ABSTRACT
Ensuring widespread public exposure to best-science guidance is crucial in any crisis, e.g., coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), monkeypox, abortion misinformation, climate change, and beyond. We show how this battle got lost on Facebook very early during the COVID-19 pandemic and why the mainstream majority, including many parenting communities, had already moved closer to more extreme communities by the time vaccines arrived. Hidden heterogeneities in terms of who was talking and listening to whom explain why Facebook's own promotion of best-science guidance also appears to have missed key audience segments. A simple mathematical model reproduces the exposure dynamics at the system level. Our findings could be used to tailor guidance at scale while accounting for individual diversity and to help predict tipping point behavior and system-level responses to interventions in future crises.
ABSTRACT
A huge amount of potentially dangerous COVID-19 misinformation is appearing online. Here we use machine learning to quantify COVID-19 content among online opponents of establishment health guidance, in particular vaccinations ("anti-vax"). We find that the anti-vax community is developing a less focused debate around COVID-19 than its counterpart, the pro-vaccination ("pro-vax") community. However, the anti-vax community exhibits a broader range of "flavors" of COVID-19 topics, and hence can appeal to a broader cross-section of individuals seeking COVID-19 guidance online, e.g. individuals wary of a mandatory fast-tracked COVID-19 vaccine or those seeking alternative remedies. Hence the anti-vax community looks better positioned to attract fresh support going forward than the pro-vax community. This is concerning since a widespread lack of adoption of a COVID-19 vaccine will mean the world falls short of providing herd immunity, leaving countries open to future COVID-19 resurgences. We provide a mechanistic model that interprets these results and could help in assessing the likely efficacy of intervention strategies. Our approach is scalable and hence tackles the urgent problem facing social media platforms of having to analyze huge volumes of online health misinformation and disinformation.
ABSTRACT
Distrust in scientific expertise1-14 is dangerous. Opposition to vaccination with a future vaccine against SARS-CoV-2, the causal agent of COVID-19, for example, could amplify outbreaks2-4, as happened for measles in 20195,6. Homemade remedies7,8 and falsehoods are being shared widely on the Internet, as well as dismissals of expert advice9-11. There is a lack of understanding about how this distrust evolves at the system level13,14. Here we provide a map of the contention surrounding vaccines that has emerged from the global pool of around three billion Facebook users. Its core reveals a multi-sided landscape of unprecedented intricacy that involves nearly 100 million individuals partitioned into highly dynamic, interconnected clusters across cities, countries, continents and languages. Although smaller in overall size, anti-vaccination clusters manage to become highly entangled with undecided clusters in the main online network, whereas pro-vaccination clusters are more peripheral. Our theoretical framework reproduces the recent explosive growth in anti-vaccination views, and predicts that these views will dominate in a decade. Insights provided by this framework can inform new policies and approaches to interrupt this shift to negative views. Our results challenge the conventional thinking about undecided individuals in issues of contention surrounding health, shed light on other issues of contention such as climate change11, and highlight the key role of network cluster dynamics in multi-species ecologies15.