Global Misinformation Spillovers in the Vaccination Debate Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Multilingual Twitter Study.
COVID-19
Twitter
misinformation
social media
vaccination hesitancy
vaccine
Journal
JMIR infodemiology
ISSN: 2564-1891
Titre abrégé: JMIR Infodemiology
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 9918249014806676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 May 2023
24 May 2023
Historique:
received:
30
11
2022
accepted:
27
03
2023
revised:
15
03
2023
medline:
24
5
2023
pubmed:
24
5
2023
entrez:
24
5
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Antivaccination views pervade online social media, fueling distrust in scientific expertise and increasing the number of vaccine-hesitant individuals. Although previous studies focused on specific countries, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought the vaccination discourse worldwide, underpinning the need to tackle low-credible information flows on a global scale to design effective countermeasures. This study aimed to quantify cross-border misinformation flows among users exposed to antivaccination (no-vax) content and the effects of content moderation on vaccine-related misinformation. We collected 316 million vaccine-related Twitter (Twitter, Inc) messages in 18 languages from October 2019 to March 2021. We geolocated users in 28 different countries and reconstructed a retweet network and cosharing network for each country. We identified communities of users exposed to no-vax content by detecting communities in the retweet network via hierarchical clustering and manual annotation. We collected a list of low-credibility domains and quantified the interactions and misinformation flows among no-vax communities of different countries. The findings showed that during the pandemic, no-vax communities became more central in the country-specific debates and their cross-border connections strengthened, revealing a global Twitter antivaccination network. US users are central in this network, whereas Russian users also became net exporters of misinformation during vaccination rollout. Interestingly, we found that Twitter's content moderation efforts, in particular the suspension of users following the January 6 US Capitol attack, had a worldwide impact in reducing the spread of misinformation about vaccines. These findings may help public health institutions and social media platforms mitigate the spread of health-related, low-credibility information by revealing vulnerable web-based communities.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Antivaccination views pervade online social media, fueling distrust in scientific expertise and increasing the number of vaccine-hesitant individuals. Although previous studies focused on specific countries, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought the vaccination discourse worldwide, underpinning the need to tackle low-credible information flows on a global scale to design effective countermeasures.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to quantify cross-border misinformation flows among users exposed to antivaccination (no-vax) content and the effects of content moderation on vaccine-related misinformation.
METHODS
METHODS
We collected 316 million vaccine-related Twitter (Twitter, Inc) messages in 18 languages from October 2019 to March 2021. We geolocated users in 28 different countries and reconstructed a retweet network and cosharing network for each country. We identified communities of users exposed to no-vax content by detecting communities in the retweet network via hierarchical clustering and manual annotation. We collected a list of low-credibility domains and quantified the interactions and misinformation flows among no-vax communities of different countries.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The findings showed that during the pandemic, no-vax communities became more central in the country-specific debates and their cross-border connections strengthened, revealing a global Twitter antivaccination network. US users are central in this network, whereas Russian users also became net exporters of misinformation during vaccination rollout. Interestingly, we found that Twitter's content moderation efforts, in particular the suspension of users following the January 6 US Capitol attack, had a worldwide impact in reducing the spread of misinformation about vaccines.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
These findings may help public health institutions and social media platforms mitigate the spread of health-related, low-credibility information by revealing vulnerable web-based communities.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37223965
pii: v3i1e44714
doi: 10.2196/44714
pmc: PMC10226529
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e44714Informations de copyright
©Jacopo Lenti, Yelena Mejova, Kyriaki Kalimeri, André Panisson, Daniela Paolotti, Michele Tizzani, Michele Starnini. Originally published in JMIR Infodemiology (https://infodemiology.jmir.org), 24.05.2023.
Références
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Aug 25;22(8):e20673
pubmed: 32748790
Cureus. 2020 Jun 15;12(6):e8622
pubmed: 32685293
JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2021 Nov 17;7(11):e30642
pubmed: 34653016
Vaccine. 2018 Jun 14;36(25):3606-3612
pubmed: 29773322
JMIR Infodemiology. 2023 May 24;3:e44714
pubmed: 37223965
PLoS One. 2015 Sep 01;10(9):e0132562
pubmed: 26325522
PLoS One. 2014 Feb 20;9(2):e89177
pubmed: 24586574
Am J Public Health. 2018 Oct;108(10):1378-1384
pubmed: 30138075
PLoS One. 2021 Mar 3;16(3):e0247642
pubmed: 33657152
Vaccine. 2022 Feb 7;40(6):953-960
pubmed: 35034832
PLoS One. 2015 Sep 30;10(9):e0138740
pubmed: 26422473
PLoS One. 2021 Sep 1;16(9):e0256358
pubmed: 34469446
Health Econ. 2019 Nov;28(11):1377-1382
pubmed: 31429153
Nat Hum Behav. 2021 Mar;5(3):337-348
pubmed: 33547453
Vaccine X. 2019 Mar 21;1:100019
pubmed: 31485580
Am J Infect Control. 2019 Nov;47(11):1314-1318
pubmed: 31266661
PLoS One. 2022 Aug 4;17(8):e0271157
pubmed: 35925962
Science. 2015 Jun 5;348(6239):1130-2
pubmed: 25953820
PLoS One. 2020 Mar 13;15(3):e0229129
pubmed: 32168347
Perm J. 2018 Jun 11;22:17-138
pubmed: 29911966
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Mar 2;118(9):
pubmed: 33622786
Health Aff (Millwood). 2011 Jun;30(6):1151-9
pubmed: 21653969
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Mar 21;114(12):3035-3039
pubmed: 28265082
Sci Rep. 2016 Dec 01;6:37825
pubmed: 27905402
Nat Hum Behav. 2020 Dec;4(12):1285-1293
pubmed: 33122812