In February 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) determined that COVID-19 was more than just a pandemic: it was also an infodemic.
Relating this to digital technologies and social media, the WHO defined “infodemic” as “too much information including false or misleading information… caus[ing] confusion and risk-taking behaviours that can harm health.” They also related this to the rapidly increasing “mistrust in health authorities and undermin[ing of] the public health response.”
Buidling off of this ‘diagnosis’ (per se), the WHO proposed a series of communications strategies to support good and effective health and safety communication, cleverly calling this “infodemiology.”
However, while the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccinations, and public health measures faced one of the biggest waves of misinformation and confusion that the world has ever seen, the term “infodemic” has been applicable to other subjects.
Eugenia Siapera (2022) used the term and the concept of a pandemic in a metaphorical way to describe the current state of all online media information. Sharing Isn’t Caring appreciates this generalized application of the term. After all, viruses have always been related in some way to technology. Think of a computer virus or “bug,” or specifically for social media: virality.
“The key idea behind content virality is that it begins with a small ‘seed,’ of a person or group of people who begin sharing contents with their friends. They would be the ‘patient zero’ in this analogy, or the source of the ‘infection’.” (Siapera, 2022)
The WHO is not alone in their description or study of the COVID-19 infodemic. Buchanen (2020) concluded that false information has essentially taken over many popular social media platforms, causing an “epidemic of misinformation.” False information and those committed to spreading it have been more successful (and more dedicated) at getting their message across than the other side.
“It’s happening, this research also suggests, because anti-vaccination groups — despite being a small minority — occupy choice territory in the social media ecosystem, being closely linked through Facebook to the bulk of undecided people whose minds might be changed. In contrast, pro-vaccination groups — including the CDC and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation — are only loosely connected to those people.” (Buchanen, 2022)
Additionally, Jiang (2022) studied patterns of social media information consumption and distribution during the pandemic. They saw clear correlation between their study variables:
Worry (about an individual’s or the public’s health duing the pandemic)
Social media information overload (too much available information online)
Social media fatigue (social media participation being overwhelming)
Jiang (2022) concluded that how much an individual is worried about the pandemic or personal health is contributed to how much information they consume online, subsequently, this over-consumption of online information increased any social media fatigue they experienced. In unfortunate news, this fatigue didn’t encourage more fact-checking of the information they consumed.
“The investigation of social media information overload and social media fatigue illustrates the negative effect of social media. Navigating the social media information environment might be confusing, frustrating, and overwhelming, due to the fast speed and uncontrolled manner of social media information accumulation.” (Jiang, 2022)
How Platforms Play a Role
As discussed in our last blog post on documentary film After Truth, social media platforms and their governance have been at the forefront of blame for this issue.
“The design of platforms is therefore an important parameter in shaping the messages that circulate, the form they take, and their reach.” (Siapera, 2022)
Social media platforms are motivated by advertising, and therefore, eyes. If they want you to stay on their platform, they’re going to show you content you like. This leads to:
Echo Chambers
Selective Exposure
Political Polarization
“People’s networks are becoming increasingly homophilic, which means that people increasingly connect with like-minded people and are less willing to experience differing viewpoints.” (McPherson et al., 2001; as cited in Juvalta et al., 2022)
It’s no secret that political ideology and viewpoints have impacted the management of COVID-19. Juvalta et al.’s study made several conclusions about political alignment and COVID-19 action, including that conservative users often consumed and interacted with conservative media and as a result believed and followed more conspiracy theories about the virus.
What Now?
So, where do we go next? Can we end this infodemic?
Buchanen (2022) summarizes that ending this “infodemic” will be extremely difficult, because it will require a top-down approach with the platforms de-prioritizing their profit-focused motives. The only way this top-down approach can be instigated, is through a lot of public pressure and political advocacy.
“Our digital environments need re-engineering if our collective brain is to find a way back toward promoting the truth.” (Buchanen, 2022)
In the meantime, critical thinking and caring about what you share can help slow the spread of this infodemic.
Research
Buchanan, M. (2020). Managing the infodemic. Nature Physics, 16(9), 894–894. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-020-01039-5
Jiang, S. (2022). The Roles of Worry, Social Media Information Overload, and Social Media Fatigue in Hindering Health Fact-Checking. Social Media + Society, 8(3), 205630512211130. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051221113070
Juvalta, S., Speranza, C., Robin, D., El Maohub, Y., Krasselt, J., Dreesen, P., Dratva, J., & Suggs, L. S. (2023). Young people's media use and adherence to preventive measures in the “infodemic”: Is it masked by political ideology? Social Science & Medicine (1982), 317, 115596–115596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115596
Siapera, E. (2022). Platform Governance and the "Infodemic" Javnost (Ljubljana, Slovenia), 29(2), 197–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2022.2042791
Comments