Is a Research-Based Fight Against 'Misinformation' Doomed?
A recent article in Science identifies five main challenges facing misinformation research:
What is misinformation, actually? This point discusses the difficulty of reaching a consensus on what constitutes “misinformation.” If researchers can’t agree on definitions for terms like “misinformation” and “disinformation,” how can they design and conduct rigorous studies?
Everything is political. When everything is seen through a political lens, and the focus often boils down to securing votes, is it the information (or misinformation) driving those votes that matters, or simply the votes themselves?
The harms are hard to pin down. If someone encourages an attack on political opponents but doesn’t directly commit violence, can they still be held accountable if violence ensues?
Companies own the data. Why would companies give researchers open access to data that could potentially incriminate them for promoting illegal or unethical activities?
The problem is global, but the research isn’t. Although misinformation is a global issue—see the discussion in Manufacturing Deceit: How Generative AI Supercharges Information Manipulation—political events tend to unfold within national borders, even if foreign powers attempt to influence elections through organized disinformation campaigns.
Among these, the most challenging is the first: defining “misinformation.” One person’s misinformation can be another’s “lie.” Some view everything said online as protected by the First Amendment, disregarding the “yelling fire in a crowded theater” argument. Is it misinformation, for instance, if a legacy publication like The Washington Post crafts headlines that appear to deliberately misrepresent an article’s content? Or is that simply capitalism at work in the pursuit of online clicks and advertising revenue?
So, my answer to the question posed by this article’s title—Is a Research-Based Fight Against ‘Misinformation’ Doomed?—is “Probably yes.”
The primary reason is that changing the mindset and culture of misinformation consumers is extraordinarily difficult. This also applies to information consumers as a whole.
People constantly consume and process information from various sources in many forms. Some sources capture immediate attention; others pass through, are remembered, and may influence future behavior; and some are quickly forgotten.
Confirmation bias plays a role for many people—they seek out and give more weight to information that aligns with their beliefs. Others adopt a more skeptical approach and may dismiss sources they see as unreliable or biased.
Ultimately, personal motives, self-interest, and deeply ingrained values influence how individuals interpret information from multiple sources. For example, if someone has lost faith in democracy, appeals to constitutional principles or the rule of law may be ineffective if they feel democracy has failed them—or worse, is irrelevant.
Copyright (c) 2024 by Dennis D. McDonald
More about MISINFORMATION & DISINFORMATION
