. This mistrust can be abused by accounts on social media to promote conspiracies. When users see content being removed, they are driven further towards harmful beliefs.
If we cannot trust our sources of scientific information, how are we supposed to tackle major global issues such as climate change? Scientists have the responsibility of sharing their findings and making sure that they are communicated and interpreted accurately. Algorithms need to be changed so that we are told what we need to know instead of what we want to hear. Search engines, such as Google Scholar, need to have better systems in place so that bias in selecting articles based on citations can be reduced. Currently, there is a backlog in the peer review system which cannot deal with the high volume of papers. The literature is not being read exhaustively and better systems need to be put in place so that errors can be identified before publishing. Furthermore, the public needs to be trained in data reasoning skills so that they are not fooled or misinformed. Interpreting scientific results and understanding data can have life-or-death consequences. Science allows us to understand our complex world and it should be used as a tool to aid us in making difficult decisions.
