Tag: Climate Change Disinformation

Abstract

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has spurred the growth of a global infodemic. In order to combat the COVID-19 infodemic, it is necessary to understand what kinds of misinformation are spreading. Furthermore, various local factors influence how the infodemic manifests in different countries. Therefore, understanding how and why infodemics differ between countries is a matter of interest for public health. This study aims to elucidate and compare the types of COVID-19 misinformation produced from the infodemic in the US and Japan.

Methods

COVID-19 fact-checking articles were obtained from the two largest publishers of fact-checking articles in each language. 1,743 US articles and 148 Japanese articles in their respective languages were gathered, with articles published between 23 January 2020 and 4 November 2022. Articles were analyzed using the free text mining software KH Coder. Exploration of frequently-occurring words and groups of related words was carried out. Based on agglomeration plots and prior research, eight categories of misinformation were created. Lastly, coding rules were created for these eight categories, and a chi-squared test was performed to compare the two datasets.

Results

Overall, the most frequent words in both languages were related to health-related terms, but the Japan dataset had more words referring to foreign countries. Among the eight categories, differences with chi-squared p ≤ 0.01 were found after Holm-Bonferroni p value adjustment for the proportions of misinformation regarding statistics (US 40.0% vs. JP 25.7%, ϕ 0.0792); origin of the virus and resultant discrimination (US 7.0% vs. JP 20.3%, ϕ 0.1311); and COVID-19 disease severity, treatment, or testing (US 32.6% vs. JP 45.9%, ϕ 0.0756).

Conclusions

Local contextual factors were found that likely influenced the infodemic in both countries; representations of these factors include societal polarization in the US and the HPV vaccine scare in Japan. It is possible that Japan’s relative resistance to misinformation affects the kinds of misinformation consumed, directing attention away from conspiracy theories and towards health-related issues. However, more studies need to be done to verify whether misinformation resistance affects misinformation consumption patterns this way.

Abstract

Background

The use of corporate power to undermine public health policy processes is increasingly well understood; however, relatively little scholarship examines how advocates can leverage power to promote the successful adoption of public health policies. The objective of this paper is to explore how advocates leveraged three forms of power – structural, instrumental and discursive – to promote the passage of the Promotion of Healthy Eating Law (Ley 27,642) in Argentina, one of the most comprehensive policies to introduce mandatory front-of-package (FOP) warning labels and regulate the marketing and sales of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) adopted to date.

Methods

We conducted seventeen semi-structured interviews with advocates from different sectors, including civil society, international agencies, and government. Both data collection and analysis were guided by Milsom’s conceptual framework for analyzing power in public health policymaking, and the data was analyzed using hybrid deductive and inductive thematic analysis.

Results

Advocates harnessed structural power through the leveraging of revolving doors, informal alliances, and formal coalitions, enabling them to convene discussion spaces with decision-makers, make strategic use of limited resources, and cultivate the diverse expertise (e.g., research, nutrition science, advocacy, law, political science, activism and communications) needed to support the law through different phases of the policy process. Advocates wielded instrumental power by amassing an armada of localized evidence to promote robust policy design, building technical literacy amongst themselves and decision-makers, and exposing conflicts of interest to harness public pressure. Advocates exercised discursive power by adopting a rights-based discourse, including of children and adolescents and of consumers to transparent information, which enabled advocates to foster a favorable perception of the law amongst both decision-makers and the public. Key contextual enablers include a political window of opportunity, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the ability to learn from the regional precedent of similar policies.

Conclusions

Public health policymaking, particularly when encroaching upon corporate interests, is characterized by stark imbalances of power that hinder policy decisions. The strategies identified in the case of Argentina provide important insights as to how advocates might harness and exercise structural, instrumental, and discursive power to counter corporate influence and promote the successful adoption of comprehensive UPF regulation.

Abstract

Do cities have a collective identity? The latest advancements in generative artificial intelligence (AI) models have enabled the creation of realistic representations learned from vast amounts of data. In this study, we test the potential of generative AI as the source of textual and visual information in capturing the place identity of cities assessed by filtered descriptions and images. We asked questions on the place identity of 64 global cities to two generative AI models, ChatGPT and DALL·E2. Furthermore, given the ethical concerns surrounding the trustworthiness of generative AI, we examined whether the results were consistent with real urban settings. In particular, we measured similarity between text and image outputs with Wikipedia data and images searched from Google, respectively, and compared across cases to identify how unique the generated outputs were for each city. Our results indicate that generative models have the potential to capture the salient characteristics of cities that make them distinguishable. This study is among the first attempts to explore the capabilities of generative AI in simulating the built environment in regard to place-specific meanings. It contributes to urban design and geography literature by fostering research opportunities with generative AI and discussing potential limitations for future studies.

Abstract

Clickbait—online content designed to attract attention and clicks through misleading or exaggerated headlines—has become a prevalent phenomenon in online news. Previous research has sparked debate over the effectiveness of clickbait strategies and whether a bias toward negativity or positivity drives online news engagement. To clarify these issues, we conducted two studies. Study 1 examined participants’ preferences for news headlines, revealing a higher selection rate for negative headlines. This finding indicates a negativity bias in the news reading process and underscores the effectiveness of negative information in clickbait strategies. Study 2 simulated the process of news sharing and examined how participants generalize and report negative news. The findings show that participants amplified the negativity of the original news by using more negative terms or introducing new negative language, demonstrating an even stronger negativity bias during news sharing. These findings affirm the presence of a negativity bias in online engagement, in reading and sharing news. This study offers psychological insights into the clickbait phenomenon and provides theoretical support and practical implications for future research on negativity bias in online news.

Abstract

This article explores the influence of right-wing social media users on penal policy formation processes. Through a passive digital ethnography approach, the study examines online debates preceding and following recent legislative interventions adopted in Italy by the new right-wing government in power since late 2022, namely the criminalization of unauthorized rave parties and the punitive approach to migration management. The article discusses the role of social media users as prosumers, who both consume and produce content, and shows how social media platforms amplify political polarization by promoting selective exposure to like-minded viewpoints and facilitating the spread of divisive content. It also showcases how prosumers contribute to the propagation of punitive narratives and engage in direct interactions with populist leaders through social media platforms. Conversely, political leaders—specifically Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni in this case study—use these platforms to disseminate their narratives and create support for their penal policies, employing fear-mongering tactics and simplistic messaging. Our findings suggest that, while social media platforms have transformed political discourse, in the Italian scenario their direct influence on penal policy making from the ground-up remains limited. Instead, traditional top-down channels continue to dominate the process of penal policy formation.

Abstract

Misinformation surrounding crises poses a significant challenge for public institutions. Understanding the relative effectiveness of different types of interventions to counter misinformation, and which segments of the population are most and least receptive to them, is crucial. We conducted a preregistered online experiment involving 5228 participants from Germany, Greece, Ireland, and Poland. Participants were exposed to misinformation on climate change or COVID-19. In addition, they were pre-emptively exposed to a prebunk, warning them of commonly used misleading strategies, before encountering the misinformation, or were exposed to a debunking intervention afterwards. The source of the intervention (i.e. the European Commission) was either revealed or not. The findings show that both interventions change four variables reflecting vulnerability to misinformation in the expected direction in almost all cases, with debunks being slightly more effective than prebunks. Revealing the source of the interventions did not significantly impact their overall effectiveness. One case of undesirable effect heterogeneity was observed: debunks with revealed sources were less effective in decreasing the credibility of misinformation for people with low levels of trust in the European Union (as elicited in a post-experimental questionnaire). While our results mostly suggest that the European Commission, and possibly other public institutions, can confidently debunk and prebunk misinformation regardless of the trust level of the recipients, further evidence on this is needed.

Abstract

In today’s ever-evolving scientific landscape, invasion science faces a plethora of challenges, such as terminological inconsistency and the rapidly growing literature corpus with few or incomplete syntheses of knowledge, which may be perceived as a stagnation in scientific progress. We explore the concept of ‘competency’, which is extensively debated across disciplines such as psychology, philosophy, and linguistics. Traditionally, it is associated with attributes that enable superior performance and continuous ingenuity. We propose that the concept of competency can be applied to invasion science as the ability to creatively and critically engage with global challenges. For example, competency may help develop innovative strategies for understanding and managing the multifaceted, unprecedented challenges posed by the spread and impacts of non-native species, as well as identifying novel avenues of inquiry for management. Despite notable advancements and the exponential increase in scholarly publications, invasion science still encounters obstacles such as insufficient interdisciplinary collaboration paralleled by a lack of groundbreaking or actionable scientific advancements. To enhance competency in invasion science, a paradigm shift is needed. This shift entails fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, nurturing creative and critical thinking, and establishing a stable and supportive environment for early career researchers, thereby promoting the emergence of competency and innovation. Embracing perspectives from practitioners and decision makers, alongside diverse disciplines beyond traditional ecological frameworks, can further add novel insights and innovative methodologies into invasion science. Invasion science must also address the ethical implications of its practices and engage the public in awareness and education programs. Such initiatives can encourage a more holistic understanding of invasions, attracting and cultivating competent minds capable of thinking beyond conventional paradigms and contributing to the advancement of the field in a rapidly changing world.

Abstract

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many advocacy groups and individuals criticized governments on social media for doing either too much or too little to mitigate the pandemic. In this article, we review advocacy for COVID-19 elimination or “zero-covid” on the social media platform X (Twitter). We present a thematic analysis of tweets by 20 influential co-signatories of the World Health Network letter on ten themes, covering six topics of science and mitigation (zero-covid, epidemiological data on variants, long-term post-acute sequelae (Long COVID), vaccines, schools and children, views on monkeypox/Mpox) and four advocacy methods (personal advice and promoting remedies, use of anecdotes, criticism of other scientists, and of authorities). The advocacy, although timely and informative, often appealed to emotions and values using anecdotes and strong criticism of authorities and other scientists. Many tweets received hundreds or thousands of likes. Risks were emphasized about children’s vulnerability, Long COVID, variant severity, and Mpox, and via comparisons with human immunodeficiency viruses (HIV). Far-reaching policies and promotion of remedies were advocated without systematic evidence review, or sometimes, core field expertise. We identified potential conflicts of interest connected to private companies. Our study documents a need for public health debates to be less polarizing and judgmental, and more factual. In order to protect public trust in science during a crisis, we suggest the development of mechanisms to ensure ethical guidelines for engagement in “science-based” advocacy, and consideration of cost–benefit analysis of recommendations for public health decision-making.