Key Considerations: Online Information, Mis- and Disinformation in the Context of COVID-19

"Timely, accurate communication through all media sources is a critical component of ensuring trust in response activities."

Developed for the Social Science in Humanitarian Action Platform (SSHAP) by Anthrologica, this brief sets out practical considerations relating to flows of information, misinformation, and disinformation though online media, particularly social media networks, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. It details various types of online media, key players and influencers on social media, and strategies for disrupting mis- and disinformation - the spread of which can lead to non-compliance with public health measures, perpetuate political conflict and discrimination, and cause negative psychological and social effects.

The report describes the social media landscape, which has the potential to facilitate the rapid development and spread of mis- and disinformation (specific types of information are defined). Social media are global in scope, yet the behaviour of social media users is locally specific. For example, in China, where Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are blocked, popular alternatives include WeChat (an instant messaging app), Weibo (a micro-blogging site similar to Twitter), Qzone (similar to a combination of Facebook and Tumblr), and the video sharing platforms TikTok and Douyin. These platforms saw a significant spike in use since the COVID-19 outbreak, with people finding new ways to communicate and entertain themselves whilst in quarantine.

Groups of social media users are differentiated in the report by their motivations for sharing information: spreaders of factual information; spreaders of misinformation, who may pass on falsehoods with good or neutral intentions; and creators of disinformation, who create and spread falsehoods for political, economic, or social gain. SSHAP contends that understanding these motives is vital to developing appropriate strategies for disseminating official information and for tackling the spread of mis- and disinformation.

As outlined here, there are a number of factors that work together to influence whether an individual will believe a message, and whether they will go on to share it with their networks. These include: the level of trust the person has in the messenger and the channel being used to transmit the message; pre-existing beliefs and biases; the political and historical context; the emotional state and triggers of the person receiving the message; lack, or abundance, of information; and the format and style of the message itself. As an example of the latter: Messages that are catchy and use words or images in a clever way can compel people, including non-literate people, to repeat the message. Simple and humorous memes, as well as tweets and multimedia messages that include video or audio elements, have greater potential to go viral. People may be motivated to share information because they wish to explain a situation or an event, share useful or entertaining information, define themselves as "in the know", develop social relationships, or feel connected to issues affecting them.

According to the analysis presented here, social media can be used to quickly and effectively counter mis-and disinformation; these positive opportunities should be identified and maximised. In general, public health authorities and responders should be ready to communicate correct and up-to-date information through effective, trusted channels - including social media channels - from the outset of an outbreak in order to reduce the time that rumours and misinformation are able to proliferate due to a void of information.

Strategies for ensuring accurate information:

• Understand the communication ecosystem - Rapid assessments are needed to fully understand people's favoured channels, most trusted sources, level of literacy (including media literacy), and preferred languages and formats. Such assessments should also include the identification of communication partners in order to be able to launch a coordinated campaign and avoid contradictory messages.
• Magnify the voice of experts - This involves supporting experts to engage fully and regularly with popular information channels, including those more often frequented by a younger demographic. Public bodies should ensure that the information they share through social media is factual and originates from official sources.
• Employ adaptive engagement strategies - Technologies to affect algorithms and reduce exposure to disinformation are more likely to reach creators of disinformation, while open, transparent communication is appropriate for the general population.
• Engage in two-way communication to respond to the public's concerns - Accessible channels must allow people to ask questions, the answers to which are reflected in the information being shared. In this way, people are provided with pertinent information and see their realities and concerns acknowledged in broader communication. Various social media platforms can facilitate this, such as Reddit. A specific positive example of engagement is the creation of a series of Facebook groups by United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Lebanon run by refugees for refugees to share information and to monitor and combat rumours. The groups have over 100,000 members. On the other hand, observation of the World Health Organization (WHO) Facebook page and YouTube channel, the United Kingdom's National Health Service (NHS), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and other national government Facebook pages found that the thousands of comments posted on these pages are not directly responded to on the page or in the same thread, leaving space for the proliferation of false information.
• Enlist trusted brands and influencers - For example, people with many followers on social media can be enlisted to spread correct information and debunk rumours.
• Improve media literacy - People should be encouraged to: consider whether the source and the author is credible, read beyond the headlines, check supporting sources, notice the date, and consult other credible sources to see if they can corroborate the information. Users should be encouraged to act responsibly and not share information unless they are sure it is correct.
• Employ methodologies for rumour tracking, community feedback, and media monitoring - Rumours often reflect underlying anxieties or pre-held social or political positions and beliefs; it is important to address their underlying causes. This requires an effective listening mechanism, which begins with an assessment of the communicative ecosystem. For example, by integrating and cross-referencing social media, print media, broadcast media, and local field team analysis, Novetta identifies shifts in messaging trends or emerging threats within 24-48 hours. This method has been used to track messaging trends in hard-to-access information environments. There are also a number of mechanisms available to check the veracity of rumours, such as Brazil's Comprova, which focuses on WhatsApp and uses a team of journalists to investigate claims.
• Attend to the psychosocial impact - Social media can be a tool for protecting and promoting mental health and psychosocial wellbeing, with mental health professionals and health authorities providing online mental health services through different streams. Reddit hosts r/COVID19_support, where users can support one another on a platform moderated by a qualified therapist.

Strategies for disrupting and influencing misinformation flows:

• Promote correct information - The WHO has partnered with Google, Twitter, Facebook, Tencent (a shareholder in Reddit), and TikTok to try to ensure content is accurate and users are directed to authoritative sites. For instance, when people search for information on COVID-19 on Google, YouTube or Facebook, they are now directed to the WHO website.
• Use technology to disrupt information flows - Social media platforms such as Facebook and WhatsApp have taken measures to restrict the flow of misinformation.
• Use the law to disrupt information flows - Many countries have legislation against the creation and distribution of deliberately false information, although in some cases, such legislation does not apply to social media platforms. However, firm legislation risks targeting individuals who meant no harm and were merely misinformed can be problematic and potentially curtails free speech and quashes debate. As an alternative to government regulations, the European Union introduced a "voluntary code of conduct" against online misinformation in 2018, to which some major social media companies are signatories.
• Flag but do not remove misinformation - For example, some Reddit discussion forums have been "quarantined" with warnings that their content is unreliable, and others have been removed entirely. Studies have also shown, however, that efforts to alert people to the presence of misinformation can have the unintended effect of reducing their belief in accurate information. "In general, misinformation in the online ecosystem can be countered by flooding the same channels where the falsehoods are proliferating with factual information to control the dominant narrative. Information gains credibility the more it is shared and seen..."

In conclusion, further research is needed to better understand the sources and motivations behind health misinformation and to analyse the effectiveness of measures aimed at stemming its flow and mitigating its harmful effects.