The Covid-19 crisis has given rise to numerous false theories about its origin and treatment. The uncertainty and lack of official information at the outset of the pandemic, coupled with the demand for news by citizens, has created an information vacuum that has been exploited by all sorts of rumors and false information about the virus.
So much so that days after the pandemic was declared, the WHO warned of the threat of a infodemia. And shortly thereafter, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, published in a tweet in which he stated that the infodemia it was an enemy that was seriously comparable to the disease itself.
According to the WHO, an excess of misleading information can create confusion and cause risky behaviors that exacerbate the effects of the disease and prolong your life. Behaviors that endanger public health, such as a lower willingness to comply with government recommendations and a lower willingness to be vaccinated is associated with a higher level of belief in false theories about Covid.
We know that social media played a key role in spreading false rumors and theories during the coronavirus crisis. The short text format and the ease of sharing questionable material Without the need to provide extensive arguments, they facilitate the spread of rumors through information cascades and help them spread false news. This spread is problematic as it can increase the credibility of false rumors and theories. by fame.
Are all social networks the same?
Although much attention has been paid to role of social networks in the transmission of false information in various crises, such as Trump’s election, BrexitY the Covid-19Much less is known about the role of different platforms in spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories. Are all social networks the same when it comes to spreading these beliefs or are there specific characteristics of the platforms that make some more likely than others to spread them?
This is the question we wanted to shed light on in a recent study in which 17 European researchers participated. With a two-wave survey of more than 28,000 panelists, spread across 17 European countries, we found that those who claim to be Twitter users are less likely to believe in conspiracy theories about Covid-19. On the other hand, those who declare themselves as users of Facebook, YouTube and messaging platforms like WhatsApp or Messenger are more likely to believe these theories.
We used three questions about the origin and treatment of Covid-19 to measure beliefs in conspiracy theories about the virus. In general, we find that there is a high degree of correlation between them. That is, individuals who believe in one of these theories tend to believe in the other as well. This may come as a surprise, as some of these theories contradict each other. But this result illustrates that conspiratorial beliefs are part of a more structural dimension of thinking: a mentality that would be rooted in a psychology of mistrust.
The study design does not allow us to explore what mechanisms explain the relationships we have found, that is, to identify the factors behind the negative (positive) relationship between Twitter (Facebook, YouTube) and conspiracy beliefs.
One hypothesis is that these effects come from the socio-demographic composition of the platforms, i.e. from the type of user that dominates on each of them. For example, the Twitter user has on average more studies and greater political knowledge than the Facebook userwhich may explain a negative aptitude for believing in conspiracy theories.
However, the effects we found do not disappear if we take into account the level of education and political knowledge, including socio-demographic characteristics of the users (age, gender, income, political interest …), which excludes the hypothesis of composition . effects ..
The key would be in the architecture and features of each network
What, then, can explain these results? Our hypothesis is that it may be related to the architecture and the different features that the platforms offer users. For example, the features of Twitter – its asymmetric structure, the dominance of weak links, its specialization in news – can make it less secure to spread false information. As it is a more open social network that specializes in news, there may be more public control over the information that is published, which may deter its users from posting unverified information.
In contrast, Facebook can be a safer and friendlier environment for disseminating unverified information, populating friends and family (strong ties), and being a more social network. Messaging platforms will share with Facebook as more protected environments, where users can communicate with friends and family and can feel more comfortable and less censored when sharing any type of information.
Although suggestive, this is a hypothesis that has yet to be tested. We need more studies that analyze how the different characteristics of the platforms condition the behavior of users in relation to the dissemination of false information, and how this dissemination in turn influences their attitudes, perceptions and beliefs.
Ana Sofia cardinal leftProfessor of Political Science, UOC – Open University of Catalonia
This article was originally published on The conversation. read the original.
Reference-www.eleconomista.com.mx