Despite efforts from social-media platforms to clean up their acts, false and abusive posts about prominent scientists lingers on Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram and Telegram. A study by international campaign group Avaaz looked at disinformation posted about three high-profile scientists: Anthony Fauci, head of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; German virologist Christian Drosten; and Belgian virologist Marc Van Ranst. Although all of the posts had been debunked by fact-checkers, online platforms had taken no action to address half of them. “Two years into the pandemic, even though they have made important policy changes, the platforms, and Facebook in particular, are still failing to take significant action,” says Luca Nicotra, a campaign director for Avaaz.
Mainstream news media must publish corrections, why is this not the case with social media?
28 January 2022By Brian Owens
Online threats (click here) aimed at scientists has become a major problem during the COVID-19 pandemic. A survey by Nature last year found that many scientists who had spoken publicly about the disease had experienced attacks on their credibility or reputation, or had been threatened with violence. Some 15% had received death threats.
Nicotra and his colleagues looked at pandemic-related disinformation targeting three prominent scientists: Anthony Fauci, head of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in Bethesda, Maryland; German virologist Christian Drosten; and Belgian virologist Marc Van Ranst. They checked posts across five social-media sites — Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram and Telegram.
Between January and June 2021, the authors identified 85 posts across the platforms that contained disinformation targeting the scientists and their institutions, and that had been debunked by several fact-checking organizations. By late July 2021, when the study concluded, 49% of the posts were still live and had not been removed or labelled with a warning about the fact-checkers’ findings. The posts had collectively racked up nearly 1.9 million interactions.
The failure to label debunked disinformation is a problem, says Nicotra, because unlabelled posts get much more engagement than ones that are labelled. Labelling is a “very effective strategy” for fighting disinformation, Nicotra says. “Especially if users who have previously interacted with the content are also informed.”...
The social media came under scrutiny when it was discovered the extent Russia was effecting outcomes in an adverse way during the 2016 elections. The intelligence agencies have completed a rather important revamping of their surveillance to end such outside influence in elections and it is reported the 2020 elections were the most secure in the country's history.
That is wonderful, but, there are Americans using the former methodolgy to make money for elections. That method is intended to attract voters through very negative positions adverse to democracy. To state it is exploitive is an understatement. Such adverse methods can be said, in the case of COVID-19 and it's variants, to cause illness and death. That is not even close to an ethical standard.
The media industy has ethical standards focused on the right of the media and its journalists. Can we say social media is a recognized method of journalism or is it simply tabloid content? Either way, doesn't it fall under the auspices of journalism?
The problem with social media is responsibility for it's content. Who is responsible ultimately and how does the media industry recognize freedom of speech within the concept of social media? What are the values of such content in the USA today and is it valuable to our society and our democracy?
I think the media industry has the right and responsibility to propose ethical content for social media and advocate for ethical standards with state legislators and Congress. Some of that guidance can also come from the intelligent agencies of the USA.
Currently, social media is a bit of a demon among Americans, including the self-image of young girls (click here).
“We make body image issues worse for one in three teen girls. ”This blunt acknowledgment appeared in an internal Facebook presentation on Instagram’s effects on its millions of young users. But it never appeared where anyone else could see it, until being published as part of a recent Wall Street Journal investigation....
The Washington Post frames some of the maladies of social media as a mental health issue. I tend to agree. Now, "Nature" a semi-professional journal has published an article about the vitally important work of our scientists and their role in our society to end the problems with a virus that should have been contained two years ago.
Recently, Dr. Fauci testified before Congress bringing his very serious reality to the US Senate panel in the way of a profound and real threat to his life and danger to his family. That was not a mental health issue, that was a person DRIVEN TO BELIEVE Dr. Fauci was causing harm and killing people. The man with a gun was influenced by social media. His social media exposure is more than a mental health issue, it is a transformative act to motivate him to take up a deadly weapon and kill. He thought in his sincerest opinion he was acting out of morality. That is not a simple social media post, it is highly dangerous to our society and intended to motivate people in a method that appears to be moral. In fact, the morality is an indoctrination to violence for the purpose of destroying our democracy.
This is extremely bad considering there are local officials that have resigned from their offices because of very real death threats. Before this disasterous method of raising political funds and spurring people to vote, it was an honor to be elected and those taking office esteemed to their ability to govern. That has all been erased. The honor is now a horror and adverse to our country's governance.
Social media content MUST be viewed as a media posting with responsiblity that must reflect truth. That sort of posting should be monitored and monitored closely for action to remove such lies and dangerous motivations.
Freedom of speech is not absolute and to that reality media organizations work very hard to maintain integrity and ethics in order to deserve that priviledge granted by Freedom of Speech. Social media does not carry out that level of integrity or ethics.
As a woman that has valued the woman's movement to remove dangerous stigma from our society it was gratifying to have "Barbie" look normal as a reflection of a healthy appearance. That level of change in a society is hard fought for and comes with personal sacrifice to carry out writing campaigns and research to support such movements. To think one social media site can dismantle decades of struggle in such a short period of time is simply outrageous.
That same outrage belongs to this article in "Nature" that brings focus to the very problem we are having in citizens acting in their own worst interest. Scientists dedicated to protecting human life are being degraded and their importance destroyed by random know-nothings and it is working.
There is no editor looking at the social content for facts and shutting down runaway social media that causes profound harm and in the case of the virus deaths. There has to be a change in these platforms and it must take place quickly to bring about an end to the disinformation and an elevation of authority that matters. Not every decision by these scientists have to be understood, but, simply followed. Some aspects of their decisions can't be explained, but, only peer reviewed.
The adverse influence in our American society must be stopped and sanity and safety returned. Our hospitals are not able to handle the assault by these media platforms. It must change.
