One Year of COVID-19 Vaccine Misinformation on Twitter: Longitudinal Study.
COVID-19
Twitter
content analysis
infodemiology
misinformation
online health information
social media
trend analysis
vaccine hesitancy
vaccines
Journal
Journal of medical Internet research
ISSN: 1438-8871
Titre abrégé: J Med Internet Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 100959882
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 02 2023
24 02 2023
Historique:
received:
04
09
2022
accepted:
30
01
2023
revised:
18
01
2023
pubmed:
4
2
2023
medline:
3
3
2023
entrez:
3
2
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Vaccinations play a critical role in mitigating the impact of COVID-19 and other diseases. Past research has linked misinformation to increased hesitancy and lower vaccination rates. Gaps remain in our knowledge about the main drivers of vaccine misinformation on social media and effective ways to intervene. Our longitudinal study had two primary objectives: (1) to investigate the patterns of prevalence and contagion of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on Twitter in 2021, and (2) to identify the main spreaders of vaccine misinformation. Given our initial results, we further considered the likely drivers of misinformation and its spread, providing insights for potential interventions. We collected almost 300 million English-language tweets related to COVID-19 vaccines using a list of over 80 relevant keywords over a period of 12 months. We then extracted and labeled news articles at the source level based on third-party lists of low-credibility and mainstream news sources, and measured the prevalence of different kinds of information. We also considered suspicious YouTube videos shared on Twitter. We focused our analysis of vaccine misinformation spreaders on verified and automated Twitter accounts. Our findings showed a relatively low prevalence of low-credibility information compared to the entirety of mainstream news. However, the most popular low-credibility sources had reshare volumes comparable to those of many mainstream sources, and had larger volumes than those of authoritative sources such as the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization. Throughout the year, we observed an increasing trend in the prevalence of low-credibility news about vaccines. We also observed a considerable amount of suspicious YouTube videos shared on Twitter. Tweets by a small group of approximately 800 "superspreaders" verified by Twitter accounted for approximately 35% of all reshares of misinformation on an average day, with the top superspreader (@RobertKennedyJr) responsible for over 13% of retweets. Finally, low-credibility news and suspicious YouTube videos were more likely to be shared by automated accounts. The wide spread of misinformation around COVID-19 vaccines on Twitter during 2021 shows that there was an audience for this type of content. Our findings are also consistent with the hypothesis that superspreaders are driven by financial incentives that allow them to profit from health misinformation. Despite high-profile cases of deplatformed misinformation superspreaders, our results show that in 2021, a few individuals still played an outsized role in the spread of low-credibility vaccine content. As a result, social media moderation efforts would be better served by focusing on reducing the online visibility of repeat spreaders of harmful content, especially during public health crises.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Vaccinations play a critical role in mitigating the impact of COVID-19 and other diseases. Past research has linked misinformation to increased hesitancy and lower vaccination rates. Gaps remain in our knowledge about the main drivers of vaccine misinformation on social media and effective ways to intervene.
OBJECTIVE
Our longitudinal study had two primary objectives: (1) to investigate the patterns of prevalence and contagion of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on Twitter in 2021, and (2) to identify the main spreaders of vaccine misinformation. Given our initial results, we further considered the likely drivers of misinformation and its spread, providing insights for potential interventions.
METHODS
We collected almost 300 million English-language tweets related to COVID-19 vaccines using a list of over 80 relevant keywords over a period of 12 months. We then extracted and labeled news articles at the source level based on third-party lists of low-credibility and mainstream news sources, and measured the prevalence of different kinds of information. We also considered suspicious YouTube videos shared on Twitter. We focused our analysis of vaccine misinformation spreaders on verified and automated Twitter accounts.
RESULTS
Our findings showed a relatively low prevalence of low-credibility information compared to the entirety of mainstream news. However, the most popular low-credibility sources had reshare volumes comparable to those of many mainstream sources, and had larger volumes than those of authoritative sources such as the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization. Throughout the year, we observed an increasing trend in the prevalence of low-credibility news about vaccines. We also observed a considerable amount of suspicious YouTube videos shared on Twitter. Tweets by a small group of approximately 800 "superspreaders" verified by Twitter accounted for approximately 35% of all reshares of misinformation on an average day, with the top superspreader (@RobertKennedyJr) responsible for over 13% of retweets. Finally, low-credibility news and suspicious YouTube videos were more likely to be shared by automated accounts.
CONCLUSIONS
The wide spread of misinformation around COVID-19 vaccines on Twitter during 2021 shows that there was an audience for this type of content. Our findings are also consistent with the hypothesis that superspreaders are driven by financial incentives that allow them to profit from health misinformation. Despite high-profile cases of deplatformed misinformation superspreaders, our results show that in 2021, a few individuals still played an outsized role in the spread of low-credibility vaccine content. As a result, social media moderation efforts would be better served by focusing on reducing the online visibility of repeat spreaders of harmful content, especially during public health crises.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36735835
pii: v25i1e42227
doi: 10.2196/42227
pmc: PMC9970010
doi:
Substances chimiques
COVID-19 Vaccines
0
Vaccines
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e42227Informations de copyright
©Francesco Pierri, Matthew R DeVerna, Kai-Cheng Yang, David Axelrod, John Bryden, Filippo Menczer. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 24.02.2023.
Références
Nat Med. 2022 Mar;28(3):456-459
pubmed: 35273403
N Engl J Med. 2021 Apr 15;384(15):1412-1423
pubmed: 33626250
JMIR Infodemiology. 2022 Feb 08;2(1):e32378
pubmed: 35190798
Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2020 May;19(5):305-306
pubmed: 32273591
Nature. 2021 Jan;589(7840):16-18
pubmed: 33340018
PNAS Nexus. 2022 Sep 30;1(4):pgac207
pubmed: 36714849
PLoS One. 2018 Apr 27;13(4):e0196087
pubmed: 29702657
Lancet Glob Health. 2020 May;8(5):e639-e640
pubmed: 32199468
Am J Epidemiol. 2022 Aug 22;191(9):1546-1556
pubmed: 35452081
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Feb 12;116(7):2521-2526
pubmed: 30692252
Science. 2020 Apr 24;368(6489):395-400
pubmed: 32144116
Nature. 2021 Jan;589(7840):82-87
pubmed: 33171481
Nat Hum Behav. 2021 Mar;5(3):337-348
pubmed: 33547453
JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2021 Nov 17;7(11):e30642
pubmed: 34653016
Lancet. 2020 Mar 14;395(10227):e47
pubmed: 32113505
Nat Commun. 2018 Nov 20;9(1):4787
pubmed: 30459415
Nature. 2018 Oct;562(7727):309
pubmed: 30327527
BMJ Glob Health. 2020 Oct;5(10):
pubmed: 33097547
Vaccine. 2015 Aug 14;33(34):4161-4
pubmed: 25896383
Sci Rep. 2022 Apr 26;12(1):5966
pubmed: 35474313
Science. 2019 Jan 25;363(6425):374-378
pubmed: 30679368
Nat Commun. 2019 Jan 2;10(1):7
pubmed: 30602729
PNAS Nexus. 2023 Sep 02;2(9):pgad286
pubmed: 37719749
PLoS One. 2022 Jan 12;17(1):e0261768
pubmed: 35020727
Nat Hum Behav. 2021 Jul;5(7):947-953
pubmed: 33972767
Am J Public Health. 2018 Oct;108(10):1378-1384
pubmed: 30138075
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022 Jan 28;71(4):132-138
pubmed: 35085223
Lancet. 2020 Feb 29;395(10225):676
pubmed: 32113495
Immunity. 2020 May 19;52(5):737-741
pubmed: 32433946
EClinicalMedicine. 2021 Mar;33:100780
pubmed: 33718854
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Jul 7;117(27):15530-15535
pubmed: 32554604
Health Aff (Millwood). 2021 Sep;40(9):1465-1472
pubmed: 34406840
Sci Rep. 2020 Oct 6;10(1):16598
pubmed: 33024152
JAMA. 2021 May 11;325(18):1829-1830
pubmed: 33787821
N Engl J Med. 2021 Aug 12;385(7):585-594
pubmed: 34289274
Sci Rep. 2021 Oct 27;11(1):21174
pubmed: 34707187
Nat Hum Behav. 2020 Dec;4(12):1303-1312
pubmed: 33199859
Lancet Infect Dis. 2022 Dec;22(12):e370-e376
pubmed: 36057267
Science. 2018 Mar 9;359(6380):1094-1096
pubmed: 29590025
Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2013 Aug;9(8):1763-73
pubmed: 23584253
Nat Hum Behav. 2020 Dec;4(12):1285-1293
pubmed: 33122812