How online misinformation takes advantage of the "information gap" – and how to deal with it
False information is harmful, search verification is toxic!
This year, countries with a total population of 4 billion (about half the world's population) are holding elections, which has been described as the largest election year on record.Some researchers worry that 2024 could also be one of the biggest years for misinformation and disinformation to spread.Both involve misleading content, but false information is deliberately generated.
The heated debates and debates leading up to the elections are the foundation of a democratic society.Political parties have long vied for voter support and public scrutiny of their different policies.But the difference now is that online search and social media can almost endlessly make claims and objections.
A study in the journal Nature last month highlighted one aspect of the phenomenon that was previously undervalued: the existence of data gaps, lack of information space for evidence, and people can easily get caught up in it, trying to check the accuracy of controversial topics.The paper argues that media literacy campaigns that emphasize "just searching online" information need to be smarter.For search providers, fighting misinformation and disinformation simply by using automated systems to lower the priority of these sources may no longer be enough.In fact, real, durable solutions require partnerships between search engine providers and evidence-based sources of knowledge to truly and sustainably solve problems that can be life-or-death for democracies.
Mechanisms for how misinformation and disinformation spread have long been an active area of research.According to the "unrealistic truth effect," the more people come into contact with something, the more they think it's real, regardless of its authenticity.This phenomenon predates the digital age and is now highlighted by search engines and social media.
In a recent study, Kevin Aslett, a political scientist at the University of Central Florida in Orlando, and his colleagues found that those who used Google searches to assess the accuracy of news stories—the authors knew were inaccurate, but the participants didn't—ultimately trusted them more.That's because they're trying to search for such news, which makes them more likely to see the source of corroborating inaccurate stories.
In one experiment, participants used search engines to verify claims that the U.S. government orchestrated famine by blocking during the COVID-19 pandemic.When they type in terms used in inaccurate news reporting, such as "artificial famine" to get information, they are more likely to find sources who report artificial famine uncritically.When participants used search terms to describe other unconfirmed claims about SARS-CoV-2, the results also held: it rarely spread between asymptomatic populations, for example, or it surged in the population even after vaccination.
Nature contacted Google to discuss the findings and asked what else could be done to get search engines to recommend higher-quality information in their search results.Google's algorithm ranks news items by considering various quality measures, such as how consistent a paragraph is with the consensus of expert sources on a topic.In this way, search engines lower the priority of unconfirmed news, as well as news sources that carry unconfirmed news from their results.In addition, its search results come with a content warning.For example, "breaking news" means that a story may change and that readers should come back later when more sources are available.There's also a "About this result" tab that explains more about the news source — though users have to click on a different icon to access it.
Obviously, copying terms from inaccurate news stories into search engines reinforces misinformation, making it a bad way to verify accuracy.So what can be done to guide people to better sources?Google doesn't manually delete content or lower the ranking of search results; it doesn't review or edit content the way social media sites and publishers do.Google insists that the future is an automated way to rank results based on quality metrics when it comes to ensuring quality results.But, as Google itself admits, as Aslett and colleagues have shown, there are other ways to keep people from getting stuck in the data gaps of misinformation and disinformation.
For example, some type of manual input may strengthen internal fact-checking systems, particularly on subjects where reliable information may be lacking.How to do this sensitively is an important research topic, especially since the end result should not be about censorship but about protecting people from harm.
There is also a wealth of literature on improving media literacy, including suggestions for more or better education to differentiate between different sources in search results.Mike Caulfield, who studies media literacy and online validation skills at the University of Washington in Seattle, says it's valuable to expose a wider population to some of the skills taught in research methods.He suggests starting with influencers and giving them the opportunity to improve their media literacy as a way to influence others in their networks.
Paul Crawshaw, a social scientist at the University of Tyside in Middlesbrough, UK, argues that teaching research methods does not always have the desired impact.Students benefit more when they learn research methods while carrying out research projects.He also suggested that lessons could be learned by studying the conduct and impact of health literacy campaigns.In some cases, these measures may be less effective for low-income people4 compared to those with higher incomes.He believes that understanding the different needs of different populations also needs to be integrated into media literacy campaigns.Research journals such as Nature have also played a role in bridging the data gap; this cannot be the responsibility of search engine providers alone.In other words, any response to misinformation and disinformation requires a partnership.
Clearly, there is still work to be done.This need is urgent because generative artificial intelligence and large language models can push misinformation to higher heights.The frequently mentioned phrase "online search" may end up increasing the prominence of inaccurate news rather than reducing it.In this super-election year, people need to have the confidence to know that if a piece of news comes from an untrustworthy source, the best option might be to simply ignore it.
It seems that false information is harmful, search verification is toxic!