In
light of a new study that
argues YouTube is not only promoting climate denial content but allowing
deniers to hijack scientific terms, Dr Santosh Vijaykumar, Vice Chancellor's
Senior Research Fellow in Digital Health at Northumbria, discusses the role of
social media in spreading conspiracy theories.
Search for “climate change” on
YouTube and before long you’ll likely find a video that denies it exists. In
fact, when it comes to shaping the online conversation around climate change, a new study suggests that deniers and conspiracy theorists might hold an edge
over those believing in science. Researchers found evidence that most YouTube
videos relating to climate change oppose the scientific consensus that it’s
primarily caused by human activities.
The study highlights the key role
of social media use in the spread of scientific misinformation. And it suggests scientists and those who
support them need to be more active in developing creative and compelling ways to communicate their findings.
But more importantly, we need to be worried about the effects that maliciously
manipulated scientific information can have on our behaviour, individually and
as a society.
The recent study by Joachim Allgaier of RWTH Aachen University in Germany analysed the
content of a randomised sample of 200 YouTube videos related to climate change.
He found that a majority (107) of the videos either denied that climate change
was caused by humans or claimed that climate change was a conspiracy.
The videos peddling the
conspiracy theories received the highest number of views. And those spreading
these conspiracy theories used terms like “geoengineering” to make it seem like
their claims had a scientific basis when, in fact, they did not.
Health
misinformation
Climate change is far from the
only area where we see a trend for online misinformation about science
triumphing over scientifically valid facts. Take an issue like infectious diseases,
and perhaps the most well-known example of the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR)
vaccine. Despite large amounts of online information about the vaccine’s
safety, false claims that it has harmful effects have spread widely and
resulted in plummeting levels of vaccination in many countries around the world.
But it’s not just well-known
conspiracy theories that are causing a problem. In May 2018, one troublemaker
came into his own at the height of the Nipahvirus outbreak that eventually claimed 17 lives in the southern Indian
state of Kerala. He duplicated the letterhead of the District Medical Officer
and spread a message claiming that Nipah was spreading through chicken meat.
In reality, the scientifically
established view is that the fruit bat is the host for the virus. As the unfounded rumour went viral on WhatsApp in
Kerala and neighbouring states like Tamil Nadu, consumers became wary of
consuming chicken, which sent the incomes of local chicken traders into a tailspin.
The effects of
misinformation surrounding the MMR vaccine and Nipah virus on human behaviour
should not be surprising given we know that our memory is malleable. Our
recollection of original facts can be replaced with new, false ones. We also
know conspiracy theories have a powerful appeal as they can help people make sense of events or issues they feel they have no control
over.
This problem
is complicated further by the personalisation algorithms underlying social
media. These tend to feed us content consistent with our beliefs and clicking
patterns, helping to strengthen
the acceptance of misinformation. Someone who is sceptical about climate
change might be given an increasing stream of content denying it is caused by
humans, making them less likely to take personal action or vote to tackle the
issue.
Further
rapid advances in digital technologies will also ensure that misinformation
arrives in unexpected formats and with varying levels of sophistication.
Duplicating an official’s letterhead or strategically using key words to
manipulate online search engines is the tip of the iceberg. The emergence of
artificial intelligence-related developments such as DeepFakes – highly realistic doctored videos – is likely to make it a lot harder to spot
misinformation.
So how do we
tackle this problem? The challenge is made greater by the fact that simply
providing corrective scientific information can reinforce people’s awareness of the falsehoods. We also have to overcome resistance
from people’s ideological beliefs and biases.
Social media
companies are trying to developing institutional mechanisms to contain the
spread of misinformation. Responding to the new research, a YouTube
spokesperson said: “Since this study was conducted in 2018, we’ve made hundreds
of changes to our platform and the results of this study do not accurately
reflect the way that YouTube works today … These changes have already reduced
views from recommendations of this type of content by 50% in the US.”
Other companies have
recruited fact checkers in large numbers, awarded research grants to study
misinformation to academics (including myself), and search terms for topics
where misinformation could have harmful health effects have been blocked.
But the continuing prominence of
scientific misinformation on social media suggests these measures are not
enough. As a result, governments around the world are taking action,
ranging from passing legislation to internet shutdowns, much to the ire of
freedom-of-speech activists.
Scientists
need to get involved
Another possible solution may be
to hone people’s ability to think critically so they can tell the difference
between actual scientific information and conspiracy theories. For example, a
district in Kerala has launched a data literacy initiative across nearly 150 public schools trying to empower children with
the skills to differentiate between authentic and fake information. It’s early
days but there is already anecdotal evidence that this can make a difference.
Scientists also need to get more
involved in the fight to make sure their work isn’t dismissed or misused, as in
the case of terms like “geoengineering” being hijacked by YouTube climate
deniers. Conspiracy theories ride on the appeal of certainties – however fake –
whereas uncertainty is inherent to the scientific process. But in the case of
the scientific consensus on climate change, which sees up
to 99% of climate scientists agreeing that humans are responsible, we have
something as close to certainty as science comes.
Scientists need to leverage this
agreement to its maximum and communicate to the public using innovative and
persuasive strategies. This includes creating social
media content of their own to not only shift beliefs but also influence
behaviours. Otherwise, their voices, however highly
trusted, will continue to be drowned out by the frequency and ferocity of
content produced by those with no concrete evidence.
This
article was originally published on The Conversation. You can read it here.
