The efficacy of Facebook's vaccine misinformation policies and architecture during the COVID-19 pandemic

Modeling the amplification of epidemic spread by individuals exposed to misinformation on social media

Understanding how misinformation affects the spread of disease is crucial for public health, especially given recent research indicating that misinformation can increase vaccine hesitancy and discourage vaccine uptake. However, it is difficult to investigate the interaction between misinformation and epidemic outcomes due to the dearth of data-informed holistic epidemic models. Here, we employ an epidemic model that incorporates a large, mobility-informed physical contact network as well as the distribution of misinformed individuals across counties derived from social media data. The model allows us to simulate various scenarios to understand how epidemic spreading can be affected by misinformation spreading through one particular social media platform. Using this model, we compare a worst-case scenario, in which individuals become misinformed after a single exposure to low-credibility content, to a best-case scenario where the population is highly resilient to misinformation. We estimate the additional portion of the U.S. population that would become infected over the course of the COVID-19 epidemic in the worst-case scenario. This work can provide policymakers with insights about the potential harms of exposure to online vaccine misinformation.

Understanding Interventions to Address Infodemics Through Epidemiological, Socioecological, and Environmental Health Models: Framework Analysis

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic was accompanied by a barrage of false, misleading, and manipulated information that inhibited effective pandemic response and led to thousands of preventable deaths. Recognition of the urgent public health threat posed by this infodemic led to the development of numerous infodemic management interventions by a wide range of actors. The need to respond rapidly and with limited information sometimes came at the expense of strategy and conceptual rigor. Given limited funding for public health communication and growing politicization of countermisinformation efforts, responses to future infodemics should be informed by a systematic and conceptually grounded evaluation of the successes and shortcomings of existing interventions to ensure credibility of the field and evidence-based action.

objectives

This study sought to identify gaps and opportunities in existing infodemic management interventions and to assess the use of public health frameworks to structure responses to infodemics.

Methods

We expanded a previously developed dataset of infodemic management interventions, spanning guidelines, policies, and tools from governments, academic institutions, nonprofits, media companies, and other organizations, with 379 interventions included in total. We applied framework analysis to describe and interpret patterns within these interventions through their alignment with codes derived from 3 frameworks selected for their prominence in public health and infodemic-related scholarly discourse: the epidemiological model, the socioecological model, and the environmental health framework.

Results

The epidemiological model revealed the need for rigorous, transparent risk assessments to triage misinformation. The socioecological model demonstrated an opportunity for greater coordination across levels of influence, with only 11% of interventions receiving multiple socioecological codes, and more robust partnerships with existing organizations. The environmental health framework showed that sustained approaches that comprehensively address all influences on the information environment are needed, representing only 19% of the dataset.

Conclusions

Responses to future infodemics would benefit from cross-sector coordination, adoption of measurable and meaningful goals, and alignment with public health frameworks, which provide critical conceptual grounding for infodemic response approaches and ensure comprehensiveness of approach. Beyond individual interventions, a funded coordination mechanism can provide overarching strategic direction and promote collaboration.

HPV vaccine-related articles shared on Facebook from 2019 to 2021: Did COVID make a difference?

Objective

HPV vaccination is recommended for children beginning at age 9 to prevent several types of cancer. Many parents turn to Facebook for health information. This study describes changes in HPV vaccine-related articles shared on Facebook amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

HPV-related articles shared on Facebook (2019-2021) were collected using Buzzsumo, a social media analytics tool and analyzed using content analysis. Articles were categorized by valence, misinformation, evidence types, persuasive tactics, and framing. We quantified these data and tested for difference by article year.

Results

Of the 138 included articles, 51% had positive valence towards the vaccine and 36% had negative valence. In 2021, there was a significant increase in positive messaging (72% vs. 44% in 2019/2020; p < 0.01) and misinformation decreased from 50% in 2019 to 24% in 2021 (p = 0.04). Persuasive strategies were more common in 2019 than in later years.

Conclusion

Despite decreased engagement in 2021, more positive HPV vaccine messaging was observed, although a quarter of articles still contained misinformation. Our results can inform strategies for communicating with parents about the HPV vaccine.

Innovation

Our study is the first to analyze HPV-related articles linked on Facebook and to assess for differences during the pandemic.

Public agreement with misinformation about wind farms

Misinformation campaigns target wind farms, but levels of agreement with this misinformation among the broader public are unclear. Across six nationally quota-based samples in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia (total N = 6008), over a quarter of respondents agree with half or more of contrarian claims about wind farms. Agreement with diverse claims is highly correlated, suggesting an underlying belief system directed at wind farm rejection. Consistent with this, agreement is best predicted (positively) by a conspiracist worldview (i.e., the general tendency to believe in conspiracy theories; explained variance ΔR² = 0.11-0.20) and (negatively) by a pro-ecological worldview (ΔR² = 0.04-0.13). Exploratory analyses show that agreement with contrarian claims is associated with lower support for pro-wind policies and greater intentions to protest against wind farms. We conclude that wind farm contrarianism is a mainstream phenomenon, rooted in people's worldviews and that poses a challenge for communicators and institutions committed to accelerating the energy transition.

Post-January 6th deplatforming reduced the reach of misinformation on Twitter

The social media platforms of the twenty-first century have an enormous role in regulating speech in the USA and worldwide1. However, there has been little research on platform-wide interventions on speech2,3. Here we evaluate the effect of the decision by Twitter to suddenly deplatform 70,000 misinformation traffickers in response to the violence at the US Capitol on 6 January 2021 (a series of events commonly known as and referred to here as 'January 6th'). Using a panel of more than 500,000 active Twitter users4,5 and natural experimental designs6,7, we evaluate the effects of this intervention on the circulation of misinformation on Twitter. We show that the intervention reduced circulation of misinformation by the deplatformed users as well as by those who followed the deplatformed users, though we cannot identify the magnitude of the causal estimates owing to the co-occurrence of the deplatforming intervention with the events surrounding January 6th. We also find that many of the misinformation traffickers who were not deplatformed left Twitter following the intervention. The results inform the historical record surrounding the insurrection, a momentous event in US history, and indicate the capacity of social media platforms to control the circulation of misinformation, and more generally to regulate public discourse.

News and misinformation consumption: A temporal comparison across European countries

The Internet and social media have transformed the information landscape, democratizing content access and production. While making information easily accessible, these platforms can also act as channels for spreading misinformation, posing crucial societal challenges. To address this, understanding news consumption patterns and unraveling the complexities of the online information environment are essential. Previous studies highlight polarization and misinformation in online discussions, but many focus on specific topics or contexts, often overlooking comprehensive cross-country and cross-topic analyses. However, the dynamics of debates, misinformation prevalence, and the efficacy of countermeasures are intrinsically tied to socio-cultural contexts. This work aims to bridge this gap by exploring information consumption patterns across four European countries over three years. Analyzing the Twitter activity of news outlets in France, Germany, Italy, and the UK, this study seeks to shed light on how topics of European significance resonate across these nations and the role played by misinformation sources. The results spotlight that while reliable sources predominantly shape the information landscape, unreliable content persists across all countries and topics. Though most users favor trustworthy sources, a small percentage predominantly consumes content from questionable sources, with even fewer maintaining a mixed information diet. The cross-country comparison unravels disparities in audience overlap among news sources, the prevalence of misinformation, and the proportion of users relying on questionable sources. Such distinctions surface not only across countries but also within various topics. These insights underscore the pressing need for tailored studies, crucial in designing targeted and effective countermeasures against misinformation and extreme polarization in the digital space.

A population level study on the determinants of COVID-19 vaccination rates at the U.S. county level

Multiple COVID-19 vaccines were proven to be safe and effective in curbing severe illness, but despite vaccine availability, vaccination rates were relatively low in the United States (U.S.). To better understand factors associated with low COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the U.S., our study provides a comprehensive, data-driven population-level statistical analysis at the county level. We find that political affiliation, as determined by the proportion of votes received by the Republican candidate in the 2020 presidential election, has the strongest association with our response variable, the percent of the population that received no COVID-19 vaccine. The next strongest association was median household income, which has a negative association. The percentage of Black people and the average number of vehicles per household are positively associated with the percent unvaccinated. In contrast, COVID-19 infection rate, percentage of Latinx people, postsecondary education percentage, median age, and prior non-COVID-19 childhood vaccination coverage are negatively associated with percent unvaccinated. Unlike previous studies, we do not find significant relationships between cable TV news viewership or Twitter misinformation variables with COVID-19 vaccine uptake. These results shed light on some factors that may impact vaccination choice in the U.S. and can be used to target specific populations for educational outreach and vaccine campaign strategies in efforts to increase vaccination uptake.

Measuring the monetization strategies of websites with application to pro- and anti-vaccine communities

Anti-vaccine content and other kinds of misinformation are hypothesized to be more heavily monetized than other kinds of online content. We test this hypothesis by applying several novel and scalable measures of website monetization strategies to more than 400,000 links shared by 261 anti-vaccine Facebook pages and 190 pro-vaccine ones. Contrary to expectations, websites promoted in pro-vaccine venues do more to monetize attention than those promoted in anti-vaccine venues. This is a consequence of how intensely monetized news websites are-pro-vaccine venues share more links to news. The specific news sites shared by anti-vaccine venues are rated less credible by fact-checking organizations, but we find little substantive difference in their monetization strategies. These results emphasize the need to interpret measures of monetization within the context of the broader "attention economy".