{{Short description|Incorrect or misleading information}} {{distinguish|Disinformation|Misinformation effect}} {{Use dmy dates|date=December 2025}} {{AI-generated|partial=y|date=March 2026|reason=[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Misinformation&diff=1288202686&oldid=1288200047 these 2025 edits]; note WP:AISIGNS in superficial analyses, vocab distro typical of LLM output, etc}} [[File:Vote Leave poster, Omagh.jpg|thumb|A sign for the successful campaign to leave in the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum. The claim made by the sign was widely considered to have been an example of misinformation.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Henley |first1=Jon |title=Why Vote Leave's £350m weekly EU cost claim is wrong |url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2016/may/23/does-the-eu-really-cost-the-uk-350m-a-week |website=The Guardian |date=10 June 2016 |access-date=14 October 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=The UK's EU membership fee |url=https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/ |website=Full Fact |date=25 February 2016 |access-date=14 October 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Reality Check: Would Brexit mean extra £350m a week for NHS? |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36040060 |website=BBC News |date=15 April 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Ackrill |first1=Robert |title=Fact Check: how much does the UK actually pay to the EU? |url=https://theconversation.com/fact-check-how-much-does-the-uk-actually-pay-to-the-eu-58120 |website=The Conversation |date=27 April 2016}}</ref>|alt=Sign reading: We send the EU £50 MILLION EVERY DAY / Let's spend it on our NHS instead / [heartbeat graphic] / Vote Leave on 23 June]]
'''Misinformation''' is incorrect or misleading information.<ref name="MerriamWebster-Dictionary-2020">{{Cite web|last=Merriam-Webster Dictionary|date=19 August 2020|title=Misinformation|url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misinformation|access-date=19 August 2020|archive-date=25 February 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190225044837/https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misinformation|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Fetzer |first=James H. |date=2004-05-01 |title=Information: Does it Have To Be True? |journal=Minds and Machines |volume=14 |issue=2 |pages=223–229 |doi=10.1023/B:MIND.0000021682.61365.56 |s2cid=31906034 |issn=1572-8641}}</ref> Whereas misinformation can exist with or without specific malicious intent, ''disinformation'' is deliberately deceptive and intentionally propagated.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Woolley |first1=Samuel C. |last2=Howard |first2=Philip N. |date=2016 |title=Political Communication, Computational Propaganda, and Autonomous Agents |url=https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/6298 |url-status=live |journal=International Journal of Communication |volume=10 |pages=4882–4890 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191022194727/https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/6298 |archive-date=2019-10-22 |access-date=2019-10-22}}</ref><ref name="Caramancion-2020">{{cite book |doi=10.1109/icict50521.2020.00076 |chapter=An Exploration of Disinformation as a Cybersecurity Threat |title=2020 3rd International Conference on Information and Computer Technologies (ICICT) |year=2020 |last1=Caramancion |first1=Kevin Matthe |pages=440–444 |isbn=978-1-7281-7283-5 |s2cid=218651389 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last1=Karlova |first1=Natascha A. |last2=Fisher |first2=Karen E. |date=2013-03-15 |title=A social diffusion model of misinformation and disinformation for understanding human information behaviour |url=https://informationr.net/ir/18-1/paper573.html |access-date=2023-05-11 |website=informationr.net |archive-date=2023-05-11 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230511204310/https://informationr.net/ir/18-1/paper573.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Fallis-2015" /><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Diaz Ruiz |first=Carlos |date=2023-10-30 |title=Disinformation on digital media platforms: A market-shaping approach |journal=New Media & Society |volume=27 |issue=4 |pages=2188–2211 |doi=10.1177/14614448231207644 |issn=1461-4448|doi-access=free }}</ref> Misinformation is typically spread unintentionally, mostly caused by a lack of knowledge, an error, or simply a misunderstanding, which contrasts with disinformation.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Misinformation and Disinformation Statement |url=https://taylorandfrancis.com/our-policies/misinformation-and-disinformation-statement/ |access-date=2025-11-16 |website=Taylor & Francis}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |first=Samuel |last=Spies |title=Defining 'Disinformation' |website=MediaWell |date=22 October 2019 |url=https://mediawell.ssrc.org/research-reviews/defining-disinformation/ |access-date=2025-11-16}}</ref> Misinformation can include inaccurate, incomplete, misleading, or false information as well as selective or half-truths. Social media platforms, such as Facebook, Instagram, X, etc., are designed in ways that enable information, including misinformation, to be posted and shared far more quickly than through other communication mediums.<ref>{{Cite web |first=Susie |last=Allen |date=2023-03-31 |title=How Social Media Rewards Misinformation |url=https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/how-social-media-rewards-misinformation |access-date=2025-11-16 |website=Yale Insights}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Medzerian |first=David |date=2023-01-17 |title=Study reveals key reason why fake news spreads on social media |url=https://today.usc.edu/usc-study-reveals-the-key-reason-why-fake-news-spreads-on-social-media/ |access-date=2025-11-16 |website=USC Today}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=On social media platforms, more sharing means less caring about accuracy|url=https://news.mit.edu/2023/social-media-platforms-more-sharing-means-less-caring-about-accuracy-0303|website=MIT News {{!}} Massachusetts Institute of Technology|date=2023-03-03|access-date=2025-12-01}}</ref>
In January 2024, the World Economic Forum identified misinformation and disinformation, propagated by both internal and external interests, to "widen societal and political divides" as the most severe global risks in the short term.<ref>[https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2024/ The Global Risks Report 2024], World Economic Forum. {{ISBN|978-2-940631-64-3}}</ref> The reason is that misinformation can influence people's beliefs about communities, politics, medicine, and more.{{sfn|Aral|2020}}<ref name="NYT-20240316" /> Research shows that several factors, including cognitive biases, emotional responses, social dynamics, and media literacy levels, can influence susceptibility to misinformation.<ref>{{Cite journal|title=Actively open-minded thinking is key to combating fake news: A multimethod study|url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378720623000095|journal=Information & Management|date=2023-04-01|issn=0378-7206|article-number=103761|volume=60|issue=3|doi=10.1016/j.im.2023.103761|first1=Mahdi|last1=Mirhoseini|first2=Spencer|last2=Early|first3=Nour|last3=El Shamy|first4=Khaled|last4=Hassanein}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|title=The Misinformation Susceptibility Test (MIST): A psychometrically validated measure of news veracity discernment|journal=Behavior Research Methods|date=2024-03-01|issn=1554-3528|pages=1863–1899|volume=56|issue=3|doi=10.3758/s13428-023-02124-2 |first1=Rakoen|last1=Maertens|first2=Friedrich M.|last2=Götz|first3=Hudson F.|last3=Golino|first4=Jon|last4=Roozenbeek|first5=Claudia R.|last5=Schneider|first6=Yara|last6=Kyrychenko|first7=John R.|last7=Kerr|first8=Stefan|last8=Stieger|first9=William P.|last9=McClanahan|first10=Karly|last10=Drabot|first11=James|last11=He|first12=Sander|last12=van der Linden |pmid=37382812 |pmc=10991074 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|title=Psychological factors contributing to the creation and dissemination of fake news among social media users: a systematic review|journal=BMC Psychology|date=2024-11-18|issn=2050-7283|pmc=11575416|pmid=39558439|page=673|volume=12|issue=1|doi=10.1186/s40359-024-02129-2 |first1=Shalini|last1=Munusamy|first2=Kalaivanan|last2=Syasyila|first3=Azahah Abu Hassan|last3=Shaari|first4=Muhammad Adnan|last4=Pitchan|first5=Mohammad Rahim|last5=Kamaluddin|first6=Ratna|last6=Jatnika |doi-access=free }}</ref>
Policies and legal measures created to address misinformation and disinformation, in some contexts, can be applied to restrict journalistic work and limit political expression, as reported by UNESCO and other monitoring organizations.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-08-10 |title=Fighting Fake News: How Mis- and Disinformation Legislation is Weaponized Against Journalists |url=https://www.cima.ned.org/blog/fighting-fake-news-how-mis-and-disinformation-legislation-is-weaponized-against-journalists/ |access-date=2025-04-07 |website=Center for International Media Assistance}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |title=Threats to freedom of press: Violence, disinformation & censorship |url=https://www.unesco.org/en/threats-freedom-press-violence-disinformation-censorship |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251002181225/https://www.unesco.org/en/threats-freedom-press-violence-disinformation-censorship |archive-date=2025-10-02 |access-date=2025-11-23}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-12-09 |title=A New UNESCO Brief Outlines How Nations 'Misuse' Their Judicial Systems to Attack Media Freedom |url=https://foreignpress.org/journalism-resources/a-new-unesco-brief-outlines-how-nations-misuse-their-judicial-systems-to-attack-media-freedom |access-date=2025-11-23 |website=Foreign Press}}</ref> In some countries, anti-misinformation laws and policies have been used to reduce media freedom, which has even resulted in the imprisonment of journalists and editors.<ref>{{Cite web |first1=Gabrielle |last1=Lim |first2=Samantha |last2=Bradshaw |title=Chilling Legislation: Tracking the Impact of 'Fake News' Laws on Press Freedom Internationally |url=https://www.skeyesmedia.org/en/News/Reports/19-07-2023/10753 |date=19 July 2023 |access-date=2025-12-07 |website=SKeyes Center for Media and Cultural Freedom}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-05-02 |title=What is the state of global press freedom in 2025? |url=https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2025/05/what-is-the-state-of-global-press-freedom-in-2025/ |access-date=2025-12-09 |website=Amnesty International}}</ref> The countries ranked the worst for media freedom in 2025 are, in this order, Eritrea, North Korea, China, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Russia, Egypt, Myanmar, Djibouti, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Cuba, United Arab Emirates, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Cambodia, Venezuela, Turkey and Pakistan.<ref>{{cite web |title=RSF World Press Freedom Index 2025 |url=https://rsf.org/en/index?year=2025 |website=Reporters Without Borders}}</ref>
The term came into wider recognition during the mid-1990s through the early 2020s, when its effects on public ideological influence began to be investigated. However, misinformation campaigns have existed for hundreds of years.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Bode |first1=Leticia |last2=Vraga |first2=Emily |date=23 June 2015 |title=In Related News, That was Wrong: The Correction of Misinformation Through Related Stories Functionality in Social Media |url=https://academic.oup.com/joc/article/65/4/619-638/4082315 |access-date=2024-01-31 |journal=Journal of Communication |volume=65 |issue=4 |pages=619–638 |doi=10.1111/jcom.12166 |s2cid=142769329 |archive-date=2022-11-12 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221112201902/https://academic.oup.com/joc/article/65/4/619-638/4082315 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last1=Posetti |first1=Julie |last2=Matthews |first2=Alice |date=June 23, 2018 |title=A Short Guide to the History of 'Fake News' and Disinformation: A New ICFJ Learning Module |url=https://www.icfj.org/news/short-guide-history-fake-news-and-disinformation-new-icfj-learning-module |access-date=2024-01-31 |website=International Center for Journalists |archive-date=2019-02-25 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190225103100/https://www.icfj.org/news/short-guide-history-fake-news-and-disinformation-new-icfj-learning-module |url-status=live }}</ref>
== Terminology == Scholars distinguish between misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation in terms of intent and effect. Misinformation is false or inaccurate information published without malicious intent, while disinformation is designed to mislead.<ref>Tandoc, E. C., Lim, Z. W., & Ling, R. (2018). "Defining 'Fake News': A Typology of Scholarly Definitions." ''Digital Journalism'', 6(2), 137-153.</ref>
''Malinformation'' is true information intended to cause harm, such as selectively publicizing a politician's personal information to shape public opinion.<ref>Wardle, C., & Derakhshan, H. (2017). "Information Disorder: Toward an Interdisciplinary Framework for Research and Policymaking." ''Council of Europe Report''. Retrieved from [https://rm.coe.int/information-disorder-toward-an-interdisciplinary-framework-for-researc/168076277c rm.coe.int]</ref>{{rp|20-21}}
''Disinformation'' is created or spread by a person or organization actively attempting to deceive their audience.<ref name="Fallis-2015">{{Cite journal |last=Fallis |first=Don |date=2015 |title=What Is Disinformation? |journal=Library Trends |volume=63 |issue=3 |pages=401–426 |doi=10.1353/lib.2015.0014 |hdl=2142/89818 |s2cid=13178809 |issn=1559-0682|hdl-access=free }}</ref> In addition to causing harm directly, disinformation can also cause indirect harm by undermining trust and obstructing the capacity to effectively communicate information with one another.<ref name="Fallis-2015" /> Disinformation might consist of information that is partially or completely fabricated, taken out of context on purpose, exaggerated, or omits crucial details.<ref name="Die-Bundesregierung-informiert-|-Startseite">{{Cite web |title=What is disinformation? |url=https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/themen/umgang-mit-desinformation/disinformation-definition-1911048 |access-date=2023-03-16 |website=Die Bundesregierung |archive-date=2023-03-23 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230323150333/https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/themen/umgang-mit-desinformation/disinformation-definition-1911048 |url-status=live }}</ref> Disinformation can appear in any medium including text, audio, and imagery.<ref name="Die-Bundesregierung-informiert-|-Startseite" /> The distinction between mis- and dis-information can be muddy because the intent of someone sharing false information can be difficult to discern.
Misinformation is information that was originally thought to be true but was later discovered not to be true, and often applies to emerging situations in which there is a lack of verifiable information or changing scientific understanding.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hanopol |first=Nica Rhiana |date=2021-05-12 |title=When 'misinformation' strikes, experts say here's what you can do |url=https://verafiles.org/articles/when-midinformation-strikes-experts-say-heres-what-you-can-d |access-date=2024-04-03 |website=VERA Files }}</ref> For example, the scientific guidance around infant sleep positions has evolved over time,<ref>{{Cite web |title=Safe to Sleep |url=https://safetosleep.nichd.nih.gov/campaign/history |access-date=April 3, 2024}}</ref> and these changes could be a source of confusion for new parents. Misinformation can also often be observed as news events are unfolding and questionable or unverified information fills information gaps. Even if later retracted, false information can continue to influence actions and memory.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ecker |first1=Ullrich K.H. |last2=Lewandowsky |first2=Stephan |last3=Cheung |first3=Candy S.C. |last4=Maybery |first4=Murray T. |date=November 2015 |title=He did it! She did it! No, she did not! Multiple causal explanations and the continued influence of misinformation |url=https://api.research-repository.uwa.edu.au/ws/files/11787265/Ecker_et_al_He_did_it_She_did_it_2015_.pdf |url-status=live |journal=Journal of Memory and Language |volume=85 |pages=101–115 |doi=10.1016/j.jml.2015.09.002 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221207091937/https://api.research-repository.uwa.edu.au/ws/files/11787265/Ecker_et_al_He_did_it_She_did_it_2015_.pdf |archive-date=2022-12-07 |access-date=2022-11-01}}</ref>
''Rumors'' are unverified information not attributed to any particular source and may be either true or false.<ref>{{Cite web |date=May 21, 2023 |title=Definition of RUMOR |url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rumor |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220204010731/https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rumor |archive-date=February 4, 2022 |access-date=February 4, 2022 |website=www.merriam-webster.com}}</ref>
Definitions of these terms may vary between cultural contexts.<ref name="Zeng-2021" />
== History == Early examples include the insults and smears spread among political rivals in Imperial and Renaissance Italy in the form of pasquinades.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/02/13/the-true-history-of-fake-news/|title=The True History of Fake News|website=The New York Review of Books|access-date=2019-02-24|date=2017-02-13|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190205222751/https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/02/13/the-true-history-of-fake-news/|archive-date=2019-02-05|url-status=live}}</ref> These are anonymous and witty verses named for the Pasquino piazza and talking statues in Rome. In pre-revolutionary France, "canards", or printed broadsides, sometimes included an engraving to convince readers to take them seriously.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Darnton |first=Robert |date=2007 |title=The Devil in the Holy Water: Political Libel in Eighteenth-Century France |url=https://dash.harvard.edu/entities/publication/73120378-7cca-6bd4-e053-0100007fdf3b |journal=Proceedings of the British Academy |volume=151 |pages=387–422 |via=Harvard University's Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH)}}</ref>
During the summer of 1587, continental Europe anxiously awaited news as the Spanish Armada sailed to fight the English. The Spanish postmaster and Spanish agents in Rome promoted reports of Spanish victory in hopes of convincing Pope Sixtus V to release his promised one million ducats upon landing of troops. In France, the Spanish and English ambassadors promoted contradictory narratives in the press, and a Spanish victory was incorrectly celebrated in Paris, Prague, and Venice. It was not until late August that reliable reports of the Spanish defeat arrived in major cities and were widely believed; the remains of the fleet returned home in the autumn.<ref>{{cite book |title=The Invention of News |author=Andrew Pettegree |publisher=Yale University Press |year=2015 |isbn=978-0-300-21276-1 |pages=153–4}}</ref>
Misinformation has historically been linked to advancements in communications technologies. With the mass media revolution in the 20th century, television, radio, and newspapers were major vehicles for reliable information and misinformation.<ref>Starbird, K., Arif, A., & Wilson, T. (2019). "Disinformation as Collaborative Work: Surfacing the Participatory Nature of Strategic Information Operations." ''Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction'', 3(CSCW), 1-26.</ref> War-time propaganda, political disinformation, and corporate public relations operations often shaped the public perception, occasionally distorting facts to promote economic or ideological agendas.<ref>Benkler, Y., Faris, R., & Roberts, H. (2018). ''Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics''. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0190923624.</ref> With the discovery of television as a popular medium, disinformation could be rapidly disseminated to millions of individuals, reinforcing existing bias and making correction more difficult.<ref>Vraga, E.". K., & Bode, L. (2020). "Defining Misinformation and Understanding Its Bind to Political Communication." 'Political Communication', 37(1), 136-144. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1716494 doi:10.1080/10584609.2020.1716494]</ref> These early trends set the foundation for modern digital misinformation, which now spreads even more efficiently along internet networks.
thumb|A lithograph from the first large scale spread of disinformation in America, the Great Moon Hoax The first recorded large-scale disinformation campaign was the Great Moon Hoax, published in 1835 in the New York ''The Sun'', in which a series of articles claimed to describe life on the Moon, "complete with illustrations of humanoid bat-creatures and bearded blue unicorns".<ref name="icfj">{{Cite web|title=A short guide to the history of 'fake news' and disinformation|url=https://www.icfj.org/news/short-guide-history-fake-news-and-disinformation-new-icfj-learning-module|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190225103100/https://www.icfj.org/news/short-guide-history-fake-news-and-disinformation-new-icfj-learning-module|archive-date=2019-02-25|access-date=2019-02-24|website=International Center for Journalists}}</ref> The challenges of mass-producing news on a short deadline can lead to factual errors and mistakes. An example of such is the ''Chicago Tribune''{{'}}s infamous 1948 headline "Dewey Defeats Truman".<ref>{{Cite web |last=Jones |first=Tim |date=2020-10-31 |title=Dewey defeats Truman: The most famous wrong call in electoral history |url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/2020/10/31/dewey-defeats-truman-the-most-famous-wrong-call-in-electoral-history/ |access-date=2024-04-03 |website=Chicago Tribune }}</ref> In November 2005, Chris Hansen on ''Dateline NBC'' claimed that law enforcement officials estimate 50,000 predators are online at any moment. Afterward, then-U.S. attorney general Alberto Gonzales repeated the claim. However, the number that Hansen used in his reporting had no backing. Hansen said he received the information from ''Dateline'' expert Ken Lanning, but Lanning admitted that he made up the number 50,000 because there was no solid data on the number. According to Lanning, he used 50,000 because it sounds like a real number, not too big and not too small, and referred to it as a "Goldilocks number". Reporter Carl Bialik says that the number 50,000 is used often in the media to estimate numbers when reporters are unsure of the exact data.<ref>{{Cite book|title=The Influencing Machine|last=Gladstone|first=Brooke|publisher=W. W. Norton & Company|year=2012|isbn=978-0-393-34246-8|location=New York|pages=49–51}}</ref>
Social media platforms allow for easy spread of misinformation, and misinformation was a major talking point during the 2016 U.S. presidential election with claims of social media sites allowing "fake news" to be spread.<ref name="Brosnan20210113">{{cite news |id={{ProQuest|2477885938}} |last1=Brosnan |first1=Deanne |date=13 January 2021 |title=When Misinformation is Misinformation |newspaper=CE Think Tank Newswire |location=Miami }}</ref> Post-election surveys in 2016 suggest that many individuals who intake false information on social media believe them to be factual.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Allcott |first1=Hunt |last2=Gentzkow |first2=Matthew |last3=Yu |first3=Chuan |date=April 2019 |title=Trends in the diffusion of misinformation on social media |journal=Research & Politics |volume=6 |issue=2 |page=205316801984855 |doi=10.1177/2053168019848554 |s2cid=52291737 |issn=2053-1680 |doi-access=free |arxiv=1809.05901 }}</ref> The specific reasons why misinformation spreads through social media so easily remain unknown. A 2018 study of Twitter determined that, compared to accurate information, false information spread significantly faster, further, deeper, and more broadly.<ref name="science.org">{{Cite journal |last1=Vosoughi |first1=Soroush |last2=Roy |first2=Deb |last3=Aral |first3=Sinan |date=2018-03-09 |title=The spread of true and false news online |url=https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aap9559 |journal=Science |volume=359 |issue=6380 |pages=1146–1151 |doi=10.1126/science.aap9559 |pmid=29590045 |bibcode=2018Sci...359.1146V |issn=0036-8075}}</ref> Similarly, a research study of Facebook found that misinformation was more likely to be clicked on than factual information.{{Citation needed|date=April 2024}} [[File:Dewey Defeats Truman.jpg|thumb|Harry S. Truman displaying the inaccurate ''Chicago Tribune'' headline, an example of misinformation|alt=Harry S. Truman gleefully displays a Chicago Tribune headline erroneously stating that his opponent, Thomas E. Dewey, defeated him in the United States presidential election.]] Moreover, the advent of the Internet has changed traditional ways that misinformation spreads.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Godfrey-Smith |first=Peter |date=December 1989 |title=Misinformation |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0045509100016945/type/journal_article |journal=Canadian Journal of Philosophy |volume=19 |issue=4 |pages=533–550 |doi=10.1080/00455091.1989.10716781 |s2cid=246637810 |issn=0045-5091}}</ref> During the 2016 U.S. presidential election, content from websites deemed 'untrustworthy' reached up to 40% of Americans, despite misinformation making up only 6% of overall news media.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=West |first1=Jevin D. |last2=Bergstrom |first2=Carl T. |date=2021-04-13 |title=Misinformation in and about science |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |volume=118 |issue=15 |article-number=e1912444117 |doi=10.1073/pnas.1912444117 |issn=0027-8424 |pmc=8054004 |pmid=33837146|bibcode=2021PNAS..11812444W |doi-access=free }}</ref> Misinformation has been spread during many health crises.<ref name="NYT-20240316">{{cite news |last=Blum |first=Dani |title=Health Misinformation Is Evolving. Here's How to Spot It. - Experts offer tips for combating false medical claims in your own circles. |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/16/well/health-misinformation.html |date=March 16, 2024 |work=The New York Times |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240317120559/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/16/well/health-misinformation.html |archive-date= 2024-03-17|access-date=March 17, 2024 }}</ref><ref name="Zeng-2021">{{Cite journal |last1=Zeng |first1=Jing |last2=Chan |first2=Chung-hong |date=2021-01-01 |title=A cross-national diagnosis of infodemics: comparing the topical and temporal features of misinformation around COVID-19 in China, India, the US, Germany and France |journal=Online Information Review |volume=45 |issue=4 |pages=709–728 |doi=10.1108/OIR-09-2020-0417 |issn=1468-4527 |s2cid=234242942 }}</ref> For example, misinformation about alternative treatments was spread during the Ebola outbreak in 2014–2016.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Fung |first1=Isaac Chun-Hai |last2=Fu |first2=King-Wa |last3=Chan |first3=Chung-Hong |last4=Chan |first4=Benedict Shing Bun |last5=Cheung |first5=Chi-Ngai |last6=Abraham |first6=Thomas |last7=Tse |first7=Zion Tsz Ho |date=May 2016 |title=Social Media's Initial Reaction to Information and Misinformation on Ebola, August 2014: Facts and Rumors |journal=Public Health Reports |volume=131 |issue=3 |pages=461–473 |doi=10.1177/003335491613100312 |issn=0033-3549 |pmc=4869079 |pmid=27252566}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Oyeyemi |first1=Sunday Oluwafemi |last2=Gabarron |first2=Elia |last3=Wynn |first3=Rolf |date=2014-10-14 |title=Ebola, Twitter, and misinformation: a dangerous combination? |url=https://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g6178 |journal=BMJ |volume=349 |article-number=g6178 |doi=10.1136/bmj.g6178 |issn=1756-1833 |pmid=25315514 |s2cid=731448 |access-date=2023-05-11 |archive-date=2022-11-01 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221101202837/https://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g6178 |url-status=live |doi-access=free }}</ref> During the COVID-19 pandemic, the proliferation of mis- and dis-information was exacerbated by a general lack of health literacy.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Swire-Thompson |first1=Briony |last2=Lazer |first2=David |date=2020-04-02 |title=Public Health and Online Misinformation: Challenges and Recommendations |journal=Annual Review of Public Health |volume=41 |issue=1 |pages=433–451 |doi=10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094127 |pmid=31874069 |issn=0163-7525|doi-access=free }}</ref> For example, a conspiracy theory that COVID-19 was linked to the 5G network gained significant traction worldwide after emerging on social media.<ref name="Stewart 2021 106–110">{{cite journal |last1=Stewart |first1=Mallory |date=2021 |title=Defending Weapons Inspections from the Effects of Disinformation |journal=AJIL Unbound |volume=115 |pages=106–110 |doi=10.1017/aju.2021.4 |s2cid=232070073 |doi-access=free}}</ref>
=== COVID-19 misinformation === {{Main|COVID-19 misinformation}}
Misinformation is also a major public health problem, with effects on health behaviors. During the COVID-19 pandemic, social media was used as one of the main propagators of misinformation about symptoms, treatments, and long-term health-related problems,<ref name="MerriamWebster-Dictionary-2020" /> and caused people to make unsafe decisions, such as rejecting vaccines or ignoring public health guidelines, as reported by WHO (2020).<ref>{{Cite web |title=Managing the COVID-19 infodemic: Promoting healthy behaviours and mitigating the harm from misinformation and disinformation |url=https://www.who.int/news/item/23-09-2020-managing-the-covid-19-infodemic-promoting-healthy-behaviours-and-mitigating-the-harm-from-misinformation-and-disinformation |access-date=2025-12-09 |website=World Health Organization (WHO)}}</ref> This problem led to an effort in developing automated detection methods for misinformation on social media platforms.<ref name="Caramancion-2020" />
A study conducted in the UK and the US found that exposure to recent COVID-19 vaccine misinformation significantly lowered vaccination intent, by 6.4 percentage points in the UK and 2.4 percentage points in the US, especially among people who originally planned to "definitely" vaccinate.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Loomba |first1=Sahil |last2=de Figueiredo |first2=Alexandre |last3=Piatek |first3=Simon J. |last4=de Graaf |first4=Kristen |last5=Larson |first5=Heidi J. |date=2021 |title=Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01056-1 |journal=Nature Human Behaviour |volume=5 |issue=3 |pages=337–348 |doi=10.1038/s41562-021-01056-1 |pmid=33547453 |issn=2397-3374}}</ref>
The creator of the Stop Mandatory Vaccination made money posting anti-vax false news on social media. He posted more than 150 posts aimed towards women, garnering a total of 1.6 million views and earning money for every click and share.{{sfn|Aral|2020|p=43}}
== Research == {{see also|Disinformation research}} Much research on how to correct misinformation has focused on fact-checking.<ref name="Lewandowsky-2012">{{Cite journal |last1=Lewandowsky |first1=Stephan |last2=Ecker |first2=Ullrich K. H. |last3=Seifert |first3=Colleen M. |last4=Schwarz |first4=Norbert |last5=Cook |first5=John |date=2012 |title=Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing |journal=Psychological Science in the Public Interest |volume=13 |issue=3 |pages=106–131 |doi=10.1177/1529100612451018 |jstor=23484653 |pmid=26173286 |s2cid=42633 |doi-access=free}}</ref> However, this can be challenging because the information deficit model does not necessarily apply well to beliefs in misinformation.<ref name="Diaz-Ruiz-2022" /><ref name="Ecker-2022" /> Various researchers have also investigated what makes people susceptible to misinformation.<ref name="Ecker-2022" /> People may be more prone to believe misinformation because they are emotionally connected to what they are listening to or are reading. Social media has made information readily available to society at anytime, and it connects vast groups of people along with their information at one time.{{sfn|Aral|2020}} Advances in technology have impacted the way people communicate information and the way misinformation is spread.<ref name="Lewandowsky-2012" /> Today, social media platforms are popular sites for news consumption, with over 50% of US adults reporting them as one method of their news consumption.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-09-17 |title=Social Media and News Fact Sheet |url=https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/social-media-and-news-fact-sheet/ |access-date=2026-03-04 |website=Pew Research Center}}</ref>
=== Causes === Factors that contribute to beliefs in misinformation are an ongoing subject of study.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Jerit |first1=Jennifer |last2=Zhao |first2=Yangzi |date=2020-05-11 |title=Political Misinformation |journal=Annual Review of Political Science |volume=23 |issue=1 |pages=77–94 |doi=10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-032814 |issn=1094-2939 |s2cid=212733536 |doi-access=free}}</ref> According to Scheufele and Krause, misinformation belief has roots at the individual, group and societal levels.<ref name="Science audiences, misinformation">{{cite journal |last1=Scheufele |first1=Dietram |last2=Krause |first2=Nicole |date=April 16, 2019 |title=Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |volume=116 |issue=16 |pages=7662–7669 |bibcode=2019PNAS..116.7662S |doi=10.1073/pnas.1805871115 |pmc=6475373 |pmid=30642953 |doi-access=free}}</ref> At the individual level, individuals have varying levels of skill in recognizing mis- or dis-information and may be predisposed to certain misinformation beliefs due to other personal beliefs, motivations, or emotions.<ref name="Science audiences, misinformation" /> However, evidence for the hypotheses that believers in misinformation use more cognitive heuristics and less effortful processing of information have produced mixed results.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Pennycook |first1=Gordon |last2=Cheyne |first2=James Allan |last3=Seli |first3=Paul |last4=Koehler |first4=Derek J. |last5=Fugelsang |first5=Jonathan A. |date=2012-06-01 |title=Analytic cognitive style predicts religious and paranormal belief |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0010027712000534 |journal=Cognition |volume=123 |issue=3 |pages=335–346 |doi=10.1016/j.cognition.2012.03.003 |pmid=22481051 |issn=0010-0277}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Robson |first1=Samuel G. |last2=Faasse |first2=Kate |last3=Gordon |first3=Eliza-Rose |last4=Jones |first4=Samuel P. |last5=Drew |first5=Manisara |last6=Martire |first6=Kristy A. |date=2024-10-09 |title=Lazy or different? A quantitative content analysis of how believers and nonbelievers of misinformation reason |url=https://advances.in/psychology/10.56296/aip00027/ |journal=Advances.in/Psychology |volume=2 |pages=e003511 |doi=10.56296/aip00027 |issn=2976-937X}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Scherer |first1=Laura D. |last2=McPhetres |first2=Jon |last3=Pennycook |first3=Gordon |last4=Kempe |first4=Allison |last5=Allen |first5=Larry A. |last6=Knoepke |first6=Christopher E. |last7=Tate |first7=Channing E. |last8=Matlock |first8=Daniel D. |date=April 2021 |title=Who is susceptible to online health misinformation? A test of four psychosocial hypotheses. |url=http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/hea0000978 |journal=Health Psychology |volume=40 |issue=4 |pages=274–284 |doi=10.1037/hea0000978 |pmid=33646806 |issn=1930-7810}}</ref> At the group level, in-group bias and a tendency to associate with like-minded or similar people can produce echo chambers and information silos that can create and reinforce misinformation beliefs.<ref name="Science audiences, misinformation" /><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Törnberg |first=Petter |date=2018-09-20 |editor-last=Bauch |editor-first=Chris T. |title=Echo chambers and viral misinformation: Modeling fake news as complex contagion |journal=PLOS ONE |volume=13 |issue=9 |article-number=e0203958 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0203958 |doi-access=free |issn=1932-6203 |pmc=6147442 |pmid=30235239|bibcode=2018PLoSO..1303958T }}</ref> At the societal level, public figures like politicians and celebrities can disproportionately influence public opinions, as can mass media outlets.<ref>{{cite web |title=Literature Review: Echo chambers, filter bubbles and polarization |url=https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/online-information-environment/oie-echo-chambers.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220119010245/https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/online-information-environment/oie-echo-chambers.pdf |archive-date=19 January 2022 |access-date=21 February 2022}}</ref> In addition, societal trends like political polarization, economic inequalities, declining trust in science, and changing perceptions of authority contribute to the impact of misinformation.<ref name="Science audiences, misinformation" />
Disinformation has evolved and grown over the years, with the advent of online platforms, which facilitate the speed of transmission. Research indicates there is evidence to demonstrate that misinformation circulates at a faster rate than accurate facts, and to some degree due to the emotional and sensationalized presentation of the lie.<ref>Lazer, D. M., Baum, M. A., Benkler, Y., Berinsky, A. J., Greenhill, K. M., Menczer, F.,. & Schudson, M. (2018). "The Science of Fake News." ''Science'', 359(6380), 1094–1096.</ref> Social media structures, which have been leveraged by politicians and news media for political and economic ends, have exacerbated the prevalence of misinformation.<ref>Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K., & Cook, J. (2017). "Beyond Misinformation: Understanding and Coping with the 'Post-Truth' Era." ''Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition'', 6(4), 353-369.". [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008 doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008]</ref><ref>Flynn, D. J., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2017). "The Nature and Origins of Misperceptions: Understanding False and Unsupported Beliefs About Politics." ''Political Psychology'', 38(S1), 127-150. [https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12394 doi:10.1111/pops.12394]</ref> Historically, people have relied on journalists and other information professionals to relay facts.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Web of Deception: Misinformation on the Internet |journal=The Electronic Library |date=1 December 2002 |volume=20 |issue=6 |page=521 |doi=10.1108/el.2002.20.6.521.7 }}</ref> As the number and variety of information sources has increased, it has become more challenging for the general public to assess their credibility.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Domonoske |first1=Camila |title=Students Have 'Dismaying' Inability To Tell Fake News From Real, Study Finds |website=NPR |date=23 November 2016 |url=https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/23/503129818/study-finds-students-have-dismaying-inability-to-tell-fake-news-from-real |access-date=April 4, 2024}}</ref> This growth of consumer choice when it comes to news media allows the consumer to choose a news source that may align with their biases, which consequently increases the likelihood that they are misinformed.<ref name="BeyondMisinfo" /> In 2017, 67% of US adults reported obtaining at least some of their news from social media, although many respondents also referenced traditional news sources.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Shearer |first1=Elisa |last2=Gottfried |first2=Jeffrey |date=2017-09-07 |title=News Use Across Social Media Platforms 2017 |url=https://www.journalism.org/2017/09/07/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2017/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210316054814/https://www.journalism.org/2017/09/07/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2017/ |archive-date=2021-03-16 |access-date=2021-03-28 |website=Pew Research Center's Journalism Project}}</ref> Polling shows that Americans trust mass media at record-low rates,<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-10-19 |title=Media Confidence in U.S. Matches 2016 Record Low |url=https://news.gallup.com/poll/512861/media-confidence-matches-2016-record-low.aspx |access-date=2024-05-16 |website=Gallup.com}}</ref> and that US young adults place similar levels of trust in information from social media and from national news organizations.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Liedke |first1=Jacob |last2=Gottfried |first2=Jeffrey |date=2022-10-27 |title=U.S. adults under 30 now trust information from social media almost as much as from national news outlets |url=https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/10/27/u-s-adults-under-30-now-trust-information-from-social-media-almost-as-much-as-from-national-news-outlets/ |access-date=2024-05-16 |website=Pew Research Center}}</ref> The pace of the 24 hour news cycle does not always allow for adequate fact-checking, potentially leading to the spread of misinformation.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Croteau |first1=David |title=Media Society: Industries, Images, and Audiences |last2=Hoynes |first2=William |last3=Milan |first3=Stefania |pages=285–321 |chapter=Media Technology |access-date=March 21, 2013 |chapter-url=http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/40857_9.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130102172415/http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/40857_9.pdf |archive-date=January 2, 2013 |url-status=live}}</ref> Further, the distinction between opinion and reporting can be unclear to viewers or readers.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Mitchell |first1=Amy |last2=Gottfried |first2=Jeffrey |last3=Barthel |first3=Michael |last4=Sumida |first4=Nami |date=2018-06-18 |title=Distinguishing Between Factual and Opinion Statements in the News |url=https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2018/06/18/distinguishing-between-factual-and-opinion-statements-in-the-news/ |access-date=2024-05-16 |website=Pew Research Center}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Journalists know news and opinion are separate, but readers often can't tell the difference |url=https://www.niemanlab.org/2020/06/journalists-know-news-and-opinion-are-separate-but-readers-often-cant-tell-the-difference/ |access-date=2024-05-16 |website=Nieman Lab}}</ref> Sources of misinformation can appear highly convincing and similar to trusted legitimate sources.<ref>{{Cite web |publisher=Stanford University |date=2016-11-21 |title=Stanford researchers find students have trouble judging the credibility of information online |url=https://ed.stanford.edu/news/stanford-researchers-find-students-have-trouble-judging-credibility-information-online |access-date=2024-04-03 |website=Stanford Graduate School of Education }}</ref> For example, misinformation cited with hyperlinks has been found to increase readers' trust. Trust is even higher when these hyperlinks are to scientific journals, and higher still when readers do not click on the sources to investigate for themselves.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Verma |first1=Nitin |last2=Fleischmann |first2=Kenneth R. |last3=Koltai |first3=Kolina S. |date=January 2017 |title=Human values and trust in scientific journals, the mainstream media and fake news |journal=Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology |volume=54 |issue=1 |pages=426–435 |doi=10.1002/pra2.2017.14505401046 |s2cid=51958978}}</ref><ref>{{cite arXiv | eprint=2104.11694 | last1=Sehgal | first1=Vibhor | last2=Peshin | first2=Ankit | last3=Afroz | first3=Sadia | last4=Farid | first4=Hany | title=Mutual Hyperlinking Among Misinformation Peddlers | date=2021 | class=cs.SI }}</ref> Research has also shown that the presence of relevant images alongside incorrect statements increases both their believability and shareability, even if the images do not actually provide evidence for the statements.<ref name="Newman-2012">{{Cite journal |last1=Newman |first1=Eryn J. |last2=Garry |first2=Maryanne |last3=Bernstein |first3=Daniel M. |last4=Kantner |first4=Justin |last5=Lindsay |first5=D. Stephen |date=October 2012 |title=Nonprobative photographs (or words) inflate truthiness |journal=Psychonomic Bulletin & Review |volume=19 |issue=5 |pages=969–974 |doi=10.3758/s13423-012-0292-0 |issn=1531-5320 |pmid=22869334}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Sundar |first1=S Shyam |last2=Molina |first2=Maria D |last3=Cho |first3=Eugene |date=2021-11-12 |title=Seeing Is Believing: Is Video Modality More Powerful in Spreading Fake News via Online Messaging Apps? |url=https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/26/6/301/6336055 |journal=Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication |volume=26 |issue=6 |pages=301–319 |doi=10.1093/jcmc/zmab010 |issn=1083-6101|doi-access=free }}</ref> For example, a false statement about macadamia nuts accompanied by an image of a bowl of macadamia nuts tends to be rated as more believable than the same statement without an image.<ref name="Newman-2012" />
The translation of scientific research into popular reporting can also lead to confusion if it flattens nuance, sensationalizes the findings, or places too much emphasis on weaker levels of evidence. For instance, researchers have found that newspapers are more likely than scientific journals to cover observational studies and studies with weaker methodologies.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Selvaraj |first1=Senthil |last2=Borkar |first2=Durga S. |last3=Prasad |first3=Vinay |date=2014-01-17 |title=Media Coverage of Medical Journals: Do the Best Articles Make the News? |journal=PLOS ONE |volume=9 |issue=1 |article-number=e85355 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0085355 |doi-access=free |issn=1932-6203 |pmc=3894978 |pmid=24465543|bibcode=2014PLoSO...985355S }}</ref> Dramatic headlines may gain readers' attention, but they do not always accurately reflect scientific findings.<ref>{{Cite web |title=How to spot misleading science reporting – QB3 Berkeley |url=https://qb3.berkeley.edu/news/how-to-spot-misleading-science-reporting/ |access-date=2024-04-12 |website=qb3.berkeley.edu}}</ref>
Human cognitive tendencies can also be a contributing factor to misinformation belief. One study found that an individual's recollection of political events could be altered when presented with misinformation about the event, even when primed to identify warning signs of misinformation.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Freeze |first1=Melanie |last2=Baumgartner |first2=Mary |last3=Bruno |first3=Peter |last4=Gunderson |first4=Jacob R. |last5=Olin |first5=Joshua |last6=Ross |first6=Morgan Quinn |last7=Szafran |first7=Justine |date=2021-12-01 |title=Fake Claims of Fake News: Political Misinformation, Warnings, and the Tainted Truth Effect |journal=Political Behavior |volume=43 |issue=4 |pages=1433–1465 |doi=10.1007/s11109-020-09597-3 |issn=1573-6687|doi-access=free }}</ref> Misinformation may also be appealing by seeming novel or incorporating existing stereotypes.<ref name="Healy 2020">{{cite news |last1=Healy |first1=Melissa |date=8 February 2020 |title=Misinformation about the coronavirus abounds, but correcting it can backfire |url=https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2020-02-08/coronavirus-outbreak-false-information-psychology |work=Los Angeles Times}}</ref>
=== Identification === Several strategies have been suggested to reduce misinformation. One approach is to evaluate source credibility and motivation of the source, as well as considering plausibility of claims.<ref>{{cite web | last=Mintz | first=Anne | title=The Misinformation Superhighway? | url=https://www.pbs.org/now/shows/401/internet-politics.html | publisher=PBS | access-date=26 February 2013 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130402040621/http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/401/internet-politics.html | archive-date=2 April 2013 }}</ref><ref name="Ecker-2022">{{Cite journal |last1=Ecker |first1=Ullrich K. H. |last2=Lewandowsky |first2=Stephan |last3=Cook |first3=John |last4=Schmid |first4=Philipp |last5=Fazio |first5=Lisa K. |last6=Brashier |first6=Nadia |last7=Kendeou |first7=Panayiota |last8=Vraga |first8=Emily K. |last9=Amazeen |first9=Michelle A. |date=January 2022 |title=The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s44159-021-00006-y |journal=Nature Reviews Psychology |volume=1 |issue=1 |pages=13–29 |doi=10.1038/s44159-021-00006-y |issn=2731-0574|hdl=1983/889ddb0f-0d44-44f4-a54f-57c260ae4917 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> Readers tend to distinguish between unintentional misinformation and uncertain evidence from politically or financially motivated misinformation.<ref name="g426" /> The perception of misinformation depends on the political spectrum, with right-wing readers more concerned with attempts to hide reality.<ref name="g426">{{cite journal | last1=Hameleers | first1=Michael | last2=Brosius | first2=Anna | title=You Are Wrong Because I Am Right! The Perceived Causes and Ideological Biases of Misinformation Beliefs | journal=International Journal of Public Opinion Research | volume=34 | issue=1 | date=16 February 2022 | issn=0954-2892 | doi=10.1093/ijpor/edab028 | article-number=edab028 }}</ref> It can be difficult to undo the effects of misinformation once individuals believe it to be true.<ref name="CognitiveResearch">{{Cite journal |last1=Ecker |first1=Ullrich K. H. |last2=Lewandowsky |first2=Stephan |last3=Chadwick |first3=Matthew |date=2020-04-22 |title=Can Corrections Spread Misinformation to New Audiences? Testing for the Elusive Familiarity Backfire Effect |url=http://psyarxiv.com/qrm69/ |url-status=live |journal=Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications |volume=5 |issue=1 |page=41 |doi=10.31219/osf.io/et4p3 |pmc=7447737 |pmid=32844338 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200617162551/https://psyarxiv.com/qrm69/ |archive-date=2020-06-17 |access-date=2020-06-17 |hdl=1983/0d5feec2-5878-4af6-b5c7-fbbd398dd4c4}}</ref> Individuals may desire to reach a certain conclusion, causing them to accept information that supports that conclusion, and are more likely to retain and share information if it emotionally resonates with them.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Lewandowsky |first1=Stephan |last2=Ecker |first2=Ullrich K. H. |last3=Seifert |first3=Colleen M. |last4=Schwarz |first4=Norbert |last5=Cook |first5=John |year=2012 |title=Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing |journal=Psychological Science in the Public Interest |volume=13 |issue=3 |pages=106–131 |doi=10.1177/1529100612451018 |jstor=23484653 |pmid=26173286 |s2cid=42633 |doi-access=free}}</ref> The SIFT Method, also called the Four Moves, is one commonly taught method of distinguishing between reliable and unreliable information.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2019-06-19 |title=SIFT (The Four Moves) |url=https://hapgood.us/2019/06/19/sift-the-four-moves/ |access-date=2024-04-12 |website=Hapgood }}</ref> This method instructs readers to first Stop and begin to ask themselves about what they are reading or viewing - do they know the source and if it is reliable? Second, readers should Investigate the source. What is the source's relevant expertise and do they have an agenda? Third, a reader should Find better coverage and look for reliable coverage on the claim at hand to understand if there is a consensus around the issue. Finally, a reader should Trace claims, quotes, or media to their original context: has important information been omitted, or is the original source questionable?
Visual misinformation presents particular challenges, but there are some effective strategies for identification.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Cowles |first1=Kelsey |last2=Miller |first2=Rebekah |last3=Suppok |first3=Rachel |date=2024-01-02 |title=When Seeing Isn't Believing: Navigating Visual Health Misinformation through Library Instruction |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02763869.2024.2290963 |journal=Medical Reference Services Quarterly |volume=43 |issue=1 |pages=44–58 |doi=10.1080/02763869.2024.2290963 |pmid=38237023 |issn=0276-3869}}</ref> Misleading graphs and charts can be identified through careful examination of the data presentation; for example, truncated axes or poor color choices can cause confusion.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Grootendorst |first=Maarten |date=2021-03-23 |title=Misleading Graphs |url=https://www.maartengrootendorst.com/blog/misleading/ |access-date=2024-04-12 |website=Maarten Grootendorst }}</ref> Reverse image searching can reveal whether images have been taken out of their original context.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Qian |first1=Sijia |last2=Shen |first2=Cuihua |last3=Zhang |first3=Jingwen |date=2022-11-04 |title=Fighting cheapfakes: using a digital media literacy intervention to motivate reverse search of out-of-context visual misinformation |journal=Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication |volume=28 |issue=1 |article-number=zmac024 |doi=10.1093/jcmc/zmac024 |issn=1083-6101|doi-access=free }}</ref> There are currently some somewhat reliable ways to identify AI-generated imagery,<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Groh |first1=Matthew |last2=Epstein |first2=Ziv |last3=Firestone |first3=Chaz |last4=Picard |first4=Rosalind |date=2022-01-05 |title=Deepfake detection by human crowds, machines, and machine-informed crowds |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |volume=119 |issue=1 |article-number=e2110013119 |doi=10.1073/pnas.2110013119 |doi-access=free |issn=0027-8424 |pmc=8740705 |pmid=34969837|arxiv=2105.06496 |bibcode=2022PNAS..11910013G }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Bond |first=Shannon |title=AI-generated images are everywhere. Here's how to spot them |website=NPR |date=13 June 2023 |url=https://www.npr.org/2023/06/07/1180768459/how-to-identify-ai-generated-deepfake-images |access-date=April 12, 2024}}</ref> but it is likely that this will become more difficult to identify as the technology advances.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Hern |first=Alex |date=2024-04-08 |title='Time is running out': can a future of undetectable deepfakes be avoided? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/apr/08/time-is-running-out-can-a-future-of-undetectable-deepfakes-be-avoided |access-date=2024-04-12 |work=The Guardian |issn=0261-3077}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Verma |first=Pranshu |title=AI Can Draw Hands Now |newspaper=The Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/03/26/ai-generated-hands-midjourney/}}</ref>
A person's formal education level and media literacy do correlate with their ability to recognize misinformation.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Khan |first1=M. Laeeq |last2=Idris |first2=Ika Karlina |date=2 December 2019 |title=Recognise misinformation and verify before sharing: a reasoned action and information literacy perspective |journal=Behaviour & Information Technology |volume=38 |issue=12 |pages=1194–1212 |doi=10.1080/0144929x.2019.1578828 |s2cid=86681742}}</ref><ref name="sfn">{{Cite journal |last1=Lazer |first1=David M. J. |last2=Baum |first2=Matthew A. |last3=Benkler |first3=Yochai |last4=Berinsky |first4=Adam J. |last5=Greenhill |first5=Kelly M. |last6=Menczer |first6=Filippo |last7=Metzger |first7=Miriam J. |last8=Nyhan |first8=Brendan |last9=Pennycook |first9=Gordon |last10=Rothschild |first10=David |last11=Schudson |first11=Michael |last12=Sloman |first12=Steven A. |last13=Sunstein |first13=Cass R. |last14=Thorson |first14=Emily A. |last15=Watts |first15=Duncan J. |year=2018 |title=The science of fake news |journal=Science |volume=359 |issue=6380 |pages=1094–1096 |arxiv=2307.07903 |bibcode=2018Sci...359.1094L |doi=10.1126/science.aao2998 |pmid=29590025 |s2cid=4410672 |last16=Zittrain |first16=Jonathan L.}}</ref> People who are familiar with a topic, the processes of researching and presenting information, or have critical evaluation skills are more likely to correctly identify misinformation. However, these are not always direct relationships. Higher overall literacy does not always lead to improved ability to detect misinformation.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Vraga |first1=Emily K. |last2=Bode |first2=Leticia |date=December 2017 |title=Leveraging institutions, educators, and networks to correct misinformation: A commentary on Lewandosky, Ecker, and Cook. |journal=Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition |volume=6 |issue=4 |pages=382–388 |doi=10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.09.008}}</ref> Context clues can also significantly impact people's ability to detect misinformation.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Caramancion |first1=Kevin Matthe |title=2020 IEEE International IOT, Electronics and Mechatronics Conference (IEMTRONICS) |year=2020 |isbn=978-1-7281-9615-2 |pages=1–6 |chapter=Understanding the Impact of Contextual Clues in Misinformation Detection |doi=10.1109/IEMTRONICS51293.2020.9216394 |s2cid=222297695}}</ref>
Martin Libicki, author of ''Conquest In Cyberspace: National Security and Information Warfare'',<ref>{{cite book | last=Libicki | first=Martin | title=Conquest in Cyberspace: National Security and Information Warfare | url=https://archive.org/details/conquestcyberspa00libi_962 | url-access=limited | year=2007 | publisher=Cambridge University Press | location=New York | isbn=978-0-521-87160-0 | pages=[https://archive.org/details/conquestcyberspa00libi_962/page/n63 51]–55}}</ref> notes that readers should aim to be skeptical but not cynical. Readers should not be gullible, believing everything they read without question, but also should not be paranoid that everything they see or read is false.
=== Factors influencing susceptibility to misinformation === Various demographic, cognitive, social, and technological factors can influence an individual's susceptibility to misinformation. This section examines how age, political ideology, and algorithms may affect vulnerability to false or misleading information.
==== Age ==== Research suggests that age can be a significant factor in how individuals process and respond to misinformation. Some researchers have suggested that older individuals are more susceptible to misinformation than younger individuals due to cognitive decline.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Anspach |first1=Nicolas M |last2=Carlson |first2=Taylor N |date=2024-08-01 |title=Not who you think? Exposure and vulnerability to misinformation |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14614448221130422 |journal=New Media & Society |volume=26 |issue=8 |pages=4847–4866 |doi=10.1177/14614448221130422 |issn=1461-4448}}</ref> Other studies have found that, while this may be a factor, the issue is more complex than simply aging and experiencing cognitive decline. One notable area where cognitive decline is prevalent is repeated exposure to misinformation. A study found that older adults are more likely than younger adults to believe misinformation after repeated exposure, known as the illusory truth effect.<ref name="Lyons-2023">{{Cite journal |last=Lyons |first=Benjamin A. |date=2023-07-24 |title=Older Americans are more vulnerable to prior exposure effects in news evaluation |url=https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/older-americans-are-more-vulnerable-to-prior-exposure-effects-in-news-evaluation/ |journal=Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review |doi=10.37016/mr-2020-118|doi-access=free }}</ref> This is linked to declines in memory and analytical reasoning, which can make it more challenging for older adults to distinguish between true and false information.<ref name="Lyons-2023"/>
A 2020 review about age and misinformation concludes that social change contributes to older adults' susceptibility to misinformation. Older adults' social networks shrink, and they are more trusting of friends and family. This trust can be misplaced, however, as friends and family may share inaccurate or misleading information online, but older adults may assume it is true because it is shared by someone they trust. Research also indicates that older adults are more vulnerable to deception than younger adults. This can make them especially vulnerable to online content that is clickbait or seeks to deceive people.<ref name="Brashier-2020">{{Cite journal |last1=Brashier |first1=Nadia M. |last2=Schacter |first2=Daniel L. |date=2020-06-01 |title=Aging in an Era of Fake News |journal=Current Directions in Psychological Science |volume=29 |issue=3 |pages=316–323 |doi=10.1177/0963721420915872 |issn=0963-7214 |pmc=7505057 |pmid=32968336}}</ref>
Another commonly found explanation for older adults' susceptibility to misinformation is a lack of digital literacy. According to a nationally representative study of U.S. adults by Pew Research Center from 2023, 61% of adults aged 65 years or older own a smartphone, 45% use social media, and 44% own a tablet computer. All three numbers represent an increase over the last decade, indicating that older adults are spending more time online, thereby increasing their potential exposure to misinformation.<ref name="Brashier-2020"/> Research indicates that older adults often struggle to identify internet hoaxes and distinguish between advertorial and editorial content.<ref name="Brashier-2020"/> This exposes older adults to more fringe news sources, complicating the issue of correcting misinformed beliefs.
These factors have contributed to older adults sharing more misinformation than other demographics, a trend that may increase as the American population ages.<ref name="Brashier-2020"/>
==== Political ideology and confirmation bias ==== An individual's political ideology can significantly shape how they encounter, process and respond to misinformation, with implications for both information consumption patterns and cognitive processing.
In 2022, a study suggested that motivated reasoning and confirmation bias can influence information processing, regardless of political affiliation.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=van der Linden |first=Sander |date=March 2022 |title=Misinformation: susceptibility, spread, and interventions to immunize the public |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01713-6 |journal=Nature Medicine |volume=28 |issue=3 |pages=460–467 |doi=10.1038/s41591-022-01713-6 |pmid=35273402 |issn=1546-170X}}</ref>
This cognitive bias fosters an environment where misinformation that aligns with one's view thrives, creating echo chambers. Researchers explored the relationship between partisanship, the presence of an echo chamber, and vulnerability to misinformation, finding a strong correlation between right-wing partisanship and the sharing of online misinformation.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Nikolov |first1=Dimitar |last2=Flammini |first2=Alessandro |last3=Menczer |first3=Filippo |date=2021-02-15 |title=Right and left, partisanship predicts (asymmetric) vulnerability to misinformation |url=https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/right-and-left-partisanship-predicts-asymmetric-vulnerability-to-misinformation/ |journal=Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review |doi=10.37016/mr-2020-55|arxiv=2010.01462 }}</ref> They also discovered a similar trend among left-leaning users. Similar research has found that right- and left-wing partisans exhibit similar levels of metacognitive awareness, which refers to individuals' conscious awareness of their own thoughts and mental processes.<ref name="Dobbs-2023">{{Cite journal |last1=Dobbs |first1=Mitch |last2=DeGutis |first2=Joseph |last3=Morales |first3=Jorge |last4=Joseph |first4=Kenneth |last5=Swire-Thompson |first5=Briony |date=2023-12-18 |title=Democrats are better than Republicans at discerning true and false news but do not have better metacognitive awareness |journal=Communications Psychology |volume=1 |issue=1 |pages=1–10 |article-number=46 |doi=10.1038/s44271-023-00040-x |pmid=39242894 |issn=2731-9121|pmc=11332161 }}</ref> In a study that asked participants to identify news headlines as true or false, both Democrats and Republicans admitted to occasionally suspecting they were wrong.<ref name="Dobbs-2023" />
Researchers also examined the relationship between ideological extremity and susceptibility to misinformation, finding that ideological extremity on both sides of the political spectrum predicts greater receptivity to misinformation.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Tokita |first1=Christopher K |last2=Aslett |first2=Kevin |last3=Godel |first3=William P |last4=Sanderson |first4=Zeve |last5=Tucker |first5=Joshua A |last6=Nagler |first6=Jonathan |last7=Persily |first7=Nathaniel |last8=Bonneau |first8=Richard |date=2024-10-01 |title=Measuring receptivity to misinformation at scale on a social media platform |url=https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/3/10/pgae396/7754768?login=false |journal=PNAS Nexus |volume=3 |issue=10 |article-number=pgae396 |doi=10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae396 |doi-access=free|pmid=39381645 |issn=2752-6542|pmc=11460357 }}</ref> This finding, coupled with confirmation bias, contributes to a media ecosystem where misinformation can thrive.
==== Algorithms ==== Social media algorithms are designed to increase user engagement.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Brady |first1=William J. |last2=Jackson |first2=Joshua Conrad |last3=Lindström |first3=Björn |last4=Crockett |first4=M. J. |date=2023-10-01 |title=Algorithm-mediated social learning in online social networks |url=https://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/abstract/S1364-6613(23)00166-3?_returnURL=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1364661323001663?showall=true |journal=Trends in Cognitive Sciences |volume=27 |issue=10 |pages=947–960 |doi=10.1016/j.tics.2023.06.008 |issn=1364-6613 |pmid=37543440}}</ref> Research suggests that humans are naturally drawn to emotionally charged content, and algorithms perpetuate a cycle in which emotionally charged misinformation is disproportionately promoted on social media platforms.<ref name="McLoughlin-2024">{{Cite journal |last1=McLoughlin |first1=Killian L. |last2=Brady |first2=William J. |date=2024-04-01 |title=Human-algorithm interactions help explain the spread of misinformation |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2352250X23002154 |journal=Current Opinion in Psychology |volume=56 |article-number=101770 |doi=10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101770 |pmid=38128169 |issn=2352-250X}}</ref> This misinformation is spread rapidly through algorithms, outpacing the speed of fact-checking.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Misinformation Amplification Analysis and Tracking Dashboard |url=https://integrityinstitute.org/blog/misinformation-amplification-tracking-dashboard |access-date=2025-05-01 |website=Integrity Institute}}</ref>
Additionally, most social media users possess a limited understanding of how algorithms curate their information feeds.<ref name="McLoughlin-2024"/> This knowledge gap makes it difficult for users to recognize potential biases on their social media feeds or to implement strategies to diversify the content they are exposed to. In response, some researchers and organizations call for modifications to algorithmic systems to help reduce the amplification of misinformation.<ref name="McLoughlin-2024"/>
=== AI contribution to the problem and aid in combatting === [[File:AI Overviews result for Joaquin Correa brother, 10 August 2025.jpg|thumb|AI Overviews result in 10 August 2025 incorrectly stating that Joaquín Correa is the brother of Ángel Correa; the two are unrelated.<ref>{{cite web |title=Joaquín Correa fue presentado en Botafogo para jugar el Mundial de Clubes y tuvo un insólito cruce con un periodista: "No es mi hermano" |url=https://www.clarin.com/deportes/joaquin-correa-presentado-botafogo-jugar-mundial-clubes-insolito-cruce-periodista-hermano_0_1HjL2zmnR0.html |website=Clarin |date=14 June 2025 |access-date=10 August 2025}}</ref>|alt=In a Google search for "Joaquín Correa brother", Google's AI Overview erroneously states that "Joaquín Correa's brother is named Ángel Correa", and briefly details Ángel Correa's career. It cites the English Wikipedia article on Ángel Correa (which did not support the false relationship claim), alongside another unseen website. A note beneath the overview warns that "AI responses may include mistakes", and provides a hyperlink for further information.]] The rise of Artificial intelligence has also contributed to the formation of new types of misinformation and disinformation. This is called Synthetic media according to the UNHCR Factsheet. AI is capable of manipulation and modification of data and multimedia. AI is used in algorithms nowadays to mislead audience. The presence of synthetic media could intensify fake news and supports the spread of misinformation if used in the wrong way. Deep fakes are a part of synthetic media that have gained popularity recently in which faces of people are replaced. This manipulation has garnered widespread attention for their use in fake news, hoaxes, fraud and revenge porn. Speech synthesis (Another type of synthetic media) amplifies these deep fakes by artificially producing human speech with the help of a speech computer. Synthetic media has become a concern for industries and governments which made some countries already have a national response or national institutions are working on detecting and limiting its use.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Factsheet 4: Types of Misinformation and Disinformation |url=https://www.unhcr.org/innovation/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Factsheet-4.pdf}}</ref> However, AI also helps by contributing to the fight against misinformation.
* Deepfakes and Synthetic media create very convincing visual, audio, and textual evidence that is difficult to distinguish from legitimate authoritative evidence.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Westerlund |first=Mika |date=2019-01-01 |title=The Emergence of Deepfake Technology: A Review |journal=Technology Innovation Management Review |volume=9 |issue=11 |pages=39–52 |doi=10.22215/timreview/1282 |issn=1927-0321 |doi-access=free}}</ref> * Internet bots and automated Internet trolls can rapidly sow disinformation.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Ferrara |first=Emilio |date=2017-07-31 |title=Disinformation and Social Bot Operations in the Run Up to the 2017 French Presidential Election |journal=First Monday |arxiv=1707.00086 |doi=10.5210/fm.v22i8.8005 |issn=1396-0466 |doi-access=free}}</ref> * Algorithmic bias plays a role in amplification of sensational and controversial material regardless of truth.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Bakshy |first1=Eytan |last2=Messing |first2=Solomon |last3=Adamic |first3=Lada A. |date=2015-06-05 |title=Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook |journal=Science |volume=348 |issue=6239 |pages=1130–1132 |bibcode=2015Sci...348.1130B |doi=10.1126/science.aaa1160 |issn=0036-8075 |pmid=25953820}}</ref>
==== AI misinformation examples ==== ===== LA wildfire Hollywood sign ===== In 2025, California experienced a firestorm disaster, accompanied by a massive wave of AI disinformation, which led to misinformation. An example of such misinformation is the AI-generated images of Hollywood Sign on fire. Jeff Zarrinnam, chairman of Hollywood Sign, said, "'They look so real that I couldn't tell if it was real or not,' he says. "'You know, if I didn't see the Hollywood Sign myself ... I would have probably believed' that it was on fire." <ref>{{Cite news |last=Chappell |first=Bill |date=2025-01-16 |title=LA's wildfires prompted a rash of fake images. Here's why |url=https://www.npr.org/2025/01/16/nx-s1-5259629/la-wildfires-fake-images |access-date=2025-12-19 |work=NPR |language=en}}</ref> The Hollywood sign was never on fire, but it led to multiple people contacting Jeff Zarrinnam asking if the sign was ok because they believed it to be burnt.
A Microsoft AI for Good Lab study ran a test. The test, which had 12,500 global participants, chose whether an image was "Real or Artificial".<ref>{{Cite web |title=Real Or Not |url=https://www.realornotquiz.com/ |access-date=2025-12-19 |website=www.realornotquiz.com |language=English}}</ref> In total, 287,269 images were seen by participants; only 93,490 were real images. The Microsoft AI for Good Lab study found that participants had a 62% success rate in guessing correctly. The test shows how hard it is to detect AI-generated images.<ref>{{cite arXiv |last1=Roca |first1=Thomas |title=How good are humans at detecting AI-generated images? Learnings from an experiment |date=2025-05-12 |eprint=2507.18640 |last2=Roman |first2=Anthony Cintron |last3=Vega |first3=Jehú Torres |last4=Duarte |first4=Marcelo |last5=Wang |first5=Pengce |last6=White |first6=Kevin |last7=Misra |first7=Amit |last8=Ferres |first8=Juan Lavista |class=cs.HC }}</ref>
===== Mata v. Avianca, Inc., ===== {{main|Mata v. Avianca, Inc.}}
ChatGPT uses large language models (LLMs) to generate text from human data (books, articles, social media, etc). LLMs are known to generate false information, whether they got their information from a parody site like The Onion, people posting misinformation, or the LLMs just making up data aka hallucinating. An example of such LLM hallucinations is the court case of Roberto Mata, Plaintiff, v. Aviance Inc., Defendant, in which two attorneys defending Mata submitted an AI-generated legal motion that hallucinated court cases.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-06-09 |title=Lawyers blame ChatGPT for tricking them into citing bogus case law |url=https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-chatgpt-courts-e15023d7e6fdf4f099aa122437dbb59b |access-date=2025-12-19 |website=AP News |language=en}}</ref>
===== December 8th earthquake ===== {{main|2025 Aomori earthquake}}
On December 8, 2025, Japan experienced an earthquake disaster, accompanied by multiple AI-generated videos that emerged on social media. These AI-generated videos showed and explained how the earthquake began, what happened during it, and its aftermath. These AI-generated videos misinform the Japanese public, causing a government response warning of such fake videos.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Junya |first=Yabuuchi |date=17 December 2025 |title=Fake news spreads after quake in northern Japan |url=https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/backstories/4466/}}</ref>
===== Zelenskyy deepfakes ===== Hackers broadcast a deepfake video of Volodymyr Zelenskyy telling his soldiers to surrender in 2022. Zelenskyy later disproved the deepfake.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Allyn |first=Bobby |date=2022-03-16 |title=Deepfake video of Zelenskyy could be 'tip of the iceberg' in info war, experts warn |url=https://www.npr.org/2022/03/16/1087062648/deepfake-video-zelenskyy-experts-war-manipulation-ukraine-russia |access-date=2025-12-19 |work=NPR |language=en}}</ref>
===== Brown University shooting ===== {{main|Brown University shooting}}
On December 13, 2025, there was a shooting at Brown University, where the gunman wore a mask. Multiple people on social media are using AI-generated images to create a face for what the gunman would look like. AI cannot generate a real image of the gunman's face, which can lead to wrongful arrest when fake AI-generated faces are used.<ref>{{Cite web |last=NEWS |first=MOLLY LEVINE, NBC 10 |date=2025-12-17 |title=Expert: Sharing unofficial AI-generated images could confuse, hinder Brown investigation |url=https://newschannel20.com/news/nation-world/brown-university-shooting-expert-says-sharing-unofficial-ai-generated-images-could-confuse-hinder-investigation-providence-rhode-island-december-17-2025 |access-date=2025-12-19 |website=WICS |language=en}}</ref>
==<span class="anchor" id="Countering misinformation"></span>Countermeasures== {{see also|Conspiracy theories#Interventions}} Factors that contribute to the effectiveness of a corrective message include an individual's mental model or worldview, repeated exposure to the misinformation, time between misinformation and correction, credibility of the sources, and relative coherency of the misinformation and corrective message. Corrective messages will be more effective when they are coherent and/or consistent with the audience's worldview. They will be less effective when misinformation is believed to come from a credible source, is repeated prior to correction (even if the repetition occurs in the process of debunking), and/or when there is a time lag between the misinformation exposure and corrective message. Additionally, corrective messages delivered by the original source of the misinformation tend to be more effective.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Walter |first1=Nathan |last2=Tukachinsky |first2=Riva |title=A Meta-Analytic Examination of the Continued Influence of Misinformation in the Face of Correction: How Powerful Is It, Why Does It Happen, and How to Stop It? |journal=Communication Research |date=March 2020 |volume=47 |issue=2 |pages=155–177 |doi=10.1177/0093650219854600 |s2cid=197731687 |url=https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1061&context=comm_articles |access-date=2022-11-01 |archive-date=2022-12-07 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221207092441/https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1061&context=comm_articles |url-status=live }}</ref> However, misinformation research has often been criticized for its emphasis on efficacy (i.e., demonstrating effects of interventions in controlled experiments) over effectiveness (i.e., confirming real-world impacts of these interventions).<ref name="Roozenbeek-2024">{{Cite journal |last1=Roozenbeek |first1=Jon |last2=Remshard |first2=Miriam |last3=Kyrychenko |first3=Yara |date=2024-07-27 |title=Beyond the headlines: On the efficacy and effectiveness of misinformation interventions |url=https://advances.in/psychology/10.56296/aip00019/ |journal=Advances.in/Psychology |volume=2 |pages=e24569 |doi=10.56296/aip00019 |issn=2976-937X}}</ref> Critics argue that while laboratory settings may show promising results, these do not always translate into practical, everyday situations where misinformation spreads.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Tay |first1=Li Qian |last2=Lewandowsky |first2=Stephan |last3=Hurlstone |first3=Mark J. |last4=Kurz |first4=Tim |last5=Ecker |first5=Ullrich K. H. |date=2023-10-05 |title=A focus shift in the evaluation of misinformation interventions |url=https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/a-focus-shift-in-the-evaluation-of-misinformation-interventions/ |journal=Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review |volume=4 |issue=5 |doi=10.37016/mr-2020-124|pmid=39301480 |pmc=7616579 }}</ref> Several challenges have been suggested in implementing interventions for misinformation: an overabundance of lab research and a lack of field studies, the presence of testing effects that impede intervention longevity and scalability, modest effects for small fractions of relevant audiences, reliance on item evaluation tasks as primary efficacy measures, low replicability in the Global South and a lack of audience-tailored interventions, and the underappreciation of potential unintended consequences of intervention implementation.<ref name="Roozenbeek-2024" />
=== Fact-checking and debunking === Websites have been created to help people to discern fact from fiction. For example, the site FactCheck.org aims to fact check the media, especially viral political stories. The site also includes a forum where people can openly ask questions about the information.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Ask FactCheck |url=https://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160331063044/http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck |archive-date=2016-03-31 |access-date=2016-03-31 |website=www.factcheck.org}}</ref> Similar sites allow individuals to copy and paste misinformation into a search engine and the site will investigate it.<ref name="Fernandez-2018">{{cite book |last1=Fernandez |first1=Miriam |title=Companion of the Web Conference 2018 on the Web Conference 2018 – WWW '18 |last2=Alani |first2=Harith |publisher=ACM Press |year=2018 |isbn=978-1-4503-5640-4 |pages=595–602 |chapter=Online Misinformation |doi=10.1145/3184558.3188730 |s2cid=13799324}}</ref> Some sites exist to address misinformation about specific topics, such as climate change misinformation. DeSmog, formerly The DeSmogBlog, publishes factually accurate information in order to counter the well-funded disinformation campaigns spread by motivated deniers of climate change. Science Feedback focuses on evaluating science, health, climate, and energy claims in the media and providing an evidence-based analysis of their veracity.<ref>{{Cite web |title=About - Science Feedback |url=https://science.feedback.org/about/ |access-date=2024-04-12 |website=science.feedback.org/ }}</ref>
Flagging or eliminating false statements in media using algorithmic fact checkers is becoming an increasingly common tactic to fight misinformation. Google and many social media platforms have added automatic fact-checking programs to their sites and created the option for users to flag information that they think is false.<ref name="Fernandez-2018" /> Google provides supplemental information pointing to fact-checking websites in search results for controversial topics. On Facebook, algorithms may warn users if what they are about to share is likely false.<ref name="BeyondMisinfo">{{cite journal |last1=Lewandowsky |first1=Stephan |last2=Ecker |first2=Ullrich K. H. |last3=Cook |first3=John |title=Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the 'post-truth' era |journal=Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition |date=December 2017 |volume=6 |issue=4 |pages=353–369 |doi=10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008 |hdl=1983/1b4da4f3-009d-4287-8e45-a0a1d7b688f7 |s2cid=149003083 |url=https://api.research-repository.uwa.edu.au/ws/files/22250770/Lewandowsky.2017.JARMAC.pdf |access-date=2022-11-01 |archive-date=2023-01-18 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230118190604/https://api.research-repository.uwa.edu.au/ws/files/22250770/Lewandowsky.2017.JARMAC.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> In some cases social media platforms' efforts to curb the spread of misinformation has resulted in controversy, drawing criticism from people who see these efforts as constructing a barrier to their right to expression.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Nott |first=Lata |date=2022-08-03 |title=Free Speech on Social Media: The Complete Guide |url=https://www.freedomforum.org/free-speech-on-social-media/ |access-date=2024-04-12 |website=Freedom Forum }}</ref>
==== Crowdsourced fact-checking ==== As a way to scale counter-measures, some platforms and researchers have proposed crowdsourcing interventions, which use the judgments of laypeople to identify and label misinformation. This approach, which is the model for systems like Wikipedia and X's "Community Notes," is seen as a potential multi-layered solution that can be faster and more comprehensive than professional fact-checking alone.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last1=Pretus |first1=Clara |last2=Gil-Buitrago |first2=Helena |last3=Cisma |first3=Irene |last4=Hendricks |first4=Rosamunde C. |last5=Lizarazo-Villarreal |first5=Daniela |date=2024-07-16 |title=Scaling crowdsourcing interventions to combat partisan misinformation |url=https://advances.in/psychology/10.56296/aip00018/ |journal=Advances.in/Psychology |volume=2 |pages=e85592 |doi=10.56296/aip00018 |issn=2976-937X}}</ref> Research has found that the aggregated judgments of a politically balanced group of laypeople can be as accurate as professional fact-checkers.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Allen |first1=Jennifer |last2=Arechar |first2=Antonio A. |last3=Pennycook |first3=Gordon |last4=Rand |first4=David G. |date=September 2021 |title=Scaling up fact-checking using the wisdom of crowds |journal=Science Advances |volume=7 |issue=36 |article-number=eabf4393 |doi=10.1126/sciadv.abf4393 |pmc=8442902 |pmid=34516925 |bibcode=2021SciA....7.4393A }}</ref>
This method is particularly studied as a response to partisan misinformation. Traditional fact-checking is often less effective for highly partisan content, as corrections from perceived "out-groups" are easily dismissed, while "in-group" members are often unwilling to challenge their own side.<ref name=":0" />
For crowdsourcing to be effective, it is proposed that a balance of three factors is necessary:<ref name=":0" />
# '''Trust:''' The user must trust the source of the fact-check (i.e., the crowd). # '''Cognitive Dissonance:''' The correction must be sufficiently different from the user's prior beliefs to create dissonance and encourage a belief update. # '''Crowd Size:''' A sufficiently large and diverse crowd is needed for accuracy and to establish a social norm.
These factors are often in conflict. A user may trust their in-group, but that group will not provide cognitive dissonance. An out-group will provide dissonance but will not be trusted. To solve this, a "two steps away" network approach has been suggested.<ref name=":0" /> This model proposes connecting users with fact-checking crowds from communities just outside their immediate ideological echo chamber that are distant enough to provide a new perspective, but not so distant as to be completely dismissed as a hostile out-group.
==== One-on-one correction ==== When it comes to personal interactions, some strategies for debunking misinformation have the potential to be effective. Simply delivering facts is frequently ineffective because misinformation belief is often not the result of a deficit of accurate information,<ref name="Ecker-2022" /> although individuals may be more likely to change their beliefs in response to information shared by someone with whom they have close social ties, like a friend or family member.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Pasquetto |first1=Irene V. |last2=Jahani |first2=Eaman |last3=Atreja |first3=Shubham |last4=Baum |first4=Matthew |date=2022-04-07 |title=Social Debunking of Misinformation on WhatsApp: The Case for Strong and In-group Ties |journal=Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction |volume=6 |issue=CSCW1 |pages=117:1–117:35 |doi=10.1145/3512964 |hdl=1721.1/146161 }}</ref> Other effective strategies focus on instilling doubt and encouraging people to examine the roots of their beliefs.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2020-12-21 |title=How should you talk to friends and relatives who believe conspiracy theories? |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-55350794 |access-date=2024-04-22 |work=BBC|last=Spring|first=Marianna}}</ref> In these situations, tone can also play a role: expressing empathy and understanding can keep communication channels open.<ref name="Ecker-2022" />
==== Social correction ==== Fact-checking and debunking can be done in one-on-one interactions, but when this occurs on social media it is likely that other people may encounter and read the interaction, potentially learning new information from it or examining their own beliefs. This type of correction has been termed social correction.<ref name="Vraga-2020">{{Cite journal |last1=Vraga |first1=Emily K. |last2=Bode |first2=Leticia |date=October 2020 |title=Correction as a Solution for Health Misinformation on Social Media |journal=American Journal of Public Health |volume=110 |issue=S3 |pages=S278–S280 |doi=10.2105/AJPH.2020.305916 |issn=0090-0036 |pmc=7532323 |pmid=33001724}}</ref> Researchers have identified three ways to increase the efficacy of these social corrections for observers.<ref name="Vraga-2020" /> First, corrections should include a link to a credible source of relevant information, like an expert organization. Second, the correct information should be repeated, for example at the beginning and end of the comment or response. Third, an alternative explanation should be offered. An effective social correction in response to a statement that chili peppers can cure COVID-19 might look something like: "Hot peppers in your food, though very tasty, cannot prevent or cure COVID-19. The best way to protect yourself against the new coronavirus is to keep at least 1 meter away from others and to wash your hands frequently and thoroughly. Adding peppers to your soup won't prevent or cure COVID-19. Learn more from the WHO."<ref>{{Cite web |title=COVID-19 Mythbusters – World Health Organization |url=https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/myth-busters |access-date=2024-04-22 |website=www.who.int }}</ref> Interestingly, while the tone of the correction may impact how the target of the correction receives the message and can increase engagement with a message,<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=MacKay |first1=Melissa |last2=Cimino |first2=Andrea |last3=Yousefinaghani |first3=Samira |last4=McWhirter |first4=Jennifer E. |last5=Dara |first5=Rozita |last6=Papadopoulos |first6=Andrew |date=2022-06-06 |title=Canadian COVID-19 Crisis Communication on Twitter: Mixed Methods Research Examining Tweets from Government, Politicians, and Public Health for Crisis Communication Guiding Principles and Tweet Engagement |journal=International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health |volume=19 |issue=11 |page=6954 |doi=10.3390/ijerph19116954 |doi-access=free |issn=1660-4601 |pmc=9180105 |pmid=35682537}}</ref> it is less likely to affect how others seeing the correction perceive its accuracy.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Bode |first1=Leticia |last2=Vraga |first2=Emily K. |last3=Tully |first3=Melissa |date=2020-06-11 |title=Do the right thing: Tone may not affect correction of misinformation on social media |url=https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/do-the-right-thing-tone-may-not-affect-correction-of-misinformation-on-social-media/ |journal=Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review |doi=10.37016/mr-2020-026|doi-access=free }}</ref>
While social correction has the potential to reach a wider audience with correct information, it can also potentially amplify an original post containing misinformation.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Health Misinformation — Current Priorities of the U.S. Surgeon General |url=https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/reports-and-publications/health-misinformation/index.html |access-date=2024-04-22 |website=www.hhs.gov }}</ref>
=== Prebunking === Misinformation typically spreads more readily than fact-checking.<ref name="Lewandowsky-2012" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=Smith |first=Rory |date=2020-12-18 |title=The "broadcast" model no longer works in an era of disinformation |url=https://firstdraftnews.org/articles/the-broadcast-model-no-longer-works-in-an-era-of-disinformation/ |access-date=2024-04-12 |website=First Draft }}</ref><ref name="science.org"/> Further, even if misinformation is corrected, that does not mean it is forgotten or does not influence people's thoughts.<ref name="Lewandowsky-2012" /> Another approach, called prebunking, aims to "inoculate" against misinformation by showing people examples of misinformation and how it works before they encounter it.<ref name="Garcia-2021">{{Cite web |last=Garcia |first=Laura |date=2021-06-29 |title=A guide to prebunking: a promising way to inoculate against misinformation |url=https://firstdraftnews.org/articles/a-guide-to-prebunking-a-promising-way-to-inoculate-against-misinformation/ |access-date=2024-04-12 |website=First Draft }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Cook |first1=John |last2=Ellerton |first2=Peter |last3=Kinkead |first3=David |date=1 February 2018 |title=Deconstructing climate misinformation to identify reasoning errors |journal=Environmental Research Letters |volume=13 |issue=2 |page=024018 |bibcode=2018ERL....13b4018C |doi=10.1088/1748-9326/aaa49f |s2cid=149353744 |doi-access=free}}</ref> While prebunking can involve fact-based correction, it focuses more on identifying common logical fallacies (e.g., emotional appeals to manipulate individuals' perceptions and judgments,<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Traberg |first1=Cecilie |last2=Morton |first2=Thomas |last3=van der Linden |first3=Sander |date=2024-06-20 |title=Counteracting socially endorsed misinformation through an emotion-fallacy inoculation |url=https://advances.in/psychology/10.56296/aip00017/ |journal=Advances.in/Psychology |volume=2 |pages=e765332 |doi=10.56296/aip00017 |issn=2976-937X}}</ref> false dichotomies, or ad hominem fallacies<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Roozenbeek |first1=Jon |last2=van der Linden |first2=Sander |last3=Goldberg |first3=Beth |last4=Rathje |first4=Steve |last5=Lewandowsky |first5=Stephan |date=2022-08-26 |title=Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media |journal=Science Advances |volume=8 |issue=34 |article-number=eabo6254 |doi=10.1126/sciadv.abo6254 |issn=2375-2548 |pmc=9401631 |pmid=36001675|bibcode=2022SciA....8O6254R }}</ref>) and tactics used to spread misinformation as well as common misinformation sources.<ref name="Garcia-2021" /> Research about the efficacy of prebunking has shown promising results.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Roozenbeek |first1=Jon |last2=van der Linden |first2=Sander |date=2019-06-25 |title=Fake news game confers psychological resistance against online misinformation |journal=Palgrave Communications |volume=5 |issue=1 |pages=1–10 |article-number=65 |doi=10.1057/s41599-019-0279-9 |issn=2055-1045|doi-access=free }}</ref>
=== Other interventions === A report by the Royal Society in the UK lists additional potential or proposed countermeasures:<ref name="onlenv" /> * Automated detection systems (e.g. to flag or add context and resources to content) * Provenance enhancing technology (i.e. better enabling people to determine the veracity of a claim, image, or video) * APIs for research (i.e. for usage to detect, understand, and counter misinformation) * Active bystanders (e.g. corrective commenting) * Community moderation (usually of unpaid and untrained, often independent, volunteers) * Anti-virals (e.g. limiting the number of times a message can be forwarded in privacy-respecting encrypted chats) * Collective intelligence (examples being Wikipedia where multiple editors refine encyclopedic articles, and question-and-answer sites where outputs are also evaluated by others similar to peer-review) * Media literacy (increasing citizens' ability to use ICTs to find, evaluate, create, and communicate information, an essential skill for citizens of all ages) ** Media literacy is taught in Estonian public schools – from kindergarten through to high school – since 2010 and "accepted 'as important as [...] writing or reading'"<ref>{{cite news |last1=Yee |first1=Amy |title=The country inoculating against disinformation |url=https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220128-the-country-inoculating-against-disinformation |access-date=21 February 2022 |work=BBC |archive-date=20 February 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220220115030/https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220128-the-country-inoculating-against-disinformation |url-status=live }}</ref> ** New Jersey mandated K-12 students to learn information literacy<ref>{{cite web |last1=Sitrin |first1=Carly |title=New Jersey becomes first state to mandate K-12 students learn information literacy |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/05/new-jersey-is-the-first-state-to-mandate-k-12-students-learn-information-literacy-00076352 |website=Politico |date=5 January 2023 |access-date=9 January 2023 |archive-date=9 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230109111755/https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/05/new-jersey-is-the-first-state-to-mandate-k-12-students-learn-information-literacy-00076352 |url-status=live }}</ref> ** "Inoculation" via educational videos shown to adults is being explored<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Roozenbeek |first1=Jon |last2=van der Linden |first2=Sander |last3=Goldberg |first3=Beth |last4=Rathje |first4=Steve |last5=Lewandowsky |first5=Stephan |title=Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media |journal=Science Advances |date=26 August 2022 |volume=8 |issue=34 |article-number=eabo6254 |doi=10.1126/sciadv.abo6254 |pmid=36001675 |pmc=9401631 |bibcode=2022SciA....8O6254R |issn=2375-2548}}</ref>
Broadly described, the report recommends building resilience to scientific misinformation and a healthy online information environment and not having offending content removed. It cautions that censorship could e.g. drive misinformation and associated communities "to harder-to-address corners of the internet".<ref>{{cite web|title=Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online|work=The Royal Society|url=https://royalsociety.org/news/2022/01/scientific-misinformation-report/|access-date=12 February 2022|archive-date=12 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220212113919/https://royalsociety.org/news/2022/01/scientific-misinformation-report/|url-status=live}}</ref>
Online misinformation about climate change can be counteracted through different measures at different stages.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Treen |first1=Kathie M. d'I. |last2=Williams |first2=Hywel T. P. |last3=O'Neill |first3=Saffron J. |title=Online misinformation about climate change |journal=WIREs Climate Change |date=September 2020 |volume=11 |issue=5 |article-number=e665 |doi=10.1002/wcc.665 |s2cid=221879878 |doi-access=free |bibcode=2020WIRCC..11E.665T }}</ref> Prior to misinformation exposure, education and "inoculation" are proposed. Technological solutions, such as early detection of bots and ranking and selection algorithms are suggested as ongoing mechanisms. Post misinformation, corrective and collaborator messaging can be used to counter climate change misinformation. Incorporating fines and similar consequences has also been suggested.
The International Panel on the Information Environment was launched in 2023 as a consortium of over 250 scientists working to develop effective countermeasures to misinformation and other problems created by perverse incentives in organizations disseminating information via the Internet.<ref><!-- National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2023) Nobel Prize Summit Fuels Initiatives to Combat Misinformation and Disinformation and Build Trust in Science-->{{cite Q|Q124711722|author=National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine}}</ref>
There also is research and development of platform-built-in as well as browser-integrated (currently in the form of addons) misinformation mitigation.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Zewe |first1=Adam |title=Empowering social media users to assess content helps fight misinformation |url=https://techxplore.com/news/2022-11-empowering-social-media-users-content.html |access-date=18 December 2022 |work=Massachusetts Institute of Technology via techxplore.com |archive-date=18 December 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221218171535/https://techxplore.com/news/2022-11-empowering-social-media-users-content.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Jahanbakhsh |first1=Farnaz |last2=Zhang |first2=Amy X. |last3=Karger |first3=David R. |title=Leveraging Structured Trusted-Peer Assessments to Combat Misinformation |journal=Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction |date=11 November 2022 |volume=6 |issue=CSCW2 |pages=524:1–524:40 |doi=10.1145/3555637|doi-access=free|hdl=1721.1/147638 |hdl-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Elliott |first1=Matt |title=Fake news spotter: How to enable Microsoft Edge's NewsGuard |url=https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/fake-news-spotter-how-to-enable-microsoft-edges-newsguard/ |website=CNET |access-date=9 January 2023 |archive-date=9 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230109225348/https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/fake-news-spotter-how-to-enable-microsoft-edges-newsguard/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=12 Browser Extensions to Help You Detect and Avoid Fake News |url=https://thetrustedweb.org/browser-extensions-to-detect-and-avoid-fake-news/ |website=The Trusted Web |access-date=9 January 2023 |date=18 March 2021 |archive-date=9 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230109225350/https://thetrustedweb.org/browser-extensions-to-detect-and-avoid-fake-news/ |url-status=live }}</ref> This includes quality/neutrality/reliability ratings for news sources. Wikipedia's perennial sources page categorizes many large news sources by reliability.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Darcy |first1=Oliver |title=Wikipedia administrators caution editors about using Fox News as source on 'contentious' claims |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/24/media/wikipedia-fox-news-reliable-sources/index.html |access-date=9 January 2023 |work=CNN |date=24 July 2020 |archive-date=20 November 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211120115036/https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/24/media/wikipedia-fox-news-reliable-sources/index.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Researchers have also demonstrated the feasibility of falsity scores for popular and official figures by developing such for over 800 contemporary elites on Twitter as well as associated exposure scores.<ref>{{cite news |title=New MIT Sloan research measures exposure to misinformation from political elites on Twitter |url=https://apnews.com/press-release/pr-newswire/misinformation-701fb46656eb2197a845f789857d83b2 |access-date=18 December 2022 |work=AP NEWS |date=29 November 2022 |archive-date=18 December 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221218171535/https://apnews.com/press-release/pr-newswire/misinformation-701fb46656eb2197a845f789857d83b2 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Mosleh |first1=Mohsen |last2=Rand |first2=David G. |title=Measuring exposure to misinformation from political elites on Twitter |journal=Nature Communications |date=21 November 2022 |volume=13 |issue=1 |page=7144 |doi=10.1038/s41467-022-34769-6 |pmid=36414634 |pmc=9681735 |bibcode=2022NatCo..13.7144M |issn=2041-1723|doi-access=free}}</ref>
Trust in institutions and sources tends to increase with political congruence or similarity.<ref name="i187"/> Politically distant sources increase the resistance to believing facts, while politically close sources increase susceptibility to misinformation.<ref name="i187">{{cite journal | last1=Traberg | first1=Cecilie Steenbuch | last2=van der Linden | first2=Sander | title=Birds of a feather are persuaded together: Perceived source credibility mediates the effect of political bias on misinformation susceptibility | journal=Personality and Individual Differences | volume=185 | date=2022 | doi=10.1016/j.paid.2021.111269 | article-number=111269 | url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0191886921006486 | access-date=2026-05-27}}</ref> Strategies that may be more effective for lasting correction of false beliefs include focusing on intermediaries (such as convincing activists or politicians who are credible to the people who hold false beliefs, or promoting intermediaries who have the same identities or worldviews as the intended audience), minimizing the association of misinformation with political or group identities (such as providing corrections from nonpartisan experts, or avoiding false balance based on partisanship in news coverage), and emphasizing corrections that are hard for people to avoid or deny (such as providing information that the economy is unusually strong or weak, or describing the increased occurrence of extreme weather events in response to climate change denial).<ref name="Nyhan2021">{{cite journal |author=Nyhan B |year=2021 |title=Why the backfire effect does not explain the durability of political misperceptions. |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |volume=118 |issue=15 |article-number=e1912440117 |bibcode=2021PNAS..11812440N |doi=10.1073/pnas.1912440117 |pmc=8053951 |pmid=33837144 |doi-access=free}}</ref>
=== AI as a tool to combat misinformation === * Fact-checking algorithms are employed to fact-check truth claims in real-time.<ref>{{Cite arXiv|eprint=2406.03239 |last1=Deng |first1=Zhenyun |last2=Schlichtkrull |first2=Michael |last3=Vlachos |first3=Andreas |title=Document-level Claim Extraction and Decontextualisation for Fact-Checking |date=2024 |class=cs.CL }}</ref> * Researchers are developing AI tools for detecting fabricated audio and video.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Afchar |first1=Darius |last2=Nozick |first2=Vincent |last3=Yamagishi |first3=Junichi |last4=Echizen |first4=Isao |chapter=MesoNet: A Compact Facial Video Forgery Detection Network |date=December 2018 |title=2018 IEEE International Workshop on Information Forensics and Security (WIFS) |pages=1–7 |publisher=IEEE |doi=10.1109/wifs.2018.8630761|arxiv=1809.00888 |isbn=978-1-5386-6536-7 }}</ref> * AI can be used for Information literacy and Media literacy education.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Carroll |first1=Alexander J. |last2=Borycz |first2=Joshua |date=July 2024 |title=Integrating large language models and generative artificial intelligence tools into information literacy instruction |journal=The Journal of Academic Librarianship |volume=50 |issue=4 |article-number=102899 |doi=10.1016/j.acalib.2024.102899|doi-access=free }}</ref>
===Limitations=== {{main|Belief perseverance}}
Interventions need to account for the possibility that misinformation can persist in the population even after corrections are published. Possible reasons include difficulty in reaching the right people and corrections not having long-term effects.<ref name="Nyhan2021"/><ref name="Roozenbeek-2024"/> For example, if corrective information is only published in science-focused publications and fact-checking websites, it may not reach the people who believe in misinformation since they are less likely to read those sources. In addition, successful corrections may not be persistent, particularly if people are re-exposed to misinformation at a later date.<ref name="Nyhan2021" />
It has been suggested that directly countering misinformation can be counterproductive, which is referred to as a "backfire effect", but in practice this is very rare.<ref name="Nyhan2021"/><ref name="LazicZezelj2021">{{cite journal | last1=Lazić | first1=Aleksandra | last2=Žeželj | first2=Iris | title=A systematic review of narrative interventions: Lessons for countering anti-vaccination conspiracy theories and misinformation | journal=Public Understanding of Science | publisher=SAGE Publications | volume=30 | issue=6 | date=18 May 2021 | issn=0963-6625 | doi=10.1177/09636625211011881 | pages=644–670| pmid=34006153 }}</ref><ref name="Swire-Thompson2020"/><ref>{{Citation|last1=Lewandowsky|first1=Stephan|title=Debunking Handbook 2020|date=2020|url=http://databrary.org/volume/1182|publisher=Databrary|doi=10.17910/b7.1182|access-date=2021-01-20|last2=Cook|first2=John|last3=Lombardi|first3=Doug|pages=9–11}}</ref> A 2020 review of the scientific literature on backfire effects found that there have been widespread failures to replicate their existence, even under conditions that would be theoretically favorable to observing them.<ref name="Swire-Thompson2020">{{cite journal| vauthors=Swire-Thompson B, DeGutis J, Lazer D| title=Searching for the Backfire Effect: Measurement and Design Considerations. | journal=J Appl Res Mem Cogn | year= 2020 | volume= 9 | issue= 3 | pages= 286–299 | pmid=32905023 | doi=10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.06.006 | pmc=7462781 }}</ref> Due to the lack of reproducibility, {{as of|2020|lc=y}} most researchers believe that backfire effects are either unlikely to occur on the broader population level, or they only occur in very specific circumstances, or they do not exist.<ref name="Swire-Thompson2020"/> Brendan Nyhan, one of the researchers who initially proposed the occurrence of backfire effects, wrote in 2021 that the persistence of misinformation is most likely due to other factors.<ref name="Nyhan2021"/> For most people, corrections and fact-checking are very unlikely to have a negative impact, and there is no specific group of people in which backfire effects have been consistently observed.<ref name="Swire-Thompson2020"/> In many cases, when backfire effects have been discussed by the media or by bloggers, they have been overgeneralized from studies on specific subgroups to incorrectly conclude that backfire effects apply to the entire population and to all attempts at correction.<ref name="Nyhan2021"/><ref name="Swire-Thompson2020"/>
There is an ongoing debate on whether misinformation interventions may have the negative side effect of reducing belief in both false and true information, regardless of veracity.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Guay |first1=Brian |last2=Berinsky |first2=Adam J. |last3=Pennycook |first3=Gordon |last4=Rand |first4=David |date=August 2023 |title=How to think about whether misinformation interventions work |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01667-w |journal=Nature Human Behaviour |volume=7 |issue=8 |pages=1231–1233 |doi=10.1038/s41562-023-01667-w |pmid=37563304 |issn=2397-3374}}</ref> For instance, one study found that inoculation and accuracy primes to some extent undermined users' ability to distinguish implausible from plausible conspiracy theories.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=O'Mahony |first1=Cian |last2=Murphy |first2=Gillian |last3=Linehan |first3=Conor |date=2024-11-15 |title=True discernment or blind scepticism? Comparing the effectiveness of four conspiracy belief interventions |url=https://advances.in/psychology/10.56296/aip00030/ |journal=Advances.in/Psychology |volume=2 |pages=e215691 |doi=10.56296/aip00030 |issn=2976-937X}}</ref> Other scholars have shown through simulations that even if interventions reduce both the belief in false and true information, the effect on the media ecosystem may still be favorable due to different base rates in both beliefs.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Lawson |first1=M. Asher |last2=Kakkar |first2=Hemant |date=2024-12-06 |title=Resolving conflicting findings in misinformation research: A methodological perspective |url=https://advances.in/psychology/10.56296/aip00031/ |journal=Advances.in/Psychology |volume=2 |pages=e235462 |doi=10.56296/aip00031 |issn=2976-937X}}</ref>
== <span class="anchor" id="Social media and misinformation"></span>Online misinformation == {{further|Health information on the Internet#Social media}} In recent years, the proliferation of misinformation online has drawn widespread attention.<ref name="Acerbi-2019">{{Cite journal |last=Acerbi |first=Alberto |date=2019-02-12 |title=Cognitive attraction and online misinformation |journal=Palgrave Communications |volume=5 |issue=1 |article-number=15 |doi=10.1057/s41599-019-0224-y |s2cid=257089832 |issn=2055-1045|doi-access=free |hdl=11572/357769 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> More than half of the world's population had access to the Internet in the beginning of 2018.<ref name="Acerbi-2019" /> Digital and social media can contribute to the spread of misinformation – for instance, when users share information without first checking the legitimacy of the information they have found. People are more likely to encounter online information based on personalized algorithms.<ref name="Fernandez-2018"/> Google, Facebook and Yahoo News all generate newsfeeds based on the information they know about our devices, our location, and our online interests.<ref name="Fernandez-2018" />
Although two people can search for the same thing at the same time, they are very likely to get different results based on what that platform deems relevant to their interests, fact or false.<ref name="Fernandez-2018" /> Various social media platforms have recently been criticized for encouraging the spread of false information, such as hoaxes, false news, and mistruths.<ref name="Fernandez-2018" /> It is responsible with influencing people's attitudes and judgment during significant events by disseminating widely believed misinformation.<ref name="Fernandez-2018" /> Furthermore, online misinformation can occur in numerous ways, including rumors, urban legends, factoids, etc.<ref name="Almaliki-2019">{{Cite book |last=Almaliki |first=Malik |date=2019-04-06 |chapter=Online Misinformation Spread |title=Proceedings of the 2019 3rd International Conference on Information System and Data Mining |pages=171–178 |location=New York |publisher=ACM |doi=10.1145/3325917.3325938|isbn=978-1-4503-6635-9 |s2cid=190232270 }}</ref> However, the underlying factor is that it contains misleading or inaccurate information.<ref name="Almaliki-2019" />
Moreover, users of social media platforms may experience intensely negative feelings, perplexity, and worry as a result of the spread of false information.<ref name="Almaliki-2019" /> According to a recent study, one in ten Americans has gone through mental or emotional stress as a result of misleading information posted online.<ref name="Almaliki-2019" /> Spreading false information can also seriously impede the effective and efficient use of the information available on social media.<ref name="Almaliki-2019" /> An emerging trend in the online information environment is "a shift away from public discourse to private, more ephemeral, messaging", which is a challenge to counter misinformation.<ref name="onlenv">{{cite book |title=The online information environment: Understanding how the internet shapes people's engagement with scientific information |date=January 2022 |isbn=978-1-78252-567-7 |publisher=The Royal Society |url=https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/online-information-environment/the-online-information-environment.pdf |access-date=21 February 2022 |archive-date=11 February 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220211131118/https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/online-information-environment/the-online-information-environment.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>
=== On social media === Pew Research reports shared that approximately one in four American adults admitted to sharing misinformation on their social media platforms.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Barthel |first1=Michael |last2=Mitchell |first2=Amy |last3=Holcomb |first3=Jesse |date=2016-12-15 |title=Many Americans Believe Fake News Is Sowing Confusion |url=https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2016/12/15/many-americans-believe-fake-news-is-sowing-confusion/ |access-date=2024-04-03 |website=Pew Research Center's Journalism Project }}</ref>
In the Information Age, social networking sites have become a notable agent for the spread of misinformation, fake news, and propaganda.<ref name="The Growing Role of Social Media in">{{cite book |doi=10.1007/978-3-030-23491-1_14 |chapter=The Growing Role of Social Media in International Health Security: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly |title=Global Health Security |series=Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications |year=2020 |last1=Stawicki |first1=Stanislaw P. |last2=Firstenberg |first2=Michael S. |last3=Papadimos |first3=Thomas J. |pages=341–357 |isbn=978-3-030-23490-4 |s2cid=212995901 }}</ref><ref name="sfn" /> Social media sites have changed their algorithms to prevent the spread of fake news but the problem still exists.<ref name="Allcott Gentzkow Yu 2019" />
Image posts are the biggest spread of misinformation on social media, a fact which is grossly unrepresented in research. This leads to a "yawning gap of knowledge" as there is a collective ignorance on how harmful image-based posts are compared to other types of misinformation.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Hindman |first1=Matthew |last2=Davis |first2=Trevor |last3=Yang |first3=Yunkang |date=2023-06-30 |title=Visual misinformation is widespread on Facebook – and often undercounted by researchers |url=http://theconversation.com/visual-misinformation-is-widespread-on-facebook-and-often-undercounted-by-researchers-202913 |access-date=2024-01-25 |website=The Conversation |archive-date=2024-01-25 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240125142416/http://theconversation.com/visual-misinformation-is-widespread-on-facebook-and-often-undercounted-by-researchers-202913 |url-status=live }}</ref>
==== Spread ==== Social media platforms allow for easy spread of misinformation.<ref name="Allcott Gentzkow Yu 2019">{{cite journal |last1=Allcott |first1=Hunt |last2=Gentzkow |first2=Matthew |last3=Yu |first3=Chuan |title=Trends in the diffusion of misinformation on social media |journal=Research & Politics |date=April 2019 |volume=6 |issue=2 |page=205316801984855 |doi=10.1177/2053168019848554 |s2cid=52291737 |doi-access=free |arxiv=1809.05901 }}</ref> Reasons for sharing misinformation on social media are varied, which can include presenting a conversation topic, finding the content interesting, and expressing an opinion.<ref name="TJAL">{{cite journal |last1=Chen |first1=Xinran |last2=Sin |first2=Sei-Ching Joanna |last3=Theng |first3=Yin-Leng |last4=Lee |first4=Chei Sian |date=September 2015 |title=Why Students Share Misinformation on Social Media: Motivation, Gender, and Study-level Differences |journal=The Journal of Academic Librarianship |volume=41 |issue=5 |pages=583–592 |doi=10.1016/j.acalib.2015.07.003 |s2cid=141523357}}</ref> Agent-based models and other computational models have been used by researchers to explain how false beliefs spread through networks.<ref>{{cite magazine |last1=O'Connor |first1=Cailin |last2=Weatherall |first2=James Owen |title=How Misinformation Spreads—and Why We Trust It |date=September 1, 2019 |url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-misinformation-spreads-and-why-we-trust-it/ |magazine=Scientific American}}</ref> Epistemic network analysis is one example of a computational method for evaluating connections in data shared in a social media network or similar network.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Shaffer |first1=David Williamson |last2=Collier |first2=Wesley | last3=Ruis | first3=A. R. |title=A tutorial on epistemic network analysis: Analysing the structural connections in cognitive, social and interaction data |journal=Journal of Learning Analytics |date=2016 |volume=3 |issue=3 |pages=9–45 |id={{ERIC|EJ1126800}} |doi=10.18608/jla.2016.33.3 |doi-access=free }}</ref>
Researchers fear that misinformation in social media is "becoming unstoppable".<ref name="Allcott Gentzkow Yu 2019" /> It has also been observed that misinformation and disinformation reappear on social media sites.{{Citation needed|date=October 2023}}
Misinformation spread by bots has been difficult for social media platforms to address.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Milman|first=Oliver|date=2020-02-21|title=Revealed: quarter of all tweets about climate crisis produced by bots|work=The Guardian|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/21/climate-tweets-twitter-bots-analysis|url-status=live|access-date=2020-02-23|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200222193221/https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/21/climate-tweets-twitter-bots-analysis|archive-date=2020-02-22 }}</ref> Sites such as Facebook have algorithms that have been proven to further the spread of misinformation in which how content is spread among subgroups.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Facebook's Design Makes It Unable to Control Misinformation |url=https://gwtoday.gwu.edu/facebooks-design-makes-it-unable-control-misinformation |access-date=2024-03-04 |website=GW Today {{!}} The George Washington University}}</ref>
==== Social causes and echo chambers ==== Spontaneous spread of misinformation on social media usually occurs from users sharing posts from friends or mutually-followed pages.<ref name="Thai-2016" /> These posts are often shared from someone the sharer believes they can trust.<ref name="Thai-2016" /> Misinformation introduced through a social format influences individuals drastically more than misinformation delivered non-socially.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Gabbert |first1=Fiona |last2=Memon |first2=Amina |author2-link=Amina Memon|last3=Allan |first3=Kevin |last4=Wright |first4=Daniel B. |title=Say it to my face: Examining the effects of socially encountered misinformation |journal=Legal and Criminological Psychology |date=September 2004 |volume=9 |issue=2 |pages=215–227 |doi=10.1348/1355325041719428 |s2cid=144823646 |url=https://rke.abertay.ac.uk/en/publications/c84006a6-18c9-4aec-b44d-da1ec1a8c110 }}</ref>
People are inclined to follow or support like-minded individuals, creating echo chambers and filter bubbles.<ref name="Benkler-2017" /> Untruths or general agreement within isolated social clusters are difficult to counter.<ref name="Benkler-2017" /> Some argue this causes an absence of a collective reality.<ref name="Benkler-2017">{{Cite web|url=https://www.cjr.org/analysis/breitbart-media-trump-harvard-study.php|title=Study: Breitbart-led rightwing media ecosystem altered broader media agenda|last=Benkler|first=Y.|date=2017|access-date=8 June 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180604140114/https://www.cjr.org/analysis/breitbart-media-trump-harvard-study.php|archive-date=4 June 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> Research has also shown that viral misinformation may spread more widely as a result of echo chambers, as the echo chambers provide an initial seed which can fuel broader viral diffusion.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Törnberg |first1=P. |year=2018 |title=Echo chambers and viral misinformation: Modeling fake news as complex contagion |journal=PLOS ONE |volume=13 |issue=9 |article-number=e0203958 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0203958 |doi-access=free |pmid=30235239 |pmc=6147442 |bibcode=2018PLoSO..1303958T }}</ref>
Misinformation might be created and spread with malicious intent for reasons such as causing anxiety or deceiving audiences.<ref name="Thai-2016">{{Cite book|last1=Thai|first1=My T.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=CA4NDgAAQBAJ&q=causes+of+misinformation&pg=PA125|title=Big Data in Complex and Social Networks|last2=Wu|first2=Weili|author2-link=Weili Wu|last3=Xiong|first3=Hui|date=2016-12-01|publisher=CRC Press|isbn=978-1-315-39669-9}}</ref> Computational Propaganda actors benefit from both disinformation and misinformation.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=O'Hara |first=Ian |date=2022-07-01 |title=Automated Epistemology: Bots, Computational Propaganda & Information Literacy Instruction |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0099133322000568 |journal=The Journal of Academic Librarianship |volume=48 |issue=4 |article-number=102540 |doi=10.1016/j.acalib.2022.102540 |issn=0099-1333}}</ref> Rumors created with or without malicious intent may be unknowingly shared by users.{{Citation needed|date=October 2023}} People may know what the scientific community has proved as a fact, and still refuse to accept it as such.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Scheufele |first1=Dietram A. |last2=Krause |first2=Nicole M. |title=Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |date=16 April 2019 |volume=116 |issue=16 |pages=7662–7669 |doi=10.1073/pnas.1805871115 |pmid=30642953 |pmc=6475373 |bibcode=2019PNAS..116.7662S |doi-access=free }}</ref>
==== Lack of regulation ==== Misinformation on social media spreads quickly in comparison to traditional media because of the lack of regulation and examination required before posting. This lack of regulation creates an environment where speed is prioritized over accuracy on social media. Because editorial oversight is not required, inaccurate or misleading posts can circulate widely before any fact-checkers or experts even become aware of them.<ref name="TJAL" /><ref>{{cite book |last1=Caramancion |first1=Kevin Matthe |title=Computational Data and Social Networks |year=2021 |isbn=978-3-030-91433-2 |series=Lecture Notes in Computer Science |volume=13116 |pages=319–329 |chapter=The Role of Information Organization and Knowledge Structuring in Combatting Misinformation: A Literary Analysis |doi=10.1007/978-3-030-91434-9_28 |s2cid=244890285}}</ref>
Social media sites provide users with the capability to spread information quickly to other users without requiring the permission of a gatekeeper such as an editor or fact checker. The architecture of social platforms intensifies this issue, with features such as algorithmic amplification—which prioritizes highly emotional or engaging content—boosting the spread of misinformation because sensational and catching posts perform better.<ref name="Starbird-2018">{{cite book |last1=Starbird |first1=Kate |title=Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems |last2=Dailey |first2=Dharma |last3=Mohamed |first3=Owla |last4=Lee |first4=Gina |last5=Spiro |first5=Emma S. |date=19 April 2018 |isbn=978-1-4503-5620-6 |pages=1–12 |chapter=Engage Early, Correct More: How Journalists Participate in False Rumors Online during Crisis Events |doi=10.1145/3173574.3173679 |s2cid=5046314}}</ref><ref name="Arif-2017">{{cite book |last1=Arif |first1=Ahmer |title=Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing |last2=Robinson |first2=John J. |last3=Stanek |first3=Stephanie A. |last4=Fichet |first4=Elodie S. |last5=Townsend |first5=Paul |last6=Worku |first6=Zena |last7=Starbird |first7=Kate |year=2017 |isbn=978-1-4503-4335-0 |pages=155–168 |chapter=A Closer Look at the Self-Correcting Crowd |doi=10.1145/2998181.2998294 |s2cid=15167363}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Algorithmic Amplification and Society |url=http://knightcolumbia.org/research/algorithmic-amplification-and-society |access-date=2025-12-04 |website=Knight First Amendment Institute}}</ref>
The problem of misinformation in social media is getting worse as younger generations prefer social media over journalistic for their source of information.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Spradling |first1=Matthew |last2=Straub |first2=Jeremy |last3=Strong |first3=Jay |date=June 2021 |title=Protection from 'Fake News': The Need for Descriptive Factual Labeling for Online Content |journal=Future Internet |volume=13 |issue=6 |page=142 |doi=10.3390/fi13060142 |issn=1999-5903 |doi-access=free}}</ref>
==== Lack of peer review ==== [[File:In Peer Review We Trust.jpg|thumb|Promoting more peer review to benefit the accuracy in information|alt=A protestor in a crowd holds up a sign reading, in the Comic Sans font: In Peer Review [(footnote 1 and 2)] We Trust / (and Comic Sans). Below, footnote 1 reads "except those predatory journals. Don't trust those. See Nature 543, 481–483 (23 March 2017) doi:10.1038/5434812"; footnote 2 reads "let's not start an academic debate about the flaws of peer review when the alternative is to trust someone's gut feeling"]] Due to the decentralized nature and structure of the Internet, content creators can easily publish content without being required to undergo peer review, prove their qualifications, or provide backup documentation. While library books have generally been reviewed and edited by an editor, publishing company, etc., Internet sources cannot be assumed to be vetted by anyone other than their authors. Misinformation may be produced, reproduced, and posted immediately on most online platforms.<ref>{{cite journal | last=Stapleton | first=Paul | title=Assessing the quality and bias of web-based sources: implications for academic writing | journal=Journal of English for Academic Purposes | year=2003 | volume=2 | issue=3 | pages=229–245 | doi=10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00026-2}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=West |first1=Jevin D. |last2=Bergstrom |first2=Carl T. |title=Misinformation in and about science |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |date=2021 |volume=118 |issue=15 |article-number=e1912444117 |doi=10.1073/pnas.1912444117 |pmid=33837146 |pmc=8054004 |bibcode=2021PNAS..11812444W |doi-access=free}}</ref>
==== Countermeasures ==== Combating the spread of misinformation on social media is difficult for reasons such as:
* The profusion of misinformation sources makes the reader's task of weighing the reliability of information more challenging.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Messerole |first1=Chris |date=2018-05-09 |title=How misinformation spreads on social media – And what to do about it |url=https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/05/09/how-misinformation-spreads-on-social-media-and-what-to-do-about-it/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190225044815/https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/05/09/how-misinformation-spreads-on-social-media-and-what-to-do-about-it/ |archive-date=25 February 2019 |access-date=24 February 2019 |website=Brookings Institution}}</ref> * Social media's propensity for culture wars embeds misinformation with identity-based conflict.<ref name="Diaz-Ruiz-2022">{{Cite journal |last1=Diaz Ruiz |first1=Carlos |last2=Nilsson |first2=Tomas |date=2022-08-08 |title=Disinformation and Echo Chambers: How Disinformation Circulates on Social Media Through Identity-Driven Controversies |journal=Journal of Public Policy & Marketing |volume=42 |pages=18–35 |doi=10.1177/07439156221103852 |issn=0743-9156|doi-access=free }}</ref> * The proliferation of echo chambers form an epistemic environment in which participants encounter beliefs and opinions that coincide with their own,<ref name="Nguyen-2020">{{Cite journal |last=Nguyen |first=C. Thi |title=Echo Chambers and Epistemic Bubbles |date=2020 |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/episteme/article/abs/echo-chambers-and-epistemic-bubbles/5D4AC3A808C538E17C50A7C09EC706F0 |journal=Episteme |volume=17 |issue=2 |pages=141–161 |doi=10.1017/epi.2018.32 |s2cid=171520109 |issn=1742-3600 |access-date=2022-11-25 |archive-date=2022-02-09 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220209135355/https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/episteme/article/abs/echo-chambers-and-epistemic-bubbles/5D4AC3A808C538E17C50A7C09EC706F0 |url-status=live }}</ref> moving the entire group toward more extreme positions.<ref name="Nguyen-2020" /><ref name="Diaz-Ruiz-2022" />
With the large audiences that can be reached and the experts on various subjects on social media, some believe social media could also be the key to correcting misinformation.<ref name="HealthComm">{{cite journal |last1=Bode |first1=Leticia |last2=Vraga |first2=Emily K. |title=See Something, Say Something: Correction of Global Health Misinformation on Social Media |journal=Health Communication |date=2 September 2018 |volume=33 |issue=9 |pages=1131–1140 |doi=10.1080/10410236.2017.1331312 |pmid=28622038 |s2cid=205698884 }}</ref>
Journalists today are criticized for helping to spread false information on these social platforms, but research shows they also play a role in curbing it through debunking and denying false rumors.<ref name="Starbird-2018" /><ref name="Arif-2017" />
=== By platform === ==== Misinformation on TikTok ==== A research report by NewsGuard found there is a very high level (~20% in their probes of videos about relevant topics) of online misinformation delivered – to a mainly young user base – with TikTok, whose (essentially unregulated) usage is increasing as of 2022.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Tucker |first1=Emma |date=18 September 2022 |title=TikTok's search engine repeatedly delivers misinformation to its majority-young user base, report says |work=CNN |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2022/09/18/business/tiktok-search-engine-misinformation/index.html |url-status=live |access-date=19 October 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221019151032/https://edition.cnn.com/2022/09/18/business/tiktok-search-engine-misinformation/index.html |archive-date=19 October 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Misinformation Monitor: September 2022 |url=https://www.newsguardtech.com/misinformation-monitor/september-2022/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221018190939/https://www.newsguardtech.com/misinformation-monitor/september-2022/ |archive-date=18 October 2022 |access-date=19 October 2022 |website=NewsGuard}}</ref> TikTok's design also plays a role in how quickly misleading information can spread. Because the app centers short, fast-moving videos, people often scroll without pausing to fact-check what they are watching. Content that feels personal or relatable can seem trustworthy even when it is not, which makes false claims easier to believe and share. Researchers have noted that this casual style of communication—combined with TikTok's fast-paced feed—creates an environment where emotionally charged or sensational posts gain attention quickly, even if the information is inaccurate.<ref>Herrero-Diz, P., et al. "The Spread of Misinformation on TikTok: A Systematic Review." Social Media + Society, 2023.</ref> Several misinformation trends have gone viral on TikTok, including false COVID-19 cure claims, political rumors, fabricated crisis updates, and misleading safety warnings. During the pandemic, TikTok was widely criticized for videos promoting unproven home remedies and conspiracy theories. Other examples include viral hoaxes such as fake school threats and exaggerated weather alerts, which spread quickly because users tend to share alarming content without verifying it.<ref>Bridgman, A., et al. "Pandemics and Platforms: COVID-19 Misinformation on TikTok." Harvard Misinformation Review, 2021.</ref>
TikTok's recommendation system is designed to prioritize content based on engagement, which can unintentionally elevate misleading or false claims. A 2022 investigation by the Center for Countering Digital Hate found that TikTok recommended misinformation within minutes of creating new accounts, including content related to public health and political events. Scholars note that because the algorithm optimizes for watch time and interaction, posts containing misinformation can be amplified even without coordinated manipulation.<ref>Center for Countering Digital Hate. "TikTok's Algorithm Amplifies Harmful Misinformation." 2022.</ref>
==== Misinformation on Facebook ==== {{Main|Misinformation on Facebook}}
A research study of Facebook found that misinformation was more likely to be clicked on than factual information.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Dwoskin |first=Elizabeth |title=Misinformation on Facebook got six times more clicks than factual news during the 2020 election, study says |newspaper=The Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/03/facebook-misinformation-nyu-study/ |url-status=live |access-date=2021-10-22 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211021031124/https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/03/facebook-misinformation-nyu-study/ |archive-date=2021-10-21}}</ref> The most common reasons that Facebook users were sharing misinformation for socially-motivated reasons, rather than taking the information seriously.<ref name="ACM/IEEE-CE">{{cite book |last1=Chen |first1=Xinran |title=Proceedings of the 15th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries |last2=Sin |first2=Sei-Ching Joanna |last3=Theng |first3=Yin-Leng |last4=Lee |first4=Chei Sian |year=2015 |isbn=978-1-4503-3594-2 |pages=111–114 |chapter=Why do Social Media Users Share Misinformation? |doi=10.1145/2756406.2756941 |s2cid=15983217}}</ref>
Facebook's coverage of misinformation has become a hot topic with the spread of COVID-19, as some reports indicated Facebook recommended pages containing health misinformation.<ref name="Griffith20210721">{{cite news |last1=Griffith |first1=Chris |date=21 July 2021 |title=Facebook exposed over its handling of COVID misinformation |newspaper=The Australian |location=Canberra |id={{ProQuest|2553642687}}}}</ref> For example, this can be seen when a user likes an anti-vax Facebook page. Automatically, more and more anti-vax pages are recommended to the user.<ref name="Griffith20210721" /> Additionally, some reference Facebook's inconsistent censorship of misinformation leading to deaths from COVID-19.<ref name="Griffith20210721" />
Facebook estimated the existence of up to 60 million troll bots actively spreading misinformation on their platform,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Iyengar |first1=Shanto |last2=Massey |first2=Douglas S. |date=16 April 2019 |title=Scientific communication in a post-truth society |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |volume=116 |issue=16 |pages=7656–7661 |bibcode=2019PNAS..116.7656I |doi=10.1073/pnas.1805868115 |pmc=6475392 |pmid=30478050 |doi-access=free}}</ref> and has taken measures to stop the spread of misinformation, resulting in a decrease, though misinformation continues to exist on the platform.<ref name="Allcott Gentzkow Yu 2019" /> On Facebook, adults older than 65 were seven times more likely to share fake news than adults ages 18–29.<ref name="Swire">{{cite journal |last1=Swire-Thompson |first1=Briony |last2=Lazer |first2=David |date=2 April 2020 |title=Public Health and Online Misinformation: Challenges and Recommendations |journal=Annual Review of Public Health |volume=41 |issue=1 |pages=433–451 |doi=10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094127 |pmid=31874069 |doi-access=free}}</ref>
==== Misinformation on Twitter ==== {{Main|Twitter under Elon Musk#Misinformation and disinformation|Community Notes}}
Twitter is one of the most concentrated platforms for engagement with political fake news. 80% of fake news sources are shared by 0.1% of users, who are "super-sharers". Older, more conservative social users are also more likely to interact with fake news.<ref name="ACM/IEEE-CE" /> Another source of misinformation on Twitter are bot accounts, especially surrounding climate change.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2020-02-21|title=Revealed: a quarter of all tweets about climate crisis produced by bots|url=http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/21/climate-tweets-twitter-bots-analysis|access-date=2021-04-20|website=The Guardian|archive-date=2021-04-29|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210429020205/https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/21/climate-tweets-twitter-bots-analysis|url-status=live}}</ref> Bot accounts on Twitter accelerate true and fake news at the same rate.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Vosoughi |first1=Soroush |last2=Roy |first2=Deb |last3=Aral |first3=Sinan |date=2018-03-09 |title=The spread of true and false news online |journal=Science |volume=359 |issue=6380 |pages=1146–1151 |doi=10.1126/science.aap9559 |pmid=29590045 |bibcode=2018Sci...359.1146V |s2cid=4549072 |issn=0036-8075 |doi-access=free }}</ref> A 2018 study of Twitter determined that, compared to accurate information, false information spread significantly faster, further, deeper, and more broadly.<ref name="Swire" /> A research study watched the process of thirteen rumors appearing on Twitter and noticed that eleven of those same stories resurfaced multiple times, after time had passed.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Shin |first1=Jieun |last2=Jian |first2=Lian |last3=Driscoll |first3=Kevin |last4=Bar |first4=François |date=June 2018 |title=The diffusion of misinformation on social media: Temporal pattern, message, and source |journal=Computers in Human Behavior |volume=83 |pages=278–287 |doi=10.1016/j.chb.2018.02.008 |s2cid=41956979}}</ref>
A social media app called Parler has caused much chaos as well. Right winged Twitter users who were banned on the app moved to Parler after the January 6 United States Capitol attack, and the app was being used to plan and facilitate more illegal and dangerous activities. Google and Apple later pulled the app off their respective app stores. This app has been able to cause a lot of misinformation and bias in the media, allowing for more political mishaps.<ref>{{cite news |date=10 January 2021 |title=Amazon to suspend Parler after deadly Capitol Hill riot |work=Al Jazeera |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/10/amazon-to-suspend-parler-after-deadly-capitol-hill-riot |url-status=live |access-date=7 March 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220307030229/https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/10/amazon-to-suspend-parler-after-deadly-capitol-hill-riot |archive-date=7 March 2022}}</ref>
==== Misinformation on Telegram ==== Telegram has been accused multiple times of facilitating the creation and spread of misinformation online, partly due to its deregulation and lack of fact-checking tools.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Conspiracy, fake news, crime: Why is Telegram controversial? |date=28 August 2024 |first=Thomas |last=Latschan |url=https://www.dw.com/en/conspiracy-fake-news-crime-why-is-telegram-controversial/a-70074670 |access-date=2025-06-15 |website=DW}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-10-08 |title=Telegram is a proven amplifier of disinformation: Maldita.es Foundation and the University of Granada present recommendations for the EU in an event in Brussels with the participation of Vice President Jourová·Maldita.es |url=https://maldita.es/nosotros/20241008/telegram-disinformation-malditaes-universityofgranada-brussels-vicepresident-jourova/ |access-date=2025-06-15 |website=Maldita.es}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Desinformación en Telegram: cómo se propaga y por qué los desinformantes eligen esta red de mensajería - Chequeado |url=https://chequeado.com/el-explicador/desinformacion-en-telegram-como-se-propaga-y-por-que-los-desinformantes-eligen-esta-red-de-mensajeria/ |access-date=2025-06-15 |language=es}}</ref>
==== Misinformation on YouTube ==== {{excerpt|Social impact of YouTube|False scientific content}}
== Impact == ===Trust of other information=== The Liar's Dividend describes a situation in which individuals are so concerned about realistic misinformation (in particular, deepfakes) that they begin to mistrust real content, particularly if someone claims that it is false.<ref name="wwwbrennancenterorg-2024">{{Cite web |date=2024-02-08 |title=Deepfakes, Elections, and Shrinking the Liar's Dividend {{!}} Brennan Center for Justice |url=https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/deepfakes-elections-and-shrinking-liars-dividend |access-date=2024-04-12 |website=www.brennancenter.org}}</ref> For instance, a politician could benefit from claiming that a real video of them doing something embarrassing was actually AI-generated or altered, leading followers to mistrust something that was actually real. On a larger scale this problem can lead to erosion in the public's trust of generally reliable information sources.<ref name="wwwbrennancenterorg-2024" />
Misinformation can affect all aspects of life. Allcott, Gentzkow, and Yu concur that the diffusion of misinformation through social media is a potential threat to democracy and broader society. The effects of misinformation can lead to decline of accuracy of information as well as event details.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Bodner |first1=Glen E. |last2=Musch |first2=Elisabeth |last3=Azad |first3=Tanjeem |title=Reevaluating the potency of the memory conformity effect |journal=Memory & Cognition |date=December 2009 |volume=37 |issue=8 |pages=1069–1076 |doi=10.3758/MC.37.8.1069 |pmid=19933452 |doi-access=free }}</ref> When eavesdropping on conversations, one can gather facts that may not always be true, or the receiver may hear the message incorrectly and spread the information to others. On the Internet, one can read content that is stated to be factual but that may not have been checked or may be erroneous. In the news, companies may emphasize the speed at which they receive and send information but may not always be correct in the facts. These developments contribute to the way misinformation may continue to complicate the public's understanding of issues and to serve as a source for belief and attitude formation.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1Jo7DwAAQBAJ&q=misinformation+causes&pg=PT246|title=Misinformation and Mass Audiences|last1=Southwell|first1=Brian G.|last2=Thorson|first2=Emily A.|last3=Sheble|first3=Laura|date=2018|publisher=University of Texas Press|isbn=978-1-4773-1458-6}}</ref>
===Politics=== Some view being a politically misinformed citizen as worse than being an uninformed one. Misinformed citizens can state their beliefs and opinions with confidence and thus affect elections and policies. This type of misinformation occurs when a speaker appears "authoritative and legitimate", while also spreading misinformation.<ref name="The Growing Role of Social Media in" /> When information is presented as vague, ambiguous, sarcastic, or partial, receivers are forced to piece the information together and make assumptions about what is correct.<ref>{{cite book | last=Barker | first=David | title=Rushed to Judgement: Talk Radio, Persuasion, and American Political Behavior | year=2002 | publisher=Columbia University Press | location=New York | pages=106–109}}</ref> Misinformation has the power to sway public elections and referendums if it gains enough momentum. Leading up to the 2016 UK European Union membership referendum, for example, a figure used prominently by the Vote Leave campaign claimed that by leaving the EU the UK would save £350 million a week, 'for the NHS'. Claims then circulated widely in the campaign that this amount ''would'' (rather than ''could'' theoretically) be redistributed to the British National Health Service after Brexit. This was later deemed a "clear misuse of official statistics" by the UK statistics authority.
Moreover, the advert infamously shown on the side of London's double-decker busses did not take into account the UK's budget rebate, and the idea that 100% of the money saved would go to the NHS was unrealistic. A poll published in 2016 by Ipsos MORI found that nearly half of the British public believed this misinformation to be true.<ref>{{cite news |title=The misinformation that was told about Brexit during and after the referendum |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/final-say-brexit-referendum-lies-boris-johnson-leave-campaign-remain-a8466751.html |work=The Independent |date=2 August 2018 |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220515/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/final-say-brexit-referendum-lies-boris-johnson-leave-campaign-remain-a8466751.html |archive-date=15 May 2022 }}</ref> Even when information is proven to be misinformation, it may continue to shape attitudes towards a given topic,<ref name="MediaMisinfo">{{Cite book |last1=Marwick |first1=Alice |title=Media Manipulation and Disinformation Online |last2=Lewis |first2=Rebecca |publisher=Data & Society Research Institute |year=2017 |location=New York |pages=40–45}}</ref> meaning it has the power to swing political decisions if it gains enough traction. A study conducted by Soroush Vosoughi, Deb Roy and Sinan Aral looked at Twitter data including 126,000 posts spread by 3 million people over 4.5 million times. They found that political news traveled faster than any other type of information. They found that false news about politics reached more than 20,000 people three times faster than all other types of false news.{{sfn|Aral|2020|pp=45-47}}
===Industry=== Misinformation can also be employed in industrial propaganda. Using tools such as advertising, a company can undermine reliable evidence or influence belief through a concerted misinformation campaign. For instance, tobacco companies employed misinformation in the second half of the twentieth century to diminish the reliability of studies that demonstrated the link between smoking and lung cancer.<ref>{{Cite book|last1=O'Connor|first1=Cailin|url=https://archive.org/details/misinformationag0000ocon|title=The Misinformation Age: How False Beliefs Spread|last2=Weatherall|first2=James Owen|publisher=Yale University Press|year=2019|isbn=978-0-300-23401-5|location=New Haven|pages=[https://archive.org/details/misinformationag0000ocon/page/10 10]|url-access=limited}}</ref>
===Medicine=== In the medical field, misinformation can immediately lead to life endangerment as seen in the case of the public's negative perception towards vaccines or the use of herbs instead of medicines to treat diseases.<ref name="The Growing Role of Social Media in" /><ref>{{Cite book|last1=Sinha|first1=P.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9ZuMDwAAQBAJ&q=misinformation+causes&pg=PT22|title=India Misinformed: The True Story|last2=Shaikh|first2=S.|last3=Sidharth|first3=A.|publisher=Harper Collins|year=2019|isbn=978-93-5302-838-1}}</ref> In regards to the COVID-19 pandemic, the spread of misinformation has proven to cause confusion as well as negative emotions such as anxiety and fear.<ref name="Bratu 2020">{{cite journal|last1=Bratu|first1=Sofia|date=May 24, 2020|title=The Fake News Sociology of COVID-19 Pandemic Fear: Dangerously Inaccurate Beliefs, Emotional Contagion, and Conspiracy Ideation|journal=Linguistic and Philosophical Investigations|volume=19|pages=128–134|doi=10.22381/LPI19202010|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite Q|Q97652640}}</ref> Misinformation regarding proper safety measures for the prevention of the virus that go against information from legitimate institutions like the World Health Organization can also lead to inadequate protection and possibly place individuals at risk for exposure.<ref name="Bratu 2020" /><ref>{{Cite web|date=2020-07-29|title=Misinformation on coronavirus is proving highly contagious|url=https://apnews.com/article/ap-top-news-understanding-the-outbreak-health-media-social-media-86f61f3ffb6173c29bc7db201c10f141|access-date=2020-11-23|website=AP NEWS|archive-date=2020-11-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201120041927/https://apnews.com/article/ap-top-news-understanding-the-outbreak-health-media-social-media-86f61f3ffb6173c29bc7db201c10f141|url-status=live}}</ref>
===Study=== Some scholars and activists are heading movements to eliminate the mis/disinformation and information pollution in the digital world.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://er.educause.edu/articles/2017/10/info-environmentalism-an-introduction|title=Info-Environmentalism: An Introduction|access-date=2018-09-28|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180703130624/https://er.educause.edu/articles/2017/10/info-environmentalism-an-introduction|archive-date=2018-07-03|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://dlinq.middcreate.net/informationenvironmentalism/|title=Information Environmentalism|date=2017-12-21|work=Digital Learning and Inquiry (DLINQ)|access-date=2018-09-28|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180928044347/https://dlinq.middcreate.net/informationenvironmentalism/|archive-date=2018-09-28|url-status=live}}</ref> The general study of misinformation and disinformation is by now also common across various academic disciplines, including sociology, communication, computer science, and political science.{{citation needed|date=March 2026}}
Various scholars and journalists have criticised this development, pointing to problematic normative assumptions, a varying quality of output and lack of methodological rigor, as well as a too strong impact of mis- and disinformation research in shaping public opinion and policymaking.<ref>{{cite magazine |last1=Bernstein |first1=Joseph |title=Bad News: Selling the story of disinformation |url=https://harpers.org/archive/2021/09/bad-news-selling-the-story-of-disinformation/ |magazine=Harper's Magazine |date=9 August 2021 |access-date=30 September 2022 |archive-date=26 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220926211045/https://harpers.org/archive/2021/09/bad-news-selling-the-story-of-disinformation/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Adler-Bell |first=Sam |date=2022-05-20 |title=The Liberal Obsession With 'Disinformation' Is Not Helping |url=https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/05/the-liberal-obsession-with-disinformation-is-not-helping.html |access-date=2022-09-30 |website=Intelligencer |archive-date=2022-09-30 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220930145425/https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/05/the-liberal-obsession-with-disinformation-is-not-helping.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Summarising the most frequent points of critique, communication scholars Chico Camargo and Felix Simon wrote in an article for the Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review that "mis-/disinformation studies has been accused of lacking clear definitions, having a simplified understanding of what it studies, a too great emphasis on media effects, a neglect of intersectional factors, an outsized influence of funding bodies and policymakers on the research agenda of the field, and an outsized impact of the field on policy and policymaking."<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Camargo |first1=Chico Q. |last2=Simon |first2=Felix M. |title=Mis- and disinformation studies are too big to fail: Six suggestions for the field's future |journal=Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review |date=20 September 2022 |doi=10.37016/mr-2020-106 |s2cid=252423678 |doi-access=free }}</ref>
== Censorship accusations == {{Censorship sidebar}} Social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter have found themselves defending accusations of censorship for removing posts they have deemed to be misinformation. Social media censorship policies relying on government agency-issued guidance to determine information validity have garnered criticism that such policies have the unintended effect of stifling dissent and criticism of government positions and policies.<ref name="The-Wall-Street-Journal">{{Cite news|title=Facebook's Lab-Leak About-Face|newspaper=The Wall Street Journal|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebooks-lab-leak-about-face-11622154198|url-status=live|access-date=2021-07-14|archive-date=2021-07-14|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210714010553/https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebooks-lab-leak-about-face-11622154198}}</ref> Most recently, social media companies have faced criticism over allegedly prematurely censoring the discussion of the SARS-CoV 2 Lab Leak Hypothesis.<ref name="The-Wall-Street-Journal" /><ref>{{Cite news|title=Covid origin: Why the Wuhan lab-leak theory is being taken seriously|work=BBC News|date=27 May 2021|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-57268111|url-status=live|access-date=14 July 2021|archive-date=30 June 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210630155548/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-57268111}}</ref>
Other accusations of censorship appear to stem from attempts to prevent social media consumers from self-harm through the use of unproven COVID-19 treatments. For example, in July 2020, a video went viral showing Dr. Stella Immanuel claiming hydroxychloroquine was an effective cure for COVID-19. In the video, Immanuel suggested that there was no need for masks, school closures, or any kind of economic shut down, attesting that her alleged cure was highly effective in treating those infected with the virus. The video was shared 600,000 times and received nearly 20 million views on Facebook before it was taken down for violating community guidelines on spreading misinformation.<ref name="BBC-News-2020">{{Cite news|date=2020-07-28|title=Hydroxychloroquine: Why a video promoted by Trump was pulled on social media|work=BBC News|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/53559938|access-date=2021-11-24|archive-date=2020-11-02|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201102215305/https://www.bbc.com/news/53559938|url-status=live}}</ref> The video was also taken down on Twitter overnight, but not before former president Donald Trump shared it on his page, which was followed by over 85 million Twitter users. NIAID director Dr. Anthony Fauci and members of the World Health Organization (WHO) quickly discredited the video, citing larger-scale studies of hydroxychloroquine showing it is not an effective treatment of COVID-19, and the FDA cautioned against using it to treat COVID-19 patients following evidence of serious heart problems arising in patients who have taken the drug.<ref name=BBCNews>{{Cite news|date=2020-07-29|title=Stella Immanuel – the doctor behind unproven coronavirus cure claim|work=BBC News|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-53579773|access-date=2020-11-23|archive-date=2021-10-11|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211011045822/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-53579773|url-status=live}}</ref>
Another prominent example of misinformation removal criticized by some as an example of censorship was the ''New York Post''{{'s}} report on the Hunter Biden laptops approximately two weeks before the 2020 presidential election, which was used to promote the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. Social media companies quickly removed this report, and the ''Post'''s Twitter account was temporarily suspended. Over 50 intelligence officials found the disclosure of emails allegedly belonging to Joe Biden's son had all the "classic earmarks of a Russian information operation".<ref name="officials">{{Cite web|last=Bertrand|first=Natasha|author-link=Natasha Bertrand|date=October 19, 2020|title=Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say|url=https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-disinfo-430276|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201020034222/https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-disinfo-430276|archive-date=October 20, 2020|access-date=October 20, 2020|website=Politico}}</ref> Later evidence emerged that at least some of the laptop's contents were authentic.<ref name="laptop">{{cite web|last=Lizza|first=Ryan|author-link=Ryan Lizza|date=September 21, 2021|title=Politico Playbook: Double Trouble for Biden|url=https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2021/09/21/double-trouble-for-biden-494411|website=Politico|access-date=September 23, 2021|archive-date=November 23, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211123034707/https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2021/09/21/double-trouble-for-biden-494411|url-status=live}}</ref>
== See also == {{columns-list|colwidth=20em| * List of common misconceptions * List of fact-checking websites * List of fake news websites * List of satirical news websites * Alarmism * {{Annotated link|Artificial intelligence and elections}} * Big lie * Character assassination ** Defamation (also known as "slander") * Counter Misinformation Team * COVID-19 misinformation * Disinformation * Disinformation attack * Disinformation research * Euromyth * Factoid * Fallacy ** List of fallacies * False balance * Fear, uncertainty, and doubt * Flat earth * Gossip * Junk science * Memetic warfare * Memory conformity * Misinformation related to abortion * Misinformation related to 5G technology * Persuasion * Post-truth * Pseudoscience * Quotation * Rumor * Sensationalism * Social engineering (in political science and cybercrime) * The Disinformation Project * Truth sandwich *Underlying theories of misinformation }}
== References == {{reflist}}
=== Sources === * Cook, John, Lewandowsky, Stephan, & Ecker, Ullrich K.H. (2020). ''The Debunking Handbook 2020''. Retrieved from https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/debunking-handbook-2020/ * Flynn, D. J., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2017). "The Nature and Origins of Misperceptions: Understanding False and Unsupported Beliefs About Politics". ''Political Psychology'', 38(S1), 127–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12394 * Lazer, David M. J., Baum, Matthew A., Benkler, Yochai, Berinsky, Adam J., Greenhill, Kelly M., Menczer, Filippo, Metzger, Miriam J., Nyhan, Brendan, Pennycook, Gordon, Rothschild, David, Schudson, Michael, Sloman, Steven A., Sunstein, Cass R., Thorson, Emily A., Watts, Duncan J., & Zittrain, Jonathan L. (2018). "The Science of Fake News". ''Science'', 359(6380), 1094–1096. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao2998 * Lewandowsky, Stephan, Ecker, Ullrich K.H., & Cook, John. (2017). "Beyond Misinformation: Understanding and Coping with the 'Post-Truth' Era". ''Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition'', 6(4), 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008 * Tandoc, Edson C., Lim, Zheng Wei, & Ling, Richard. (2018). "Defining 'Fake News': A Typology of Scholarly Definitions". ''Digital Journalism'', 6(2), 137–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2017.1360143 * Wardle, Claire, & Derakhshan, Hossein. (2017). "Information Disorder: Toward an Interdisciplinary Framework for Research and Policymaking". Council of Europe Report. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/information-disorder-toward-an-interdisciplinary-framework-for-researc/168076277c
== Further reading == * {{cite book |doi=10.1145/3308560.3316738 |chapter=A Study of Misinformation in WhatsApp groups with a focus on the Brazilian Presidential Elections |title=Companion Proceedings of the 2019 World Wide Web Conference |year=2019 |last1=Machado |first1=Caio |last2=Kira |first2=Beatriz |last3=Narayanan |first3=Vidya |last4=Kollanyi |first4=Bence |last5=Howard |first5=Philip |pages=1013–1019 |isbn=978-1-4503-6675-5 |s2cid=153314118 }} * {{cite journal | last1 = Allcott | first1 = H. | last2 = Gentzkow | first2 = M. | s2cid = 32730475 | year = 2017 | title = Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election | journal = Journal of Economic Perspectives | volume = 31 | issue = 2| pages = 211–236 | doi = 10.1257/jep.31.2.211 | doi-access = free }} * {{Cite book |last=Aral |first=Sinan |title=The Hype Machine: How Social Media Disrupts Our Elections, Our Economy, and Our Health—and How We Must Adapt |publisher=Currency |date=2020 |isbn=978-0-525-57451-4 |edition=First |location=New York |oclc=1155486056}} * Baillargeon, Normand (4 January 2008). A short course in intellectual self-defense. Seven Stories Press. {{ISBN|978-1-58322-765-7}}. Retrieved 22 June 2011. * {{cite journal |last1=Bakir |first1=Vian |last2=McStay |first2=Andrew |title=Fake News and The Economy of Emotions: Problems, causes, solutions |journal=Digital Journalism |date=7 February 2018 |volume=6 |issue=2 |pages=154–175 |doi=10.1080/21670811.2017.1345645 |s2cid=157153522 |url=https://research.bangor.ac.uk/portal/en/researchoutputs/fake-news-and-the-economy-of-emotions(6f96b5ed-884a-43c1-921f-74ed6f1384f8).html }} * Christopher Cerf, and Victor Navasky, ''The Experts Speak: The Definitive Compendium of Authoritative Misinformation'', Pantheon Books, 1984. * {{cite journal|author=Cook, John|author2= Stephan Lewandowsky|author3=Ullrich K. H. Ecker|title=Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: Exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence|journal=PLOS One|date=2017-05-05|volume= 12|issue= 5|article-number= e0175799|doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0175799|pmid= 28475576|pmc= 5419564|bibcode= 2017PLoSO..1275799C|doi-access=free}} * Helfand, David J., ''A Survival Guide to the Misinformation Age: Scientific Habits of Mind''. Columbia University Press, 2016. {{ISBN|978-0231541022}} * Christopher Murphy (2005). Competitive Intelligence: Gathering, Analysing And Putting It to Work. Gower Publishing, Ltd.. pp. 186–189. {{ISBN|0-566-08537-2}}. A case study of misinformation arising from simple error * {{cite news |last1=O'Connor |first1=Cailin |last2=Weatherall |first2=James Owen |title=How Misinformation Spreads—and Why We Trust It |url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-misinformation-spreads-and-why-we-trust-it/ |work=Scientific American |date=1 September 2019 }} * O'Connor, Cailin, and James Owen Weatherall, ''The Misinformation Age; How False Beliefs Spread''. Yale University Press, 2019. {{ISBN|978-0300241006}} * {{cite book |title=Bad Advice: Or Why Celebrities, Politicians, and Activists Aren't Your Best Source of Health Information |year=2019 |first=Paul |last=Offit |publisher=Columbia University Press |isbn=978-0-231-18699-5}} * Persily, Nathaniel, and Joshua A. Tucker, eds. ''Social Media and Democracy: The State of the Field and Prospects for Reform''. Cambridge University Press, 2020. {{ISBN|978-1108858779}} * {{cite journal |last1=Southwell |first1=Brian G. |last2=Brennen |first2=J. Scott Babwah |last3=Paquin |first3=Ryan |last4=Boudewyns |first4=Vanessa |last5=Zeng |first5=Jing |title=Defining and Measuring Scientific Misinformation |journal=The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science |date=2022 |volume=700 |issue=1 |pages=98–111 |doi=10.1177/00027162221084709 |doi-access=free}} * Jürg Strässler (1982). Idioms in English: A Pragmatic Analysis. Gunter Narr Verlag. pp. 43–44. {{ISBN|3-87808-971-6}}. * {{cite journal |last1=West |first1=Jevin D. |last2=Bergstrom |first2=Carl T. |title=Misinformation in and about science |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |date=2021 |volume=118 |issue=15 |article-number=e1912444117 |doi=10.1073/pnas.1912444117 |pmid=33837146 |pmc=8054004 |bibcode=2021PNAS..11812444W |doi-access=free}}
== External links == {{Wiktionary|misinformation}} {{Wikiquote}} {{Scholia|topic}} {{Library resources box}} * {{cite web|url=https://www.npr.org/2020/04/17/837202898/comic-fake-news-can-be-deadly-heres-how-to-spot-it |title=Comic: Fake News Can Be Deadly. Here's How To Spot It |format=audio tutorial, graphic tutorial |website=NPR | date=April 20, 2020 | author1= Connie Hanzhang Jin | author2= Miles Parks }} * {{cite web|url=https://www.msicertified.com/free-training/misinformation-and-disinformation-training/ |website=Management and Strategy Institute|title= Free Misinformation and Disinformation Training online |date=23 August 2022 | format=free online class }}
{{Disinformation}} {{Authority control}}
Category:Misinformation Category:Media manipulation Category:Psychological warfare techniques Category:Deception