Detecting Misinformation on Social Media Becomes More Difficult

The rapid spread of misinformation across social media platforms has become an increasingly concerning issue in the United States, affecting public discourse on critical topics ranging from presidential elections and climate change to COVID-19 vaccines and variants.

A recent Pew Research Service study revealed that 86 percent of American adults now get their news through smartphones, creating an environment where false information can spread quickly and efficiently. Despite growing calls for social media companies to address this problem, experts suggest that platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have limited incentive to effectively combat misinformation.

“We see so much misinformation because the platforms have no real interest in deterring it,” explains Roger Entner, a technology and telecommunications analyst at Recon Analytics. “It is really easy and free to join the platform, there is no profit in deleting the misinformation and preventing provocateurs to post it.”

Entner points to a troubling economic reality behind the persistence of false information online: “Actually, the platforms profit from it because the more outrageous the content, the more people interact with it – this type of ‘engagement’ is what the platforms are looking for; people reacting to things. It doesn’t matter if it’s true or false as long as they engage.”

This creates a situation where content that generates strong reactions – regardless of accuracy – becomes more valuable to the platforms’ business models. “Everything gets sacrificed on the altar of monetization through engagement,” Entner adds.

Since social media companies are unlikely to eliminate misinformation entirely, experts recommend that users develop skills to identify questionable content. This is particularly challenging as misinformation often masquerades as legitimate news, sometimes resulting from genuine misunderstanding, but frequently designed to mislead.

William V. Pelfrey, Jr., professor in the Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs at Virginia Commonwealth University, distinguishes between two forms of problematic information. “Bad information comes in two flavors, unintentional and intentional. The latter, intentional disinformation, is far more dangerous,” he says.

The sources of disinformation can be varied and sophisticated. “There are many persons who purposefully distribute inaccurate information in an attempt to influence outcomes, such as an election,” Pelfrey notes. “Some countries, including Russia and China, have sophisticated disinformation organizations, which work hard to undermine the United States, thereby elevating other countries.”

The situation is further complicated by America’s deep political divisions, where contradictory information abounds and trust in opposing viewpoints has deteriorated significantly. “Human nature is to simply turn away when things get confusing,” Pelfrey explains. “If the government is telling you to get vaccinated, and social media is telling you that vaccines and Covid are a hoax, the easiest thing to do is ignore all of it.”

Dr. Donna Gregory, senior lecturer at the School of Nursing at Regis College, recommends three questions to evaluate information: “Who is posting it? What information are they sharing? What is their intent?” She emphasizes checking the qualifications and potential biases of sources, assessing whether claims are supported by data and recent studies, and considering the motivations behind the information.

“Disinformation is more likely to want to push you in one direction or another, instead of just sharing information,” Gregory notes.

Fact-checking has emerged as a crucial tool in combating misinformation, though it’s often misunderstood. True fact-checking involves verifying claims against reliable evidence, rather than simply cherry-picking data that supports a particular viewpoint.

“If the information comes from a single person, it is opinion—not fact,” warns Pelfrey, citing an example where seemingly authoritative health information turned out to be from “a part-time pharmacy employee. Not a scientist.”

Gregory recommends cross-referencing information across multiple credible sources: “If you find information about the delta variant on a news site, can you find this same information on the CDC website? What about other health care organizations such as the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease?”

As misinformation continues to proliferate online, developing these critical evaluation skills becomes increasingly essential for navigating today’s complex information landscape. Without significant changes to social media business models, the responsibility for distinguishing fact from fiction will largely remain with individual users.